,transcribed from the #aiaj ,jonathan ,cape edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4lorg ,life and ,habit ,by ,samuel ,butler ,picture3 ,decorative graphic 99 99 99 99 99 ,jonathan ,cape ,eleven ,gower ,street1 ,london 99 99 99 99 99 ,,first ,,published #ahgh ,,second ,,edition #ahgh ,,new ,,edition ,,with ,,addenda ,,and ,,preface ,,by ,r4 ,a4 ,,streatfeild #aiaj ,,reprinted #aibd 99 99 99 99 99 ,,printed ,,in ,,great ,,britain ,,by ,,butler ,,and ,,tanner ,,ltd41 ,,frome ,,and ,,london 99 99 99 99 99 ,,this ,,book ,,is ,,inscribed ,,to ,,charles ,,paine ,,pauli1 ,esq4 ,,barrister-,,at-,,law ,,in ,,acknowledgement ,,of ,,his ,,invaluable ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,proof-,,sheets ,,of ,,this ,,and ,,of ,,my ,,previous ,,books ,,and ,,in ,,recognition ,,of ,,an ,,old ,,and ,,well-,,tried-,,friendship ,,preface4 ,,since ,samuel ,butler published 8,life and ,habit0 thirty-three vii years have elapsed--years fruitful in change and discovery1 during which many of the mighty have been put down from their seat and many of the humble have been exalted4 ,i do not know that ,butler can truthfully be called humble1 indeed1 ,i think he had very few misgivings as to his ultimate triumph1 but he has certainly been exalted with a rapidity that he himself can scarcely have foreseen4 ,during his lifetime he was a literary pariah1 the victim of an organized conspiracy of silence4 ,he is now1 ,i think it may be said without exaggeration1 universally accepted as one of the most remarkable ,english writers of the latter part of the nineteenth century4 ,i will not weary my readers by quoting the numerous tributes paid by distinguished contemporary writers to ,butler's originality and force of mind1 but ,i cannot refrain from illustrating the changed attitude of the scientific world to ,butler and his theories by a reference to 8,darwin and ,modern ,science10 the collection of essays published in #aiji by the ,university of ,cambridge1 in commemoration of the ,darwin centenary4 ,in that work ,professor ,bateson1 while referring repeatedly to ,butler's biological works1 speaks of him as 8the most brilliant and by far the most interesting of ,darwin's opponents1 whose works are at length emerging from oblivion40 ,with the growth of ,butler's reputation 8,life and ,habit0 has had much to do4 ,it was the first and is undoubtedly the most important of his writings on evolution4 ,from its loins1 as it were1 sprang his three later books1 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 8,unconscious ,memory10 and 8,luck or ,cunning01 which carried its arguments further afield4 ,it will perhaps interest ,butler's readers if ,i here quote a passage from his note-books1 lately published in the 8,new ,quarterly ,review0 7,vol4 ,,iii4 ,no4 #i71 in which he summarizes his work in biology3 8,to me it seems that my contributions to the theory of evolution have been mainly these3 8#a4 ,the identification of heredity and memory1 and the corollaries relating to sports1 the reversion to remote ancestors1 the phenomena of old age1 the causes of the sterility of hybrids1 and the principles underlying longevity--all of which follow as a matter of course4 ,this was #8,life and ,habit' #ahgg4 8#b4 ,the re-introduction of teleology into organic life1 which to me seems hardly1 if at all1 less important than the #8,life and ,habit' theory4 ,this was #8,evolution ,old and ,new' #ahgi4 8#c4 ,an attempt to suggest an explanation of the physics of memory4 ,this was ,unconscious ,memory' #ahhj4 ,i was alarmed by the suggestion and fathered it upon ,professor ,hering1 who never1 that ,i can see1 meant to say anything of the kind1 but ,i forced my view upon him1 as it were1 by taking hold of a sentence or two in his lecture1 #8,on ,memory as a ,universal ,function of ,organised ,matter1' and thus connected memory with vibrations4 8,what ,i want to do now 7#ahhe7 is to connect vibrations not only with memory but with the physical constitution of that body in which the memory resides1 thus adopting ,newland's law 7sometimes called ,mendelejeff's law7 that there is only one substance1 and that the characteristics of the vibrations going on within it at any given time will determine whether it will appear to us as1 we will say1 hydrogen1 or sodium1 or chicken doing this1 or chicken doing the other40 ,this is touched upon in the concluding chapter of 8,luck or ,cunning80 #ahhg4 ,the present edition of 8,life and ,habit0 is practically a re-issue of that of #ahgh4 ,i find that about the year #ahij1 although the original edition was far from being exhausted1 ,butler began to make corrections of the text of 8,life and ,habit10 presumably with the intention of publishing a revised edition4 ,the copy of the book so corrected is now in my possession4 ,in the first five chapters there are numerous emendations1 very few of which1 however1 affect the meaning to any appreciable extent1 being mainly concerned with the excision of redundancies and the simplification of style4 ,i imagine that by the time he had reached the end of the fifth chapter ,butler realised that the corrections he had made were not of sufficient importance to warrant a new edition1 and determined to let the book stand as it was4 ,i believe1 therefore1 that ,i am carrying out his wishes in reprinting the present edition from the original plates4 ,i have found1 however1 among his papers three entirely new passages1 which he probably wrote during the period of correction and no doubt intended to incorporate into the revised edition4 ,mr4 ,henry ,festing ,jones has also given me a copy of a passage which ,butler wrote and gummed into ,mr4 ,jones's copy of 8,life and ,habit40 ,these four passages ,i have printed as an appendix at the end of the present volume4 ,one more point deserves notice4 ,butler often refers in 8,life and ,habit0 to ,darwin's 8,variations of ,animals and ,plants under ,domestication40 ,when he does so it is always under the name 8,plants and ,animals40 ,more often still he refers to ,darwin's 8,origin of ,species by means ,natural ,selection10 terming it at one time 8,origin of ,species0 and at another 8,natural ,selection10 sometimes1 as on p4 #bgh1 using both names within a few lines of each other4 ,butler was as a rule scrupulously careful about quotations1 and ,i can offer no explanation of this curious confusion of titles4 ,r4 ,a4 ,,streatfeild4 ,november1 #aiaj4 ,,author',s ,,preface4 ,,the ,italics in the passages quoted in this book are generally mine1 but ,i found it almost impossible to call the reader's attention to this upon every occasion4 ,i have done so once or twice1 as thinking it necessary in these cases that there should be no mistake2 on the whole1 however1 ,i thought it better to content myself with calling attention in a preface to the fact that the author quoted is not1 as a general rule1 responsible for the ,italics4 ,s4 ,,butler4 ,november #ac1 #ahgg4 ,,contents4 ,,page ,,preface ,,by ,r4 ,a4 ,,streatfeild vii ,,author',s ,,original ,,preface x ,,chapter ,i4 ,,on ,,certain ,,acquired ,,habits #a ,,ii4 ,,conscious ,,and ,,unconscious ,,knowers--,,the ,,law ,,and #bj ,,grace ,,iii4 ,,application ,,of ,,foregoing ,,chapters ,,to ,,certain #dc ,,habits ,,acquired ,,after ,,birth ,,which ,,are ,,commonly ,,considered ,,instinctive ,,iv4 ,,application ,,of ,,the ,,foregoing ,,principles ,,to #ei ,,actions ,,and ,,habits ,,acquired ,,before ,,birth ,v4 ,,personal ,,identity #gh ,,vi4 ,,personal ,,identity--7continued7 #ia ,,vii4 ,,our ,,subordinate ,,personalities #ajd ,,viii4 ,,application ,,of ,,the ,,foregoing ,,chapters--,,the #abe ,,assimilation ,,of ,,outside ,,matter ,,ix4 ,,on ,,the ,,abeyance ,,of ,,memory #aej ,x4 ,,what ,,we ,,should ,,expect ,,to ,,find ,,if #aff ,,differentiations ,,of ,,structure ,,and ,,instinct ,,are ,,mainly ,,due ,,to ,,memory ,,xi4 ,,instinct ,,as ,,inherited ,,memory #aih ,,xii4 ,,instincts ,,of ,,neuter ,,insects #bbj ,,xiii4 ,,lamarck ,,and ,,mr4 ,,darwin #beb ,,xiv4 ,,mr4 ,,mivart ,,and ,,mr4 ,,darwin #bgc ,,xv4 ,,concluding ,,remarks #bid ,,appendix ,,author',s ,,addenda #cjh ,,chapter ,i4 ,,on ,,certain ,,acquired ,,habits4 ,,it will be our business in the following chapters to consider whether the unconsciousness1 or quasi-unconsciousness1 with which we perform certain acquired actions1 would seem to throw any light upon ,embryology and inherited instincts1 and otherwise to follow the train of thought which the class of actions above-mentioned would suggest2 more especially in so far as they appear to bear upon the origin of species and the continuation of life by successive generations1 whether in the animal or vegetable kingdoms4 ,in the outset1 however1 ,i would wish most distinctly to disclaim for these pages the smallest pretension to scientific value1 originality1 or even to accuracy of more than a very rough and ready kind--for unless a matter be true enough to stand a good deal of misrepresentation1 its truth is not of a very robust order1 and the blame will rather lie with its own delicacy if it be crushed1 than with the carelessness of the crusher4 ,i have no wish to instruct1 and not much to be instructed2 my aim is simply to entertain and interest the numerous class of people who1 like myself1 know nothing of science1 but who enjoy speculating and reflecting 7not too deeply7 upon the phenomena around them4 ,i have therefore allowed myself a loose rein1 to run on with whatever came uppermost1 without regard to whether it was new or old2 feeling sure that if true1 it must be very old or it never could have occurred to one so little versed in science as myself2 and knowing that it is sometimes pleasanter to meet the old under slightly changed conditions1 than to go through the formalities and uncertainties of making new acquaintance4 ,at the same time1 ,i should say that whatever ,i have knowingly taken from any one else1 ,i have always acknowledged4 ,it is plain1 therefore1 that my book cannot be intended for the perusal of scientific people2 it is intended for the general public only1 with whom ,i believe myself to be in harmony1 as knowing neither much more nor much less than they do4 ,taking then1 the art of playing the piano as an example of the kind of action we are in search of1 we observe that a practised player will perform very difficult pieces apparently without effort1 often1 indeed1 while thinking and talking of something quite other than his music2 yet he will play accurately and1 possibly1 with much expression4 ,if he has been playing a fugue1 say in four parts1 he will have kept each part well distinct1 in such a manner as to prove that his mind was not prevented1 by its other occupations1 from consciously or unconsciously following four distinct trains of musical thought at the same time1 nor from making his fingers act in exactly the required manner as regards each note of each part4 ,it commonly happens that in the course of four or five minutes a player may have struck four or five thousand notes4 ,if we take into consideration the rests1 dotted notes1 accidentals1 variations of time1 c41 we shall find his attention must have been exercised on many more occasions than when he was actually striking notes3 so that it may not be too much to say that the attention of a first-rate player may have been exercised--to an infinitesimally small extent--but still truly exercised--on as many as ten thousand occasions within the space of five minutes1 for no note can be struck nor point attended to without a certain amount of attention1 no matter how rapidly or unconsciously given4 ,moreover1 each act of attention has been followed by an act of volition1 and each act of volition by a muscular action1 which is composed of many minor actions2 some so small that we can no more follow them than the player himself can perceive them2 nevertheless1 it may have been perfectly plain that the player was not attending to what he was doing1 but was listening to conversation on some other subject1 not to say joining in it himself4 ,if he has been playing the violin1 he may have done all the above1 and may also have been walking about4 ,herr ,joachim would unquestionably be able to do all that has here been described4 ,so complete would the player's unconsciousness of the attention he is giving1 and the brain power he is exerting appear to be1 that we shall find it difficult to awaken his attention to any particular part of his performance without putting him out4 ,indeed we cannot do so4 ,we shall observe that he finds it hardly less difficult to compass a voluntary consciousness of what he has once learnt so thoroughly that it has passed1 so to speak1 into the domain of unconsciousness1 than he found it to learn the note or passage in the first instance4 ,the effort after a second consciousness of detail baffles him--compels him to turn to his music or play slowly4 ,in fact it seems as though he knew the piece too well to be able to know that he knows it1 and is only conscious of knowing those passages which he does not know so thoroughly4 ,at the end of his performance1 his memory would appear to be no less annihilated than was his consciousness of attention and volition4 ,for of the thousands of acts requiring the exercise of both the one and the other1 which he has done during the five minutes1 we will say1 of his performance1 he will remember hardly one when it is over4 ,if he calls to mind anything beyond the main fact that he has played such and such a piece1 it will probably be some passage which he has found more difficult than the others1 and with the like of which he has not been so long familiar4 ,all the rest he will forget as completely as the breath which he has drawn while playing4 ,he finds it difficult to remember even the difficulties he experienced in learning to play4 ,a few may have so impressed him that they remain with him1 but the greater part will have escaped him as completely as the remembrance of what he ate1 or how he put on his clothes1 this day ten years ago2 nevertheless1 it is plain he remembers more than he remembers remembering1 for he avoids mistakes which he made at one time1 and his performance proves that all the notes are in his memory1 though if called upon to play such and such a bar at random from the middle of the piece1 and neither more nor less1 he will probably say that he cannot remember it unless he begins from the beginning of the phrase which leads to it4 ,very commonly he will be obliged to begin from the beginning of the movement itself1 and be unable to start at any other point unless he have the music before him2 and if disturbed1 as we have seen above1 he will have to start de novo from an accustomed starting-point4 ,yet nothing can be more obvious than that there must have been a time when what is now so easy as to be done without conscious effort of the brain was only done by means of brain work which was very keenly perceived1 even to fatigue and positive distress4 ,even now1 if the player is playing something the like of which he has not met before1 we observe he pauses and becomes immediately conscious of attention4 ,we draw the inference1 therefore1 as regards pianoforte or violin playing1 that the more the familiarity or knowledge of the art1 the less is there consciousness of such knowledge2 even so far as that there should seem to be almost as much difficulty in awakening consciousness which has become1 so to speak1 latent1--a consciousness of that which is known too well to admit of recognised self-analysis while the knowledge is being exercised--as in creating a consciousness of that which is not yet well enough known to be properly designated as known at all4 ,on the other hand1 we observe that the less the familiarly or knowledge1 the greater the consciousness of whatever knowledge there is4 ,considering other like instances of the habitual exercise of intelligence and volition1 which1 from long familiarity with the method of procedure1 escape the notice of the person exercising them1 we naturally think of writing4 ,the formation of each letter requires attention and volition1 yet in a few minutes a practised writer will form several hundred letters1 and be able to think and talk of something else all the time he is doing so4 ,it will not probably remember the formation of a single character in any page that he has written2 nor will he be able to give more than the substance of his writing if asked to do so4 ,he knows how to form each letter so well1 and he knows so well each word that he is about to write1 that he has ceased to be conscious of his knowledge or to notice his acts of volition1 each one of which is1 nevertheless1 followed by a corresponding muscular action4 ,yet the uniformity of our handwriting1 and the manner in which we almost invariably adhere to one method of forming the same character1 would seem to suggest that during the momentary formation of each letter our memories must revert 7with an intensity too rapid for our perception7 to many if not to all the occasions on which we have ever written the same letter previously--the memory of these occasions dwelling in our minds as what has been called a residuum--an unconsciously struck balance or average of them all--a fused mass of individual reminiscences of which no trace can be found in our consciousness1 and of which the only effect would seem to lie in the gradual changes of handwriting which are perceptible in most people till they have reached middle-age1 and sometimes even later4 ,so far are we from consciously remembering any one of the occasions on which we have written such and such a letter1 that we are not even conscious of exercising our memory at all1 any more than we are in health conscious of the action of our heart4 ,but1 if we are writing in some unfamiliar way1 as when printing our letters instead of writing them in our usual running hand1 our memory is so far awakened that we become conscious of every character we form2 sometimes it is even perceptible as memory to ourselves1 as when we try to remember how to print some letter1 for example a g1 and cannot call to mind on which side of the upper half of the letter we ought to put the link which connects it with the lower1 and are successful in remembering2 but if we become very conscious of remembering1 it shows that we are on the brink of only trying to remember1--that is to say1 of not remembering at all4 ,as a general rule1 we remember for a time the substance of what we have written1 for the subject is generally new to us2 but if we are writing what we have often written before1 we lose consciousness of this too1 as fully as we do of the characters necessary to convey the substance to another person1 and we shall find ourselves writing on as it were mechanically while thinking and talking of something else4 ,so a paid copyist1 to whom the subject of what he is writing is of no importance1 does not even notice it4 ,he deals only with familiar words and familiar characters without caring to go behind them1 and thereupon writes on in a quasi-unconscious manner2 but if he comes to a word or to characters with which he is but little acquainted1 he becomes immediately awakened to the consciousness of either remembering or trying to remember4 ,his consciousness of his own knowledge or memory would seem to belong to a period1 so to speak1 of twilight between the thick darkness of ignorance and the brilliancy of perfect knowledge2 as colour which vanishes with extremes of light or of shade4 ,perfect ignorance and perfect knowledge are alike unselfconscious4 ,the above holds good even more noticeably in respect of reading4 ,how many thousands of individual letters do our eyes run over every morning in the 8,times0 newspaper1 how few of them do we notice1 or remember having noticed8 ,yet there was a time when we had such difficulty in reading even the simplest words1 that we had to take great pains to impress them upon our memory so as to know them when we came to then again4 ,now1 not even a single word of all we have seen will remain with us1 unless it is a new one1 or an old one used in an unfamiliar sense1 in which case we notice1 and may very likely remember it4 ,our memory retains the substance only1 the substance only being unfamiliar4 ,nevertheless1 although we do not perceive more than the general result of our perception1 there can be no doubt of our having perceived every letter in every word that we have read at all1 for if we come upon a word misspelt our attention is at once aroused2 unless1 indeed1 we have actually corrected the misspelling1 as well as noticed it1 unconsciously1 through exceeding familiarity with the way in which it ought to be spelt4 ,not only do we perceive the letters we have seen without noticing that we have perceived them1 but we find it almost impossible to notice that we notice them when we have once learnt to read fluently4 ,to try to do so puts us out1 and prevents our being able to read4 ,we may even go so far as to say that if a man can attend to the individual characters1 it is a sign that he cannot yet read fluently4 ,if we know how to read well1 we are as unconscious of the means and processes whereby we attain the desired result as we are about the growth of our hair or the circulation of our blood4 ,so that here again it would seem that we only know what we know still to some extent imperfectly1 and that what we know thoroughly escapes our conscious perception though none the less actually perceived4 ,our perception in fact passes into a latent stage1 as also our memory and volition4 ,walking is another example of the rapid exercise of volition with but little perception of each individual act of exercise4 ,we notice any obstacle in our path1 but it is plain we do not notice that we perceive much that we have nevertheless been perceiving2 for if a man goes down a lane by night he will stumble over many things which he would have avoided by day1 although he would not have noticed them4 ,yet time was when walking was to each one of us a new and arduous task--as arduous as we should now find it to wheel a wheelbarrow on a tight-rope2 whereas1 at present1 though we can think of our steps to a certain extent without checking our power to walk1 we certainly cannot consider our muscular action in detail without having to come to a dead stop4 ,talking--especially in one's mother tongue--may serve as a last example4 ,we find it impossible to follow the muscular action of the mouth and tongue in framing every letter or syllable we utter4 ,we have probably spoken for years and years before we became aware that the letter h is a labial sound1 and until we have to utter a word which is difficult from its unfamiliarity we speak 8trippingly on the tongue0 with no attention except to the substance of what we wish to say4 ,yet talking was not always the easy matter to us which it is at present--as we perceive more readily when we are learning a new language which it may take us months to master4 ,nevertheless1 when we have once mastered it we speak it without further consciousness of knowledge or memory1 as regards the more common words1 and without even noticing our consciousness4 ,here1 as in the other instances already given1 as long as we did not know perfectly1 we were conscious of our acts of perception1 volition1 and reflection1 but when our knowledge has become perfect we no longer notice our consciousness1 nor our volition2 nor can we awaken a second artificial consciousness without some effort1 and disturbance of the process of which we are endeavouring to become conscious4 ,we are no longer1 so to speak1 under the law1 but under grace4 ,an ascending scale may be perceived in the above instances4 ,in playing1 we have an action acquired long after birth1 difficult of acquisition1 and never thoroughly familiarised to the power of absolutely unconscious performance1 except in the case of those who have either an exceptional genius for music1 or who have devoted the greater part of their time to practising4 ,except in the case of these persons it is generally found easy to become more or less conscious of any passage without disturbing the performance1 and our action remains so completely within our control that we can stop playing at any moment we please4 ,in writing1 we have an action generally acquired earlier1 done for the most part with great unconsciousness of detail1 fairly well within our control to stop at any moment2 though not so completely as would be imagined by those who have not made the experiment of trying to stop in the middle of a given character when writing at fit speed4 ,also1 we can notice our formation of any individual character without our writing being materially hindered4 ,reading is usually acquired earlier still4 ,we read with more unconsciousness of attention than we write4 ,we find it more difficult to become conscious of any character without discomfiture1 and we cannot arrest ourselves in the middle of a word1 for example1 and hardly before the end of a sentence2 nevertheless it is on the whole well within our control4 ,walking is so early an acquisition that we cannot remember having acquired it4 ,in running fast over average ground we find it very difficult to become conscious of each individual step1 and should possibly find it more difficult still1 if the inequalities and roughness of uncultured land had not perhaps caused the development of a power to create a second consciousness of our steps without hindrance to our running or walking4 ,pursuit and flight1 whether in the chase or in war1 must for many generations have played a much more prominent part in the lives of our ancestors than they do in our own4 ,if the ground over which they had to travel had been generally as free from obstruction as our modern cultivated lands1 it is possible that we might not find it as easy to notice our several steps as we do at present4 ,even as it is1 if while we are running we would consider the action of our muscles1 we come to a dead stop1 and should probably fall if we tried to observe too suddenly2 for we must stop to do this1 and running1 when we have once committed ourselves to it beyond a certain point1 is not controllable to a step or two without loss of equilibrium4 ,we learn to talk1 much about the same time that we learn to walk1 but talking requires less muscular effort than walking1 and makes generally less demand upon our powers4 ,a man may talk a long while before he has done the equivalent of a five-mile walk2 it is natural1 therefore1 that we should have had more practice in talking than in walking1 and hence that we should find it harder to pay attention to our words than to our steps4 ,certainly it is very hard to become conscious of every syllable or indeed of every word we say2 the attempt to do so will often bring us to a check at once2 nevertheless we can generally stop talking if we wish to do so1 unless the crying of infants be considered as a kind of quasi-speech3 this comes earlier1 and is often quite uncontrollable1 or more truly perhaps is done with such complete control over the muscles by the will1 and with such absolute certainty of his own purpose on the part of the wilier1 that there is no longer any more doubt1 uncertainty1 or suspense1 and hence no power of perceiving any of the processes whereby the result is attained--as a wheel which may look fast fixed because it is so fast revolving4 #ac ,we may observe therefore in this ascending scale1 imperfect as it is1 that the older the habit the longer the practice1 the longer the practice1 the more knowledge--or1 the less uncertainty2 the less uncertainty the less power of conscious self-analysis and control4 ,it will occur to the reader that in all the instances given above1 different individuals attain the unconscious stage of perfect knowledge with very different degrees of facility4 ,some have to attain it with a great sum2 others are free born4 ,some learn to play1 to read1 write1 and talk1 with hardly an effort--some show such an instinctive aptitude for arithmetic that1 like ,zerah ,colburn1 at eight years old1 they achieve results without instruction1 which in the case of most people would require a long education4 ,the account of ,zerah ,colburn1 as quoted from ,mr4 ,baily in ,dr4 ,carpenter's 8,mental ,physiology10 may perhaps be given here4 8,he raised any number consisting of one figure progressively to the tenth power1 giving the results 7by actual multiplication and not by memory7 faster than they could be set down in figures by the person appointed to record them4 ,he raised the number #h progressively to the sixteenth power1 and in naming the last result1 which consisted of #ae figures1 he was right in every one4 ,some numbers consisting of two figures he raised as high as the eighth power1 though he found a difficulty in proceeding when the products became very large4 8,on being asked the square root of #ajf1ibi1 he answered #cbg before the original number could be written down4 ,he was then required to find the cube root of #bfh1ccf1abe1 and with equal facility and promptness he replied #fde4 8,he was asked how many minutes there are in #dh years1 and before the question could be taken down he replied #be1bbh1hjj1 and immediately afterwards he gave the correct number of seconds4 8,on being requested to give the factors which would produce the number #bdg1dhc1 he immediately named #ida and #bfc1 which are the only two numbers from the multiplication of which it would result4 ,on #aga1cie being proposed1 he named #e #cd1bgi1 #g #bd1dhe1 #ei #bije1 #hc #bjfe1 #ce #dhig1 #bie #eha1 and #dac #dae4 8,he was then asked to give the factors of #cf1jhc1 but he immediately replied that it had none1 which was really the case1 this being a prime number4 ,other numbers being proposed to him indiscriminately1 he always succeeded in giving the correct factors except in the case of prime numbers1 which he generally discovered almost as soon as they were proposed to him4 ,the number #d1bid1ifg1big1 which is #bcb #a1 having been given him1 he discovered1 as ,euler had previously done1 that it was not the prime number which ,fermat had supposed it to be1 but that it is the product of the factors #f1gjj1dag #fda4 ,the solution of this problem was only given after the lapse of some weeks1 but the method he took to obtain it clearly showed that he had not derived his information from any extraneous source4 8,when he was asked to multiply together numbers both consisting of more than these figures1 he seemed to decompose one or both of them into its factors1 and to work with them separately4 ,thus1 on being asked to give the square of #dcie1 he multiplied #bic by itself1 and then twice multiplied the product by #ae4 ,and on being asked to tell the square of #iii1iii he obtained the correct result1 #iii1iih1jjj1jja1 by twice multiplying the square of #cg1jcg by #bg4 ,he then of his own accord multiplied that product by #di1 and said that the result 7viz41 #dh1iii1ijb1jjj1jdi7 was equal to the square of #f1iii1iic4 ,he afterwards multiplied this product by #di1 and observed that the result 7viz41 #b1djj1iie1aih1jjb1dja7 was equal to the square of #dh1iii1iea4 ,he was again asked to multiply the product by #be1 and in naming the result 7viz41 #fj1jbd1hgi1iej1jfj1jbe7 he said it was equal to the square of #bdd1iii1gee4 8,on being interrogated as to the manner in which he obtained these results1 the boy constantly said he did not know how the answers came into his mind4 ,in the act of multiplying two numbers together1 and in the raising of powers1 it was evident 7alike from the facts just stated and from the motion of his lips7 that some operation was going forward in his mind2 yet that operation could not 7from the readiness with which his answers were furnished7 have been at all allied to the usual modes of procedure1 of which1 indeed1 he was entirely ignorant1 not being able to perform on paper a simple sum in multiplication or division4 ,but in the extraction of roots1 and in the discovery of the factors of large numbers1 it did not appear that any operation could take place1 since he gave answers immediately1 or in a very few seconds1 which1 according to the ordinary methods1 would have required very difficult and laborious calculations1 and prime numbers cannot be recognised as such by any known rule40 ,i should hope that many of the above figures are wrong4 ,i have verified them carefully with ,dr4 ,carpenter's quotation1 but further than this ,i cannot and will not go4 ,also ,i am happy to find that in the end the boy overcame the mathematics1 and turned out a useful but by no means particularly calculating member of society4 ,the case1 however1 is typical of others in which persons have been found able to do without apparent effort what in the great majority of cases requires a long apprenticeship4 ,it is needless to multiply instances2 the point that concerns us is1 that knowledge under such circumstances being very intense1 and the ease with which the result is produced extreme1 it eludes the conscious apprehension of the performer himself1 who only becomes conscious when a difficulty arises which taxes even his abnormal power4 ,such a case1 therefore1 confirms rather than militates against our opinion that consciousness of knowledge vanishes on the knowledge becoming perfect--the only difference between those possessed of any such remarkable special power and the general run of people being1 that the first are born with such an unusual aptitude for their particular specialty that they are able to dispense with all or nearly all the preliminary exercise of their faculty1 while the latter must exercise it for a considerable time before they can get it to work smoothly and easily2 but in either case when once the knowledge is intense it is unconscious4 ,nor again would such an instance as that of ,zerah ,colburn warrant us in believing that this white heat1 as it were1 of unconscious knowledge can be attained by any one without his ever having been originally cold4 ,young ,colburn1 for example1 could not extract roots when he was an embryo of three weeks' standing4 ,it is true we can seldom follow the process1 but we know there must have been a time in every case when even the desire for information or action had not been kindled2 the forgetfulness of effort on the part of those with exceptional genius for a special subject is due to the smallness of the effort necessary1 so that it makes no impression upon the individual himself1 rather than to the absence of any effort at all4 #ah ,it would1 therefore1 appear as though perfect knowledge and perfect ignorance were extremes which meet and become indistinguishable from one another2 so also perfect volition and perfect absence of volition1 perfect memory and utter forgetfulness2 for we are unconscious of knowing1 willing1 or remembering1 either from not yet having known or willed1 or from knowing and willing so well and so intensely as to be no longer conscious of either4 ,conscious knowledge and volition are of attention2 attention is of suspense2 suspense is of doubt2 doubt is of uncertainty2 uncertainty is of ignorance2 so that the mere fact of conscious knowing or willing implies the presence of more or less novelty and doubt4 ,it would also appear as a general principle on a superficial view of the foregoing instances 7and the reader may readily supply himself with others which are perhaps more to the purpose71 that unconscious knowledge and unconscious volition are never acquired otherwise than as the result of experience1 familiarity1 or habit2 so that whenever we observe a person able to do any complicated action unconsciously1 we may assume both that he must have done it very often before he could acquire so great proficiency1 and also that there must have been a time when he did not know how to do it at all4 ,we may assume that there was a time when he was yet so nearly on the point of neither knowing nor willing perfectly1 that he was quite alive to whatever knowledge or volition he could exert2 going further back1 we shall find him still more keenly alive to a less perfect knowledge2 earlier still1 we find him well aware that he does not know nor will correctly1 but trying hard to do both the one and the other2 and so on1 back and back1 till both difficulty and consciousness become little more than a sound of going in the brain1 a flitting to and fro of something barely recognisable as the desire to will or know at all--much less as the desire to know or will definitely this or that4 ,finally1 they retreat beyond our ken into the repose--the inorganic kingdom--of as yet unawakened interest4 ,in either case1--the repose of perfect ignorance or of perfect knowledge--disturbance is troublesome4 ,when first starting on an ,atlantic steamer1 our rest is hindered by the screw2 after a short time1 it is hindered if the screw stops4 ,a uniform impression is practically no impression4 ,one cannot either learn or unlearn without pains or pain4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,conscious ,,and ,,unconscious ,,knowers--,,the ,,law ,,and ,,grace4 ,,in this chapter we shall show that the law1 which we have observed to hold as to the vanishing tendency of knowledge upon becoming perfect1 holds good not only concerning acquired actions or habits of body1 but concerning opinions1 modes of thought1 and mental habits generally1 which are no more recognised as soon as firmly fixed1 than are the steps with which we go about our daily avocations4 ,i am aware that ,i may appear in the latter part of the chapter to have wandered somewhat beyond the limits of my subject1 but1 on the whole1 decide upon leaving what ,i have written1 inasmuch as it serves to show how far-reaching is the principle on which ,i am insisting4 ,having said so much1 ,i shall during the remainder of the book keep more closely to the point4 ,certain it is that we know best what we are least conscious of knowing1 or at any rate least able to prove1 as1 for example1 our own existence1 or that there is a country ,england4 ,if any one asks us for proof on matters of this sort1 we have none ready1 and are justly annoyed at being called to consider what we regard as settled questions4 ,again1 there is hardly anything which so much affects our actions as the centre of the earth 7unless1 perhaps1 it be that still hotter and more unprofitable spot the centre of the universe71 for we are incessantly trying to get as near it as circumstances will allow1 or to avoid getting nearer than is for the time being convenient4 ,walking1 running1 standing1 sitting1 lying1 waking1 or sleeping1 from birth till death it is a paramount object with us2 even after death--if it be not fanciful to say so--it is one of the few things of which what is left of us can still feel the influence2 yet what can engross less of our attention than this dark and distant spot so many thousands of miles away8 ,the air we breathe1 so long as it is neither too hot nor cold1 nor rough1 nor full of smoke--that is to say1 so long as it is in that state within which we are best acquainted--seldom enters into our thoughts2 yet there is hardly anything with which we are more incessantly occupied night and day4 ,indeed1 it is not too much to say that we have no really profound knowledge upon any subject--no knowledge on the strength of which we are ready to act at all moments unhesitatingly without either preparation or after-thought--till we have left off feeling conscious of the possession of such knowledge1 and of the grounds on which it rests4 ,a lesson thoroughly learned must be like the air which feels so light1 though pressing so heavily against us1 because every pore of our skin is saturated1 so to speak1 with it on all sides equally4 ,this perfection of knowledge sometimes extends to positive disbelief in the thing known1 so that the most thorough knower shall believe himself altogether ignorant4 ,no thief1 for example1 is such an utter thief--so good a thief--as the kleptomaniac4 ,until he has become a kleptomaniac1 and can steal a horse as it were by a reflex action1 he is still but half a thief1 with many unthievish notions still clinging to him4 ,yet the kleptomaniac is probably unaware that he can steal at all1 much less that he can steal so well4 ,he would be shocked if he were to know the truth4 ,so again1 no man is a great hypocrite until he has left off knowing that he is a hypocrite4 ,the great hypocrites of the world are almost invariably under the impression that they are among the very few really honest people to be found and1 as we must all have observed1 it is rare to find any one strongly under this impression without ourselves having good reason to differ from him4 ,our own existence is another case in point4 ,when we have once become articulately conscious of existing1 it is an easy matter to begin doubting whether we exist at all4 ,as long as man was too unreflecting a creature to articulate in words his consciousness of his own existence1 he knew very well that he existed1 but he did not know that he knew it4 ,with introspection1 and the perception recognised1 for better or worse1 that he was a fact1 came also the perception that he had no solid ground for believing that he was a fact at all4 ,that nice1 sensible1 unintrospective people who were too busy trying to exist pleasantly to trouble their heads as to whether they existed or no--that this best part of mankind should have gratefully caught at such a straw as 8cogito ergo sum10 is intelligible enough4 ,they felt the futility of the whole question1 and were thankful to one who seemed to clench the matter with a cant catchword1 especially with a catchword in a foreign language2 but how one1 who was so far gone as to recognise that he could not prove his own existence1 should be able to comfort himself with such a begging of the question1 would seem unintelligible except upon the ground of sheer exhaustion4 ,at the risk of appearing to wander too far from the matter in hand1 a few further examples may perhaps be given of that irony of nature1 by which it comes about that we so often most know and are1 what we least think ourselves to know and be--and on the other hand hold most strongly what we are least capable of demonstrating4 ,take the existence of a ,personal ,god1--one of the most profoundly-received and widely-spread ideas that have ever prevailed among mankind4 ,has there ever been a demonstration of the existence of such a ,god as has satisfied any considerable section of thinkers for long together8 ,hardly has what has been conceived to be a demonstration made its appearance and received a certain acceptance as though it were actual proof1 when it has been impugned with sufficient success to show that1 however true the fact itself1 the demonstration is naught4 ,i do not say that this is an argument against the personality of ,god2 the drift1 indeed1 of the present reasoning would be towards an opposite conclusion1 inasmuch as it insists upon the fact that what is most true and best known is often least susceptible of demonstration owing to the very perfectness with which it is known2 nevertheless1 the fact remains that many men in many ages and countries--the subtlest thinkers over the whole world for some fifteen hundred years--have hunted for a demonstration of ,god's personal existence2 yet though so many have sought1--so many1 and so able1 and for so long a time--none have found4 ,there is no demonstration which can be pointed to with any unanimity as settling the matter beyond power of reasonable cavil4 ,on the contrary1 it may be observed that from the attempt to prove the existence of a personal ,god to the denial of that existence altogether1 the path is easy4 ,as in the case of our own existence1 it will be found that they alone are perfect believers in a personal ,deity and in the ,christian religion who have not yet begun to feel that either stands in need of demonstration4 ,we observe that most people1 whether ,christians1 or ,jews1 or ,mohammedans1 are unable to give their reasons for the faith that is in them with any readiness or completeness2 and this is sure proof that they really hold it so utterly as to have no further sense that it either can be demonstrated or ought to be so1 but feel towards it as towards the air which they breathe but do not notice4 ,on the other hand1 a living prelate was reported in the 8,times0 to have said in one of his latest charges3 8,my belief is that a widely extended good practice must be founded upon ,christian doctrine40 ,the fact of the ,archbishop's recognising this as among the number of his beliefs is conclusive evidence with those who have devoted attention to the laws of thought1 that his mind is not yet clear as to whether or no there is any connection at all between ,christian doctrine and widely extended good practice4 #be ,again1 it has been often and very truly said that it is not the conscious and self-styled sceptic1 as ,shelley for example1 who is the true unbeliever4 ,such a man as ,shelley will1 as indeed his life abundantly proves1 have more in common than not with the true unselfconscious believer4 ,gallio again1 whose indifference to religious animosities has won him the cheapest immortality which1 so far as ,i can remember1 was ever yet won1 was probably if the truth were known1 a person of the sincerest piety4 ,it is the unconscious unbeliever who is the true infidel1 however greatly he would be surprised to know the truth4 ,mr4 ,spurgeon was reported as having recently asked the ,almighty to 8change our rulers as soon as possible40 ,there lurks a more profound distrust of ,god's power in these words than in almost any open denial of ,his existence4 ,so it rather shocks us to find ,mr4 ,darwin writing 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii41 p4 #bge73 8,no doubt1 in every case there must have been some exciting cause40 ,and again1 six or seven pages later3 8,no doubt1 each slight variation must have its efficient cause40 ,the repetition within so short a space of this expression of confidence in the impossibility of causeless effects would suggest that ,mr4 ,darwin's mind at the time of writing was1 unconsciously to himself1 in a state of more or less uneasiness as to whether effects could not occasionally come about of themselves1 and without cause of any sort1--that he may have been standing1 in fact1 for a short time upon the brink of a denial of the indestructibility of force and matter4 ,in like manner1 the most perfect humour and irony is generally quite unconscious4 ,examples of both are frequently given by men whom the world considers as deficient in humour2 it is more probably true that these persons are unconscious of their own delightful power through the very mastery and perfection with which they hold it4 ,there is a play1 for instance1 of genuine fun in some of the more serious scientific and theological journals which for some time past we have looked for in vain in 8--40 ,the following extract1 from a journal which ,i will not advertise1 may serve as an example3 8,lycurgus1 when they had abandoned to his revenge him who had put out his eyes1 took him home1 and the punishment he inflicted upon him was sedulous instructions to virtue40 ,yet this truly comic paper does not probably know that it is comic1 any more than the kleptomaniac knows that he steals1 or than ,john ,milton knew he was a humorist when he wrote a hymn upon the circumcision1 and spent his honeymoon in composing a treatise on divorce4 ,no more again did ,goethe know how exquisitely humorous he was when he wrote1 in his ,wilhelm ,meister1 that a beautiful tear glistened in ,theresa's right eye1 and then went on to explain that it glistened in her right eye and not in her left1 because she had had a wart on her left which had been removed--and successfully4 ,goethe probably wrote this without a chuckle2 he believed what a good many people who have never read ,wilhelm ,meister believe still1 namely1 that it was a work full of pathos1 of fine and tender feeling2 yet a less consummate humorist must have felt that there was scarcely a paragraph in it from first to last the chief merit of which did not lie in its absurdity4 ,another example may be taken from ,bacon of the manner in which sayings which drop from men unconsciously1 give the key of their inner thoughts to another person1 though they themselves know not that they have such thoughts at all2 much less that these thoughts are their only true convictions4 ,in his ,essay on ,friendship the great philosopher writes3 8,reading good books on morality is a little flat and dead40 ,innocent1 not to say pathetic1 as this passage may sound it is pregnant with painful inferences concerning ,bacon's moral character4 ,for if he knew that he found reading good books of morality a little flat and dead1 it follows he must have tried to read them2 nor is he saved by the fact that he found them a little flat and dead2 for though this does indeed show that he had begun to be so familiar with a few first principles as to find it more or less exhausting to have his attention directed to them further--yet his words prove that they were not so incorporate with him that he should feel the loathing for further discourse upon the matter which honest people commonly feel now4 ,it will be remembered that he took bribes when he came to be ,lord ,chancellor4 ,it is on the same principle that we find it so distasteful to hear one praise another for earnestness4 ,for such praise raises a suspicion in our minds 7pace the late ,dr4 ,arnold and his following7 that the praiser's attention must have been arrested by sincerity1 as by something more or less unfamiliar to himself4 ,so universally is this recognised that the world has for some time been discarded entirely by all reputable people4 ,truly1 if there is one who cannot find himself in the same room with the life and letters of an earnest person without being made instantly unwell1 the same is a just man and perfect in all his ways4 ,but enough has perhaps been said4 ,as the fish in the sea1 or the bird in the air1 so unreasoningly and inarticulately safe must a man feel before he can be said to know4 ,it is only those who are ignorant and uncultivated who can know anything at all in a proper sense of the words4 ,cultivation will breed in any man a certainty of the uncertainty even of his most assured convictions4 ,it is perhaps fortunate for our comfort that we can none of us be cultivated upon very many subjects1 so that considerable scope for assurance will still remain to us2 but however this may be1 we certainly observe it as a fact that the greatest men are they who are most uncertain in spite of certainty1 and at the same time most certain in spite of uncertainty1 and who are thus best able to feel that there is nothing in such complete harmony with itself as a flat contradiction in terms4 ,for nature hates that any principle should breed1 so to speak1 hermaphroditically1 but will give to each an help meet for it which shall cross it and be the undoing of it2 as in the case of descent with modification1 of which the essence would appear to be that every offspring should resemble its parents1 and yet1 at the same time1 that no offspring should resemble its parents4 ,but for the slightly irritating stimulant of this perpetual crossing1 we should pass our lives unconsciously as though in slumber4 ,until we have got to understand that though black is not white1 yet it may be whiter than white itself 7and any painter will readily paint that which shall show obviously as black1 yet it shall be whiter than that which shall show no less obviously as white71 we may be good logicians1 but we are still poor reasoners4 ,knowledge is in an inchoate state as long as it is capable of logical treatment2 it must be transmuted into that sense or instinct which rises altogether above the sphere in which words can have being at all1 otherwise it is not yet vital4 ,for sense is to knowledge what conscience is to reasoning about right and wrong2 the reasoning must be so rapid as to defy conscious reference to first principles1 and even at times to be apparently subversive of them altogether1 or the action will halt4 ,it must1 in fact1 become automatic before we are safe with it4 ,while we are fumbling for the grounds of our conviction1 our conviction is prone to fall1 as ,peter for lack of faith sinking into the waves of ,galilee2 so that the very power to prove at all is an priori argument against the truth--or at any rate the practical importance to the vast majority of mankind--of all that is supported by demonstration4 ,for the power to prove implies a sense of the need of proof1 and things which the majority of mankind find practically important are in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred above proof4 ,the need of proof becomes as obsolete in the case of assumed knowledge1 as the practice of fortifying towns in the middle of an old and long settled country4 ,who builds defences for that which is impregnable or little likely to be assailed8 ,the answer is ready1 that unless the defences had been built in former times it would be impossible to do without them now2 but this does not touch the argument1 which is not that demonstration is unwise1 but that as long as a demonstration is still felt necessary1 and therefore kept ready to hand1 the subject of such demonstration is not yet securely known4 ,qui s'excuse1 s'accuse2 and unless a matter can hold its own without the brag and self-assertion of continual demonstration1 it is still more or less of a parvenu1 which we shall not lose much by neglecting till it has less occasion to blow its own trumpet4 ,the only alternative is that it is an error in process of detection1 for if evidence concerning any opinion has long been denied superfluous1 and ever after this comes to be again felt necessary1 we know that the opinion is doomed4 ,if there is any truth in the above1 it should follow that our conception of the words 8science0 and 8scientific0 should undergo some modification4 ,not that we should speak slightingly of science1 but that we should recognise more than we do1 that there are two distinct classes of scientific people corresponding not inaptly with the two main parties unto which the political world is divided4 ,the one class is deeply versed in those sciences which have already become the common property of mankind2 enjoying1 enforcing1 perpetuating1 and engraving still more deeply unto the mind of man acquisitions already approved by common experience1 but somewhat careless about extension of empire1 or at any rate disinclined1 for the most part1 to active effort on their own part for the sake of such extension--neither progressive1 in fact1 nor aggressive--but quiet1 peaceable people1 who wish to live and let live1 as their fathers before them2 while the other class is chiefly intent upon pushing forward the boundaries of science1 and is comparatively indifferent to what is known already save in so far as necessary for purposes of extension4 ,these last are called pioneers of science1 and to them alone is the title 8scientific0 commonly accorded2 but pioneers1 unimportant to an army as they are1 are still not the army itself2 which can get on better without the pioneers than the pioneers without the army4 ,surely the class which knows thoroughly well what it knows1 and which adjudicates upon the value of the discoveries made by the pioneers--surely this class has as good a right or better to be called scientific than the pioneers themselves4 ,these two classes above described blend into one another with every shade of gradation4 ,some are admirably proficient in the well-known sciences--that is to say1 they have good health1 good looks1 good temper1 common sense1 and energy1 and they hold all these good things in such perfection as to lie altogether without introspection--to be not under the law1 but so utterly and entirely under grace that every one who sees them likes them4 ,but such may1 and perhaps more commonly will1 have very little inclination to extend the boundaries of human knowledge2 their aim is in another direction altogether4 ,of the pioneers1 on the other hand1 some are agreeable people1 well versed in the older sciences1 though still more eminent as pioneers1 while others1 whose services in this last capacity have been of inestimable value1 are noticeably ignorant of the sciences which have already become current with the larger part of mankind--in other words1 they are ugly1 rude1 and disagreeable people1 very progressive1 it may be1 but very aggressive to boot4 ,the main difference between these two classes lies in the fact that the knowledge of the one1 so far as it is new1 is known consciously1 while that of the other is unconscious1 consisting of sense and instinct rather than of recognised knowledge4 ,so long as a man has these1 and of the same kind as the more powerful body of his fellow-countrymen1 he is a true man of science1 though he can hardly read or write4 ,as my great namesake said so well1 8,he knows what's what1 and that's as high as metaphysic wit can fly40 ,as usual1 these true and thorough knowers do not know that they are scientific1 and can seldom give a reason for the faith that is in them4 ,they believe themselves to be ignorant1 uncultured men1 nor can even the professors whom they sometimes outwit in their own professorial domain perceive that they have been outwitted by men of superior scientific attainments to their own4 ,the following passage from ,dr4 ,carpenter's 8,mesmerism1 ,spiritualism10 c41 may serve as an illustration3-- 8,it is well known that persons who are conversant with the geological structure of a district are often able to indicate with considerable certainty in what spot and at what depth water will be found2 and men of less scientific knowledge1 but of considerable practical experience0--7so that in ,dr4 ,carpenter's mind there seems to be some sort of contrast or difference in kind between the knowledge which is derived from observation of facts and scientific knowledge7--8frequently arrive at a true conclusion upon this point without being able to assign reasons for their opinions4 8,exactly the same may be said in regard to the mineral structure of a mining district2 the course of a metallic vein being often correctly indicated by the shrewd guess of an observant workman1 when the scientific reasoning of the mining engineer altogether fails40 ,precisely4 ,here we have exactly the kind of thing we are in search of3 the man who has observed and observed till the facts are so thoroughly in his head that through familiarity he has lost sight both of them and of the processes whereby he deduced his conclusions from them--is apparently not considered scientific1 though he knows how to solve the problem before him2 the mining engineer1 on the other hand1 who reasons scientifically--that is to say1 with a knowledge of his own knowledge--is found not to know1 and to fail in discovering the mineral4 8,it is an experience we are continually encountering in other walks of life10 continues ,dr4 ,carpenter1 8that particular persons are guided--some apparently by an original and others by an acquired intuition--to conclusions for which they can give no adequate reason1 but which subsequent events prove to have been correct40 ,and this1 ,i take it1 implies what ,i have been above insisting on1 namely1 that on becoming intense1 knowledge seems also to become unaware of the grounds on which it rests1 or that it has or requires grounds at all1 or indeed even exists4 ,the only issue between myself and ,dr4 ,carpenter would appear to be1 that ,dr4 ,carpenter1 himself an acknowledged leader in the scientific world1 restricts the term 8scientific0 to the people who know that they know1 but are beaten by those who are not so conscious of their own knowledge2 while ,i say that the term 8scientific0 should be applied 7only that they would not like it7 to the nice sensible people who know what's what rather than to the discovering class4 ,and this is easily understood when we remember that the pioneer cannot hope to acquire any of the new sciences in a single lifetime so perfectly as to become unaware of his own knowledge4 ,as a general rule1 we observe him to be still in a state of active consciousness concerning whatever particular science he is extending1 and as long as he is in this state he cannot know utterly4 ,it is1 as ,i have already so often insisted on1 those who do not know that they know so much who have the firmest grip of their knowledge3 the best class1 for example1 of our ,english youth1 who live much in the open air1 and1 as ,lord ,beaconsfield finely said1 never read4 ,these are the people who know best those things which are best worth knowing--that is to say1 they are the most truly scientific4 ,unfortunately1 the apparatus necessary for this kind of science is so costly as to be within the reach of few1 involving1 as it does1 an experience in the use of it for some preceding generations4 ,even those who are born with the means within their reach must take no less pains1 and exercise no less self-control1 before they can attain the perfect unconscious use of them1 than would go to the making of a ,james ,watt or a ,stephenson2 it is vain1 therefore1 to hope that this best kind of science can ever be put within the reach of the many2 nevertheless it may be safely said that all the other and more generally recognised kinds of science are valueless except in so far as they tend to minister to this the highest kind4 ,they have no raison d'tre except so far as they tend to do away with the necessity for work1 and to diffuse good health1 and that good sense which is above self-consciousness4 ,they are to be encouraged because they have rendered the most fortunate kind of modern ,european possible1 and because they tend to make possible a still more fortunate kind than any now existing4 ,but the man who devotes himself to science cannot--with the rarest1 if any1 exceptions--belong to this most fortunate class himself4 ,he occupies a lower place1 both scientifically and morally1 for it is not possible but that his drudgery should somewhat soil him both in mind and health of body1 or1 if this be denied1 surely it must let him and hinder him in running the race for unconsciousness4 ,we do not feel that it increases the glory of a king or great nobleman that he should excel in what is commonly called science4 ,certainly he should not go further than ,prince ,rupert's drops4 ,nor should he excel in music1 art1 literature1 or theology--all which things are more or less parts of science4 ,he should be above them all1 save in so far as he can without effort reap renown from the labours of others4 ,it is a lche in him that he should write music or books1 or paint pictures at all2 but if he must do so1 his work should be at best contemptible4 ,much as we must condemn ,marcus ,aurelius1 we condemn ,james ,i4 ever more severely4 ,it is a pity there should exist so general a confusion of thought upon this subject1 for it may be asserted without fear of contradiction that there is hardly any form of immorality now rife which produces more disastrous effects upon those who give themselves up to it1 and upon society in general1 than the so-called science of those who know that they know too well to be able to know truly4 ,with very clever people--the people who know that they know--it is much as with the members of the early ,corinthian ,church1 to whom ,st4 ,paul wrote1 that if they looked their numbers over1 they would not find many wise1 nor powerful1 nor well-born people among them4 ,dog-fanciers tell us that performing dogs never carry their tails2 such dogs have eaten of the tree of knowledge1 and are convinced of sin accordingly--they know that they know things1 in respect of which1 therefore1 they are no longer under grace1 but under the law1 and they have yet so much grace left as to be ashamed4 ,so with the human clever dog2 he may speak with the tongues of men and angels1 but so long as he knows that he knows1 his tail will droop4 ,more especially does this hold in the case of those who are born to wealth and of old family4 ,we must all feel that a rich young nobleman with a taste for science and principles is rarely a pleasant object4 ,we do not even like the rich young man in the ,bible who wanted to inherit eternal life1 unless1 indeed1 he merely wanted to know whether there was not some way by which he could avoid dying1 and even so he is hardly worth considering4 ,principles are like logic1 which never yet made a good reasoner of a bad one1 but might still be occasionally useful if they did not invariably contradict each other whenever there is any temptation to appeal to them4 ,they are like fire1 good servants but bad masters4 ,as many people or more have been wrecked on principle as from want of principle4 ,they are1 as their name implies1 of an elementary character1 suitable for beginners only1 and he who has so little mastered them as to have occasion to refer to them consciously1 is out of place in the society of well-educated people4 ,the truly scientific invariably hate him1 and1 for the most part1 the more profoundly in proportion to the unconsciousness with which they do so4 ,if the reader hesitates1 let him go down into the streets and look in the shop-windows at the photographs of eminent men1 whether literary1 artistic1 or scientific1 and note the work which the consciousness of knowledge has wrought on nine out of every ten of them2 then let him go to the masterpieces of ,greek and ,italian art1 the truest preachers of the truest gospel of grace2 let him look at the ,venus of ,milo1 the ,discobolus1 the ,st4 ,george of ,donatello4 ,if it had pleased these people to wish to study1 there was no lack of brains to do it with2 but imagine 8what a deal of scorn0 would 8look beautiful0 upon the ,venus of ,milo's face if it were suggested to her that she should learn to read4 ,which1 think you1 knows most1 the ,theseus1 or any modern professor taken at random8 ,true1 the advancement of learning must have had a great share in the advancement of beauty1 inasmuch as beauty is but knowledge perfected and incarnate--but with the pioneers it is sic vos non vobis2 the grace is not for them1 but for those who come after4 ,science is like offences4 ,it must needs come1 but woe unto that man through whom it comes2 for there cannot be much beauty where there is consciousness of knowledge1 and while knowledge is still new it must in the nature of things involve much consciousness4 ,it is not knowledge1 then1 that is incompatible with beauty2 there cannot be too much knowledge1 but it must have passed through many people who it is to be feared must be more or less disagreeable1 before beauty or grace will have anything to say to it2 it must be so incarnate in a man's whole being that he shall not be aware of it1 or it will fit him constrainedly as one under the law1 and not as one under grace4 ,and grace is best1 for where grace is1 love is not distant4 ,grace6 the old ,pagan ideal whose charm even unlovely ,paul could not understand1 but1 as the legend tells us1 his soul fainted within him1 his heart misgave him1 and1 standing alone on the seashore at dusk1 he 8troubled deaf heaven with his bootless cries10 his thin voice pleading for grace after the flesh4 ,the waves came in one after another1 the sea-gulls cried together after their kind1 the wind rustled among the dried canes upon the sandbanks1 and there came a voice from heaven saying1 8,let ,my grace be sufficient for thee40 ,whereon1 failing of the thing itself1 he stole the word and strove to crush its meaning to the measure of his own limitations4 ,but the true grace1 with her groves and high places1 and troups of young men and maidens crowned with flowers1 and singing of love and youth and wine--the true grace he drove out into the wilderness--high up1 it may be1 into ,piora1 and into such-like places4 ,happy they who harboured her in her ill report4 ,it is common to hear men wonder what new faith will be adopted by mankind if disbelief in the ,christian religion should become general4 ,they seem to expect that some new theological or quasi-theological system will arise1 which1 mutatis mutandis1 shall be ,christianity over again4 ,it is a frequent reproach against those who maintain that the supernatural element of ,christianity is without foundation1 that they bring forward no such system of their own4 ,they pull down but cannot build4 ,we sometimes hear even those who have come to the same conclusions as the destroyers say1 that having nothing new to set up1 they will not attack the old4 ,but how can people set up a new superstition1 knowing it to be a superstition8 ,without faith in their own platform1 a faith as intense as that manifested by the early ,christians1 how can they preach8 ,a new superstition will come1 but it is in the very essence of things that its apostles should have no suspicion of its real nature2 that they should no more recognise the common element between the new and the old than the early ,christians recognised it between their faith and ,paganism4 ,if they did1 they would be paralysed4 ,others say that the new fabric may be seen rising on every side1 and that the coming religion is science4 ,certainly its apostles preach it without misgiving1 but it is not on that account less possible that it may prove only to be the coming superstition--like ,christianity1 true to its true votaries1 and1 like ,christianity1 false to those who follow it introspectively4 ,it may well be we shall find we have escaped from one set of taskmasters to fall into the hands of others far more ruthless4 ,the tyranny of the ,church is light in comparison with that which future generations may have to undergo at the hands of the doctrinaires4 ,the ,church did uphold a grace of some sort as the summum bonum1 in comparison with which all so-called earthly knowledge--knowledge1 that is to say1 which had not passed through so many people as to have become living and incarnate--was unimportant4 ,do what we may1 we are still drawn to the unspoken teaching of her less introspective ages with a force which no falsehood could command4 ,her buildings1 her music1 her architecture1 touch us as none other on the whole can do2 when she speaks there are many of us who think that she denies the deeper truths of her own profounder mind1 and unfortunately her tendency is now towards more rather than less introspection4 ,the more she gives way to this--the more she becomes conscious of knowing--the less she will know4 ,but still her ideal is in grace4 ,the so-called man of science1 on the other hand1 seems now generally inclined to make light of all knowledge1 save of the pioneer character4 ,his ideal is in self-conscious knowledge4 ,let us have no more ,lo1 here1 with the professor2 he very rarely knows what he says he knows2 no sooner has he misled the world for a sufficient time with a great flourish of trumpets than he is toppled over by one more plausible than himself4 ,he is but medicine-man1 augur1 priest1 in its latest development2 useful it may be1 but requiring to be well watched by those who value freedom4 ,wait till he has become more powerful1 and note the vagaries which his conceit of knowledge will indulge in4 ,the ,church did not persecute while she was still weak4 ,of course every system has had1 and will have1 its heroes1 but1 as we all very well know1 the heroism of the hero is but remotely due to system2 it is due not to arguments1 nor reasoning1 nor to any consciously recognised perceptions1 but to those deeper sciences which lie far beyond the reach of self-analysis1 and for the sturdy of which there is but one schooling--to have had good forefathers for many generations4 ,above all things1 let no unwary reader do me the injustice of believing in me4 ,in that ,i write at all ,i am among the dammed4 ,if he must believe in anything1 let him believe in the music of ,handel1 the painting of ,giovanni ,bellini1 and in the thirteenth chapter of ,st4 ,paul's ,first ,epistle to the ,corinthians4 ,but to return4 ,whenever we find people knowing that they know this or that1 we have the same story over and over again4 ,they do not yet know it perfectly4 ,we come1 therefore1 to the conclusion that our knowledge and reasoning thereupon1 only become perfect1 assured1 unhesitating1 when they have become automatic1 and are thus exercised without further conscious effort of the mind1 much in the same way as we cannot walk nor read nor write perfectly till we can do so automatically4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,application ,,of ,,foregoing ,,chapters ,,to ,,certain ,,habits ,,acquired ,,after ,,birth ,,which ,,are ,,commonly ,,considered ,,instinctive4 ,,what is true of knowing is also true of willing4 ,the more intensely we will1 the less is our will deliberate and capable of being recognised as will at all4 ,so that it is common to hear men declare under certain circumstances that they had no will1 but were forced into their own action under stress of passion or temptation4 ,but in the more ordinary actions of life1 we observe1 as in walking or breathing1 that we do not will anything utterly and without remnant of hesitation1 till we have lost sight of the fact that we are exercising our will4 ,the question1 therefore1 is forced upon us1 how far this principle extends1 and whether there may not be unheeded examples of its operation which1 if we consider them1 will land us in rather unexpected conclusions4 ,if it be granted that consciousness of knowledge and of volition vanishes when the knowledge and the volition have become intense and perfect1 may it not be possible that many actions which we do without knowing how we do them1 and without any conscious exercise of the will--actions which we certainly could not do if we tried to do them1 nor refrain from doing if for any reason we wished to do so--are done so easily and so unconsciously owing to excess of knowledge or experience rather than deficiency1 we having done them too often1 knowing how to do them too well1 and having too little hesitation as to the method of procedure1 to be capable of following our own action without the utter derangement of such action altogether2 or1 in other cases1 because we have so long settled the question1 that we have stowed away the whole apparatus with which we work in corners of our system which we cannot now conveniently reach8 ,it may be interesting to see whether we can find any class or classes of actions which would seem to link actions which for some time after birth we could not do at all1 and in which our proficiency has reached the stage of unconscious performance obviously through repeated effort and failure1 and through this only1 with actions which we could do as soon as we were born1 and concerning which it would at first sight appear absurd to say that they can have been acquired by any process in the least analogous to that which we commonly call experience1 inasmuch as the creature itself which does them has only just begun to exist1 and cannot1 therefore1 in the very nature of things1 have had experience4 ,can we see that actions1 for the acquisition of which experience is such an obvious necessity1 that whenever we see the acquisition we assume the experience1 gradate away imperceptibly into actions which would seem1 according to all reasonable analogy1 to presuppose experience1 of which1 however1 the time and place seem obscure1 if not impossible8 ,eating and drinking would appear to be such actions4 ,the new-born child cannot eat1 and cannot drink1 but he can swallow as soon as he is born2 and swallowing would appear 7as we may remark in passing7 to have been an earlier faculty of animal life than that of eating with teeth4 ,the ease and unconsciousness with which we eat and drink is clearly attributable to practice2 but a very little practice seems to go a long way--a suspiciously small amount of practice--as though somewhere or at some other time there must have been more practice than we can account for4 ,we can very readily stop eating or drinking1 and can follow our own action without difficulty in either process2 but1 as regards swallowing1 which is the earlier habit1 we have less power of self-analysis and control3 when we have once committed ourselves beyond a certain point to swallowing1 we must finish doing so1--that is to say1 our control over the operation ceases4 ,also1 a still smaller experience seems necessary for the acquisition of the power to swallow than appeared necessary in the case of eating2 and if we get into a difficulty we choke1 and are more at a loss how to become introspective than we are about eating and drinking4 ,why should a baby be able to swallow--which one would have said was the more complicated process of the two--with so much less practice than it takes him to learn to eat8 ,how comes it that he exhibits in the case of the more difficult operation all the phenomena which ordinarily accompany a more complete mastery and longer practice8 ,analogy would certainly seem to point in the direction of thinking that the necessary experience cannot have been wanting1 and that1 too1 not in such a quibbling sort as when people talk about inherited habit or the experience of the race1 which1 without explanation1 is to plain-speaking persons very much the same1 in regard to the individual1 as no experience at all1 but bon fide in the child's own person4 ,breathing1 again1 is an action acquired after birth1 generally with some little hesitation and difficulty1 but still acquired in a time seldom longer1 as ,i am informed1 than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour4 ,for an ant which has to be acquired at all1 there would seem here1 as in the case of eating1 to be a disproportion between1 on the one hand1 the intricacy of the process performed1 and on the other1 the shortness of the time taken to acquire the practice1 and the ease and unconsciousness with which its exercise is continued from the moment of acquisition4 ,we observe that in later life much less difficult and intricate operations than breathing acquire much longer practice before they can be mastered to the extent of unconscious performance4 ,we observe also that the phenomena attendant on the learning by an infant to breathe are extremely like those attendant upon the repetition of some performance by one who has done it very often before1 but who requires just a little prompting to set him off1 on getting which1 the whole familiar routine presents itself before him1 and he repeats his task by rote4 ,surely then we are justified in suspecting that there must have been more bon fide personal recollection and experience1 with more effort and failure on the part of the infant itself than meet the eye4 ,it should be noticed1 also1 that our control over breathing is very limited4 ,we can hold our breath a little1 or breathe a little faster for a short time1 but we cannot do this for long1 and after having gone without air for a certain time we must breath4 ,seeing and hearing require some practice before their free use is mastered1 but not very much4 ,they are so far within our control that we can see more by looking harder1 and hear more by listening attentively--but they are beyond our control in so far as that we must see and hear the greater part of what presents itself to us as near1 and at the same time unfamiliar1 unless we turn away or shut our eyes1 or stop our ears by a mechanical process2 and when we do this it is a sign that we have already involuntarily seen or heard more than we wished4 ,the familiar1 whether sight or sound1 very commonly escapes us4 ,take again the processes of digestion1 the action of the heart1 and the oxygenisation of the blood--processes of extreme intricacy1 done almost entirely unconsciously1 and quite beyond the control of our volition4 ,is it possible that our unconsciousness concerning our own performance of all these processes arises from over-experience8 ,is there anything in digestion1 or the oxygenisation of the blood1 different in kind to the rapid unconscious action of a man playing a difficult piece of music on the piano8 ,there may be in degree1 but as a man who sits down to play what he well knows1 plays on1 when once started1 almost1 as we say1 mechanically1 so1 having eaten his dinner1 he digests it as a matter of course1 unless it has been in some way unfamiliar to him1 or he to it1 owing to some derangement or occurrence with which he is unfamiliar1 and under which therefore he is at a loss now to comport himself1 as a player would be at a loss how to play with gloves on1 or with gout in his fingers1 or if set to play music upside down4 ,can we show that all the acquired actions of childhood and after-life1 which we now do unconsciously1 or without conscious exercise of the will1 are familiar acts--acts which we have already done a very great number of times8 ,can we also show that there are no acquired actions which we can perform in this automatic manner1 which were not at one time difficult1 requiring attention1 and liable to repeated failure1 our volition failing to command obedience from the members which should carry its purposes into execution8 ,if so1 analogy will point in the direction of thinking that other acts which we do even more unconsciously may only escape our power of self-examination and control because they are even more familiar--because we have done them oftener2 and we may imagine that if there were a microscope which could show us the minutest atoms of consciousness and volition1 we should find that even the apparently most automatic actions were yet done in due course1 upon a balance of considerations1 and under the deliberate exercise of the will4 ,we should also incline to think that even such an action as the oxygenisation of its blood by an infant of ten minutes' old1 can only be done so well and so unconsciously1 after repeated failures on the part of the infant itself4 ,true1 as has been already implied1 we do not immediately see when the baby could have made the necessary mistakes and acquired that infinite practice without which it could never go through such complex processes satisfactorily2 we have therefore invented the words 8hereditary instinct10 and consider them as accounting for the phenomenon2 but a very little reflection will show that though these words may be a very good way of stating the difficulty1 they do little or nothing towards removing it4 ,why should hereditary instinct enable a creature to dispense with the experience which we see to be necessary in all other cases before difficult operations can be performed successfully8 ,what is this talk that 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 dinner1 it nourishes him and not his neighbour2 if he learns a different art1 it is he that can do it and not his neighbour4 ,yet1 practically1 we see that the vicarious experience1 which seems so contrary to our common observation1 does nevertheless appear to hold good in the case of creatures and their descendants4 ,is there1 then1 any way of bringing these apparently conflicting phenomena under the operation of one law8 ,is there any way of showing that this experience of the race1 of which so much is said without the least attempt to show in what way it may or does become the experience of the individual1 is in sober seriousness the experience of one single being only1 repeating in a great many different ways certain performances with which he has become exceedingly familiar8 ,it would seem that we must either suppose the conditions of experience to differ during the earlier stages of life from those which we observe them to become during the heyday of any existence--and this would appear very gratuitous1 tolerable only as a suggestion because the beginnings of life are so obscure1 that in such twilight we may do pretty much whatever we please without danger of confutation--or that we must suppose the continuity of life and sameness between living beings1 whether plants or animals1 and their descendants1 to be far closer than we have hitherto believed2 so that the experience of one person is not enjoyed by his successor1 so much as that the successor is bon fide but a part of the life of his progenitor1 imbued with all his memories1 profiting by all his experiences--which are1 in fact1 his own--and only unconscious of the extent of his own memories and experiences owing to their vastness and already infinite repetitions4 ,certainly it presents itself to us at once as a singular coincidence-- ,i4 ,that we are most conscious of1 and have most control over1 such habits as speech1 the upright position1 the arts and sciences1 which are acquisitions peculiar to the human race1 always acquired after birth1 and not common to ourselves and any ancestor who had not become entirely human4 ,,ii4 ,that we are less conscious of1 and have less control over1 eating and drinking1 swallowing1 breathing1 seeing and hearing1 which were acquisitions of our prehuman ancestry1 and for which we had provided ourselves with all the necessary apparatus before we saw light1 but which are still1 geologically speaking1 recent1 or comparatively recent4 ,,iii4 ,that we are most unconscious of1 and have least control over1 our digestion and circulation1 which belonged even to our invertebrate ancestry1 and which are habits1 geologically speaking1 of extreme antiquity4 ,there is something too like method in this for it to be taken as the result of mere chance--chance again being but another illustration of ,nature's love of a contradiction in terms2 for everything is chance1 and nothing is chance4 ,and you may take it that all is chance or nothing chance1 according as you please1 but you must not have half chance and half not chance4 ,does it not seem as though the older and more confirmed the habit1 the more unquestioning the act of volition1 till1 in the case of the oldest habits1 the practice of succeeding existences has so formulated the procedure1 that1 on being once committed to such and such a line beyond a certain point1 the subsequent course is so clear as to be open to no further doubt1 to admit of no alternative1 till the very power of questioning is gone1 and even the consciousness of volition8 ,and this too upon matters which1 in earlier stages of a man's existence1 admitted of passionate argument and anxious deliberation whether to resolve them thus or thus1 with heroic hazard and experiment1 which on the losing side proved to be vice1 and on the winning virtue4 ,for there was passionate argument once what shape a man's teeth should be1 nor can the colour of his hair be considered as ever yet settled1 or likely to be settled for a very long time4 ,it is one against legion when a creature tries to differ from his own past selves4 ,he must yield or die if he wants to differ widely1 so as to lack natural instincts1 such as hunger or thirst1 or not to gratify them4 ,it is more righteous in a man that he should 8eat strange food10 and that his cheek should 8so much as lank not10 than that he should starve if the strange food be at his command4 ,his past selves are living in him at this moment with the accumulated life of centuries4 8,do this1 this1 this1 which we too have done1 and found our profit in it10 cry the souls of his forefathers within him4 ,faint are the far ones1 coming and going as the sound of bells wafted on to a high mountain2 loud and clear are the near ones1 urgent as an alarm of fire4 8,withhold10 cry some4 8,go on boldly10 cry others4 8,me1 me1 me1 revert hitherward1 my descendant10 shouts one as it were from some high vantage-ground over the heads of the clamorous multitude4 8,nay1 but me1 me1 me10 echoes another2 and our former selves fight within us and wrangle for our possession4 ,have we not here what is commonly called an internal tumult1 when dead pleasures and pains tug within us hither and thither8 ,then may the battle be decided by what people are pleased to call our own experience4 ,our own indeed6 ,what is our own save by mere courtesy of speech8 ,a matter of fashion4 ,sanction sanctifieth and fashion fashioneth4 ,and so with death--the most inexorable of all conventions4 ,however this may be1 we may assume it as an axiom with regard to actions acquired after birth1 that we never do them automatically save as the result of long practice1 and after having thus acquired perfect mastery over the action in question4 ,but given the practice or experience1 and the intricacy of the process to be performed appears to matter very little4 ,there is hardly anything conceivable as being done by man1 which a certain amount of familiarity will not enable him to do1 as it were mechanically and without conscious effort4 8,the most complex and difficult movements10 writes ,mr ,darwin1 8can in time be performed without the least effort or consciousness40 ,all the main business of life is done thus unconsciously or semi-unconsciously4 ,for what is the main business of life8 ,we work that we may eat and digest1 rather than eat and digest that we may work2 this1 at any rate1 is the normal state of things3 the more important business then is that which is carried on unconsciously4 ,so again the action of the brain1 which goes on prior to our realising the idea in which it results1 is not perceived by the individual4 ,so also all the deeper springs of action and conviction4 ,the residuum with which we fret and worry ourselves is a mere matter of detail1 as the higgling and haggling of the market1 which is not over the bulk of the price1 but over the last halfpenny4 ,shall we say1 then1 that a baby of a day old sucks 7which involves the whole principle of the pump1 and hence a profound practical knowledge of the laws of pneumatics and hydrostatics71 digests1 oxygenises its blood 7millions of years before ,sir ,humphry ,davy discovered oxygen71 sees and hears--all most difficult and complicated operations1 involving a knowledge of the facts concerning optics and acoustics1 compared with which the discoveries of ,newton sink into utter insignificance8 ,shall we say that a baby can do all these things at once1 doing them so well and so regularly1 without being even able to direct its attention to them1 and without mistake1 and at the same time not know how to do them1 and never have done them before8 ,such an assertion would be a contradiction to the whole experience of mankind4 ,surely the onus probandi must rest with him who makes it4 ,a man may make a lucky hit now and again by what is called a fluke1 but even this must be only a little in advance of his other performances of the same kind4 ,he may multiply seven by eight by a fluke after a little study of the multiplication table1 but he will not be able to extract the cube root of #diac by a fluke1 without long training in arithmetic1 any more than an agricultural labourer would be able to operate successfully for cataract4 ,if1 then1 a grown man cannot perform so simple an operation as that we will say1 for cataract1 unless he have been long trained in other similar operations1 and until he has done what comes to the same thing many times over1 with what show of reason can we maintain that one who is so far less capable than a grown man1 can perform such vastly more difficult operations1 without knowing how to do them1 and without ever having done them before8 ,there is no sign of 8fluke0 about the circulation of a baby's blood4 ,there may perhaps be some little hesitation about its earliest breathing1 but this1 as a general rule1 soon passes over1 both breathing and circulation1 within an hour after birth1 being as regular and easy as at any time during life4 ,is it reasonable1 then1 to say that the baby does these things without knowing how to do them1 and without ever having done them before1 and continues to do them by a series of lifelong flukes8 ,it would be well if those who feel inclined to hazard such an assertion would find some other instances of intricate processes gone through by people who know nothing about them1 and never had any practice therein4 ,what is to know how to do a thing8 ,surely to do it4 ,what is proof that we know how to do a thing8 ,surely the fact that we can do it4 ,a man shows that he knows how to throw the boomerang by throwing the boomerang4 ,no amount of talking or writing can get over this2 ipso facto1 that a baby breathes and makes its blood circulate1 it knows how to do so and the fact that it does not know its own knowledge is only proof of the perfection of that knowledge1 and of the vast number of past occasions on which it must have been exercised already4 ,as we have said already1 it is less obvious when the baby could have gained its experience1 so as to be able so readily to remember exactly what to do2 but it is more easy to suppose that the necessary occasions cannot have been wanting1 than that the power which we observe should have been obtained without practice and memory4 ,if we saw any self-consciousness on the baby's part about its breathing or circulation1 we might suspect that it had had less experience1 or profited less by its experience1 than its neighbours--exactly in the same manner as we suspect a deficiency of any quality which we see a man inclined to parade4 ,we all become introspective when we find that we do not know our business1 and whenever we are introspective we may generally suspect that we are on the verge of unproficiency4 ,unfortunately1 in the case of sickly children1 we observe that they sometimes do become conscious of their breathing and circulation1 just as in later life we become conscious that we have a liver or a digestion4 ,in that case there is always something wrong4 ,the baby that becomes aware of its breathing does not know how to breathe1 and will suffer for his ignorance and incapacity1 exactly in the same way as he will suffer in later life for ignorance and incapacity in any other respect in which his peers are commonly knowing and capable4 ,in the case of inability to breath1 the punishment is corporal1 breathing being a matter of fashion1 so old and long settled that nature can admit of no departure from the established custom1 and the procedure in case of failure is as much formulated as the fashion itself in the case of the circulation1 the whole performance has become one so utterly of rote1 that the mere discovery that we could do it at all was considered one of the highest flights of human genius4 ,it has been said a day will come when the ,polar ice shall have accumulated1 till it forms vast continents many thousands of feet above the level of the sea1 all of solid ice4 ,the weight of this mass will1 it is believed1 cause the world to topple over on its axis1 so that the earth will be upset as an ant-heap overturned by a ploughshare4 ,in that day time icebergs will come crunching against our proudest cities1 razing them from off the face of the earth as though they were made of rotten blotting-paper4 ,there is no respect now of ,handel nor of ,shakespeare2 the works of ,rembrandt and ,bellini fossilise at the bottom of the sea4 ,grace1 beauty1 and wit1 all that is precious in music1 literature1 and art--all gone4 ,in the morning there was ,europe4 ,in the evening there are no more populous cities nor busy hum of men1 but a sea of jagged ice1 a lurid sunset1 and the doom of many ages4 ,then shall a scared remnant escape in places1 and settle upon the changed continent when the waters have subsided--a simple people1 busy hunting shellfish on the drying ocean beds1 and with little time for introspection yet they can read and write and sum1 for by that time these accomplishments will have become universal1 and will be acquired as easily as we now learn to talk2 but they do so as a matter of course1 and without self-consciousness4 ,also they make the simpler kinds of machinery too easily to be able to follow their own operations--the manner of their own apprenticeship being to them as a buried city4 ,may we not imagine that1 after the lapse of another ten thousand years or so1 some one of them may again become cursed with lust of introspection1 and a second ,harvey may astonish the world by discovering that it can read and write1 and that steam-engines do not grow1 but are made8 ,it may be safely prophesied that he will die a martyr1 and be honoured in the fourth generation4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,application ,,of ,,the ,,foregoing ,,principles ,,to ,,actions ,,and ,,habits ,,acquired ,,before ,,birth4 ,,but if we once admit the principle that consciousness and volition have a tendency to vanish as soon as practice has rendered any habit exceedingly familiar1 so that the mere presence of an elaborate but unconscious performance shall carry with it a presumption of infinite practice1 we shall find it impossible to draw the line at those actions which we see acquired after birth1 no matter at how early a period4 ,the whole history and development of the embryo in all its stages forces itself on our consideration4 ,birth has been made too much of4 ,it is a salient feature in the history of the individual1 but not more salient than a hundred others1 and far less so than the commencement of his existence as a single cell uniting in itself elements derived from both parents1 or perhaps than any point in his whole existence as an embryo4 ,for many years after we are born we are still very incomplete4 ,we cease to oxygenise our blood vicariously as soon as we are born1 but we still derive our sustenance from our mothers4 ,birth is but the beginning of doubt1 the first hankering after scepticism1 the dreaming of a dawn of trouble1 the end of certainty and of settled convictions4 ,not but what before birth there have been unsettled convictions 7more's the pity7 with not a few1 and after birth we have still so made up our minds upon many points as to have no further need of reflection concerning them2 nevertheless1 in the main1 birth is the end of that time when we really knew our business1 and the beginning of the days wherein we know not what we would do1 or do4 ,it is therefore the beginning of consciousness1 and infancy is as the dosing of one who turns in his bed on waking1 and takes another short sleep before he rises4 ,when we were yet unborn1 our thoughts kept the roadway decently enough2 then were we blessed2 we thought as every man thinks1 and held the same opinions as our fathers and mothers had done upon nearly every subject4 ,life was not an art--and a very difficult art--much too difficult to be acquired in a lifetime2 it was a science of which we were consummate masters4 ,in this sense1 then1 birth may indeed be looked upon as the most salient feature in a man's life2 but this is not at all the sense in which it is commonly so regarded4 ,it is commonly considered as the point at which we begin to live4 ,more truly it is the point at which we leave off knowing how to live4 ,a chicken1 for example1 is never so full of consciousness1 activity1 reasoning faculty1 and volition1 as when it is an embryo in the eggshell1 making bones1 and flesh1 and feathers1 and eyes1 and claws1 with nothing but a little warmth and white of egg to make them from4 ,this is indeed to make bricks with but a small modicum of straw4 ,there is no man in the whole world who knows consciously and articulately as much as a half-hatched hen's egg knows unconsciously4 ,surely the egg in its own way must know quite as much as the chicken does4 ,we say of the chicken that it knows how to run about as soon as it is hatched4 ,so it does2 but had it no knowledge before it was hatched8 ,what made it lay the foundations of those limbs which should enable it to run about8 ,what made it grow a horny tip to its bill before it was hatched1 so that it might peck all round the larger end of the eggshell and make a hole for itself to get out at8 ,having once got outside the eggshell1 the chicken throws away this horny tip2 but is it reasonable to suppose that it would have grown it at all unless it had known that it would want something with which to break the eggshell8 ,and again1 is it in the least agreeable to our experience that such elaborate machinery should be made without endeavour1 failure1 perseverance1 intelligent contrivance1 experience1 and practice8 ,in the presence of such considerations1 it seems impossible to refrain from thinking that there must be a closer continuity of identity1 life1 and memory1 between successive generations than we generally imagine4 ,to shear the thread of life1 and hence of memory1 between one generation and its successor1 is so to speak1 a brutal measure1 an act of intellectual butchery1 and like all such strong high-handed measures1 a sign of weakness in him who is capable of it till all other remedies have been exhausted4 ,it is mere horse science1 akin to the theories of the convulsionists in the geological kingdom1 and of the believers in the supernatural origin of the species of plants and animals4 ,yet it is to be feared that we have not a few among us who would feel shocked rather at the attempt towards a milder treatment of the facts before them1 than at a continuance of the present crass tyranny with which we try to crush them inside our preconceived opinions4 ,it is quite common to hear men of education maintain that not even when it was on the point of being hatched1 had the chicken sense enough to know that it wanted to get outside the eggshell4 ,it did indeed peck all round the end of the shell1 which1 if it wanted to get out1 would certainly be the easiest way of effecting its purpose2 but it did not1 they say1 peck because it was aware of this1 but 8promiscuously40 ,curious1 such a uniformity of promiscuous action among so many eggs for so many generations4 ,if we see a man knock a hole in a wall on finding that he cannot get out of a place by any other means1 and if we see him knock this hole in a very workmanlike way1 with an implement with which he has been at great pains to make for a long the past1 but which he throws away as soon as he has no longer use for it1 thus showing that he had made it expressly for the purpose of escape1 do we say that this person made the implement and broke the wall of his prison promiscuously8 ,no jury would acquit a burglar on these grounds4 ,then why1 without much more evidence to the contrary than we have1 or can hope to have1 should we not suppose that with chickens1 as with men1 signs of contrivance are indeed signs of contrivance1 however quick1 subtle1 and untraceable1 the contrivance may be8 ,again1 ,i have heard people argue that though the chicken1 when nearly hatched1 had such a glimmering of sense that it pecked the shell because it wanted to get out1 yet that it is not conceivable that1 so long before it was hatched1 it should have had the sense to grow the horny tip to its bill for use when wanted4 ,this1 at any rate1 they say1 it must have grown1 as the persons previously referred to would maintain1 promiscuously4 ,now no one indeed supposes that the chicken does what it does1 with the same self-consciousness with which a tailor makes a suit of clothes4 ,not any one who has thought upon the subject is likely to do it so great an injustice4 ,the probability is that it knows what it is about to an extent greater than any tailor ever did or will1 for1 to say the least of it1 many thousands of years to come4 ,it works with such absolute certainty and so vast an experience1 that it is utterly incapable of following the operations of its own mind--as accountants have been known to add up long columns of pounds1 shillings1 and pence1 running the three fingers of one hand1 a finger for each column1 up the page1 and putting the result down correctly at the bottom1 apparently without an effort4 ,in the case of the accountant1 we say that the processes which his mind goes through are so rapid and subtle as to elude his own power of observation as well as ours4 ,we do not deny that his mind goes though processes of some kind2 we very readily admit that it must do so1 and say that these processes are so rapid and subtle1 owing1 as a general rule1 to long experience in addition4 ,why then should we find it so difficult to conceive that this principle1 which we observe to play so large a part in mental physiology1 wherever we can observe mental physiology at all1 may have a share also in the performance of intricate operations otherwise inexplicable1 though the creature performing them is not man1 or man only in embryo8 ,again1 after the chicken is hatched1 it grows more feathers and bones and blood1 but we still say that it knows nothing about all this4 ,what then do we say it does know8 ,one is almost ashamed to confess that we only credit it with knowing what it appears to know by processes which we find it exceedingly easy to follow1 or perhaps rather1 which we find it absolutely impossible to avoid following1 as recognising too great a family likeness between them1 and those which are most easily followed in our own minds1 to be able to sit down in comfort under a denial of the resemblance4 ,thus1 for example1 if we see a chicken running away from a fox1 we do admit that the chicken knows the fox would kill it if it caught it4 ,on the other hand1 if we allow that the half-hatched chicken grew the horny tip to be ready for use1 with an intensity of unconscious contrivance which can be only attributed to experience1 we are driven to admit that from the first moment the men began to sit upon it--and earlier too than this--the egg was always full of consciousness and volition1 and that during its embryological condition the unhatched chicken is doing exactly what it continues doing from the moment it is hatched till it dies2 that is to say1 attempting to better itself1 doing 7as ,aristotle says all creatures do all things upon all occasions7 what it considers most for its advantage under the existing circumstances4 ,what it may think most advantageous will depend1 while it is in the eggshell1 upon exactly the same causes as will influence its opinions in later life--to wit1 upon its habits1 its past circumstances and ways of thinking2 for there is nothing1 as ,shakespeare tells us1 good or ill1 but thinking makes it so4 ,the egg thinks feathers much more to its advantage than hair or fur1 and much more easily made4 ,if it could speak1 it would probably tell us that we could make them ourselves very easily after a few lessons1 if we took the trouble to try1 but that hair was another matter1 which it really could not see how any protoplasm could be got to make4 ,indeed1 during the more intense and active part of our existence1 in the earliest stages1 that is to say1 of our embryological life1 we could probably have turned our protoplasm into feathers instead of hair if we had cared about doing so4 ,if the chicken can make feathers1 there seems no sufficient reason for thinking that we cannot do so1 beyond the fact that we prefer hair1 and have preferred it for so many ages that we have lost the art along with the desire of making feathers1 if indeed any of our ancestors ever possessed it4 ,the stuff with which we make hair is practically the same as that with which chickens make feathers4 ,it is nothing but protoplasm1 and protoplasm is like certain prophecies1 out of which anything can be made by the creature which wants to make it4 ,everything depends upon whether a creature knows its own mind sufficiently well1 and has enough faith in its own powers of achievement4 ,when these two requisites are wanting1 the strongest giant cannot lift a two-ounce weight2 when they are given1 a bullock can take an eyelash out of its eye with its hind-foot1 or a minute jelly speck can build itself a house out of various materials which it will select according to its purpose with the nicest care1 though it have neither brain to think with1 nor eyes to see with1 nor hands nor feet to work with1 nor is it anything but a minute speck of jelly--faith and protoplasm only4 ,that this is indeed so1 the following passage from ,dr4 ,carpenter's 8,mental ,physiology0 may serve to show3-- 8,the simplest type of an animal consists of a minute mass of #8protoplasm1' or living jelly1 which is not yet differentiated into #8organs2' every part having the same endowments1 and taking an equal share in every action which the creature performs4 ,one of these #8jelly specks1' the amba1 moves itself about by changing the form of its body1 extemporising a foot 7or pseudopodium71 first in one direction1 and then in another2 and then1 when it has met with a nutritive particle1 extemporises a stomach for its reception1 by wrapping its soft body around it4 ,another1 instead of going about in search of food1 remains in one place1 but projects its protoplasmic substance into long pseudopodia1 which entrap and draw in very minute particles1 or absorb nutrient material from the liquid through which they extend themselves1 and are continually becoming fused 7as it were7 into the central body1 which is itself continually giving off new pseudopodia4 ,now we can scarcely conceive that a creature of such simplicity should possess any distinct consciousness of its needs0 7why not871 8or that its actions should be directed by any intention of its own2 and yet the writer has lately found results of the most singular elaborateness to be wrought out by the instrumentality of these minute jelly specks1 which build up tests or casings of the most regular geometrical symmetry of form1 and of the most artificial construction40 ,on this ,dr4 ,carpenter remarks3--8,suppose a human mason to be put down by the side of a pile of stones of various shapes and sizes1 and to be told to build a dome of these1 smooth on both surfaces1 without using more than the least possible quantity of a very tenacious1 but very costly1 cement1 in holding the stones together4 ,if he accomplished this well1 he would receive credit for great intelligence and skill4 ,yet this is exactly what these little #8jelly specks' do on a most minute scale2 the #8tests' they construct1 when highly magnified1 bearing comparison with the most skilful masonry of man4 ,from the same sandy bottom one species picks up the coarser quartz grains1 cements them together with phosphate of iron secreted from its own substance0 7should not this rather be1 8which it has contrived in some way or other to manufacture087 and thus constructs a flask-shaped #8test1' having a short neck and a large single orifice4 ,another picks up the finest grains1 and puts them together1 with the same cement1 into perfectly spherical #8tests' of the most extraordinary finish1 perforated with numerous small pores disposed at pretty regular intervals4 ,another selects the minutest sand grains and the terminal portions of sponge spicules1 and works them up together--apparently with no cement at all1 by the mere laying of the spicules--into perfect white spheres1 like homopathic globules1 each having a single-fissured orifice4 ,and another1 which makes a straight1 many-chambered #8test1' that resembles in form the chambered shell of an orthoceratite--the conical mouth of each chamber projecting into the cavity of the next--while forming the walls of its chambers of ordinary sand grains rather loosely held together1 shapes the conical mouth of the successive chambers by firmly cementing together grains of ferruginous quartz1 which it must have picked out from the general mass40 8,to give these actions10 continues ,dr4 ,carpenter1 8the vague designation of #8instinctive' does not in the least help us to account for them1 since what we want is to discover the mechanism by which they are worked out2 and it is most difficult to conceive how so artificial a selection can be made by a creature so simple0 7,mental ,physiology1 #dth ed4 pp4 #da-dc7 ,this is what protoplasm can do when it has the talisman of faith--of faith which worketh all wonders1 either in the heavens above1 or in the earth beneath1 or in the waters under the earth4 ,truly if a man have faith1 even as a grain of mustard seed1 though he may not be able to remove mountains1 he will at any rate be able to do what is no less difficult--make a mustard plant4 ,yet this is but a barren kind of comfort1 for we have not1 and in the nature of things cannot have1 sufficient faith in the unfamiliar1 inasmuch as the very essence of faith involves the notion of familiarity1 which can grow but slowly1 from experience to confidence1 and can make no sudden leap at any time4 ,such faith cannot be founded upon reason1--that is to say1 upon a recognised perception on the part of the person holding it that he is holding it1 and of the reasons for his doing so--or it will shift as other reasons come to disturb it4 ,a house built upon reason is a house built upon the sand4 ,it must be built upon the current cant and practice of one's peers1 for this is the rock which1 though not immovable1 is still most hard to move4 ,but however this may be1 we observe broadly that the intensity of the will to make this or that1 and of the confidence that one can make it1 depends upon the length of time during which the maker's forefathers have wanted the same thing before it2 the older the custom the more inveterate the habit1 and1 with the exception1 perhaps1 that the reproductive system is generally the crowning act of development--an exception which ,i will hereafter explain--the earlier its manifestation1 until1 for some reason or another1 we relinquish it and take to another1 which we must1 as a general rule1 again adhere to for a vast number of generations1 before it will permanently supplant the older habit4 ,in our own case1 the habit of breathing like a fish through gills may serve as an example4 ,we have now left off this habit1 yet we did it formerly for so many generations that we still do it a little2 it still crosses our embryological existence like a faint memory or dream1 for not easily is an inveterate habit broken4 ,on the other hand--again speaking broadly--the more recent the habit the later the fashion of its organ1 as with the teeth1 speech1 and the higher intellectual powers1 which are too new for development before we are actually born4 ,but to return for a short time to ,dr4 ,carpenter4 ,dr4 ,carpenter evidently feels1 what must indeed be felt by every candid mind1 that there is no sufficient reason for supposing that these little specks of jelly1 without brain or eyes1 or stomach1 or hands1 or feet1 but the very lowest known form of animal life1 are not imbued with a consciousness of their needs1 and the reasoning faculties which shall enable them to gratify those needs in a manner1 all things considered1 equalling the highest flights of the ingenuity of the highest animal--man4 ,this is no exaggeration4 ,it is true1 that in an earlier part of the passage1 ,dr4 ,carpenter has said that we can scarcely conceive so simple a creature to 8possess any distinct consciousness of its needs1 or that its actions should be directed by any intention of its own20 but1 on the other hand1 a little lower down he says1 that if a workman did what comes to the same thing as what the amba does1 he 8would receive credit for great intelligence and skill40 ,now if an amba can do that1 for which a workman would receive credit as for a highly skilful and intelligent performance1 the amba should receive no less credit than the workman2 he should also be no less credited with skill and intelligence1 which words unquestionably involve a distinct consciousness of needs and an action directed by an intention of its own4 ,so that ,dr4 ,carpenter seems rather to blow hot and cold with one breath4 ,nevertheless there can be no doubt to which side the minds of the great majority of mankind will incline upon the evidence before them2 they will say that the creature is highly reasonable and intelligent1 though they would readily admit that long practice and familiarity may have exhausted its powers of attention to all the stages of its own performance1 just as a practised workman in building a wall certainly does not consciously follow all the processes which he goes through4 ,as an example1 however1 of the extreme dislike which philosophers of a certain school have for making the admissions which seem somewhat grudgingly conceded by ,dr4 ,carpenter1 we may take the paragraph which immediately follows the ones which we have just quoted4 ,dr4 ,carpenter there writes3-- 8,the writer has often amused himself and others1 when by the seaside1 with getting a terebella 7a marine worm that cases its body in a sandy tube7 out of its house1 and then1 putting it into a saucer of water with a supply of sand and comminuted shell1 watching its appropriation of these materials in constructing a new tube4 ,the extended tentacles soon spread themselves over the bottom of the saucer and lay hold of whatever comes in their way1 #8all being fish that comes to their net1' and in half an hour or thereabouts the new house is finished1 though on a very rude and artificial type4 ,now here the organisation is far higher2 the instrumentality obviously serves the needs of the animal and suffices for them2 and we characterise the action1 on account of its uniformity and apparent unintelligence1 as instinctive40 ,no comment will1 one would think1 be necessary to make the reader feel that the difference between the terebella and the amba is one of degree rather than kind1 and that if the action of the second is as conscious and reasonable as that1 we will say1 of a bird making her nest1 the action of the first should be so also4 ,it is only a question of being a little less skilful1 or more so1 but skill and intelligence would seem present in both cases4 ,moreover1 it is more clever of the terebella to have made itself the limbs with which it can work1 than of the amba to be able to work without the limbs2 and perhaps it is more sensible also to want a less elaborate dwelling1 provided it is sufficient for practical purposes4 ,but whether the terebella be less intelligent than the amba or not1 it does quite enough to establish its claim to intelligence of a higher order2 and one does not see ground for the satisfaction which ,dr4 ,carpenter appears to find at having1 as it were1 taken the taste of the amba's performance out of our mouth1 by setting us about the less elaborate performance of the terebella1 which he thinks we can call unintelligent and instinctive4 ,i may be mistaken in the impression ,i have derived from the paragraphs ,i have quoted4 ,i commonly say they give me the impression that ,i have tried to convey to the reader1 i4e41 that the writer's assent to anything like intelligence1 or consciousness of needs1 an animal low down in the scale of life1 is grudging1 and that he is more comfortable when he has got hold of onto to which he can point and say that mere1 at any rate1 is an unintelligent and merely instinctive creature4 ,i have only called attention to the passage as an example of the intellectual bias of a large number of exceedingly able and thoughtful persons1 among whom1 so far as ,i am able to form an opinion at all1 few have greater claims to our respectful attention than ,dr4 ,carpenter himself4 ,for the embryo of a chicken1 then1 we damn exactly the same kind of reasoning power and contrivance which we damn for the amba1 or for our own intelligent performances in later life4 ,we do not claim for it much1 if any1 perception of its own forethought1 for we know very well that it is among the most prominent features of intellectual activity that1 after a number of repetitions1 it ceases to be perceived1 and that it does not1 in ordinary cases1 cease to be perceived till after a very great number of repetitions4 ,the fact that the embryo chicken makes itself always as nearly as may be in the same way1 would lead us to suppose that it would be unconscious of much of its own action1 provided it were always the same chicken which made itself over and over again4 ,so far we can see1 it always is unconscious of the greater part of its own wonderful performance4 ,surely then we have a presumption that it is the same chicken which makes itself over and over again2 for such unconsciousness is not won1 so far as our experience goes1 by any other means than by frequent repetition of the same act on the part of one and the same individual4 ,how this can be we shall perceive in subsequent chapters4 ,in the meantime1 we may say that all knowledge and volition would seem to be merely parts of the knowledge and volition of the primordial cell 7whatever this may be71 which slumbers but never dies--which has grown1 and multiplied1 and differentiated itself into the compound life of the womb1 and which never becomes conscious of knowing what it has once learnt effectually1 till it is for some reason on the point of1 or in danger of1 forgetting it4 ,the action1 therefore1 of an embryo making its way up in the world from a simple cell to a baby1 developing for itself eyes1 ears1 hands1 and feet while yet unborn1 proves to be exactly of one and the same kind as that of a man of fifty who goes into the ,city and tells his broker to buy him so many ,great ,northern ,a shares--that is to say1 an effort of the will exercised in due course on a balance of considerations as to the immediate expediency1 and guided by past experience2 while children who do not reach birth are but prenatal spendthrifts1 ne'er-do-weels1 inconsiderate innovators1 the unfortunate in business1 either through their own fault or that of others1 or through inevitable mischances1 beings who are culled out before birth instead of after2 so that even the lowest idiot1 the most contemptible in health or beauty1 may yet reflect with pride that they were born4 ,certainly we observe that those who have had good fortune 7mother and sole cause of virtue1 and sole virtue in itself71 and have profited by their experience1 and known their business best before birth1 so that they made themselves both to be and to look well1 do commonly on an average prove to know it best in after-life3 they grow their clothes best who have grown their limbs best4 ,it is rare that those who have not remembered how to finish their own bodies fairly well should finish anything well in later life4 ,but how small is the addition to their unconscious attainments which even the ,titans of human intellect have consciously accomplished1 in comparison with the problems solved by the meanest baby living1 nay1 even by one whose birth is untimely6 ,in other words1 how vast is that back knowledge over which we have gone fast asleep1 through the prosiness of perpetual repetition2 and how little in comparison1 is that whose novelty keeps it still within the scope of our conscious perception6 ,what is the discovery of the laws of gravitation as compared with the knowledge which sleeps in every hen's egg upon a kitchen shelf8 ,it is all a matter of habit and fashion4 ,thus we see kings and councillors of the earth admired for facing death before what they are pleased to call dishonour4 ,if1 on being required to go without anything they have been accustomed to1 or to change their habits1 or do what is unusual in the case of other kings under like circumstances1 then1 if they but fold their cloak decently around them1 and die upon the spot of shame at having had it even required of them to do thus or thus1 then are they kings indeed1 of old race1 that know their business from generation to generation4 ,or if1 we will say1 a prince1 on having his dinner brought to him ill-cooked1 were to feel the indignity so keenly as that he should turn his face to the wall1 and breathe out his wounded soul in one sigh1 do we not admire him as a 8real prince10 who knows the business of princes so well that he can conceive of nothing foreign to it in connection with himself1 the bare effort to realise a state of things other than what princes have been accustomed to being immediately fatal to him8 ,yet is there no less than this in the demise of every half-hatched hen's egg1 shaken rudely by a schoolboy1 or neglected by a truant mother2 for surely the prince would not die if he knew how to do otherwise1 and the hen's egg only dies of being required to do something to which it is not accustomed4 ,but the further consideration of this and other like reflections would too long detain us4 ,suffice it that we have established the position that all living creatures which show any signs of intelligence1 must certainly each one have already gone through the embryonic stages an infinite number of times1 or they could no more have achieved the intricate process of self-development unconsciously1 than they could play the piano unconsciously without any previous knowledge of the instrument4 ,it remains1 therefore1 to show the when and where of their having done so1 and this leads us naturally to the subject of the following chapter--,personal ,identity4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,personal ,,identity4 8,,strange difficulties have been raised by some10 says ,bishop ,butler1 8concerning personal identity1 or the sameness of living agents as implied in the notion of our existing now and hereafter1 or indeed in any two consecutive moments40 ,but in truth it is not easy to see the strangeness of the difficulty1 if the words either 8personal0 or 8identity0 are used in any strictness4 ,personality is one of those ideas with which we are so familiar that we have lost sight of the foundations upon which it rests4 ,we regard our personality as a simple definite whole2 as a plain1 palpable1 individual thing1 which can be seen going about the streets or sitting indoors at home1 which lasts us our lifetime1 and about the confines of which no doubt can exist in the minds of reasonable people4 ,but in truth this 8we10 which looks so simple and definite1 is a nebulous and indefinable aggregation of many component parts which war not a little among themselves1 our perception of our existence at all being perhaps due to this very clash of warfare1 as our sense of sound and light is due to the jarring of vibrations4 ,moreover1 as the component parts of our identity change from moment to moment1 our personality becomes a thing dependent upon the present1 which has no logical existence1 but lives only upon the sufferance of times past and future1 slipping out of our hands into the domain of one or other of these two claimants the moment we try to apprehend it4 ,and not only is our personality as fleeting as the present moment1 but the parts which compose it blend some of them so imperceptibly into1 and are so inextricably linked on to1 outside things which clearly form no part of our personality1 that when we try to bring ourselves to book1 and determine wherein we consist1 or to draw a line as to where we begin or end1 we find ourselves completely baffled4 ,there is nothing but fusion and confusion4 ,putting theology on one side1 and dealing only with the common daily experience of mankind1 our body is certainly part of our personality4 ,with the destruction of our bodies1 our personality1 as far as we can follow it1 comes to a full stop2 and with every modification of them it is correspondingly modified4 ,but what are the limits of our bodies8 ,they are composed of parts1 some of them so unessential as to be hardly included in personality at all1 and to be separable from ourselves without perceptible effect1 as the hair1 nails1 and daily waste of tissue4 ,again1 other parts are very important1 as our hands1 feet1 arms1 legs1 c41 but still are no essential parts of our 8self0 or 8soul10 which continues to exist in spite of their amputation4 ,other parts1 as the brain1 heart1 and blood1 are so essential that they cannot be dispensed with1 yet it is impossible to say that personality consists in any one of them4 ,each one of these component members of our personality is continually dying and being born again1 supported in this process by the food we eat1 the water we drink1 and the air we breathe2 which three things link us on1 and fetter us down1 to the organic and inorganic world about us4 ,for our meat and drink1 though no part of our personality before we eat and drink1 cannot1 after we have done so1 be separated entirely from us without the destruction of our personality altogether1 so far as we can follow it2 and who shall say at what precise moment our food has or has not become part of ourselves8 ,a famished man eats food2 after a short time his whole personality is so palpably affected that we know the food to have entered into him and taken1 as it were1 possession of him2 but who can say at what precise moment it did so8 ,thus we find that we are rooted into outside things and melt away into them1 nor can any man say he consists absolutely in this or that1 nor define himself so certainly as to include neither more nor less than himself2 many undoubted parts of his personality being more separable from it1 and changing it less when so separated1 both to his own senses and those of other people1 than other parts which are strictly speaking no parts at all4 ,a man's clothes1 for example1 as they lie on a chair at night are no part of him1 but when he wears them they would appear to be so1 as being a kind of food which warms him and hatches him1 and the loss of which may kill him of cold4 ,if this be denied1 and a man's clothes be considered as no part of his self1 nevertheless they1 with his money1 and it may perhaps be added his religious opinions1 stamp a man's individuality as strongly as any natural feature could stamp it4 ,change in style of dress1 gain or loss of money1 make a man feel and appear more changed than having his chin shaved or his nails cut4 ,in fact1 as soon as we leave common parlance on one side1 and try for a scientific definition of personality1 we find that there is none possible1 any more than there can be a demonstration of the fact that we exist at all--a demonstration for which1 as for that of a personal ,god1 many have hunted but none have found4 ,the only solid foundation is1 as in the case of the earth's crust1 pretty near the surface of things2 the deeper we try to go1 the damper and darker and altogether more uncongenial we find it4 ,there is no knowing into what quagmire of superstition we may not find ourselves drawn1 if we once cut ourselves adrift from those superficial aspects of things1 in which alone our nature permits us to be comforted4 ,common parlance1 however1 settles the difficulty readily enough 7as indeed it settles most others if they show signs of awkwardness7 by the simple process of ignoring it3 we decline1 and very properly1 to go into the question of where personality begins and ends1 but assume it to be known by every one1 and throw the onus of not knowing it upon the over-curious1 who had better think as their neighbours do1 right or wrong1 or there is no knowing into what villainy they may not presently fall4 ,assuming1 then1 that every one knows what is meant by the word 8person0 7and such superstitious bases as this are the foundations upon which all action1 whether of man1 beast1 or plant1 is constructed and rendered possible2 for even the corn in the fields grows upon a superstitious basis as to its own existence1 and only turns the earth and moisture into wheat through the conceit of its own ability to do so1 without which faith it were powerless2 and the lichen only grows upon the granite rock by first saying to itself1 8,i think ,i can do it20 so that it would not be able to grow unless it thought it could grow1 and would not think it could grow unless it found itself able to grow1 and thus spends its life arguing in a most vicious circle1 basing its action upon a hypothesis1 which hypothesis is in turn based upon its action7--assuming that we know what is meant by the word 8person10 we say that we are one and the same from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death1 so that whatever is done by or happens to any one between birth and death1 is said to happen to or be done by one individual4 ,this in practice is found to be sufficient for the law courts and the purposes of daily life1 which1 being full of hurry and the pressure of business1 can only tolerate compromise1 or conventional rendering of intricate phenomena4 ,when facts of extreme complexity have to be daily and hourly dealt with by people whose time is money1 they must be simplified1 and treated much as a painter treats them1 drawing them in squarely1 seizing the more important features1 and neglecting all that does not assert itself as too essential to be passed over--hence the slang and cant words of every profession1 and indeed all language2 for language at best is but a kind of 8patter10 the only way1 it is true1 in many cases1 of expressing our ideas to one another1 but still a very bad way1 and not for one moment comparable to the unspoken speech which we may sometimes have recourse to4 ,the metaphors and faons de parler to which even in the plainest speech we are perpetually recurring 7as1 for example1 in this last two lines1 8plain10 8perpetually10 and 8recurring10 are all words based on metaphor1 and hence more or less liable to mislead7 often deceive us1 as though there were nothing more than what we see and say1 and as though words1 instead of being1 as they are1 the creatures of our convenience1 had some claim to be the actual ideas themselves concerning which we are conversing4 ,this is so well expressed in a letter ,i have recently received from a friend1 now in ,new ,zealand1 and certainly not intended by him for publication1 that ,i shall venture to quote the passage1 but should say that ,i do so without his knowledge or permission which ,i should not be able to receive before this book must be completed4 8,words1 words1 words10 he writes1 8are the stumbling-blocks in the way of truth4 ,until you think of things as they are1 and not of the words that misrepresent them1 you cannot think rightly4 ,words produce the appearance of hard and fast lines where there are none4 ,words divide2 thus we call this a man1 that an ape1 that a monkey1 while they are all only differentiations of the same thing4 ,to think of a thing they must be got rid of3 they are the clothes that thoughts wear--only the clothes4 ,i say this over and over again1 for there is nothing of more importance4 ,other men's words will stop you at the beginning of an investigation4 ,a man may play with words all his life1 arranging them and rearranging them like dominoes4 ,if ,i could think to you without words you would understand me better40 ,if such remarks as the above hold good at all1 they do so with the words 8personal identity40 ,the least reflection will show that personal identity in any sort of strictness is an impossibility4 ,the expression is one of the many ways in which we are obliged to scamp our thoughts through pressure of other business which pays us better4 ,for surely all reasonable people will feel that an infant an hour before birth1 when in the eye of the law he has no existence1 and could not be called a peer for another sixty minutes1 though his father were a peer1 and already dead1--surely such an embryo is more personally identical with the baby into which he develops within an hour's time than the born baby is so with itself 7if the expression may be pardoned71 one1 twenty1 or it may be eighty years after birth4 ,there is more sameness of matter2 there are fewer differences of any kind perceptible by a third person2 there is more sense of continuity on the part of the person himself2 and far more of all that goes to make up our sense of sameness of personality between an embryo an hour before birth and the child on being born1 than there is between the child just born and the man of twenty4 ,yet there is no hesitation about admitting sameness of personality between these two last4 ,on the other hand1 if that hazy contradiction in terms1 8personal identity10 be once allowed to retreat behind the threshold of the womb1 it has eluded us once for all4 ,what is true of one hour before birth is true of two1 and so on till we get back to the impregnate ovum1 which may fairly claim to have been personally identical with the man of eighty into which it ultimately developed1 in spite of the fact that there is no particle of same matter nor sense of continuity between them1 nor recognised community of instinct1 nor indeed of anything which goes to the making up of that which we call identity4 ,there is far more of all these things common to the impregnate ovum and the ovum immediately before impregnation1 or again between the impregnate ovum1 and both the ovum before impregnation and the spermatozoon which impregnated it4 ,nor1 if we admit personal identity between the ovum and the octogenarian1 is there any sufficient reason why we should not admit it between the impregnate ovum and the two factors of which it is composed1 which two factors are but offshoots from two distinct personalities1 of which they are as much part as the apple is of the apple-tree2 so that an impregnate ovum cannot without a violation of first principles be debarred from claiming personal identity with both its parents1 and hence1 by an easy chain of reasoning1 with each of the impregnate ova from which its parents were developed4 ,so that each ovum when impregnate should be considered not as descended from its ancestors1 but as being a continuation of the personality of every ovum in the chain of its ancestry1 which every ovum it actually is quite as truly as the octogenarian is the same identity with the ovum from which he has been developed4 ,this process cannot stop short of the primordial cell1 which again will probably turn out to be but a brief resting-place4 ,we therefore prove each one of us to be actually the primordial cell which never died nor dies1 but has differentiated itself into the life of the world1 all living beings whatever1 being one with it1 and members one of another4 ,to look at the matter for a moment in another light1 it will be admitted that if the primordial cell had been killed before leaving issue1 all its possible descendants would have been killed at one and the same time4 ,it is hard to see how this single fact does not establish at the point1 as it were1 of a logical bayonet1 an identity1 between any creature and all others that are descended from it4 ,in ,bishop ,butler's first dissertation on personality1 we find expressed very much the same opinions as would follow from the above considerations1 though they are mentioned by the ,bishop only to be condemned1 namely1 8that personality is not a permanent but a transient thing2 that it lives and dies1 begins and ends continually2 that no man can any more remain one and the same person two moments together1 than two successive moments can be one and the same moment20 in which case1 he continues1 our present self would not be 8in reality the same with the self of yesterday1 but another like self or person coming up in its room and mistaken for it1 to which another self will succeed to-morrow40 ,this view the ,bishop proceeds to reduce to absurdity by saying1 8,it must be a fallacy upon ourselves to charge our present selves with anything we did1 or to imagine our present selves interested in anything which befell us yesterday2 or that our present self will be interested in what will befall us to-morrow4 ,this1 ,i say1 must follow1 for if the self or person of to-day and that of to-morrow are not the same1 but only like persons1 the person of to-day is really no more interested in what will befall the person of to-morrow than in what will befall any other person4 ,it may be thought1 perhaps1 that this is not a just representation of the opinion we are speaking of1 because those who maintain it allow that a person is the same as far back as his remembrance reaches4 ,and indeed they do use the words identity and same person4 ,nor will language permit these words to be laid aside1 since1 if they were1 there must be ,i know not what ridiculous periphrasis substituted in the room of them4 ,but they cannot consistently with themselves mean that the person is really the same4 ,for it is self-evident that the personality cannot be really the same1 if1 as they expressly assert1 that in which it consists is not the same4 ,and as consistently with themselves they cannot1 so ,i think it appears they do not mean that the person is really the same1 but only that he is so in a fictitious sense2 in such a sense only as they assert--for this they do assert--that any number of persons whatever may be the same person4 ,the bare unfolding of this notion1 and laying it thus naked and open1 seems the best confutation of it40 ,this fencing1 for it does not deserve the name of serious disputation1 is rendered possible by the laxness with which the words 8identical0 and 8identity0 are commonly used4 ,bishop ,butler would not seriously deny that personality undergoes great changes between infancy and old age1 and hence that it must undergo some change from moment to moment4 ,so universally is this recognised1 that it is common to hear it said of such and such a man that he is not at all the person he was1 or of such and such another that he is twice the man he used to be--expressions than which none nearer the truth can well be found4 ,on the other hand1 those whom ,bishop ,butler is intending to confute would be the first to admit that1 though there are many changes between infancy and old age1 yet they come about in any one individual under such circumstances as we are all agreed in considering as the factors of personal identity rather than as hindrances thereto--that is to say1 there has been no death on the part of the individual between any two phases of his existence1 and any one phase has had a permanent though perhaps imperceptible effect upon all succeeding ones4 ,so that no one ever seriously argued in the manner supposed by ,bishop ,butler1 unless with modifications and saving clauses1 to which it does not suit his purpose to call attention4 ,identical strictly means 8one and the same20 and if it were tied down to its strictest usage1 it would indeed follow very logically1 as we have said already1 that no such thing as personal identity is possible1 but that the case actually is as ,bishop ,butler has supposed his opponents without qualification to maintain it4 ,in common use1 however1 the word 8identical0 is taken to mean anything so like another that no vital or essential differences can be perceived between them2 as in the case of two specimens of the same kind of plant1 when we say they are identical in spite of considerable individual differences4 ,so with two impressions of a print from the same plate2 so with the plate itself1 which is somewhat modified with every impression taken from it4 ,in like manner 8identity0 is not held to its strict meaning--absolute sameness--but is predicated rightly of a past and present which are now very widely asunder1 provided they have been continuously connected by links so small as not to give too sudden a sense of change at any one point2 as1 for instance1 in the case of the ,thames at ,oxford and ,windsor or again at ,greenwich1 we say the same river flows by all three places1 by which we mean that much of the water at ,greenwich has come down from ,oxford and ,windsor in a continuous stream4 ,how sudden a change at any one point1 or how great a difference between the two extremes is sufficient to bar identity1 is one of the most uncertain things imaginable1 and seems to be decided on different grounds in different cases1 sometimes very intelligibly1 and again at others arbitrarily and capriciously4 ,personal identity is barred at one end1 in the common opinion1 by birth1 and at the other by death4 ,before birth1 a child cannot complain either by himself or another1 in such way as to set the law in motion2 after death he is in like manner powerless to make himself felt by society1 except in so far as he can do so by acts done before the breath has left his body4 ,at any point between birth and death he is liable1 either by himself or another1 to affect his fellow-creatures2 hence1 no two other epochs can be found of equal convenience for social purposes1 and therefore they have been seized by society as settling the whole question of when personal identity begins and ends--society being rightly concerned with its own practical convenience1 rather than with the abstract truth concerning its individual members4 ,no one who is capable of reflection will deny that the limitation of personality is certainly arbitrary to a degree as regards birth1 nor yet that it is very possibly arbitrary as regards death2 and as for intermediate points1 no doubt it would be more strictly accurate to say1 8you are the now phase of the person ,i met last night10 or 8you are the being which has been evolved from the being ,i met last night10 than 8you are the person ,i met last night40 ,but life is too short for the pen-phrases which would crowd upon us from every quarter1 if we did not set our face against all that is under the surface of things1 unless1 that is to say1 the going beneath the surface is1 for some special chance of profit1 excusable or capable of extenuation4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,personal ,,identity--7continued74 ,,how arbitrary current notions concerning identity really are1 may perhaps be perceived by reflecting upon some of the many different phases of reproduction4 ,direct reproduction in which a creation reproduces another1 the facsimile1 or nearly so1 of itself may perhaps occur among the lowest forms of animal life2 but it is certainly not the rule among beings of a higher order4 ,a hen lays an egg1 which egg becomes a chicken1 which chicken1 in the course of time1 becomes a hen4 ,a moth lays an egg1 which egg becomes a caterpillar1 which caterpillar1 after going through several stages1 becomes a chrysalis1 which chrysalis becomes a moth4 ,a medusa begets a ciliated larva1 the larva begets a polyp1 the polyp begets a strobila1 and the strobila begets a medusa again2 the cycle of reproduction being completed in the fourth generation4 ,a frog lays an egg1 which egg becomes a tadpole2 the tadpole1 after more or fewer intermediate stages1 becomes a frog4 ,the mammals lay eggs1 which they hatch inside their own bodies1 instead of outside them2 but the difference is one of degree and not of kind4 ,in all these cases how difficult is it to say where identity begins or ends1 or again where death begins or ends1 or where reproduction begins or ends4 ,how small and unimportant is the difference between the changes which a caterpillar undergoes before becoming a moth1 and those of a strobila before becoming a medusa4 ,yet in the one case we say the caterpillar does not die1 but is changed 7though1 if the various changes in its existence be produced metagenetically1 as is the case with many insects1 it would appear to make a clean sweep of every organ of its existence1 and start de novo1 growing a head where its feet were1 and so on--at least twice between its lives as caterpillar and butterfly72 in this case1 however1 we say the caterpillar does not die1 but is changed2 being1 nevertheless1 one personality with the moth1 into which it is developed4 ,but in the case of the strobila we say that it is not changed1 but dies1 and is no part of the personality of the medusa4 ,we say the egg becomes the caterpillar1 not by the death of the egg and birth of the caterpillar1 but by the ordinary process of nutrition and waste--waste and repair--waste and repair continually4 ,in like manner we say the caterpillar becomes the chrysalis1 and the chrysalis the moth1 not through the death of either one or the other1 but by the development of the same creature1 and the ordinary processes of waste and repair4 ,but the medusa after three or four cycles becomes the medusa again1 not1 we say1 by these same processes of nutrition and waste1 but by a series of generations1 each one involving an actual birth and an actual death4 ,why this difference8 ,surely only because the changes in the offspring of the medusa are marked by the leaving a little more husk behind them1 and that husk less shrivelled1 than is left on the occasion of each change between the caterpillar and the butterfly4 ,a little more residuum1 which residuum1 it may be1 can move about2 and though shrivelling from hour to hour1 may yet leave a little more offspring before it is reduced to powder2 or again1 perhaps1 because in the one case1 though the actors are changed1 they are changed behind the scenes1 and come on in parts and dresses1 more nearly resembling those of the original actors1 than in the other4 ,when the caterpillar emerges from the egg1 almost all that was inside the egg has become caterpillar2 the shell is nearly empty1 and cannot move2 therefore we do not count it1 and call the caterpillar a continuation of the egg's existence1 and personally identical with the egg4 ,so with the chrysalis and the moth2 but after the moth has laid her eggs she can still move her wings about1 and she looks nearly as large as she did before she laid them2 besides1 she may yet lay a few more1 therefore we do not consider the moth's life as continued in the life of her eggs1 but rather in their husk1 which we still call the moth1 and which we say dies in a day or two1 and there is an end of it4 ,moreover1 if we hold the moth's life to be continued in that of her eggs1 we shall be forced to admit her to be personally identical with each single egg1 and1 hence1 each egg to be identical with every other egg1 as far as the past1 and community of memories1 are concerned2 and it is not easy at first to break the spell which words have cast around us1 and to feel that one person may become many persons1 and that many different persons may be practically one and the same person1 as far as their past experience is concerned2 and again1 that two or more persons may unite and become one person1 with the memories and experiences of both1 though this has been actually the case with every one of us4 ,our present way of looking at these matters is perfectly right and reasonable1 so long as we bear in mind that it is a faon de parler1 a sort of hieroglyphic which shall stand for the course of nature1 but nothing more4 ,repair 7as is now universally admitted by physiologists7 is only a phase of reproduction1 or rather reproduction and repair are only phases of the same power2 and again1 death and the ordinary daily waste of tissue1 are phases of the same thing4 ,as for identity it is determined in any true sense of the word1 not by death alone1 but by a combination of death and failure of issue1 whether of mind or body4 ,to repeat4 ,wherever there is a separate centre of thought and action1 we see that it is connected with its successive stages of being1 by a series of infinitely small changes from moment to moment1 with1 perhaps1 at times more startling and rapid changes1 but1 nevertheless1 with no such sudden1 complete1 and unrepaired break up of the preceding condition1 as we shall agree in calling death4 ,the branching out from it at different times of new centres of thought and action1 has commonly as little appreciable effect upon the parent-stock as the fall of an apple full of ripe seeds has upon an apple-tree2 and though the life of the parent1 from the date of the branching off of such personalities1 is more truly continued in these than in the residuum of its own life1 we should find ourselves involved in a good deal of trouble if we were commonly to take this view of the matter4 ,the residuum has generally the upper hand4 ,he has more money1 and can eat up his new life more easily than his new life1 him4 ,a moral residuum will therefore prefer to see the remainder of his life in his own person1 than in that of his descendants1 and will act accordingly4 ,hence we1 in common with most other living beings1 ignore the offspring as forming part of the personality of the parent1 except in so far as that we make the father liable for its support and for its extravagances 7than which no greater proof need be wished that the law is at heart a philosopher1 and perceives the completeness of the personal identity between father and son7 for twenty-one years from birth4 ,in other respects we are accustomed1 probably rather from considerations of practical convenience than as the result of pure reason1 to ignore the identity between parent and offspring as completely as we ignore personality before birth4 ,with these exceptions1 however1 the common opinion concerning personal identity is reasonable enough1 and is found to consist neither in consciousness of such identity1 nor yet in the power of recollecting its various phases 7for it is plain that identity survives the distinction or suspension of both these71 but in the fact that the various stages appear to the majority of people to have been in some way or other linked together4 ,for a very little reflection will show that identity1 as commonly predicated of living agents1 does not consist in identity of matter1 of which there is no same particle in the infant1 we will say1 and the octogenarian into whom he has developed4 ,nor1 again1 does it depend upon sameness of form or fashion2 for personality is felt to survive frequent and radical modification of structure1 as in the case of caterpillars and other insects4 ,mr4 ,darwin1 quoting from ,professor ,owen1 tells us 7,plants and ,animals under ,domestication1 vol4 ii4 p4 #cfb1 ed4 #ahge71 that in the case of what is called metagenetic development1 8the new parts are not moulded upon the inner surfaces of the old ones4 ,the plastic force has changed its mode of operation4 ,the outer case1 and all that gave form and character to the precedent individual1 perish1 and are cast off2 they are not changed into the corresponding parts of the same individual4 ,these are due to a new and distinct developmental process40 ,assuredly1 there is more birth and death in the world than is dreamt of by the greater part of us2 but it is so masked1 and on the whole1 so little to our purpose1 that we fail to see it4 ,yet radical and sweeping as the changes of organism above described must be1 we do not feel them to be more a bar to personal identity than the considerable changes which take place in the structure of our own bodies between youth and old age4 ,perhaps the most striking illustration of this is to be found in the case of some ,echinoderms1 concerning which ,mr4 ,darwin tells us1 that 8the animal in the second stage of development is formed almost like a bud within the animal of the first stage1 the latter being then cast off like an old vestment1 yet sometimes maintaining for a short period an independent vitality0 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 p4 #cfb1 ed4 #ahge74 ,nor yet does personality depend upon any consciousness or sense of such personality on the part of the creature itself--it is not likely that the moth remembers having been a caterpillar1 more than we ourselves remember having been children of a day old4 ,it depends simply upon the fact that the various phases of existence have been linked together1 by links which we agree in considering sufficient to cause identity1 and that they have flowed the one out of the other in what we see as a continuous1 though it may be at times1 a troubled stream4 ,this is the very essence of personality1 but it involves the probable unity of all animal and vegetable life1 as being1 in reality1 nothing but one single creature1 of which the component members are but1 as it were1 blood corpuscles or individual cells2 life being a sort of leaven1 which1 if once introduced into the world1 will leaven it altogether2 or of fire1 which will consume all it can burn2 or of air or water1 which will turn most things into themselves4 ,indeed1 no difficulty would probably be felt about admitting the continued existence of personal identity between parents and their offspring through all time 7there being no sudden break at any time between the existence of any maternal parent and that of its offspring71 were it not that after a certain time the changes in outward appearance between descendants and ancestors become very great1 the two seeming to stand so far apart1 that it seems absurd in any way to say that they are one and the same being2 much in the same way as after a time--though exactly when no one can say--the ,thames becomes the sea4 ,moreover1 the separation of the identity is practically of far greater importance to it than its continuance4 ,we want to be ourselves2 we do not want any one else to claim part and parcel of our identity4 ,this community of identities is not found to answer in everyday life4 ,when then our love of independence is backed up by the fact that continuity of life between parents and offspring is a matter which depends on things which are a good deal hidden1 and that thus birth gives us an opportunity of pretending that there has been a sudden leap into a separate life2 when also we have regard to the utter ignorance of embryology1 which prevailed till quite recently1 it is not surprising that our ordinary language should be found to have regard to what is important and obvious1 rather than to what is not quite obvious1 and is quite unimportant4 ,personality is the creature of time and space1 changing1 as time changes1 imperceptibly2 we are therefore driven to deal with it as with all continuous and blending things2 as with time1 for example1 itself1 which we divide into days1 and seasons1 and times1 and years1 into divisions that are often arbitrary1 but coincide1 on the whole1 as nearly as we can make them do so1 with the more marked changes which we can observe4 ,we lay hold1 in fact1 of anything we can catch2 the most important feature in any existence as regards ourselves being that which we can best lay hold of rather than that which is most essential to the existence itself4 ,we can lay hold of the continued personality of the egg and the moth into which the egg develops1 but it is less easy to catch sight of the continued personality between the moth and the eggs which she lays2 yet the one continuation of personality is just as true and free from quibble as the other4 ,a moth becomes each egg that she lays1 and that she does so1 she will in good time show by doing1 now that she has got a fresh start1 as near as may be what she did when first she was an egg1 and then a moth1 before2 and this ,i take it1 so far as ,i can gather from looking at life and things generally1 she would not be able to do if she had not travelled the same road often enough already1 to be able to know it in her sleep and blindfold1 that is to say1 to remember it without any conscious act of memory4 ,so also a grain of wheat is linked with an ear1 containing1 we will say1 a dozen grains1 by a series of changes so subtle that we cannot say at what moment the original grain became the blade1 nor when each ear of the head became possessed of an individual centre of action4 ,to say that each grain of the head is personally identical with the original grain would perhaps be an abuse of terms2 but it can be no abuse to say that each grain is a continuation of the personality of the original grain1 and if so1 of every grain in the chain of its own ancestry2 and that1 as being such a continuation1 it must be stored with the memories and experiences of its past existences1 to be recollected under the circumstances most favourable to recollection1 i4e41 when under similar conditions to those when the impression was last made and last remembered4 ,truly1 then1 in each case the new egg and the new grain is the egg1 and the grain from which its parent sprang1 as completely as the full-grown ox is the calf from which it has grown4 ,again1 in the case of some weeping trees1 whose boughs spring up into fresh trees when they have reached the ground1 who shall say at what time they cease to be members of the parent tree8 ,in the case of cuttings from plants it is easy to elude the difficulty by making a parade of the sharp and sudden act of separation from the parent stock1 but this is only a piece of mental sleight of hand2 the cutting remains as much part of its parent plant as though it had never been severed from it2 it goes on profiting by the experience which it had before it was cut off1 as much as though it had never been cut off at all4 ,this will be more readily seen in the case of worms which have been cut in half4 ,let a worm be cut in half1 and the two halves will become fresh worms2 which of them is the original worm8 ,surely both4 ,perhaps no simpler case than this could readily be found of the manner in which personality eludes us1 the moment we try to investigate its real nature4 ,there are few ideas which on first consideration appear so simple1 and none which becomes more utterly incapable of limitation or definition as soon as it is examined closely4 ,finally1 ,mr4 ,darwin 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 p4 #ch1 ed4 #ahge71 writes-- 8,even with plants multiplied by bulbs1 layers1 c41 which may in one sense be said to form part of the same individual10 c41 c42 and again1 p4 #eh1 8,the same rule holds good with plants when propagated by bulbs1 offsets1 c41 which in one sense still form parts of the same individual10 c4 ,in each of these passages it is plain that the difficulty of separating the personality of the offspring from that of the parent plant is present to his mind4 ,yet1 p4 #cea of the same volume as above1 he tells us that asexual generation 8is effected in many ways--by the formation of buds of various kinds1 and by fissiparous generation1 that is1 by spontaneous or artificial division40 ,the multiplication of plants by bulbs and layers clearly comes under this head1 nor will any essential difference be felt between one kind of asexual generation and another2 if1 then1 the offspring formed by bulbs and layers is in one sense part of the original plant1 so also1 it would appear1 is all offspring developed by asexual generation in its manifold phrases4 ,if we now turn to p4 #ceg1 we find the conclusion arrived at1 as it would appear1 on the most satisfactory evidence1 that 8sexual and asexual reproduction are not seen to differ essentially2 and 4 4 4 that asexual reproduction1 the power of regrowth1 and development are all parts of one and the same great law40 ,does it not then follow1 quite reasonably and necessarily1 that all offspring1 however generated1 is in one sense part of the individuality of its parent or parents4 ,the question1 therefore1 turns upon 8in what sense0 this may be said to be the case8 ,to which ,i would venture to reply1 8,in the same sense as the parent plant 7which is but the representative of the outside matter which it has assimilated during growth1 and of its own powers of development7 is the same individual that it was when it was itself an offset1 or a cow the same individual that it was when it was a calf--but no otherwise40 ,not much difficulty will be felt about supposing the offset of a plant1 to be imbued with the memory of the past history of the plant of which it is an offset4 ,it is part of the plant itself2 and will know whatever the plant knows4 ,why1 then1 should there be more difficulty in supposing the offspring of the highest mammals1 to remember in a profound but unselfconscious way1 the anterior history of the creatures of which they too have been part and parcel8 ,personal identity1 then1 is much like species itself4 ,it is now1 thanks to ,mr4 ,darwin1 generally held that species blend or have blended into one another2 so that any possibility of arrangement and apparent subdivision into definite groups1 is due to the suppression by death both of individuals and whole genera1 which1 had they been now existing1 would have linked all living beings by a series of gradations so subtle that little classification could have been attempted4 ,how it is that the one great personality of life as a whole1 should have split itself up into so many centres of thought and action1 each one of which is wholly1 or at any rate nearly1 unconscious of its connection with the other members1 instead of having grown up into a huge polyp1 or as it were coral reef or compound animal over the whole world1 which should be conscious but of its own one single existence2 how it is that the daily waste of this creature should be carried on by the conscious death of its individual members1 instead of by the unconscious waste of tissue which goes on in the bodies of each individual 7if indeed the tissue which we waste daily in our own bodies is so unconscious of its birth and death as we suppose72 how1 again1 that the daily repair of this huge creature life should have become decentralised1 and be carried on by conscious reproduction on the part of its component items1 instead of by the unconscious nutrition of the whole from a single centre1 as the nutrition of our own bodies would appear 7though perhaps falsely7 to be carried on2 these are matters upon which ,i dare not speculate here1 but on which some reflections may follow in subsequent chapters4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,our ,,subordinate ,,personalities4 ,,we have seen that we can apprehend neither the beginning nor the end of our personality1 which comes up out of infinity as an island out of the sea1 so gently1 that none can say when it is first visible on our mental horizon1 and fades away in the case of those who leave offspring1 so imperceptibly that none can say when it is out of sight4 ,but1 like the island1 whether we can see it or no1 it is always there4 ,not only are we infinite as regards time1 but we are so also as regards extension1 being so linked on to the external world that we cannot say where we either begin or end4 ,if those who so frequently declare that man is a finite creature would point out his boundaries1 it might lead to a better understanding4 ,nevertheless1 we are in the habit of considering that our personality1 or soul1 no matter where it begins or ends1 and no matter what it comprises1 is nevertheless a single thing1 uncompounded of other souls4 ,yet there is nothing more certain than that this is not at all the case1 but that every individual person is a compound creature1 being made up of an infinite number of distinct centres of sensation and will1 each one of which is personal1 and has a soul and individual existence1 a reproductive system1 intelligence1 and memory of its own1 with probably its hopes and fears1 its times of scarcity and repletion1 and a strong conviction that it is itself the centre of the universe4 ,true1 no one is aware of more than one individuality in his own person at one time4 ,we are1 indeed1 often greatly influenced by other people1 so much so1 that we act on many occasions in accordance with their will rather than our own1 making our actions answer to their sensations1 and register the conclusions of their cerebral action and not our own2 for the time being1 we become so completely part of them1 that we are ready to do things most distasteful and dangerous to us1 if they think it for their advantage that we should do so4 ,thus we sometimes see people become mere processes of their wives or nearest relations4 ,yet there is a something which blinds us1 so that we cannot see how completely we are possessed by the souls which influence us upon these occasions4 ,we still think we are ourselves1 and ourselves only1 and are as certain as we can be of any fact1 that we are single sentient beings1 uncompounded of other sentient beings1 and that our action is determined by the sole operation of a single will4 ,but in reality1 over and above this possession of our souls by others of our own species1 the will of the lower animals often enters into our bodies and possesses them1 making us do as they will1 and not as we will2 as1 for example1 when people try to drive pigs1 or are run away with by a restive horse1 or are attacked by a savage animal which masters them4 ,it is absurd to say that a person is a single 8ego0 when he is in the clutches of a lion4 ,even when we are alone1 and uninfluenced by other people except in so far as we remember their wishes1 we yet generally conform to the usages which the current feeling of our peers has taught us to respect2 their will having so mastered our original nature1 that1 do what we may1 we can never again separate ourselves and dwell in the isolation of our own single personality4 ,and even though we succeeded in this1 and made a clean sweep of every mental influence which had ever been brought to bear upon us1 and though at the same time we were alone in some desert where there was neither beast nor bird to attract our attention or in any way influence our action1 yet we could not escape the parasites which abound within us2 whose action1 as every medical man well knows1 is often such as to drive men to the commission of grave crimes1 or to throw them into convulsions1 make lunatics of them1 kill them--when but for the existence and course of conduct pursued by these parasites they would have done no wrong to any man4 ,these parasites--are they part of us or no8 ,some are plainly not so in any strict sense of the word1 yet their action may1 in cases which it is unnecessary to detail1 affect us so powerfully that we are irresistibly impelled to act in such or such a manner2 and yet we are as wholly unconscious of any impulse outside of our own 8ego0 as though they were part of ourselves2 others again are essential to our very existence1 as the corpuscles of the blood1 which the best authorities concur in supposing to be composed of an infinite number of living souls1 on whose welfare the healthy condition of our blood1 and hence of our whole bodies1 depends4 ,we breathe that they may breathe1 not that we may do so2 we only care about oxygen in so far as the infinitely small beings which course up and down in our veins care about it3 the whole arrangement and mechanism of our lungs may be our doing1 but is for their convenience1 and they only serve us because it suits their purpose to do so1 as long as we serve them4 ,who shall draw the line between the parasites which are part of us1 and the parasites which are not part of us8 ,or again1 between the influence of those parasites which are within us1 but are yet not us1 and the external influence of other sentient beings and our fellow-men8 ,there is no line possible4 ,everything melts away into everything else2 there are no hard edges2 it is only from a little distance that we see the effect as of individual features and existences4 ,when we go close up1 there is nothing but a blur and confused mass of apparently meaningless touches1 as in a picture by ,turner4 ,the following passage from ,mr4 ,darwin's provisional theory of ,pangenesis1 will sufficiently show that the above is no strange and paradoxical view put forward wantonly1 but that it follows as a matter of course from the conclusions arrived at by those who are acknowledged leaders in the scientific world4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes thus3-- 8,the functional independence of the elements or units of the body4--,physiologists agree that the whole organism consists of a multitude of elemental parts1 which are to a great extent independent of one another4 ,each organ1 says ,claude ,bernard1 has its proper life1 its autonomy2 it can develop and reproduce itself independently of the adjoining tissues4 ,a great ,german authority1 ,virchow1 asserts still more emphatically that each system consists of #8an enormous mass of minute centres of action4 4 4 4 ,every element has its own special action1 and even though it derive its stimulus to activity from other parts1 yet alone effects the actual performance of duties4 4 4 4 ,every single epithelial and muscular fibre-cell leads a sort of parasitical existence in relation to the rest of the body4 4 4 4 ,every single bone corpuscle really possesses conditions of nutrition peculiar to itself4' ,each element1 as ,sir ,j4 ,paget remarks1 lives its appointed time1 and then dies1 and is replaced after being cast off and absorbed4 ,i presume that no physiologist doubts that1 for instance1 each bone corpuscle of the finger differs from the corresponding corpuscle of the corresponding joint of the toe10 c41 c4 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 pp4 #cfd1 #cfe1 ed4 #ahge74 ,in a work on heredity by ,m4 ,ribot1 ,i find him saying1 8,some recent authors attribute a memory0 7and if so1 surely every attribute of complete individuality7 8to every organic element of the body20 among them ,dr4 ,maudsley1 who is quoted by ,m4 ,ribot1 as saying1 8,the permanent effects of a particular virus1 such as that of the variola1 in the constitution1 shows that the organic element remembers for the remainder of its life certain modifications it has received4 ,the manner in which a cicatrix in a child's finger grows with the growth of the body1 proves1 as has been shown by ,paget1 that the organic element of the part does not forget the impression it has received4 ,what has been said about the different nervous centres of the body demonstrates the existence of a memory in the nerve cells diffused through the heart and intestines2 in those of the spinal cord1 in the cells of the motor ganglia1 and in the cells of the cortical substance of the cerebal hemispheres40 ,now1 if words have any meaning at all1 it must follow from the passages quoted above1 that each cell in the human body is a person with an intelligent soul1 of a low class1 perhaps1 but still differing from our own more complex soul in degree1 and not in kind2 and1 like ourselves1 being born1 living1 and dying4 ,so that each single creature1 whether man or beast1 proves to be as a ray of white light1 which1 though single1 is compounded of the red1 blue1 and yellow rays4 ,it would appear1 then1 as though 8we10 8our souls10 or 8selves10 or 8personalities10 or by whatever name we may prefer to be called1 are but the consensus and full flowing stream of countless sensations and impulses on the part of our tributary souls or 8selves10 who probably know no more that we exist1 and that they exist as part of us1 than a microscopic water-flea knows the results of spectrum analysis1 or than an agricultural labourer knows the working of the ,british constitution3 and of whom we know no more1 until some misconduct on our part1 or some confusion of ideas on theirs1 has driven them into insurrection1 than we do of the habits and feelings of some class widely separated from our own4 ,these component souls are of many and very different natures1 living in territories which are to them vast continents1 and rivers1 and seas1 but which are yet only the bodies of our other component souls2 coral reefs and sponge-beds within us2 the animal itself being a kind of mean proportional between its house and its soul1 and none being able to say where house ends and animal begins1 more than they can say where animal ends and soul begins4 ,for our bones within us are but inside walls and buttresses1 that is to say1 houses constructed of lime and stone1 as it were1 by coral insects2 and our houses without us are but outside bones1 a kind of exterior skeleton or shell1 so that we perish of cold if permanently and suddenly deprived of the coverings which warm us and cherish us1 as the wing of a hen cherishes her chickens4 ,if we consider the shells of many living creatures1 we shall find it hard to say whether they are rather houses1 or part of the animal itself1 being1 as they are1 inseparable from the animal1 without the destruction of its personality4 ,is it possible1 then1 to avoid imagining that if we have within us so many tributary souls1 so utterly different from the soul which they unite to form1 that they neither can perceive us1 nor we them1 though it is in us that they live and move and have their being1 and though we are what we are1 solely as the result of their co-operation--is it possible to avoid imagining that we may be ourselves atoms1 undesignedly combining to form some vaster being1 though we are utterly incapable of perceiving that any such being exists1 or of realising the scheme or scope of our own combination8 ,and this1 too1 not a spiritual being1 which1 without matter1 or what we think matter of some sort1 is as complete nonsense to us as though men bade us love and lean upon an intelligent vacuum1 but a being with what is virtually flesh and blood and bones2 with organs1 senses1 dimensions1 in some way analogous to our own1 into some other part of which being1 at the time of our great change we must infallibly re-enter1 starting clean anew1 with bygones bygones1 and no more ache for ever from either age or antecedents4 ,truly1 sufficient for the life is the evil thereof4 ,any speculations of ours concerning the nature of such a being1 must be as futile and little valuable as those of a blood corpuscle might be expected to be concerning the nature of man2 but if ,i were myself a blood corpuscle1 ,i should be amused at making the discovery that ,i was not only enjoying life in my own sphere1 but was bon fide part of an animal which would not die with myself1 and in which ,i might thus think of myself as continuing to live to all eternity1 or to what1 as far as my power of thought would carry me1 must seem practically eternal4 ,but1 after all1 the amusement would be of a rather dreary nature4 ,on the other hand1 if ,i were the being of whom such an introspective blood corpuscle was a component item1 ,i should conceive he served me better by attending to my blood and making himself a successful corpuscle1 than by speculating about my nature4 ,he would serve me best by serving himself best1 without being over curious4 ,i should expect that my blood might suffer if his brain were to become too active4 ,if1 therefore1 ,i could discover the vein in which he was1 ,i should let him out to begin life anew in some other and1 qu me1 more profitable capacity4 ,with the units of our bodies it is as with the stars of heaven3 there is neither speech nor language1 but their voices are heard among them4 ,our will is the fiat of their collective wisdom1 as sanctioned in their parliament1 the brain2 it is they who make us do whatever we do--it is they who should be rewarded if they have done well1 or hanged if they have committed murder4 ,when the balance of power is well preserved among them1 when they respect each other's rights and work harmoniously together1 then we thrive and are well2 if we are ill1 it is because they are quarrelling with themselves1 or are gone on strike for this or that addition to their environment1 and our doctor must pacify or chastise them as best he may4 ,they are we and we are they2 and when we die it is but a redistribution of the balance of power among them or a change of dynasty1 the result1 it may be1 of heroic struggle1 with more epics and love romances than we could read from now to the ,millennium1 if they were so written down that we could comprehend them4 ,it is plain1 then1 that the more we examine the question of personality the more it baffles us1 the only safeguard against utter confusion and idleness of thought being to fall back upon the superficial and common sense view1 and refuse to tolerate discussions which seem to hold out little prospect of commercial value1 and which would compel us1 if logically followed1 to be at the inconvenience of altering our opinions upon matters which we have come to consider as settled4 ,and we observe that this is what is practically done by some of our ablest philosophers1 who seem unwilling1 if one may say so without presumption1 to accept the conclusions to which their own experiments and observations would seem to point4 ,dr4 ,carpenter1 for example1 quotes the well-known experiments upon headless frogs4 ,if we cut off a frog's head and pinch any part of its skin1 the animal at once begins to move away with the same regularity as though the brain had not been removed4 ,flourens took guinea-pigs1 deprived them of the cerebral lobes1 and then irritated their skin2 the animals immediately walked1 leaped1 and trotted about1 but when the irritation was discontinued they ceased to move4 ,headless birds1 under excitation1 can still perform with their wings the rhythmic movements of flying4 ,but here are some facts more curious still1 and more difficult of explanation4 ,if we take a frog or a strong and healthy triton1 and subject it to various experiments2 if we touch1 pinch1 or burn it with acetic acid1 and if then1 after decapitating the animal1 we subject it to the same experiments1 it will be seen that the reactions are exactly the same2 it will strive to be free of the pain1 and to shake off the acetic acid that is burning it2 it will bring its foot up to the part of its body that is irritated1 and this movement of the member will follow the irritation wherever it may be produced4 ,the above is mainly taken from ,m4 ,ribot's work on heredity rather than ,dr4 ,carpenter's1 because ,m4 ,ribot tells us that the head of the frog was actually cut off1 a fact which does not appear so plainly in ,dr4 ,carpenter's allusion to the same experiments4 ,but ,dr4 ,carpenter tells us that after the brain of a frog has been removed--which would seem to be much the same thing as though its head were cut off--8if acetic acid be applied over the upper and under part of the thigh1 the foot of the same side will wipe it away2 but if that foot be cut off1 after some ineffectual efforts and a short period of inaction10 during which it is hard not to surmise that the headless body is considering what it had better do under the circumstances1 8the same movement will be made by the foot of the opposite side10 which1 to ordinary people1 would convey the impression that the headless body was capable of feeling the impressions it had received1 and of reasoning upon them by a psychological act2 and this of course involves the possession of a soul of some sort4 ,here is a frog whose right thigh you burn with acetic acid4 ,very naturally it tries to get at the place with its right foot to remove the acid4 ,you then cut off the frog's head1 and put more acetic acid on the some place3 the headless frog1 or rather the body of the late frog1 does just what the frog did before its head was cut off--it tries to get at the place with its right foot4 ,you now cut off its right foot3 the headless body deliberates1 and after a while tries to do with its left foot what it can no longer do with its right4 ,plain matter-of-fact people will draw their own inference4 ,they will not be seduced from the superficial view of the matter4 ,they will say that the headless body can still1 to some extent1 feel1 think1 and act1 and if so1 that it must have a living soul4 ,dr4 ,carpenter writes as follows3--8,now the performance of these1 as well as of many other movements1 that show a most remarkable adaptation to a purpose1 might be supposed to indicate that sensations are called up by the impressions1 and that the animal can not only feel1 but can voluntarily direct its movements so as to get rid of the irritation which annoys it4 ,but such an inference would be inconsistent with other facts4 ,in the first place1 the motions performed under such circumstances are never spontaneous1 but are always excited by a stimulus of some kind40 ,here we pause to ask ourselves whether any action of any creature under any circumstances is ever excited without 8stimulus of some kind10 and unless we can answer this question in the affirmative1 it is not easy to see how ,dr4 ,carpenter's objection is valid4 8,thus10 he continues1 8a decapitated frog0 7here then we have it that the frog's head was actually cut off7 8after the first violent convulsive moments occasioned by the operation have passed away1 remains at rest until it is touched2 and then the leg1 or its whole body may be thrown into sudden action1 which suddenly subsides again40 7,how does this quiescence when it no longer feels anything show that the 8leg or whole body0 had not perceived something which made it feel when it was not quiescent87--8,again we find that such movements may be performed not only when the brain has been removed1 the spinal cord remaining entire1 but also when the spinal cord has been itself cut across1 so as to be divided into two or more portions1 each of them completely isolated from each other1 and from other parts of the nervous centres4 ,thus1 if the head of a frog be cut off1 and its spinal cord be divided in the middle of the back1 so that its fore legs remain connected with the upper part1 and its hind legs with the lower1 each pair of members may be excited to movements by stimulants applied to itself2 but the two pairs will not exhibit any consentaneous motions1 as they will do when the spinal cord is undivided40 ,this may be put perhaps more plainly thus4 ,if you take a frog and cut it into three pieces--say1 the head for one piece1 the fore legs and shoulder for another1 and the hind legs for a third--and then irritate any one of these pieces1 you will find it move much as it would have moved under like irritation if the animal had remained undivided1 but you will no longer find any concert between the movements of the three pieces2 that is to say1 if you irritate the head1 the other two pieces will remain quiet1 and if you irritate the hind legs1 you will excite no action in the fore legs or head4 ,dr4 ,carpenter continues3 8,or if the spinal cord be cut across without the removal of the brain1 the lower limbs may be excited to movement by an appropriate stimulant1 though the animal has clearly no power over them1 whilst the upper part remains under its control as completely as before40 ,why are the head and shoulders 8the animal0 more than the hind legs under these circumstances8 ,neither half can exist long without the other2 the two parts1 therefore1 being equally important to each other1 we have surely as good a right to claim the title of 8the animal0 for the hind legs1 and to maintain that they have no power over the head and shoulders1 as any one else has to claim the animalship for these last4 ,what we say is1 that the animal has ceased to exist as a frog on being cut in half1 and that the two halves are no longer1 either of them1 the frog1 but are simply pieces of still living organism1 each of which has a soul of its own1 being capable of sensation1 and of intelligent psychological action as the consequence of sensations1 though the one part has probably a much higher and more intelligent soul than the other1 and neither part has a soul for a moment comparable in power and durability to that of the original frog4 8,now it is scarcely conceivable10 continues ,dr ,carpenter1 8that in this last case sensations should be felt and volition exercised through the instrumentality of that portion of the spinal cord which remains connected with the nerves of the posterior extremities1 but which is cut off from the brain4 ,for if it were so1 there must be two distinct centres of sensation and will in the same animal1 the attributes of the brain not being affected2 and by dividing the spinal cord into two or more segments we might thus create in the body of one animal two or more such independent centres in addition to that which holds its proper place in the head40 ,in the face of the facts before us1 it does not seen far-fetched to suppose that there are two1 or indeed an infinite number of centres of sensation and will in an animal1 the attributes of whose brain are not affected but that these centres1 while the brain is intact1 habitually act in connection with and in subordination to that central authority2 as in the ordinary state of the fish trade1 fish is caught1 we will say1 at ,yarmouth1 sent up to ,london1 and then sent down to ,yarmouth again to be eaten1 instead of being eaten at ,yarmouth when caught4 ,but from the phenomena exhibited by three pieces of an animal1 it is impossible to argue that the causes of the phenomena were present in the quondam animal itself2 the memory of an infinite series of generations having so habituated the local centres of sensation and will1 to act in concert with the central government1 that as long as they can get at that government1 they are absolutely incapable of acting independently4 ,when thrown on their own resources1 they are so demoralised by ages of dependence on the brain1 that they die after a few efforts at self-assertion1 from sheer unfamiliarity with the position1 and inability to recognise themselves when disjointed rudely from their habitual associations4 ,in conclusion1 ,dr4 ,carpenter says1 8,to say that two or more distinct centres of sensation and will are present in such a case1 would really be the same as saying that we have the power of constituting two or more distinct egos in one body1 which is manifestly absurd40 ,one sees the absurdity of maintaining that we can make one frog into two frogs by cutting a frog into two pieces1 but there is no absurdity in believing that the two pieces have minor centres of sensation and intelligence within themselves1 which1 when the animal is entire1 act in much concert with the brain1 and with each other1 that it is not easy to detect their originally autonomous character1 but which1 when deprived of their power of acting in concert1 are thrown back upon earlier habit1 now too long forgotten to be capable of permanent resumption4 ,illustrations are apt to mislead1 nevertheless they may perhaps be sometimes tolerated4 ,suppose1 for example1 that ,london to the extent1 say1 of a circle with a six-mile radius from ,charing ,cross1 were utterly annihilated in the space of five minutes during the ,session of ,parliament4 ,suppose1 also1 that two entirely impassable barriers1 say of five miles in width1 half a mile high1 and red hot1 were thrown across ,england2 one from ,gloucester to ,harwich1 and another from ,liverpool to ,hull1 and at the same time the sea were to become a mass of molten lava1 so no water communication should be possible2 the political1 mercantile1 social1 and intellectual life of the country would be convulsed in a manner which it is hardly possible to realise4 ,hundreds of thousands would die through the dislocation of existing arrangements4 ,nevertheless1 each of the three parts into which ,england was divided would show signs of provincial life for which it would find certain imperfect organisms ready to hand4 ,bristol1 ,birmingham1 ,liverpool1 and ,manchester1 accustomed though they are to act in subordination to ,london1 would probably take up the reins of government in their several sections2 they would make their town councils into local governments1 appoint judges from the ablest of their magistrates1 organise relief committees1 and endeavour as well as they could to remove any acetic acid that might be now poured on ,wiltshire1 ,warwickshire1 or ,northumberland1 but no concert between the three divisions of the country would be any longer possible4 ,should we be justified1 under these circumstances1 in calling any of the three parts of ,england1 ,england8 ,or1 again1 when we observed the provincial action to be as nearly like that of the original undivided nation as circumstances would allow1 should we be justified in saying that the action1 such as it was1 was not political8 ,and1 lastly1 should we for a moment think that an admission that the provincial action was of a bon fide political character would involve the supposition that ,england1 undivided1 had more than one 8ego0 as ,england1 no matter how many subordinate 8egos0 might go to the making of it1 each one of which proved1 on emergency1 to be capable of a feeble autonomy8 ,m4 ,ribot would seem to take a juster view of the phenomenon when he says 7p4 #bbb of the ,english translation7-- 8,we can hardly say that here the movements are co-ordinated like those of a machine2 the acts of the animal are adapted to a special end2 we find in them the characters of intelligence and will1 a knowledge and choice of means1 since they are as variable as the cause which provokes them4 8,if these1 then1 and similar acts1 were such that both the impressions which produced them and the acts themselves were perceived by the animal1 would they not be called psychological8 ,is there not in them all that constitutes an intelligent act--adaptation of means to ends2 not a general and vague adaptation1 but a determinate adaptation to a determinate end8 ,in the reflex action we find all that constitutes in some sort the very groundwork of an intelligent act--that is to say1 the same series of stages1 in the same order1 with the same relations between them4 ,we have thus1 in the reflex act1 all that constitutes the psychological act except consciousness4 ,the reflex act1 which is physiological1 differs in nothing from the psychological act1 save only in this--that it is without consciousness40 ,the only remark which suggests itself upon this1 is that we have no right to say that the part of the animal which moves does not also perceive its own act of motion1 as much as it has perceived the impression which has caused it to move4 ,it is plain 8the animal0 cannot do so1 for the animal cannot be said to be any longer in existence4 ,half a frog is not a frog2 nevertheless1 if the hind legs are capable1 as ,m4 ,ribot appears to admit1 of 8perceiving the impression0 which produces their action1 and if in that action there is 7and there would certainly appear to be so7 8all that constitutes an intelligent act1 4 4 4 a determinate adaptation to a determinate end10 one fails to see on what ground they should be supposed to be incapable of perceiving their own action1 in which case the action of the hind legs becomes distinctly psychological4 ,secondly1 ,m4 ,ribot appears to forget that it is the tendency of all psychological action to become unconscious on being frequently repeated1 and that no line can be drawn between psychological acts and those reflex acts which he calls physiological4 ,all we can say is1 that there are acts which we do without knowing that we do them2 but the analogy of many habits which we have been able to watch in their passage from laborious consciousness to perfect unconsciousness1 would suggest that all action is really psychological1 only that the soul's action becomes invisible to ourselves after it has been repeated sufficiently often--that there is1 in fact1 a law as simple as in the case of optics or gravitation1 whereby conscious perception of any action shall vary inversely as the square1 say1 of its being repeated4 ,it is easy to understand the advantage to the individual of this power of doing things rightly without thinking about them2 for were there no such power1 the attention would be incapable of following the multitude of matters which would be continually arresting it2 those animals which had developed a power of working automatically1 and without a recurrence to first principles when they had once mastered any particular process1 would1 in the common course of events1 stand a better chance of continuing their species1 and thus of transmitting their new power to their descendants4 ,m4 ,ribot declines to pursue the subject further1 and has only cursorily alluded to it4 ,he writes1 however1 that1 on the 8obscure problem0 of the difference between reflex and psychological actions1 some say1 8when there can be no consciousness1 because the brain is wanting1 there is1 in spite of appearances1 only mechanism10 whilst others maintain1 that 8when there is selection1 reflection1 psychical action1 there must also be consciousness in spite of appearances40 ,a little later 7p4 #bbc71 he says1 8,it is quite possible that if a headless animal could live a sufficient length of time0 7that is to say1 if the hind legs of an animal could live a sufficient length of time without the brain71 8there would be found in it0 7them7 8a consciousness like that of the lower species1 which would consist merely in the faculty of apprehending the external world40 7,why merely8 ,it is more than apprehending the outside world to be able to try to do a thing with one's left foot1 when one finds that one cannot do it with one's right47 8,it would not be correct to say that the amphioxus1 the only one among fishes and vertebrata which has a spinal cord without a brain1 has no consciousness because it has no brain2 and if it be admitted that the little ganglia of the invertebrata can form a consciousness1 the same may hold good for the spinal cord40 ,we conclude1 therefore1 that it is within the common scope and meaning of the words 8personal identity10 not only that one creature can become many as the moth becomes manifold in her eggs1 but that each individual may be manifold in the sense of being compounded of a vast number of subordinate individualities which have their separate lives within him1 with their hopes1 and fears1 and intrigues1 being born and dying within us1 many generations1 of them during our single lifetime4 8,an organic being10 writes ,mr4 ,darwin1 8is a microcosm1 a little universe1 formed of a host of self-propagating organisms1 inconceivably minute1 and numerous as the stars in heaven40 ,as these myriads of smaller organisms are parts and processes of us1 so are we but parts and processes of life at large4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,application ,,of ,,the ,,foregoing ,,chapters--,,the ,,assimilation ,,of ,,outside ,,matter4 ,,let us now return to the position which we left at the end of the fourth chapter4 ,we had then concluded that the self-development of each new life in succeeding generations--the various stages through which it passes 7as it would appear1 at first sight1 without rhyme or reason7--the manner in which it prepares structures of the most surpassing intricacy and delicacy1 for which it has no use at the time when it prepares them--and the many elaborate instincts which it exhibits immediately on1 and indeed before1 birth--all point in the direction of habit and memory1 as the only causes which could produce them4 ,why should the embryo of any animal go through so many stages--embryological allusions to forefathers of a widely different type8 ,and why1 again1 should the germs of the same kind of creature always go through the same stages8 ,if the germ of any animal now living is1 in its simplest state1 but part of the personal identity of one of the original germs of all life whatsoever1 and hence1 if any now living organism must be considered without quibble as being itself millions of years old1 and as imbued with an intense though unconscious memory of all that it has done sufficiently often to have made a permanent impression2 if this be so1 we can answer the above questions perfectly well4 ,the creature goes through so many intermediate stages between its earliest state as life at all1 and its latest development1 for the simplest of all reasons1 namely1 because this is the road by which it has always hitherto travelled to its present differentiation2 this is the road it knows1 and into every turn and up or down of which1 it has been guided by the force of circumstances and the balance of considerations4 ,these1 acting in such a manner for such and such a time1 caused it to travel in such and such fashion1 which fashion having been once sufficiently established1 becomes a matter of trick or routine to which the creature is still a slave1 and in which it confirms itself by repetition in each succeeding generation4 ,thus ,i suppose1 as almost every one else1 so far as ,i can gather1 supposes1 that we are descended from ancestors of widely different characters to our own4 ,if we could see some of our forefathers a million years back1 we should find them unlike anything we could call man2 if we were to go back fifty million years1 we should find them1 it may be1 fishes pure and simple1 breathing through gills1 and unable to exist for many minutes in air4 ,it is admitted on all hands that there is more or less analogy between the embryological development of the individual1 and the various phases or conditions of life through which his forefathers have passed4 ,i suppose1 then1 that the fish of fifty million years back and the man of to-day are one single living being1 in the same sense1 or very nearly so1 as the octogenarian is one single living being with the infant from which he has grown2 and that the fish has lived himself into manhood1 not as we live out our little life1 living1 and living1 and living till we die1 but living by pulsations1 so to speak2 living so far1 and after a certain time going into a new body1 and throwing off the old2 making his body much as we make anything that we want1 and have often made already1 that is to say1 as nearly as may be in the same way as he made it last time2 also that he is as unable as we ourselves are1 to make what he wants without going through the usual processes with which he is familiar1 even though there may be other better ways of doing the same thing1 which might not be far to seek1 if the creature thought them better1 and had not got so accustomed to such and such a method1 that he would only be baffled and put out by any attempt to teach him otherwise4 ,and this oneness of personality between ourselves and our supposed fishlike ancestors of many millions of years ago1 must hold also between each individual one of us and the single pair of fishes from which we are each 7on the present momentary hypothesis7 descended2 and it must also hold between such pair of fishes and all their descendants besides man1 it may be some of them birds1 and others fishes2 all these descendants1 whether human or otherwise1 being but the way in which the creature 7which was a pair of fishes when we first took it in hand though it was a hundred thousand other things as well1 and had been all manner of other things before any part of it became fishlike7 continues to exist--its manner1 in fact1 of growing4 ,as the manner in which the human body grows is by the continued birth and death1 in our single lifetime1 of many generations of cells which we know nothing about1 but say that we have had only one hand or foot all our lives1 when we have really had many1 one after another2 so this huge compound creature1 ,,life1 probably thinks itself but one single animal whose component cells1 as it may imagine1 grow1 and it may be waste and repair1 but do not die4 ,it may be that the cells of which we are built up1 and which we have already seen must be considered as separate persons1 each one of them with a life and memory of its own--it may be that these cells reckon time in a manner inconceivable by us1 so that no word can convey any idea of it whatever4 ,what may to them appear a long and painful process may to us be so instantaneous as to escape us altogether1 we wanting some microscope to show us the details of time4 ,if1 in like manner1 we were to allow our imagination to conceive the existence of a being as much in need of a microscope for our time and affairs as we for those of our own component cells1 the years would be to such a being but as the winkings or the twinklings of an eye4 ,would he think1 then1 that all the ants and flies of one wink were different from those of the next8 or would he not rather believe that they were always the same flies1 and1 again1 always the same men and women1 if he could see them at all1 and if the whole human race did not appear to him as a sort of spreading and lichen-like growth over the earth1 not differentiated at all into individuals8 ,with the help of a microscope and the intelligent exercise of his reason1 he would in time conceive the truth4 ,he would put ,covent ,garden ,market on the field of his microscope1 and would perhaps write a great deal of nonsense about the unerring 8instinct0 which taught each costermonger to recognise his own basket or his own donkey-cart2 and this1 mutatis mutandis1 is what we are getting to do as regards our own bodies4 ,what ,i wish is1 to make the same sort of step in an upward direction which has already been taken in a downward one1 and to show reason for thinking that we are only component atoms of a single compound creature1 ,,life1 which has probably a distinct conception of its own personality though none whatever of ours1 more than we of our own units4 ,i wish also to show reason for thinking that this creature1 ,,life1 has only come to be what it is1 by the same sort of process as that by which any human art or manufacture is developed1 i4e41 through constantly doing the same thing over and over again1 beginning from something which is barely recognisable as faith1 or as the desire to know1 or do1 or live at all1 and as to the origin of which we are in utter darkness1--and growing till it is first conscious of effort1 then conscious of power1 then powerful with but little consciousness1 and finally1 so powerful and so charged with memory as to be absolutely without all self-consciousness whatever1 except as regards its latest phases in each of its many differentiations1 or when placed in such new circumstances as compel it to choose between death and a reconsideration of its position4 ,no conjecture can be hazarded as to how the smallest particle of matter became so imbued with faith that it must be considered as the beginning of ,,life1 or as to what such faith is1 except that it is the very essence of all things1 and that it has no foundation4 ,in this way1 then1 ,i conceive we can fairly transfer the experience of the race to the individual1 without any other meaning to our words than what they would naturally suggest2 that is to say1 that there is in every impregnate ovum a bon fide memory1 which carries it back not only to the time when it was last an impregnate ovum1 but to that earlier date when it was the very beginning of life at all1 which same creature it still is1 whether as man or ovum1 and hence imbued1 so far as time and circumstance allow1 with all its memories4 ,surely this is no strained hypothesis2 for the mere fact that the germ1 from the earliest moment that we are able to detect it1 appears to be so perfectly familiar with its business1 acts with so little hesitation and so little introspection or reference to principles1 this alone should incline us to suspect that it must be armed with that which1 so far as we observe in daily life1 can alone ensure such a result--to wit1 long practice1 and the memory of many similar performances4 ,the difficulty is1 that we are conscious of no such memory in our own persons1 and beyond the one great proof of memory given by the actual repetition of the performance--and of some of the latest deviations from the ordinary performance 7and this proof ought in itself1 one would have thought1 to outweigh any save the directest evidence to the contrary7 we can detect no symptom of any such mental operation as recollection on the part of the embryo4 ,on the other hand1 we have seen that we know most intensely those things that we are least conscious of knowing2 we will most intensely what we are least conscious of willing2 we feel continually without knowing that we feel1 and our attention is hourly arrested without our attention being arrested by the arresting of our attention4 ,memory is no less capable of unconscious exercise1 and on becoming intense through frequent repetition1 vanishes no less completely as a conscious action of the mind than knowledge and volition4 ,we must all be aware of instances in which it is plain we must have remembered1 without being in the smallest degree conscious of remembering4 ,is it then absurd to suppose that our past existences have been repeated on such a vast number of occasions that the germ1 linked on to all preceding germs1 and1 by once having become part of their identity1 imbued with all their memories1 remembers too intensely to be conscious of remembering1 and works on with the same kind of unconsciousness with which we play1 or walk1 or read1 until something unfamiliar happens to us8 and is it not singularly in accordance with this view that consciousness should begin with that part of the creature's performance with which it is least familiar1 as having repeated it least often--that is to say1 in our own case1 with the commencement of our human life--at birth1 or thereabouts8 ,it is certainly noteworthy that the embryo is never at a loss1 unless something happens to it which has not usually happened to its forefathers1 and which in the nature of things it cannot remember4 ,when events are happening to it which have ordinarily happened to its forefathers1 and which it would therefore remember1 if it was possessed of the kind of memory which we are here attributing to it1 it acts precisely as it would act if it were possessed of such memory4 ,when1 on the other hand1 events are happening to it which1 if it has the kind of memory we are attributing to it1 would baffle that memory1 or which have rarely or never been included in the category of its recollections1 it acts precisely as a creature acts when its recollection is disturbed1 or when it is required to do something which it has never done before4 ,we cannot remember having been in the embryonic stage1 but we do not on that account deny that we ever were in such a stage at all4 ,on a little reflection it will appear no more reasonable to maintain that1 when we were in the embryonic stage1 we did not remember our past existences1 than to say that we never were embryos at all4 ,we cannot remember what we did or did not recollect in that state2 we cannot now remember having grown the eyes which we undoubtedly did grow1 much less can we remember whether or not we then remembered having grown them before2 but it is probable that our memory was then1 in respect of our previous existences as embryos1 as much more intense than it is now in respect of our childhood1 as our power of acquiring a new language was greater when we were one or two years old1 than when we were twenty4 ,and why should this power of acquiring languages be greater at two years than at twenty1 but that for many generations we have learnt to speak at about this age1 and hence look to learn to do so again on reaching it1 just as we looked to making eyes1 when the time came at which we were accustomed to make them4 ,if we once had the memory of having been infants 7which we had from day to day during infancy71 and have lost it1 we may well have had other and more intense memories which we have lost no less completely4 ,indeed1 there is nothing more extraordinary in the supposition that the impregnate ovum has an intense sense of its continuity with1 and therefore of its identity with1 the two impregnate ova from which it has sprung1 than in the fact that we have no sense of our continuity with ourselves as infants4 ,if then1 there is no priori objection to this view1 and if the impregnate ovum acts in such a manner as to carry the strongest conviction that it must have already on many occasions done what it is doing now1 and that it has a vivid though unconscious recollection of what all1 and more especially its nearer1 ancestral ova did under similar circumstances1 there would seem to be little doubt what conclusion we ought to come to4 ,a hen's egg1 for example1 as soon as the hen begins to sit1 sets to work immediately to do as nearly as may be what the two eggs from which its father and mother were hatched did when hens began to sit upon them4 ,the inference would seem almost irresistible1--that the second egg remembers the course pursued by the eggs from which it has sprung1 and of whose present identity it is unquestionably a part-phase2 it also seems irresistibly forced upon us to believe that the intensity of this memory is the secret of its easy action4 ,it has1 ,i believe1 been often remarked1 that a hen is only an egg's way of making another egg4 ,every creature must be allowed to 8run0 its own development in its own way2 the egg's way may seem a very roundabout manner of doing things2 but it is its way1 and it is one of which man1 upon the whole1 has no great reason to complain4 ,why the fowl should be considered more alive than the egg1 and why it should be said that the hen lays the egg1 and not that the egg lays the hen1 these are questions which lie beyond the power of philosophic explanation1 but are perhaps most answerable by considering the conceit of man1 and his habit1 persisted in during many ages1 of ignoring all that does not remind him of himself1 or hurt him1 or profit him2 also by considering the use of language1 which1 if it is to serve at all1 can only do so by ignoring a vast number of facts which gradually drop out of mind from being out of sight4 ,but1 perhaps1 after all1 the real reason is1 that the egg does not cackle when it has laid the hen1 and that it works towards the hen with gradual and noiseless steps1 which we can watch if we be so minded2 whereas1 we can less easily watch the steps which lead from the hen to the egg1 but hear a noise1 and see an egg where there was no egg4 ,therefore1 we say1 the development of the fowl from the egg bears no sort of resemblance to that of the egg from the fowl1 whereas1 in truth1 a hen1 or any other living creature1 is only the primordial cell's way of going back upon itself4 ,but to return4 ,we see an egg1 ,a1 which evidently knows its own meaning perfectly well1 and we know that a twelvemonth ago there were two other such eggs1 ,b and ,c1 which have now disappeared1 but from which we know ,a to have been so continuously developed as to be part of the present form of their identity4 ,a's meaning is seen to be precisely the same as ,b and ,c's meaning2 ,a's personal appearance is1 to all intents and purposes1 ,b and ,c's personal appearance2 it would seem1 then1 unreasonable to deny that ,a is only ,b and ,c come back1 with such modification as they may have incurred since their disappearance2 and that1 in spite of any such modification1 they remember in ,a perfectly well what they did as ,b and ,c4 ,we have considered the question of personal identity so as to see whether1 without abuse of terms1 we can claim it as existing between any two generations of living agents 7and if between two1 then between any number up to infinity71 and we found that we were not only at liberty to claim this1 but that we are compelled irresistibly to do so1 unless1 that is to say1 we would think very differently concerning personal identity than we do at present4 ,we found it impossible to hold the ordinary common sense opinions concerning personal identity1 without admitting that we are personally identical with all our forefathers1 who have successfully assimilated outside matter to themselves1 and by assimilation imbued it with all their own memories2 we being nothing else than this outside matter so assimilated and imbued with such memories4 ,this1 at least1 will1 ,i believe1 balance the account correctly4 ,a few remarks upon the assimilation of outside matter by living organisms may perhaps be hazarded here4 ,as long as any living organism can maintain itself in a position to which it has been accustomed1 more or less nearly1 both in its own life and in those of its forefathers1 nothing can harm it4 ,as long as the organism is familiar with the position1 and remembers its antecedents1 nothing can assimilate it4 ,it must be first dislodged from the position with which it is familiar1 as being able to remember it1 before mischief can happen to it4 ,nothing can assimilate living organism4 ,on the other hand1 the moment living organism loses sight of its own position and antecedents1 it is liable to immediate assimilation1 and to be thus familiarised with the position and antecedents of some other creature4 ,if any living organism be kept for but a very short time in a position wholly different from what it has been accustomed to in its own life1 and in the lives of its forefathers1 it commonly loses its memories completely1 once and for ever2 but it must immediately acquire new ones1 for nothing can know nothing2 everything must remember either its own antecedents1 or some one else's4 ,and as nothing can know nothing1 so nothing can believe in nothing4 ,a grain of corn1 for example1 has never been accustomed to find itself in a hen's stomach--neither it nor its forefathers4 ,for a grain so placed leaves no offspring1 and hence cannot transmit its experience4 ,the first minute or so after being eaten1 it may think it has just been sown1 and begin to prepare for sprouting1 but in a few seconds1 it discovers the environment to be unfamiliar2 it therefore gets frightened1 loses its head1 is carried into the gizzard1 and comminuted among the gizzard stones4 ,the hen succeeded in putting it into a position with which it was unfamiliar2 from this it was an easy stage to assimilating it entirely4 ,once assimilated1 the grain ceases to remember any more as a grain1 but becomes initiated into all that happens to1 and has happened to1 fowls for countless ages4 ,then it will attack all other grains whenever it sees them2 there is no such persecutor of grain1 as another grain when it has once fairly identified itself with a hen4 ,we may remark in passing1 that if anything be once familiarised with anything1 it is content4 ,the only things we really care for in life are familiar things2 let us have the means of doing what we have been accustomed to do1 of dressing as we have been accustomed to dress1 of eating as we have been accustomed to eat1 and let us have no less liberty than we are accustomed to have1 and last1 but not least1 let us not be disturbed in thinking as we have been accustomed to think1 and the vast majority of mankind will be very fairly contented--all plants and animals will certainly be so4 ,this would seem to suggest a possible doctrine of a future state2 concerning which we may reflect that though1 after we die1 we cease to be familiar with ourselves1 we shall nevertheless become immediately familiar with many other histories compared with which our present life must then seem intolerably uninteresting4 ,this is the reason why a very heavy and sudden shock to the nervous system does not pain1 but kills outright at once2 while one with which the system can1 at any rate1 try to familiarise itself is exceedingly painful4 ,we cannot bear unfamiliarity4 ,the part that is treated in a manner with which it is not familiar cries immediately to the brain--its central government--for help1 and makes itself generally as troublesome as it can1 till it is in some way comforted4 ,indeed1 the law against cruelty to animals is but an example of the hatred we feel on seeing even dumb creatures put into positions with which they are not familiar4 ,we hate this so much for ourselves1 that we will not tolerate it for other creatures if we can possibly avoid it4 ,so again1 it is said1 that when ,andromeda and ,perseus had travelled but a little way from the rock where ,andromeda had so long been chained1 she began upbraiding him with the loss of her dragon1 who1 on the whole1 she said1 had been very good to her4 ,the only things we really hate are unfamiliar things1 and though nature would not be nature if she did not cross our love of the familiar with a love also of the unfamiliar1 yet there can be no doubt which of the two principles is master4 ,let us return1 however1 to the grain of corn4 ,if the grain had had presence of mind to avoid being carried into the gizzard stones1 as many seeds do which are carried for hundreds of miles in birds' stomachs1 and if it had persuaded itself that the novelty of the position was not greater than it could very well manage to put up with--if1 in fact1 it had not known when it was beaten--it might have stuck in the hen's stomach and begun to grow2 in this case it would have assimilated a good part of the hen before many days were over2 for hens are not familiar with grains that grow in their stomachs1 and unless the one in question was as strongminded for a hen1 as the grain that could avoid being assimilated would be for a grain1 the hen would soon cease to take an interest in her antecedents4 ,it is to be doubted1 however1 whether a grain has ever been grown which has had strength of mind enough to avoid being set off its balance on finding itself inside a hen's gizzard4 ,for living organism is the creature of habit and routine1 and the inside of a gizzard is not in the grain's programme4 ,suppose1 then1 that the grain1 instead of being carried into the gizzard1 had stuck in the hen's throat and choked her4 ,it would now find itself in a position very like what it had often been in before4 ,that is to say1 it would be in a damp1 dark1 quiet place1 not too far from light1 and with decaying matter around it4 ,it would therefore know perfectly well what to do1 and would begin to grow until disturbed1 and again put into a position with which it might1 very possibly1 be unfamiliar4 ,the great question between vast masses of living organism is simply this3 8,am ,i to put you into a position with which your forefathers have been unfamiliar1 or are you to put me into one about which my own have been in like manner ignorant80 ,man is only the dominant animal on the earth1 because he can1 as a general rule1 settle this question in his own favour4 ,the only manner in which an organism1 which has once forgotten its antecedents1 can ever recover its memory1 is by being assimilated by a creature of its own kind2 one1 moreover1 which knows its business1 or is not in such a false position as to be compelled to be aware of being so4 ,it was1 doubtless1 owing to the recognition of this fact1 that some ,eastern nations1 as we are told by ,herodotus1 were in the habit of eating their deceased parents--for matter which has once been assimilated by any identity or personality1 becomes for all practical purposes part of the assimilating personality4 ,the bearing of the above will become obvious when we return1 as we will now do1 to the question of personal identity4 ,the only difficulty would seem to lie in our unfamiliarity with the real meanings which we attach to words in daily use4 ,hence1 while recognising continuity without sudden break as the underlying principle of identity1 we forget that this involves personal identity between all the beings who are in one chain of descent1 the numbers of such beings1 whether in succession1 or contemporaneous1 going for nothing at all4 ,thus we take two eggs1 one male and one female1 and hatch them2 after some months the pair of fowls so hatched1 having succeeded in putting a vast quantity of grain and worms into false positions1 become full-grown1 breed1 and produce a dozen new eggs4 ,two live fowls and a dozen eggs are the present phase of the personality of the two original eggs4 ,they are also part of the present phase of the personality of all the worms and grain which the fowls have assimilated from their leaving the eggshell2 but the personalities of these last do not count2 they have lost their grain and worm memories1 and are instinct with the memorises of the whole ancestry of the creature which has assimilated them4 ,we cannot1 perhaps1 strictly say that the two fowls and the dozen new eggs actually are the two original eggs2 these two eggs are no longer in existence1 and we see the two birds themselves which were hatched from them4 ,a bird cannot be called an egg without an abuse of terms4 ,nevertheless1 it is doubtful how far we should not say this1 for it is only with a mental reserve--and with no greater mental reserve--that we predicate absolute identity concerning any living being for two consecutive moments2 and it is certainly as free from quibble to say to two fowls and a dozen eggs1 8you are the two eggs ,i had on my kitchen shelf twelve months ago10 as to say to a man1 8you are the child whom ,i remember thirty years ago in your mother's arms40 ,in either case we mean1 8you have been continually putting other organisms into a false position1 and then assimilating them1 ever since ,i last saw you1 while nothing has yet occurred to put you into such a false position as to have made you lose the memory of your antecedents40 ,it would seem perfectly fair1 therefore1 to say to any egg of the twelve1 or to the two fowls and the whole twelve eggs together1 8you were a couple of eggs twelve months ago2 twelve months before that you were four eggs20 and so on1 ad infinitum1 the number neither of the ancestors nor of the descendants counting for anything1 and continuity being the sole thing looked to4 ,from daily observation we are familiar with the fact that identity does both unite with other identities1 so that a single new identity is the result1 and does also split itself up into several identities1 so that the one becomes many4 ,this is plain from the manner in which the male and female sexual elements unite to form a single ovum1 which we observe to be instinct with the memories of both the individuals from which it has been derived2 and there is the additional consideration1 that each of the elements whose fusion goes to make up the impregnate ovum1 is held by some to be itself composed of a fused mass of germs1 which stand very much in the same relation to the spermatozoon and ovum1 as the living cellular units of which we are composed do to ourselves--that is to say1 are living independent organisms1 which probably have no conception of the existence of the spermatozoon nor of the ovum1 more than the spermatozoon or ovum have of theirs4 ,this1 at least1 is what ,i gather from ,mr4 ,darwin's provisional theory of ,pangenesis2 and1 again1 from one of the concluding sentences in his 8,effects of ,cross and ,self ,fertilisation10 where1 asking the question why two sexes have been developed1 he replies that the answer seems to lie 8in the great good which is derived from the fusion of two somewhat differentiated individuals4 ,with the exception10 he continues1 8or the lowest organisms this is possible only by means of the sexual elements--these consisting of cells separated from the body0 7i4e41 separated from the bodies of each parent7 8containing the germs of every part0 7i4e41 consisting of the seeds or germs from which each individual cell of the coming organism will be developed--these seeds or germs having been shed by each individual cell of the parent forms71 8and capable of being fused completely together0 7i4e41 so at least ,i gather1 capable of being fused completely1 in the same way as the cells of our own bodies are fused1 and thus1 of forming a single living personality in the case of both the male and female element2 which elements are themselves capable of a second fusion so as to form the impregnate ovum74 ,this single impregnate ovum1 then1 is a single identity that has taken the place of and come up in the room of two distinct personalities1 each of whose characteristics it1 to a certain extent1 partakes1 and which consist1 each one of them1 of the fused germs of a vast mass of other personalities4 ,as regards the dispersion of one identity into many1 this also is a matter of daily observation in the case of all female creatures that are with egg or young2 the identity of the young with the female parent is in many respects so complete1 as to need no enforcing1 in spite of the entrance into the offspring of all the elements derived from the male parent1 and of the gradual separation of the two identities1 which becomes more and more complete1 till in time it is hard to conceive that they can ever have been united4 ,numbers1 therefore1 go for nothing2 and1 as far as identity or continued personality goes1 it is as fair to say to the two fowls1 above referred to1 8you were four fowls twelve months ago10 as it is to say to a dozen eggs1 8you were two eggs twelve months ago40 ,but here a difficulty meets us2 for if we say1 8you were two eggs twelve months ago10 it follows that we mean1 8you are now those two eggs20 just as when we say to a person1 8you were such and such a boy twenty years ago10 we mean1 8you are now that boy1 or all that represents him20 it would seem1 then1 that in like manner we should say to the two fowls1 8you are the four fowls who between them laid the two eggs from which you sprung40 ,but it may be that all these four fowls are still to be seen running about2 we should be therefore saying1 8you two fowls are really not yourselves only1 but you are also the other four fowls into the bargain20 and this might be philosophically true1 and might1 perhaps1 be considered so1 but for the convenience of the law courts4 ,the difficulty would seem to arise from the fact that the eggs must disappear before fowls can be hatched from them1 whereas1 the hens so hatched may outlive the development of other hens1 from the eggs which they in due course have laid4 ,the original eggs being out of sight are out of mind1 and it is without an effort that we acquiesce in the assertion1--that the dozen new eggs actually are the two original ones4 ,but the original four fowls being still in sight1 cannot be ignored1 we only1 therefore1 see the new ones as growths from the original ones4 ,the strict rendering of the facts should be1 8you are part of the present phase of the identity of such and such a past identity10 i4e41 either of the two eggs or the four fowls1 as the case may be2 this will put the eggs and the fowls1 as it were1 into the same box1 and will meet both the philosophical and legal requirement of the case1 only it is a little long4 ,so far then1 as regards actual identity of personality2 which1 we find1 will allow us to say1 that eggs are part of the present phase of a certain past identity1 whether of other eggs1 or of fowls1 or chickens1 and in like1 manner that chickens are part of the present phase of certain other chickens1 or eggs1 or fowls2 in fact1 that anything is part of the present phase of any past identity in the line of its ancestry4 ,but as regards the actual memory of such identity 7unconscious memory1 but still clearly memory71 we observe that the egg1 as long as it is an egg1 appears to have a very distinct recollection of having been an egg before1 and the fowl of having been a fowl before1 but that neither egg nor fowl appear to have any recollection of any other stage of their past existences1 than the one corresponding to that in which they are themselves at the moment existing4 ,so we1 at six or seven years old1 have no recollection of ever having been infants1 much less of having been embryos2 but the manner in which we shed our teeth and make new ones1 and the way in which we grow generally1 making ourselves for the most part exceedingly like what we made ourselves1 in the person of some one of our nearer ancestors1 and not unfrequently repeating the very blunders which we made upon that occasion when we come to a corresponding age1 proves most incontestably that we remember our past existences1 though too utterly to be capable of introspection in the matter4 ,so1 when we grow wisdom teeth1 at the age it may be of one or two and twenty1 it is plain we remember our past existences at that age1 however completely we may have forgotten the earlier stages of our present existence4 ,it may be said that it is the jaw which remembers1 and not we1 but it seems hard to deny the jaw a right of citizenship in our personality2 and in the case of a growing boy1 every part of him seems to remember equally well1 and if every part of him combined does not make him1 there would seem but little use in continuing the argument further4 ,in like manner1 a caterpillar appears not to remember having been an egg1 either in its present or any past existence4 ,it has no concern with eggs as soon as it is hatched1 but it clearly remembers not only having been a caterpillar before1 but also having turned itself into a chrysalis before2 for when the time comes for it to do this1 it is at no loss1 as it would certainly be if the position was unfamiliar1 but it immediately begins doing what it did when last it was in a like case1 repeating the process as nearly as the environment will allow1 taking every step in the same order as last time1 and doing its work with that ease and perfection which we observe to belong to the force of habit1 and to be utterly incompatible with any other supposition than that of long long practice4 ,once having become a chrysalis1 its memory of its caterpillarhood appears to leave it for good and all1 not to return until it again assumes the shape of a caterpillar by process of descent4 ,its memory now overleaps all past modifications1 and reverts to the time when it was last what it is now1 and though it is probable that both caterpillar and chrysalis1 on any given day of their existence in either of these forms1 have some sort of dim power of recollecting what happened to them yesterday1 or the day before2 yet it is plain their main memory goes back to the corresponding day of their last existence in their present form1 the chrysalis remembering what happened to it on such a day far more practically1 though less consciously1 than what happened to it yesterday2 and naturally1 for yesterday is but once1 and its past existences have been legion4 ,hence1 it prepares its wings in due time1 doing each day what it did on the corresponding day of its last chrysalishood and at length becoming a moth2 whereon its circumstances are so changed that it loses all sense of its identity as a chrysalis 7as completely as we1 for precisely the same reason1 lose all sense of our identity with ourselves as infants71 and remembers nothing but its past existences as a moth4 ,we observe this to hold throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms4 ,in any one phase of the existence of the lower animals1 we observe that they remember the corresponding stage1 and a little on either side of it1 of all their past existences for a very great length of time4 ,in their present existence they remember a little behind the present moment 7remembering more and more the higher they advance in the scale of life71 and being able to foresee about as much as they could foresee in their past existences1 sometimes more and sometimes less4 ,as with memory1 so with prescience4 ,the higher they advance in the scale of life the more prescient they are4 ,it must1 of course1 be remembered1 and will later on be more fully dwelt upon1 that no offspring can remember anything which happens to its parents after it and its parents have parted company2 and this is why there is1 perhaps1 more irregularity as regards our wisdom-teeth than about anything else that we grow2 inasmuch as it must not uncommonly have happened in a long series of generations1 that the offspring has been born before the parents have grown their wisdom-teeth1 and thus there will be faults in the memory4 ,is there1 then1 anything in memory1 as we observe it in ourselves and others1 under circumstances in which we shall agree in calling it memory pure and simple without ambiguity of terms--is there anything in memory which bars us from supposing it capable of overleaping a long time of abeyance1 and thus of enabling each impregnate ovum1 or each grain1 to remember what it did when last in a like condition1 and to go on remembering the corresponding period of its prior developments throughout the whole period of its present growth1 though such memory has entirely failed as regards the interim between any two corresponding periods1 and is not consciously recognised by the individual as being exercised at all8 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,on ,,the ,,abeyance ,,of ,,memory4 ,,let us assume1 for the moment1 that the action of each impregnate germ is due to memory1 which1 as it were1 pulsates anew in each succeeding generation1 so that immediately on impregnation1 the germ's memory reverts to the last occasion on which it was in a like condition1 and recognising the position1 is at no loss what to do4 ,it is plain that in all cases where there are two parents1 that is to say1 in the greater number of cases1 whether in the vegetable or animal kingdoms1 there must be two such last occasions1 each of which will have an equal claim upon the attention of the new germ4 ,its memory would therefore revert to both1 and though it would probably adhere more closely to the course which it took either as its father or its mother1 and thus come out eventually male or female1 yet it would be not a little influenced by the less potent memory4 ,and not only this1 but each of the germs to which the memory of the new germ reverts1 is itself imbued with the memories of its own parent germs1 and these again with the memories of preceding generations1 and so on ad infinitum2 so that1 ex hypothesi1 the germ must become instinct with all these memories1 epitomised as after long time1 and unperceived though they may well be1 not to say obliterated in part or entirely so far as many features are concerned1 by more recent impressions4 ,in this case1 we must conceive of the impregnate germ as of a creature which has to repeat a performance already repeated before on countless different occasions1 but with no more variation on the more recent ones than is inevitable in the repetition of any performance by an intelligent being4 ,now if we take the most parallel case to this which we can find1 and consider what we should ourselves do under such circumstances1 that is to say1 if we consider what course is actually taken by beings who are influenced by what we all call memory1 when they repeat an already often-repeated performance1 and if we find a very strong analogy between the course so taken by ourselves1 and that which from whatever cause we observe to be taken by a living germ1 we shall surely be much inclined to think that there must be a similarity in the causes of action in each case2 and hence1 to conclude1 that the action of the germ is due to memory4 ,it will1 therefore1 be necessary to consider the general tendency of our minds in regard to impressions made upon us1 and the memory of such impressions4 ,deep impressions upon the memory are made in two ways1 differing rather in degree than kind1 but with two somewhat widely different results4 ,they are made3-- ,i4 ,by unfamiliar objects1 or combinations1 which come at comparatively long intervals1 and produce their effect1 as it were1 by one hard blow4 ,the effect of these will vary with the unfamiliarity of the impressions themselves1 and the manner in which they seem likely to lead to a further development of the unfamiliar1 i4e41 with the question1 whether they seem likely to compel us to change our habits1 either for better or worse4 ,thus1 if an object or incident be very unfamiliar1 as1 we will say1 a whale or an iceberg to one travelling to ,america for the first time1 it will make a deep impression1 though but little affecting our interests2 but if we struck against the iceberg and were shipwrecked1 or nearly so1 it would produce a much deeper impression1 we should think much more about icebergs1 and remember much more about them1 than if we had merely seen one4 ,so1 also1 if we were able to catch the whale and sell its oil1 we should have a deep impression made upon us4 ,in either case we see that the amount of unfamiliarity1 either present or prospective1 is the main determinant of the depth of the impression4 ,as with consciousness and volition1 so with sudden unfamiliarity4 ,it impresses us more and more deeply the more unfamiliar it is1 until it reaches such a point of impressiveness as to make no further impression at all2 on which we then and there die4 ,for death only kills through unfamiliarity--that is to say1 because the new position1 whatever it is1 is so wide a cross as compared with the old one1 that we cannot fuse the two so as to understand the combination2 hence we lose all recognition of1 and faith in1 ourselves and our surroundings4 ,but however much we imagine we remember concerning the details of any remarkable impression which has been made us by a single blow1 we do not remember as much or nearly as much as we think we do4 ,the subordinate details soon drop out of mind4 ,those who think they remember even such a momentous matter as the battle of ,waterloo recall now probably but half-a-dozen episodes1 a gleam here1 and a gleam there1 so that what they call remembering the battle of ,waterloo1 is1 in fact1 little more than a kind of dreaming--so soon vanishes the memory of any unrepeated occurrence4 ,as for smaller impressions1 there is very little of what happens to us in each week that will be in our memories a week hence2 a man of eighty remembers few of the unrepeated incidents of his life beyond those of the last fortnight1 a little here1 and a little there1 forming a matter of perhaps six weeks or two months in all1 if everything that he can call to mind were acted over again with no greater fulness than he can remember it4 ,as for incidents that have been often repeated1 his mind strikes a balance of its past reminiscences1 remembering the two or three last performances1 and a general method of procedure1 but nothing more4 ,if1 then1 the recollection of all that is not very novel1 or very often repeated1 so soon fades from our own minds1 during what we consider as our single lifetime1 what wonder that the details of our daily experience should find no place in that brief epitome of them which is all we can give in so small a volume as offspring8 ,if we cannot ourselves remember the hundred-thousandth part of what happened to us during our own childhood1 how can we expect our offspring to remember more than what1 through frequent repetition1 they can now remember as a residuum1 or general impression4 ,on the other hand1 whatever we remember in consequence of but a single impression1 we remember consciously4 ,we can at will recall details1 and are perfectly well aware1 when we do so1 that we are recollecting4 ,a man who has never seen death looks for the first time upon the dead face of some near relative or friend4 ,he gazes for a few short minutes1 but the impression thus made does not soon pass out of his mind4 ,he remembers the room1 the hour of the day or night1 and if by day1 what sort of a day4 ,he remembers in what part of the room1 and how disposed the body of the deceased was lying4 ,twenty years afterwards he can1 at will1 recall all these matters to his mind1 and picture to himself the scene as he originally witnessed it4 ,the reason is plain2 the impression was very unfamiliar1 and affected the beholder1 both as regards the loss of one who was dear to him1 and as reminding him with more than common force that he will one day die himself4 ,moreover the impression was a simple one1 not involving much subordinate detail2 we have in this case1 therefore1 an example of the most lasting kind of impression that can be made by a single unrepeated event4 ,but if we examine ourselves closely1 we shall find that after a lapse of years we do not remember as much as we think we do1 even in such a case as this2 and that beyond the incidents above mentioned1 and the expression upon the face of the dead person1 we remember little of what we can so consciously and vividly recall4 ,,ii4 ,deep impressions are also made by the repetition1 more or less often1 of a feeble impression which1 if unrepeated1 would have soon passed out of our minds4 ,we observe1 therefore1 that we remember best what we have done least often--any unfamiliar deviation1 that is to say1 from our ordinary method of procedure--and what we have done most often1 with which1 therefore1 we are most familiar2 our memory being mainly affected by the force of novelty and the force of routine--the most unfamiliar1 and the most familiar1 incidents or objects4 ,but we remember impressions which have been made upon us by force of routine1 in a very different way to that in which we remember a single deep impression4 ,as regards this second class1 which comprises far the most numerous and important of the impressions with which our memory is stored1 it is often only by the fact of our performance itself that we are able to recognise or show to others that we remember at all4 ,we often do not remember how1 or when1 or where we acquired our knowledge4 ,all we remember is1 that we did learn1 and that at one time and another we have done this or that very often4 ,as regards this second class of impressions we may observe3-- #a4 ,that as a general rule we remember only the individual features of the last few repetitions of the act--if1 indeed1 we remember this much4 ,the influence of preceding ones is to be found only in the general average of the procedure1 which is modified by them1 but unconsciously to ourselves4 ,take1 for example1 some celebrated singer1 or pianoforte player1 who has sung the same air1 or performed the same sonata several hundreds or1 it may be1 thousands of times3 of the details of individual performances1 he can probably call to mind none but those of the last few days1 yet there can be no question that his present performance is affected by1 and modified by1 all his previous ones2 the care he has bestowed on these being the secret of his present proficiency4 ,in each performance 7the performer being supposed in the same state of mental and bodily health71 the tendency will be to repeat the immediately preceding performances more nearly than remoter ones4 ,it is the common tendency of living beings to go on doing what they have been doing most recently4 ,the last habit is the strongest4 ,hence1 if he took great pains last time1 he will play better now1 and will take a like degree of pains1 and play better still next time1 and so go on improving while life and vigour last4 ,if1 on the other hand1 he took less pains last time1 he will play worse now1 and be inclined to take little pains next time1 and so gradually deteriorate4 ,this1 at least1 is the common everyday experience of mankind4 ,so with painters1 actors1 and professional men of every description2 after a little while the memory of many past performances strikes a sort of fused balance in the mind1 which results in a general method of procedure with but little conscious memory of even the latest performances1 and with none whatever of by far the greater number of the remoter ones4 ,still1 it is noteworthy1 that the memory of some even of these will occasionally assert itself1 so far as we can see1 arbitrarily1 the reason why this or that occasion should still haunt us1 when others like them are forgotten1 depending on some cause too subtle for our powers of observation4 ,even with such a simple matter as our daily dressing and undressing1 we may remember some few details of our yesterday's toilet1 but we retain nothing but a general and fused recollection of the many thousand earlier occasions on which we have dressed1 or gone to bed4 ,men invariably put the same leg first into their trousers--this is the survival of memory in a residuum2 but they cannot1 till they actually put on a pair of trousers1 remember which leg they do put in first2 this is the rapid fading away of any small individual impression4 ,the seasons may serve as another illustration2 we have a general recollection of the kind of weather which is seasonable for any month in a year2 what flowers are due about what time1 and whether the spring is on the whole backward or early2 but we cannot remember the weather on any particular day a year ago1 unless some unusual incident has impressed it upon our memory4 ,we can remember1 as a general rule1 what kind of season it was1 upon the whole1 a year ago1 or perhaps1 even two years2 but more than this1 we rarely remember1 except in such cases as the winter of #ahed-ahee1 or the summer of #ahfh2 the rest is all merged4 ,we observe1 then1 that as regards small and often repeated impressions1 our tendency is to remember best1 and in most detail1 what we have been doing most recently1 and what in general has occurred most recently1 but that the earlier impressions though forgotten individually1 are nevertheless1 not wholly lost4 #b4 ,when we have done anything very often1 and have got into the habit of doing it1 we generally take the various steps in the same order2 in many cases this seems to be a sine qu non for our repetition of the action at all4 ,thus1 there is probably no living man who could repeat the words of 8,god save the ,queen0 backwards1 without much hesitation and many mistakes2 so the musician and the singer must perform their pieces in the order of the notes as written1 or at any rate as they ordinarily perform them2 they cannot transpose bars or read them backwards1 without being put out1 nor would the audience recognise the impressions they have been accustomed to1 unless these impressions are made in the accustomed order4 #c4 ,if1 when we have once got well into the habit of doing anything in a certain way1 some one shows us some other way of doing it1 or some way which would in part modify our procedure1 or if in our endeavours to improve1 we have hit upon some new idea which seems likely to help us1 and thus we vary our course1 on the next occasion we remember this idea by reason of its novelty1 but if we try to repeat it1 we often find the residuum of our old memories pulling us so strongly into our old groove1 that we have the greatest difficulty in repeating our performance in the new manner2 there is a clashing of memories1 a conflict1 which if the idea is very new1 and involves1 so to speak1 too sudden a cross--too wide a departure from our ordinary course--will sometimes render the performance monstrous1 or baffle us altogether1 the new memory failing to fuse harmoniously with the old4 ,if the idea is not too widely different from our older ones1 we can cross them with it1 but with more or less difficulty1 as a general rule in proportion to the amount of variation4 ,the whole process of understanding a thing consists in this1 and1 so far as ,i can see at present1 in this only4 ,sometimes we repeat the new performance for a few times1 in a way which shows that the fusion of memories is still in force2 and then insensibly revert to the old1 in which case the memory of the new soon fades away1 leaving a residuum too feeble to contend against that of our many earlier memories of the same kind4 ,if1 however1 the new way is obviously to our advantage1 we make an effort to retain it1 and gradually getting into the habit of using it1 come to remember it by force of routine1 as we originally remembered it by force of novelty4 ,even as regards our own discoveries1 we do not always succeed in remembering our most improved and most striking performances1 so as to be able to repeat them at will immediately3 in any such performance we may have gone some way beyond our ordinary powers1 owing to some unconscious action of the mind4 ,the supreme effort has exhausted us1 and we must rest on our oars a little1 before we make further progress2 or we may even fall back a little1 before we make another leap in advance4 ,in this respect1 almost every conceivable degree of variation is observable1 according to differences of character and circumstances4 ,sometimes the new impression has to be made upon us many times from without1 before the earlier strain of action is eliminated2 in this case1 there will long remain a tendency to revert to the earlier habit4 ,sometimes1 after the impression has been once made1 we repeat our old way two or three times1 and then revert to the new1 which gradually ousts the old2 sometimes1 on the other hand1 a single impression1 though involving considerable departure from our routine1 makes its mark so deeply that we adopt the new at once1 though not without difficulty1 and repeat it in our next performance1 and henceforward in all others2 but those who vary their performance thus readily will show a tendency to vary subsequent performances according as they receive fresh ideas from others1 or reason them out independently4 ,they are men of genius4 ,this holds good concerning all actions which we do habitually1 whether they involve laborious acquirement or not4 ,thus1 if we have varied our usual dinner in some way that leaves a favourable impression upon our minds1 so that our dinner may1 in the language of the horticulturist1 be said to have 8sported10 our tendency will be to revert to this particular dinner either next day1 or as soon as circumstances will allow1 but it is possible that several hundred dinners may elapse before we can do so successfully1 or before our memory reverts to this particular dinner4 #d4 ,as regards our habitual actions1 however unconsciously we remember them1 we1 nevertheless1 remember them with far greater intensity than many individual impressions or actions1 it may be of much greater moment1 that have happened to us more recently4 ,thus1 many a man who has familiarised himself1 for example1 with the odes of ,horace1 so as to have had them at his fingers' ends as the result of many repetitions1 will be able years hence to repeat a given ode1 though unable to remember any circumstance in connection with his having learnt it1 and no less unable to remember when he repeated it last4 ,a host of individual circumstances1 many of them not unimportant1 will have dropped out of his mind1 along with a mass of literature read but once or twice1 and not impressed upon the memory by several repetitions2 but he returns to the well-known ode with so little effort1 that he would not know that he was remembering unless his reason told him so4 ,the ode seems more like something born with him4 ,we observe1 also1 that people who have become imbecile1 or whose memory is much impaired1 yet frequently retain their power of recalling impression which have been long ago repeatedly made upon them4 ,in such cases1 people are sometimes seen to forget what happened last week1 yesterday1 or an hour ago1 without even the smallest power of recovering their recollection2 but the oft repeated earlier impression remains1 though there may be no memory whatever of how it came to be impressed so deeply4 ,the phenomena of memory1 therefore1 are exactly like those of consciousness and volition1 in so far as that the consciousness of recollection vanishes1 when the power of recollection has become intense4 ,when we are aware that we are recollecting1 and are trying1 perhaps hard1 to recollect1 it is a sign that we do not recollect utterly4 ,when we remember utterly and intensely1 there is no conscious effort of recollection2 our recollection can only be recognised by ourselves and others1 through our performance itself1 which testifies to the existence of a memory1 that we could not otherwise follow or detect4 #e4 ,when circumstances have led us to change our habits of life--as when the university has succeeded school1 or professional life the university--we get into many fresh ways1 and leave many old ones4 ,but on revisiting the old scene1 unless the lapse of time has been inordinately great1 we experience a desire to revert to old habits4 ,we say that old associations crowd upon us4 ,let a ,trinity man1 after thirty years absence from ,cambridge1 pace for five minutes in the cloister of ,neville's ,court1 and listen to the echo of his footfall1 as it licks up against the end of the cloister1 or let an old ,johnian stand wherever he likes in the third ,court of ,st4 ,john's1 in either case he will find the thirty years drop out of his life1 as if they were half-an-hour2 his life will have rolled back upon itself1 to the date when he was an undergraduate1 and his instinct will be to do almost mechanically1 whatever it would have come most natural to him to do1 when he was last there at the same season of the year1 and the same hour of the day2 and it is plain this is due to similarity of environment1 for if the place he revisits be much changed1 there will be little or no association4 ,so those who are accustomed at intervals to cross the ,atlantic1 get into certain habits on board ship1 different to their usual ones4 ,it may be that at home they never play whist2 on board ship they do nothing else all the evening4 ,at home they never touch spirits2 on the voyage they regularly take a glass of something before they go to bed4 ,they do not smoke at home2 here they are smoking all day4 ,once the voyage is at an end1 they return without an effort to their usual habits1 and do not feel any wish for cards1 spirits1 or tobacco4 ,they do not remember yesterday1 when they did want all these things2 at least1 not with such force as to be influenced by it in their desires and actions2 their true memory--the memory which makes them want1 and do1 reverts to the last occasion on which they were in circumstances like their present2 they therefore want now what they wanted then1 and nothing more2 but when the time comes for them to go on shipboard again1 no sooner do they smell the smell of the ship1 than their real memory reverts to the times when they were last at sea1 and striking a balance of their recollections1 they smoke1 play cards1 and drink whisky and water4 ,we observe it then as a matter of the commonest daily occurrence within our own experience1 that memory does fade completely away1 and recur with the recurrence of surroundings like those which made any particular impression in the first instance4 ,we observe that there is hardly any limit to the completeness and the length of time during which our memory may remain in abeyance4 ,a smell may remind an old man of eighty of some incident of his childhood1 forgotten for nearly as many years as he has lived4 ,in other words1 we observe that when an impression has been repeatedly made in a certain sequence on any living organism--that impression not having been prejudicial to the creature itself--the organism will have a tendency1 on reassuming the shape and conditions in which it was when the impression was last made1 to remember the impression1 and therefore to do again now what it did then2 all intermediate memories dropping clean out of mind1 so far as they have any effect upon action4 #f4 ,finally1 we should note the suddenness and apparent caprice with which memory will assert itself at odd times2 we have been saying or doing this or that1 when suddenly a memory of something which happened to us1 perhaps in infancy1 comes into our head2 nor can we in the least connect this recollection with the subject of which we have just been thinking1 though doubtless there has been a connection1 too rapid and subtle for our apprehension4 ,the foregoing phenomena of memory1 so far as we can judge1 would appear to be present themselves throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms4 ,this will be readily admitted as regards animals2 as regards plants it may be inferred from the fact that they generally go on doing what they have been doing most lately1 though accustomed to make certain changes at certain points in their existence4 ,when the time comes for these changes1 they appear to know it1 and either bud forth into leaf or shed their leaves1 as the case may be4 ,if we keep a bulb in a paper bag it seems to remember having been a bulb before1 until the time comes for it to put forth roots and grow4 ,then1 if we supply it with earth and moisture1 it seems to know where it is1 and to go on doing now whatever it did when it was last planted2 but if we keep it in the bag too long1 it knows that it ought1 according to its last experience1 to be treated differently1 and shows plain symptoms of uneasiness2 it is distracted by the bag1 which makes it remember its bulbhood1 and also by the want of earth and water1 without which associations its memory of its previous growth cannot be duly kindled4 ,its roots1 therefore1 which are most accustomed to earth and water1 do not grow2 but its leaves1 which do not require contact with these things to jog their memory1 make a more decided effort at development--a fact which would seem to go strongly in favour of the functional independence of the parts of all but the very simplest living organisms1 if1 indeed1 more evidence were wanted in support of this4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,what ,,we ,,should ,,expect ,,to ,,find ,,if ,,differentiations ,,of ,,structure ,,and ,,instinct ,,are ,,mainly ,,due ,,to ,,memory4 ,,to repeat briefly2--we remember best our last few performances of any given kind1 and our present performance is most likely to resemble one or other of these2 we only remember our earlier performances by way of residuum2 nevertheless1 at times1 some older feature is liable to reappear4 ,we take our steps in the same order on each successive occasion1 and are for the most part incapable of changing that order4 ,the introduction of slightly new elements into our manner is attended with benefit2 the new can be fused with the old1 and the monotony of our action is relieved4 ,but if the new element is too foreign1 we cannot fuse the old and new--nature seeming equally to hate too wide a deviation from our ordinary practice1 and no deviation at all4 ,or1 in plain ,english--if any one gives us a new idea which is not too far ahead of us1 such an idea is often of great service to us1 and may give new life to our work--in fact1 we soon go back1 unless we more or less frequently come into contact with new ideas1 and are capable of understanding and making use of them2 if2 on the other hand1 they are too new1 and too little led up to1 so that we find them too strange and hard to be able to understand them and adopt them1 then they put us out1 with every degree of completeness--from simply causing us to fail in this or that particular part1 to rendering us incapable of even trying to do our work at all1 from pure despair of succeeding4 ,it requires many repetitions to fix an impression firmly2 but when it is fixed1 we cease to have much recollection of the manner in which it came to be so1 or of any single and particular recurrence4 ,our memory is mainly called into action by force of association and similarity in the surroundings4 ,we want to go on doing what we did when we were last as we are now1 and we forget what we did in the meantime4 ,these rules1 however1 are liable to many exceptions2 as for example1 that a single and apparently not very extraordinary occurrence may sometimes produce a lasting impression1 and be liable to return with sudden force at some distant time1 and then to go on returning to us at intervals4 ,some incidents1 in fact1 we know not how nor why1 dwell with us much longer than others which were apparently quite as noteworthy or perhaps more so4 ,now ,i submit that if the above observations are just1 and if1 also1 the offspring1 after having become a new and separate personality1 yet retains so much of the old identity of which it was once indisputably part1 that it remembers what it did when it was part of that identity as soon as it finds itself in circumstances which are calculated to refresh its memory owing to their similarity to certain antecedent ones1 then we should expect to find3-- ,i4 ,that offspring should1 as a general rule1 resemble its own most immediate progenitors2 that is to say1 that it should remember best what it has been doing most recently4 ,the memory being a fusion of its recollections of what it did1 both when it was its father and also when it was its mother1 the offspring should have a very common tendency to resemble both parents1 the one in some respects1 and the other in others2 but it might also hardly less commonly show a more marked recollection of the one history than of the other1 thus more distinctly resembling one parent than the other4 ,and this is what we observe to be the case4 ,not only so far as that the offspring is almost invariably either male or female1 and generally resembles rather the one parent than the other1 but also that in spite of such preponderance of one set of recollections1 the sexual characters and instincts of the opposite sex appear1 whether in male or female1 though undeveloped and incapable of development except by abnormal treatment1 such as has occasionally caused milk to be developed in the mammary glands of males2 or by mutilation1 or failure of sexual instinct through age1 upon which1 male characteristics frequently appear in the females of any species4 ,brothers and sisters1 each giving their own version of the same story1 though in different words1 should resemble each other more closely than more distant relations4 ,this too we see4 ,but it should frequently happen that offspring should resemble its penultimate rather than its latest phase1 and should thus be more like a grand-parent than a parent2 for we observe that we very often repeat a performance in a manner resembling that of some earlier1 but still recent1 repetition2 rather than on the precise lines of our very last performance4 ,first-cousins may in this case resemble each other more closely than brothers and sisters4 ,more especially1 we should not expect very successful men to be fathers of particularly gifted children2 for the best men are1 as it were1 the happy thoughts and successes of the race--nature's 8flukes10 so to speak1 in her onward progress4 ,no creature can repeat at will1 and immediately1 its highest flight4 ,it needs repose4 ,the generations are the essays of any given race towards the highest ideal which it is as yet able to see ahead of itself1 and this1 in the nature of things1 cannot be very far2 so that we should expect to see success followed by more or less failure1 and failure by success--a very successful creature being a great 8fluke40 ,and this is what we find4 ,in its earlier stages the embryo should be simply conscious of a general method of procedure on the part of its forefathers1 and should1 by reason of long practice1 compress tedious and complicated histories into a very narrow compass1 remembering no single performance in particular4 ,for we observe this in nature1 both as regards the sleight-of-hand which practice gives to those who are thoroughly familiar with their business1 and also as regards the fusion of remoter memories into a general residuum4 ,,ii4 ,we should expect to find that the offspring1 whether in its embryonic condition1 or in any stage of development till it has reached maturity1 should adopt nearly the same order in going through all its various stages4 ,there should be such slight variations as are inseparable from the repetition of any performance by a living being 7as contrasted with a machine71 but no more4 ,and this is what actually happens4 ,a man may cut his wisdom-teeth a little later than he gets his beard and whiskers1 or a little earlier2 but on the whole1 he adheres to his usual order1 and is completely set off his balance1 and upset in his performance1 if that order be interfered with suddenly4 ,it is1 however1 likely that gradual modifications of order have been made and then adhered to4 ,after any animal has reached the period at which it ordinarily begins to continue its race1 we should expect that it should show little further power of development1 or1 at any rate1 that few great changes of structure or fresh features should appear2 for we cannot suppose offspring to remember anything that happens to the parent subsequently to the parent's ceasing to contain the offspring within itself2 from the average age1 therefore1 of reproduction1 offspring would cease to have any further experience on which to fall back1 and would thus continue to make the best use of what it already knew1 till memory failing either in one part or another1 the organism would begin to decay4 ,to this cause must be referred the phenomena of old age1 which interesting subject ,i am unable to pursue within the limits of this volume4 ,those creatures who are longest in reaching maturity might be expected also to be the longest lived2 ,i am not certain1 however1 how far what is called alternate generation militates against this view1 but ,i do not think it does so seriously4 ,lateness of marriage1 provided the constitution of the individuals marrying is in no respect impaired1 should also tend to longevity4 ,i believe that all the above will be found sufficiently well supported by facts4 ,if so1 when we feel that we are getting old we should try and give our cells such treatment as they will find it most easy to understand1 through their experience of their own individual life1 which1 however1 can only guide them inferentially1 and to a very small extent2 and throughout life we should remember the important bearing which memory has upon health1 and both occasionally cross the memories of our component cells with slightly new experiences1 and be careful not to put them either suddenly or for long together into conditions which they will not be able to understand4 ,nothing is so likely to make our cells forget themselves1 as neglect of one or other of these considerations4 ,they will either fail to recognise themselves completely1 in which case we shall die2 or they will go on strike1 more or less seriously as the case may be1 or perhaps1 rather1 they will try and remember their usual course1 and fail2 they will therefore try some other1 and will probably make a mess of it1 as people generally do when they try to do things which they do not understand1 unless indeed they have very exceptional capacity4 ,it also follows that when we are ill1 our cells being in such or such a state of mind1 and inclined to hold a corresponding opinion with more or less unreasoning violence1 should not be puzzled more than they are puzzled already1 by being contradicted too suddenly2 for they will not be in a frame of mind which can understand the position of an open opponent3 they should therefore either be let alone1 if possible1 without notice other than dignified silence1 till their spleen is over1 and till they have remembered themselves2 or they should be reasoned with as by one who agrees with them1 and who is anxious to see things as far as possible from their own point of view4 ,and this is how experience teaches that we must deal with monomaniacs1 whom we simply infuriate by contradiction1 but whose delusion we can sometimes persuade to hang itself if we but give it sufficient rope4 ,all which has its bearing upon politics1 too1 at much sacrifice1 it may be1 of political principles1 but a politician who cannot see principles where principle-mongers fail to see them1 is a dangerous person4 ,i may say1 in passing1 that the reason why a small wound heals1 and leaves no scar1 while a larger one leaves a mark which is more or less permanent1 may be looked for in the fact that when the wound is only small1 the damaged cells are snubbed1 so to speak1 by the vast majority of the unhurt cells in their own neighbourhood4 ,when the wound is more serious they can stick to it1 and bear each other out that they were hurt4 ,,iii4 ,we should expect to find a predominance of sexual over asexual generation1 in the arrangements of nature for continuing her various species1 inasmuch as two heads are better than one1 and a locus pnitenti is thus given to the embryo--an opportunity of correcting the experience of one parent by that of the other4 ,and this is what the more intelligent embryos may be supposed to do2 for there would seem little reason to doubt that there are clever embryos and stupid embryos1 with better or worse memories1 as the case may be1 of how they dealt with their protoplasm before1 and better or worse able to see how they can do better now2 and that embryos differ as widely in intellectual and moral capacity1 and in a general sense of the fitness of things1 and of what will look well into the bargain1 as those larger embryos--to wit1 children--do4 ,indeed it would seem probable that all our mental powers must go through a quasi-embryological condition1 much as the power of keeping1 and wisely spending1 money must do so1 and that all the qualities of human thought and character are to be found in the embryo4 ,those who have observed at what an early age differences of intellect and temper show themselves in the young1 for example1 of cats and dogs1 will find it difficult to doubt that from the very moment of impregnation1 and onward1 there has been a corresponding difference in the embryo--and that of six unborn puppies1 one1 we will say1 has been throughout the whole process of development more sensible and better looking--a nicer embryo1 in fact--than the others4 ,,iv4 ,we should expect to find that all species1 whether of plants or animals1 are occasionally benefited by a cross2 but we should also expect that a cross should have a tendency to introduce a disturbing element1 if it be too wide1 inasmuch as the offspring would be pulled hither and thither by two conflicting memories or advices1 much as though a number of people speaking at once were without previous warning to advise an unhappy performer to vary his ordinary performance--one set of people telling him he has always hitherto done thus1 and the other saying no less loudly that he did it thus2--and he were suddenly to become convinced that they each spoke the truth4 ,in such a case he will either completely break down1 if the advice be too conflicting1 or if it be less conflicting1 he may yet be so exhausted by the one supreme effort of fusing these experiences that he will never be able to perform again2 or if the conflict of experience be not great enough to produce such a permanent effect as this1 it will yet1 if it be at all serious1 probably damage his performances on their next several occasions1 through his inability to fuse the experiences into a harmonious whole1 or1 in other words1 to understand the ideas which are prescribed to him2 for to fuse is only to understand4 ,and this is absolutely what we find in fact4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes concerning hybrids and first crosses3--8,the male element may reach the female element1 but be incapable of causing an embryo to be developed1 as seems to have been the case with some of ,thuret's experiments on ,fuci4 ,no explanation can be given of these facts any more than why certain trees cannot be grafted on others40 ,i submit that what ,i have written above supplies a very fair prim facie explanation4 ,mr4 ,darwin continues3-- 8,lastly1 an embryo may be developed1 and then perish at an early period4 ,this latter alternative has not been sufficiently attended to2 but ,i believe1 from observations communicated to me by ,mr4 ,hewitt1 who has had great experience in hybridising pheasants and fowls1 that the early death of the embryo is a very frequent cause of sterility in first crosses4 ,mr4 ,salter has recently given the results of an examination of about five hundred eggs produced from various crosses between three species of ,gallus and their hybrids2 the majority of these eggs had been fertilised2 and in the majority of the fertilised eggs1 the embryos had either been partially developed1 and had then perished1 or had become nearly mature1 but the young chickens had been unable to break through the shell4 ,of the chickens which were born more than four-fifths died within the first few days1 or at latest weeks1 #8without any obvious cause1 apparently from mere inability to live1' so that from the five hundred eggs only twelve chickens were reared0 78,origin of ,species10 #bdi1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,no wonder the poor creatures died1 distracted as they were by the internal tumult of conflicting memories4 ,but they must have suffered greatly2 and the ,society for the ,prevention of ,cruelty to ,animals may perhaps think it worth while to keep an eye even on the embryos of hybrids and first crosses4 ,five hundred creatures puzzled to death is not a pleasant subject for contemplation4 ,ten or a dozen should1 ,i think1 be sufficient for the future4 ,as regards plants1 we read3-- 8,hybridised embryos probably often perish in like manner 4 4 4 of which fact ,max ,wichura has given some striking cases with hybrid willows 4 4 4 ,it may be here worth noticing1 that in some cases of parthenogenesis1 the embryos within the eggs of silk moths1 which have not been fertilised1 pass through their early stages of development1 and then perish like the embryos produced by a cross between distinct species0 7,ibid74 ,this last fact would at first sight seem to make against me1 but we must consider that the presence of a double memory1 provided it be not too conflicting1 would be a part of the experience of the silk moth's egg1 which might be then as fatally puzzled by the monotony of a single memory as it would be by two memories which were not sufficiently like each other4 ,so that failure here must be referred to the utter absence of that little internal stimulant of slightly conflicting memory which the creature has always hitherto experienced1 and without which it fails to recognise itself4 ,in either case1 then1 whether with hybrids or in cases of parthenogenesis1 the early death of the embryo is due to inability to recollect1 owing to a fault in the chain of associated ideas4 ,all the facts here given are an excellent illustration of the principle1 elsewhere insisted upon by ,mr4 ,darwin1 that any great and sudden change of surroundings has a tendency to induce sterility2 on which head he writes 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 p4 #adc1 ed4 #ahge73-- 8,it would appear that any change in the habits of life1 whatever their habits may be1 if great enough1 tends to affect in an inexplicable manner the powers of reproduction40 ,and again on the next page3-- 8,finally1 we must conclude1 limited though the conclusion is1 that changed conditions of life have an especial power of acting injuriously on the reproductive system4 ,the whole case is quite peculiar1 for these organs1 though not diseased1 are thus rendered incapable of performing their proper functions1 or perform them imperfectly40 ,one is inclined to doubt whether the blame may not rest with the inability on the part of the creature reproduced to recognise the new surroundings1 and hence with its failing to know itself4 ,and this seems to be in some measure supported--but not in such a manner as ,i can hold to be quite satisfactory--by the continuation of the passage in the 8,origin of ,species10 from which ,i have just been quoting--for ,mr4 ,darwin goes on to say3-- 8,hybrids1 however1 are differently circumstanced before and after birth4 ,when born1 and living in a country where their parents live1 they are generally placed under suitable conditions of life4 ,but a hybrid partakes of only half of the nature and condition of its mother2 it may therefore before birth1 as long as it is nourished within its mother's womb1 or within the egg or seed produced by its mother1 be exposed to conditions in some degree unsuitable1 and consequently be liable to perish at an early period 4 4 4 0 ,after which1 however1 the conclusion arrived at is1 that1 8after all1 the cause more probably lies in some imperfection in the original act of impregnation1 causing the embryo to be imperfectly developed rather than in the conditions to which it is subsequently exposed40 ,a conclusion which ,i am not prepared to accept4 ,returning to my second alternative1 that is to say1 to the case of hybrids which are born well developed and healthy1 but nevertheless perfectly sterile1 it is less obvious why1 having succeeded in understanding the conflicting memories of their parents1 they should fail to produce offspring2 but ,i do not think the reader will feel surprised that this should be the case4 ,the following anecdote1 true or false1 may not be out of place here3-- 8,plutarch tells us of a magpie1 belonging to a barber at ,rome1 which could imitate to a nicety almost every word it heard4 ,some trumpets happened one day to be sounded before the shop1 and for a day or two afterwards the magpie was quite mute1 and seemed pensive and melancholy4 ,all who knew it were greatly surprised at its silence2 and it was supposed that the sound of the trumpets had so stunned it as to deprive it at once of both voice and hearing4 ,it soon appeared1 however1 that this was far from being the case2 for1 says ,plutarch1 the bird had been all the time occupied in profound meditation1 studying how to imitate the sound of the trumpets2 and when at last master of it1 the magpie1 to the astonishment of all its friends1 suddenly broke its long silence by a perfect imitation of the flourish of trumpets it had heard1 observing with the greatest exactness all the repetitions1 stops1 and changes4 ,the acquisition of this lesson had1 however1 exhausted the whole of the magpie's stock of intellect1 for it made it forget everything it had learned before0 78,percy ,anecdotes10 ,instinct1 p4 #aff74 ,or1 perhaps1 more seriously1 the memory of every impregnate ovum from which every ancestor of a mule1 for example1 has sprung1 has reverted to a very long period of time during which its forefathers have been creatures like that which it is itself now going to become3 thus1 the impregnate ovum from which the mule's father was developed remembered nothing but horse memories2 but it felt its faith in these supported by the recollection of a vast number of previous generations1 in which it was1 to all intents and purposes1 what it now is4 ,in like manner1 the impregnate ovum from which the mule's mother was developed would be backed by the assurance that it had done what it is going to do now a hundred thousand times already4 ,all would thus be plain sailing4 ,a horse and a donkey would result4 ,these two are brought together2 an impregnate ovum is produced which finds an unusual conflict of memory between the two lines of its ancestors1 nevertheless1 being accustomed to some conflict1 it manages to get over the difficulty1 as on either side it finds itself backed by a very long series of sufficiently steady memory4 ,a mule results--a creature so distinctly different from either horse or donkey1 that reproduction is baffled1 owing to the creature's having nothing but its own knowledge of itself to fall back upon1 behind which there comes an immediate dislocation1 or fault of memory1 which is sufficient to bar identity1 and hence reproduction1 by rendering too severe an appeal to reason necessary--for no creature can reproduce itself on the shallow foundation which reason can alone give4 ,ordinarily1 therefore1 the hybrid1 or the spermatozoon or ovum1 which it may throw off 7as the case may be71 finds one single experience too small to give it the necessary faith1 on the strength of which even to try to reproduce itself4 ,in other cases the hybrid itself has failed to be developed2 in others the hybrid1 or first cross1 is almost fertile2 in others it is fertile1 but produces depraved issue4 ,the result will vary with the capacities of the creatures crossed1 and the amount of conflict between their several experiences4 ,the above view would remove all difficulties out of the way of evolution1 in so far as the sterility of hybrids is concerned4 ,for it would thus appear that this sterility has nothing to do with any supposed immutable or fixed limits of species1 but results simply from the same principle which prevents old friends1 no matter how intimate in youth1 from returning to their old intimacy after a lapse of years1 during which they have been subjected to widely different influences1 inasmuch as they will each have contracted new habits1 and have got into new ways1 which they do not like now to alter4 ,we should expect that our domesticated plants and animals should vary most1 inasmuch as these have been subjected to changed conditions which would disturb the memory1 and1 breaking the chain of recollection1 through failure of some one or other of the associated ideas1 would thus directly and most markedly affect the reproductive system4 ,every reader of ,mr4 ,darwin will know that this is what actually happens1 and also that when once a plant or animal begins to vary1 it will probably vary a good deal further2 which1 again1 is what we should expect--the disturbance of the memory introducing a fresh factor of disturbance1 which has to be dealt with by the offspring as it best may4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes3 8,all our domesticated productions1 with the rarest exceptions1 vary far more than natural species0 78,plants and ,animals10 c41 vol4 ii4 p4 #bda1 ed4 #ahge74 ,on my third supposition1 i4e41 when the difference between parents has not been great enough to baffle reproduction on the part of the first cross1 but when the histories of the father and mother have been1 nevertheless1 widely different--as in the case of ,europeans and ,indians--we should expect to have a race of offspring who should seem to be quite clear only about those points1 on which their progenitors on both sides were in accord before the manifold divergencies in their experiences commenced2 that is to say1 the offspring should show a tendency to revert to an early savage condition4 ,that this indeed occurs may be seen from ,mr4 ,darwin's 8,plants and ,animals under ,domestication0 7vol4 ii4 p4 #ba1 ed4 #ahge71 where we find that travellers in all parts of the world have frequently remarked 8on the degraded state and savage condition of crossed races of man40 ,a few lines lower down ,mr4 ,darwin tells us that he was himself 8struck with the fact that1 in ,south ,america1 men of complicated descent between ,negroes1 ,indians1 and ,spaniards seldom had1 whatever the cause might be1 a good expression40 8,livingstone0 7continues ,mr4 ,darwin7 8remarks1 #8,it is unaccountable why half-castes are so much more cruel than the ,portuguese1 but such is undoubtedly the case4' ,an inhabitant remarked to ,livingstone1 #8,god made white men1 and ,god made black men1 but the devil made half-castes4'0 ,a little further on ,mr4 ,darwin says that we may 8perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition1 induced by the act of crossing1 even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared40 ,why the crossing should produce this particular tendency would seem to be intelligible enough1 if the fashion and instincts of offspring are1 in any case1 nothing but the memories of its past existences2 but it would hardly seem to be so upon any of the theories now generally accepted2 as1 indeed1 is very readily admitted by ,mr4 ,darwin himself1 who even1 as regards purely-bred animals and plants1 remarks that 8we are quite unable to assign any proximate cause0 for their tendency to at times reassume long lost characters4 ,if the reader will follow for himself the remaining phenomena of reversion1 he will1 ,i believe1 find them all explicable on the theory that they are due to memory of past experiences fused1 and modified--at times specifically and definitely--by changed conditions4 ,there is1 however1 one apparently very important phenomenon which ,i do not at this moment see how to connect with memory1 namely1 the tendency on the part of offspring to revert to an earlier impregnation4 ,mr4 ,darwin's 8,provisional ,theory of ,pangenesis0 seemed to afford a satisfactory explanation of this2 but the connection with memory was not immediately apparent4 ,i think it likely1 however1 that this difficulty will vanish on further consideration1 so ,i will not do more than call attention to it here4 ,the instincts of certain neuter insects hardly bear upon reversion1 but will be dealt with at some length in ,chapter ,,xii4 ,v4 ,we should expect to find1 as was insisted on in the preceding section in reference to the sterility of hybrids1 that it required many1 or at any rate several1 generations of changed habits before a sufficiently deep impression could be made upon the living being 7who must be regarded always as one person in his whole line of ascent or descent7 for it to be unconsciously remembered by him1 when making himself anew in any succeeding generation1 and thus to make him modify his method of procedure during his next embryological development4 ,nevertheless1 we should expect to find that sometimes a very deep single impression made upon a living organism1 should be remembered by it1 even when it is next in an embryonic condition4 ,that this is so1 we find from ,mr4 ,darwin1 who writes 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 p4 #eg1 ed4 #ahge7--8,there is ample evidence that the effect of mutilations and of accidents1 especially1 or perhaps exclusively1 when followed by disease0 7which would certainly intensify the impression made71 8are occasionally inherited4 ,there can be no doubt that the evil effects of the long continued exposure of the parent to injurious conditions are sometimes transmitted to the offspring40 ,as regards impressions of a less striking character1 it is so universally admitted that they are not observed to be repeated in what is called the offspring1 until they have been confirmed in what is called the parent1 for several generations1 but that after several generations1 more or fewer as the case may be1 they often are transmitted--that it seems unnecessary to say more upon the matter4 ,perhaps1 however1 the following passage from ,mr4 ,darwin may be admitted as conclusive3-- 8,that they0 7acquired actions7 8are inherited1 we see with horses in certain transmitted paces1 such as cantering and ambling1 which are not natural to them--in the pointing of young pointers1 and the setting of young setters--in the peculiar manner of flight of certain breeds of the pigeon1 c4 ,we have analogous cases with mankind in the inheritance of tricks or unusual gestures40 4 4 4 78,expression of the ,emotions10 p4 #bi74 ,in another place ,mr4 ,darwin writes3-- 8,how again can we explain the inherited effects of the use or disuse of particular organs8 ,the domesticated duck flies less and walks more than the wild duck1 and its limb bones have become diminished and increased in a corresponding manner in comparison with those of the wild duck4 ,a horse is trained to certain paces1 and the colt inherits similar consensual movements4 ,the domesticated rabbit becomes tame from close confinement2 the dog intelligent from associating with man2 the retriever is taught to fetch and carry2 and these mental endowments and bodily powers are all inherited0 78,plants and ,animals10 c41 vol4 ii4 p4 #cfg1 ed4 #ahge74 8,nothing10 he continues1 8in the whole circuit of physiology is more wonderful4 ,how can the use or disuse of a particular limb1 or of the brain1 affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells1 seated in a distant part of the body in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the character of one or both parents8 ,even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory0 78,plants and ,animals10 c4 vol4 ii4 p4 #cfg1 ed4 #ahge74 ,with such an imperfect answer will ,i attempt to satisfy the reader1 as to say that there appears to be that kind of continuity of existence and sameness of personality1 between parents and offspring1 which would lead us to expect that the impressions made upon the parent should be epitomised in the offspring1 when they have been or have become important enough1 through repetition in the history of several so-called existences to have earned a place in that smaller edition1 which is issued from generation to generation2 or1 in other words1 when they have been made so deeply1 either at one blow or through many1 that the offspring can remember them4 ,in practice we observe this to be the case--so that the answer lies in the assertion that offspring and parent1 being in one sense but the same individual1 there is no great wonder that1 in one sense1 the first should remember what had happened to the latter2 and that too1 much in the same way as the individual remembers the events in the earlier history of what he calls his own lifetime1 but condensed1 and pruned of detail1 and remembered as by one who has had a host of other matters to attend to in the interim4 ,it is thus easy to understand why such a rite as circumcision1 though practised during many ages1 should have produced little1 if any1 modification tending to make circumcision unnecessary4 ,on the view here supported such modification would be more surprising than not1 for unless the impression made upon the parent was of a grave character--and probably unless also aggravated by subsequent confusion of memories in the cells surrounding the part originally impressed--the parent himself would not be sufficiently impressed to prevent him from reproducing himself1 as he had already done upon an infinite number of past occasions4 ,the child1 therefore1 in the womb would do what the father in the womb had done before him1 nor should any trace of memory concerning circumcision be expected till the eighth day after birth1 when1 but for the fact that the impression in this case is forgotten almost as soon as made1 some slight presentiment of coming discomfort might1 after a large number of generations1 perhaps be looked for as a general rule4 ,it would not1 however1 be surprising1 that the effect of circumcision should be occasionally inherited1 and it would appear as though this was sometimes actually the case4 ,the question should turn upon whether the disuse of an organ has arisen3-- #a4 ,from an internal desire on the part of the creature disusing it1 to be quit of an organ which it finds troublesome4 #b4 ,from changed conditions and habits which render the organ no longer necessary1 or which lead the creature to lay greater stress on certain other organs or modifications4 #c4 ,from the wish of others outside itself2 the effect produced in this case being perhaps neither very good nor very bad for the individual1 and resulting in no grave impression upon the organism as a whole4 #d4 ,from a single deep impression on a parent1 affecting both himself as a whole1 and gravely confusing the memories of the cells to be reproduced1 or his memories in respect of those cells--according as one adopts ,pangenesis and supposes a memory to 8run0 each gemmule1 or as one supposes one memory to 8run0 the whole impregnate ovum--a compromise between these two views being nevertheless perhaps possible1 inasmuch as the combined memories of all the cells may possibly be the memory which 8runs0 the impregnate ovum1 just as we are ourselves the combination of all our cells1 each one of which is both autonomous1 and also takes its share in the central government4 ,but within the limits of this volume it is absolutely impossible for me to go into this question4 ,in the first case--under which some instances which belong more strictly to the fourth would sometimes1 but rarely1 come--the organ should soon go1 and sooner or later leave no rudiment1 though still perhaps to be found crossing the life of the embryo1 and then disappearing4 ,in the second it should go more slowly1 and leave1 it may be1 a rudimentary structure4 ,in the third it should show little or no sign of natural decrease for a very long time4 ,in the fourth there may be absolute and total sterility1 or sterility in regard to the particular organ1 or a scar which shall show that the memory of the wound and of each step in the process of healing has been remembered2 or there may be simply such disturbance in the reproduced organ as shall show a confused recollection of injury4 ,there may be infinite gradations between the first and last of these possibilities4 ,i think that the facts1 as given by ,mr4 ,darwin 78,plants and ,animals10 c41 vol4 i4 pp4 #dff-dgb1 ed4 #ahge71 will bear out the above to the satisfaction of the reader4 ,i can1 however1 only quote the following passage3-- 8 4 4 4 ,brown ,squard has bred during thirty years many thousand guinea-pigs1 4 4 4 nor has he ever seen a guinea-pig born without toes which was not the offspring of parents which had gnawed off their own toes1 owing to the sciatic nerve having been divided4 ,of this fact thirteen instances were carefully recorded1 and a greater number were seen2 yet ,brown ,squard speaks of such cases as among the rarer forms of inheritance4 ,it is a still more interesting fact--#8that the sciatic nerve in the congenitally toeless animal has inherited the power of passing through all the different morbid states which have occurred in one of its parents from the time of division till after its reunion with the peripheric end4 ,it is not therefore the power of simply performing an action which is inherited1 but the power of performing a whole series of actions in a certain order4'0 ,i feel inclined to say it is not merely the original wound that is remembered1 but the whole process of cure which is now accordingly repeated4 ,brown ,squard concludes1 as ,mr4 ,darwin tells us1 8that what is transmitted is the morbid state of the nervous system10 due to the operation performed on the parents4 ,a little lower down ,mr4 ,darwin writes that ,professor ,rolleston has given him two cases--8namely1 of two men1 one of whom had his knee1 and the other his cheek1 severely cut1 and both had children born with exactly the same spot marked or scarred40 ,,vi4 ,when1 however1 an impression has once reached transmission point--whether it be of the nature of a sudden striking thought1 which makes its mark deeply then and there1 or whether it be the result of smaller impressions repeated until the nail1 so to speak1 has been driven home--we should expect that it should be remembered by the offspring as something which he has done all his life1 and which he has therefore no longer any occasion to learn2 he will act1 therefore1 as people say1 instinctively4 ,no matter how complex and difficult the process1 if the parents have done it sufficiently often 7that is to say1 for a sufficient number of generations71 the offspring will remember the fact when association wakens the memory2 it will need no instruction1 and--unless when it has been taught to look for it during many generations--will expect none4 ,this may be seen in the case of the humming-bird sphinx moth1 which1 as ,mr4 ,darwin writes1 8shortly after its emergence from the cocoon1 as shown by the bloom on its unruffled scales1 may be seen poised stationary in the air with its long hair-like proboscis uncurled1 and inserted into the minute orifices of flowers2 and no one ,i believe has ever seen this moth learning to perform its difficult task1 which requires such unerring aim0 78,expression of the ,emotions10 p4 #cj74 ,and1 indeed1 when we consider that after a time the most complex and difficult actions come to be performed by man without the least effort or consciousness--that offspring cannot be considered as anything but a continuation of the parent life1 whose past habits and experiences it epitomises when they have been sufficiently often repeated to produce a lasting impression--that consciousness of memory vanishes on the memory's becoming intense1 as completely as the consciousness of complex and difficult movements vanishes as soon as they have been sufficiently practised--and finally1 that the real presence of memory is testified rather by performance of the repeated action on recurrence of like surroundings1 than by consciousness of recollecting on the part of the individual--so that not only should there be no reasonable bar to our attributing the whole range of the more complex instinctive actions1 from first to last1 to memory pure and simple1 no matter how marvellous they may be1 but rather that there is so much to compel us to do so1 that we find it difficult to conceive how any other view can have been ever taken--when1 ,i say1 we consider all these facts1 we should rather feel surprise that the hawk and sparrow still teach their offspring to fly1 than that the humming-bird sphinx moth should need no teacher4 ,the phenomena1 then1 which we observe are exactly those which we should expect to find4 ,,vii4 ,we should also expect that the memory of animals1 as regards their earlier existences1 was solely stimulated by association4 ,for we find1 from ,prof4 ,bain1 that 8actions1 sensations1 and states of feeling occurring together1 or in close succession1 tend to grow together or cohere in such a way that when any one of them is afterwards presented to the mind1 the others are apt to be brought up in idea0 78,the ,senses and the ,intellect10 #b;d ed4 #ahfd1 p4 #ccb74 ,and ,prof4 ,huxley says 78,elementary ,lessons in ,physiology10 #eth ed4 #ahgb1 p4 #cjf71 8,it may be laid down as a rule that if any two mental states be called up together1 or in succession1 with due frequency and vividness1 the subsequent production of the one of them will suffice to call up the other1 and that whether we desire it or not40 ,i would go one step further1 and would say not only whether we desire it or not1 but whether we are aware that the idea has ever before been called up in our minds or not4 ,i should say that ,i have quoted both the above passages from ,mr4 ,darwin's 8,expression of the ,emotions0 7p4 #cj1 ed4 #ahgb74 ,we should1 therefore1 expect that when the offspring found itself in the presence of objects which had called up such and such ideas for a sufficient number of generations1 that is to say1 8with due frequency and vividness0--it being of the same age as its parents were1 and generally in like case as when the ideas were called up in the minds of the parents--the same ideas should also be called up in the minds of the offspring 8whether they desire it or not20 and1 ,i would say also1 8whether they recognise the ideas as having ever before been present to them or not40 ,i think we might also expect that no other force1 save that of association1 should have power to kindle1 so to speak1 into the flame of action the atomic spark of memory1 which we can alone suppose to be transmitted from one generation to another4 ,that both plants and animals do as we should expect of them in this respect is plain1 not only from the performance of the most intricate and difficult actions--difficult both physically and intellectually--at an age1 and under circumstances which preclude all possibility of what we call instruction1 but from the fact that deviations from the parental instinct1 or rather the recurrence of a memory1 unless in connection with the accustomed train of associations1 is of comparatively rare occurrence2 the result1 commonly1 of some one of the many memories about which we know no more than we do of the memory which enables a cat to find her way home after a hundred-mile journey by train1 and shut up in a hamper1 or1 perhaps even more commonly1 of abnormal treatment4 ,,viii4 ,if1 then1 memory depends on association1 we should expect two corresponding phenomena in the case of plants and animals--namely1 that they should show a tendency to resume feral habits on being turned wild after several generations of domestication1 and also that peculiarities should tend to show themselves at a corresponding age in the offspring and in the parents4 ,as regards the tendency to resume feral habits1 ,mr4 ,darwin1 though apparently of opinion that the tendency to do this has been much exaggerated1 yet does not doubt that such a tendency exists1 as shown by well authenticated instances4 ,he writes3 8,it has been repeatedly asserted in the most positive manner by various authors that feral animals and plants invariably return to their primitive specific type40 ,this shows1 at any rate1 that there is a considerable opinion to this effect among observers generally4 ,he continues3 8,it is curious on what little evidence this belief rests4 ,many of our domesticated animals could not subsist in a wild state10--so that there is no knowing whether they would or would not revert4 8,in several cases we do not know the aboriginal parent species1 and cannot tell whether or not there has been any close degree of reversion40 ,so that here1 too1 there is at any rate no evidence against the tendency2 the conclusion1 however1 is that1 notwithstanding the deficiency of positive evidence to warrant the general belief as to the force of the tendency1 yet 8the simple fact of animals and plants becoming feral does cause some tendency to revert to the primitive state10 and he tells us that 8when variously-coloured tame rabbits are turned out in ,europe1 they generally re-acquire the colouring of the wild animal20 8there can be no doubt10 he says1 8that this really does occur10 though he seems inclined to account for it by the fact that oddly-coloured and conspicuous animals would suffer much from beasts of prey and from being easily shot4 8,the best known case of reversion30 he continues1 8and that on which the widely-spread belief in its universality apparently rests1 is that of pigs4 ,these animals have run wild in the ,west ,indies1 ,south ,america1 and the ,falkland ,islands1 and have everywhere re-acquired the dark colour1 the thick bristles1 and great tusks of the wild boar2 and the young have re-acquired longitudinal stripes40 ,and on page #bb of 8,plants and ,animals under ,domestication0 7vol4 ii4 ed4 #ahge7 we find that 8the re-appearance of coloured1 longitudinal stripes on young feral pigs cannot be attributed to the direct action of external conditions4 ,in this case1 and in many others1 we can only say that any change in the habits of life apparently favours a tendency1 inherent or latent1 in the species to return to the primitive state40 ,on which one cannot but remark that though any change may favour such tendency1 yet the return to original habits and surroundings appears to do so in a way so marked as not to be readily referable to any other cause than that of association and memory--the creature1 in fact1 having got into its old groove1 remembers it1 and takes to all its old ways4 ,as regards the tendency to inherit changes 7whether embryonic1 or during post-natal development as ordinarily observed in any species71 or peculiarities of habit or form which do not partake of the nature of disease1 it must be sufficient to refer the reader to ,mr4 ,darwin's remarks upon this subject 78,plants and ,animals ,under ,domestication10 vol4 ii4 pp4 #ea-eg1 ed4 #ahge74 ,the existence of the tendency is not likely to be denied4 ,the instances given by ,mr4 ,darwin are strictly to the point as regards all ordinary developmental and metamorphic changes1 and even as regards transmitted acquired actions1 and tricks acquired before the time when the offspring has issued from the body of the parent1 or on an average of many generations does so2 but it cannot for a moment be supposed that the offspring knows by inheritance anything about what happens to the parent subsequently to the offspring's being born4 ,hence the appearance of diseases in the offspring1 at comparatively late periods in life1 but at the same age as1 or earlier1 than in the parents1 must be regarded as due to the fact that in each case the machine having been made after the same pattern 7which is due to memory71 is liable to have the same weak points1 and to break down after a similar amount of wear and tear2 but after less wear and tear in the case of the offspring than in that of the parent1 because a diseased organism is commonly a deteriorating organism1 and if repeated at all closely1 and without repentance and amendment of life1 will be repeated for the worse4 ,if we do not improve1 we grow worse4 ,this1 at least1 is what we observe daily4 ,nor again can we believe1 as some have fancifully imagined1 that the remembrance of any occurrence of which the effect has been entirely1 or almost entirely mental1 should be remembered by offspring with any definiteness4 ,the intellect of the offspring might be affected1 for better or worse1 by the general nature of the intellectual employment of the parent2 or a great shock to a parent might destroy or weaken the intellect of the offspring2 but unless a deep impression were made upon the cells of the body1 and deepened by subsequent disease1 we could not expect it to be remembered with any definiteness1 or precision4 ,we may talk as we will about mental pain1 and mental scars1 but after all1 the impressions they leave are incomparably less durable than those made by an organic lesion4 ,it is probable1 therefore1 that the feeling which so many have described1 as though they remembered this or that in some past existence1 is purely imaginary1 and due rather to unconscious recognition of the fact that we certainly have lived before1 than to any actual occurrence corresponding to the supposed recollection4 ,and lastly1 we should look to find in the action of memory1 as between one generation and another1 a reflection of the many anomalies and exceptions to ordinary rules which we observe in memory1 so far as we can watch its action in what we call our own single lives1 and the single lives of others4 ,we should expect that reversion should be frequently capricious--that is to say1 give us more trouble to account for than we are either able or willing to take4 ,and assuredly we find it so in fact4 ,mr4 ,darwin--from whom it is impossible to quote too much or too fully1 inasmuch as no one else can furnish such a store of facts1 so well arranged1 and so above all suspicion of either carelessness or want of candour--so that1 however we may differ from him1 it is he himself who shows us how to do so1 and whose pupils we all are--,mr4 ,darwin writes3 8,in every living being we may rest assured that a host of long-lost characters lie ready to be evolved under proper conditions0 7does not one almost long to substitute the word 8memories0 for the word 8characters807 8,how can we make intelligible1 and connect with other facts1 this wonderful and common capacity of reversion--this power of calling back to life long-lost characters80 78,plants and ,animals10 c41 vol4 ii4 p4 #cfi1 ed4 #ahge74 ,surely the answer may be hazarded1 that we shall be able to do so when we can make intelligible the power of calling back to life long-lost memories4 ,but ,i grant that this answer holds out no immediate prospect of a clear understanding4 ,one word more4 ,abundant facts are to be found which point inevitably1 as will appear more plainly in the following chapter1 in the direction of thinking that offspring inherits the memories of its parents2 but ,i know of no single fact which suggests that parents are in the smallest degree affected 7other than sympathetically7 by the memories of their offspring after that offspring has been born4 ,whether the unborn offspring affects the memory of the mother in some particulars1 and whether we have here the explanation of occasional reversion to a previous impregnation1 is a matter on which ,i should hardly like to express an opinion now4 ,nor1 again1 can ,i find a single fact which seems to indicate any memory of the parental life on the part of offspring later than the average date of the offspring's quitting the body of the parent4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,instinct ,,as ,,inherited ,,memory4 ,i ,,have already alluded to ,m4 ,ribot's work on 8,heredity10 from which ,i will now take the following passages4 ,m4 ,ribot writes3-- 8,instinct is innate1 i4e41 anterior to all individual experience40 ,this ,i deny on grounds already abundantly apparent2 but let it pass4 8,whereas intelligence is developed slowly by accumulated experience1 instinct is perfect from the first0 78,heredity10 p4 #ad74 ,obviously the memory of a habit or experience will not commonly be transmitted to offspring in that perfection which is called 8instinct10 till the habit or experience has been repeated in several generations with more or less uniformity2 for otherwise the impression made will not be strong enough to endure through the busy and difficult task of reproduction4 ,this of course involves that the habit shall have attained1 as it were equilibrium with the creature's sense of its own needs1 so that it shall have long seemed the best course possible1 leaving upon the whole and under ordinary circumstances little further to be desired1 and hence that it should have been little varied during many generations4 ,we should expect that it would be transmitted in a more or less partial1 varying1 imperfect1 and intelligent condition before equilibrium had been attained2 it would1 however1 continually tend towards equilibrium1 for reasons which will appear more fully later on4 ,when this stage has been reached1 as regards any habit1 the creature will cease trying to improve2 on which the repetition of the habit will become stable1 and hence become capable of more unerring transmission--but at the same time improvement will cease2 the habit will become fixed1 and be perhaps transmitted at an earlier and earlier age1 till it has reached that date of manifestation which shall be found most agreeable to the other habits of the creature4 ,it will also be manifested1 as a matter of course1 without further consciousness or reflection1 for people cannot be always opening up settled questions2 if they thought a matter over yesterday they cannot think it all over again to-day1 but will adopt for better or worse the conclusion then reached2 and this1 too1 even in spite sometimes of considerable misgiving1 that if they were to think still further they could find a still better course4 ,it is not1 therefore1 to be expected that 8instinct0 should show signs of that hesitating and tentative action which results from knowledge that is still so imperfect as to be actively self-conscious2 nor yet that it should grow or vary1 unless under such changed conditions as shall baffle memory1 and present the alternative of either invention--that is to say1 variation--or death4 ,but every instinct must have poised through the laboriously intelligent stages through which human civilisations and mechanical inventions are now passing2 and he who would study the origin of an instinct with its development1 partial transmission1 further growth1 further transmission1 approach to more unreflecting stability1 and finally1 its perfection as an unerring and unerringly transmitted instinct1 must look to laws1 customs1 and machinery as his best instructors4 ,customs and machines are instincts and organs now in process of development2 they will assuredly one day reach the unconscious state of equilibrium which we observe in the structures and instincts of bees and ants1 and an approach to which may be found among some savage nations4 ,we may reflect1 however1 not without pleasure1 that this condition--the true millennium--is still distant4 ,nevertheless the ants and bees seem happy2 perhaps more happy than when so many social questions were in as hot discussion among them1 as other1 and not dissimilar ones1 will one day be amongst ourselves4 ,and this1 as will be apparent1 opens up the whole question of the stability of species1 which we cannot follow further here1 than to say1 that according to the balance of testimony1 many plants and animals do appear to have reached a phase of being from which they are hard to move--that is to say1 they will die sooner than be at the pains of altering their habits--true martyrs to their convictions4 ,such races refuse to see changes in their surroundings as long as they can1 but when compelled to recognise them1 they throw up the game because they cannot and will not1 or will not and cannot1 invent4 ,and this is perfectly intelligible1 for a race is nothing but a long-lived individual1 and like any individual1 or tribe of men whom we have yet observed1 will have its special capacities and its special limitations1 though1 as in the case of the individual1 so also with the race1 it is exceedingly hard to say what those limitations are1 and why1 having been able to go so far1 it should go no further4 ,every man and every race is capable of education up to a certain point1 but not to the extent of being made from a sow's ear into a silk purse4 ,the proximate cause of the limitation seems to lie in the absence of the wish to go further2 the presence or absence of the wish will depend upon the nature and surroundings of the individual1 which is simply a way of saying that one can get no further1 but that as the song 7with a slight alteration7 says3-- 8,some breeds do1 and some breeds don't1 ,some breeds will1 but this breed won't1 ,i tried very often to see if it would1 ,but it said it really couldn't1 and ,i don't think it could40 ,it may perhaps be maintained1 that with time and patience1 one might train a rather stupid plough-boy to understand the differential calculus4 ,this might be done with the help of an inward desire on the part of the boy to learn1 but never otherwise4 ,if the boy wants to learn or to improve generally1 he will do so in spite of every hindrance1 till in time he becomes a very different being from what he was originally4 ,if he does not want to learn1 he will not do so for any wish of another person4 ,if he feels that he has the power he will wish2 or if he wishes1 he will begin to think he has the power1 and try to fulfil his wishes2 one cannot say which comes first1 for the power and the desire go always hand in hand1 or nearly so1 and the whole business is nothing but a most vicious circle from first to last4 ,but it is plain that there is more to be said on behalf of such circles than we have been in the habit of thinking4 ,do what we will1 we must each one of us argue in a circle of our own1 from which1 so long as we live at all1 we can by no possibility escape4 ,i am not sure whether the frank acceptation and recognition of this fact is not the best corrective for dogmatism that we are likely to find4 ,we can understand that a pigeon might in the course of ages grow to be a peacock if there was a persistent desire on the part of the pigeon through all these ages to do so4 ,we know very well that this has not probably occurred in nature1 inasmuch as no pigeon is at all likely to wish to be very different from what it is now4 ,the idea of being anything very different from what it now is1 would be too wide a cross with the pigeon's other ideas for it to entertain it seriously4 ,if the pigeon had never seen a peacock1 it would not be able to conceive the idea1 so as to be able to make towards it2 if1 on the other hand1 it had seen one1 it would not probably either want to become one1 or think that it would be any use wanting seriously1 even though it were to feel a passing fancy to be so gorgeously arrayed2 it would therefore lack that faith without which no action1 and with which1 every action1 is possible4 ,that creatures have conceived the idea of making themselves like other creatures or objects which it was to their advantage or pleasure to resemble1 will be believed by any one who turns to ,mr4 ,mivart's 8,genesis of ,species10 where he will find 7chapter ii47 an account of some very showy ,south ,american butterflies1 which give out such a strong odour that nothing will eat them1 and which are hence mimicked both in appearance and flight by a very different kind of butterfly2 and1 again1 we see that certain birds1 without any particular desire of gain1 no sooner hear any sound than they begin to mimick it1 merely for the pleasure of mimicking2 so we all enjoy to mimick1 or to hear good mimicry1 so also monkeys imitate the actions which they observe1 from pure force of sympathy4 ,to mimick1 or to wish to mimick1 is doubtless often one of the first steps towards varying in any given direction4 ,not less1 in all probability1 than a full twenty per cent4 of all the courage and good nature now existing in the world1 derives its origin1 at no very distant date1 from a desire to appear courageous and good-natured4 ,and this suggests a work whose title should be 8,on the ,fine ,arts as bearing on the ,reproductive ,system10 of which the title must suffice here4 ,against faith1 then1 and desire1 all the 8natural selection0 in the world will not stop an amba from becoming an elephant1 if a reasonable time be granted2 without the faith and the desire1 neither 8natural selection0 nor artificial breeding will be able to do much in the way of modifying any structure4 ,when we have once thoroughly grasped the conception that we are all one creature1 and that each one of us is many millions of years old1 so that all the pigeons in the one line of an infinite number of generations are still one pigeon only--then we can understand that a bird1 as different from a peacock as a pigeon is now1 could yet have wandered on and on1 first this way and then that1 doing what it liked1 and thought that it could do1 till it found itself at length a peacock2 but we cannot believe either that a bird like a pigeon should be able to apprehend any ideal so different from itself as a peacock1 and make towards it1 or that man1 having wished to breed a bird anything like a peacock from a bird anything like a pigeon1 would be able to succeed in accumulating accidental peacock-like variations till he had made the bird he was in search of1 no matter in what number of generations2 much less can we believe that the accumulation of small fortuitous variations by 8natural selection0 could succeed better4 ,we can no more believe the above1 than we can believe that a wish outside a plough-boy could turn him into a senior wrangler4 ,the boy would prove to be too many for his teacher1 and so would the pigeon for its breeder4 ,i do not forget that artificial breeding has modified the original type of the horse and the dog1 till it has at length produced the dray-horse and the greyhound2 but in each case man has had to get use and disuse--that is to say1 the desires of the animal itself--to help him4 ,we are led1 then1 to the conclusion that all races have what for practical purposes may be considered as their limits1 though there is no saying what those limits are1 nor indeed why1 in theory1 there should be any limits at all1 but only that there are limits in practice4 ,races which vary considerably must be considered as clever1 but it may be speculative1 people who commonly have a genius in some special direction1 as perhaps for mimicry1 perhaps for beauty1 perhaps for music1 perhaps for the higher mathematics1 but seldom in more than one or two directions2 while 8inflexible organisations10 like that of the goose1 may be considered as belonging to people with one idea1 and the greater tendency of plants and animals to vary under domestication may be reasonably compared with the effects of culture and education3 that is to say1 may be referred to increased range and variety of experience or perceptions1 which will either cause sterility1 if they be too unfamiliar1 so as to be incapable of fusion with preceding ideas1 and hence to bring memory to a sudden fault1 or will open the door for all manner of further variation--the new ideas having suggested new trains of thought1 which a clever example of a clever race will be only too eager to pursue4 ,let us now return to ,m4 ,ribot4 ,he writes 7p4 #ad73--8,the duckling hatched by the hen makes straight for water40 ,in what conceivable way can we account for this1 except on the supposition that the duckling knows perfectly well what it can1 and what it cannot do with water1 owing to its recollection of what it did when it was still one individuality with its parents1 and hence1 when it was a duckling before8 8,the squirrel1 before it knows anything of winter1 lays up a store of nuts4 ,a bird when hatched in a cage will1 when given its freedom1 build for itself a nest like that of its parents1 out of the same materials1 and of the same shape40 ,if this is not due to memory1 even an imperfect explanation of what else it can be due to1 8would be satisfactory40 8,intelligence gropes about1 tries this way and that1 misses its object1 commits mistakes1 and corrects them40 ,yes4 ,because intelligence is of consciousness1 and consciousness is of attention1 and attention is of uncertainty1 and uncertainty is of ignorance or want of consciousness4 ,intelligence is not yet thoroughly up to its business4 8,instinct advances with a mechanical certainty40 ,why mechanical8 ,should not 8with apparent certainty0 suffice8 8,hence comes its unconscious character40 ,but for the word 8mechanical0 this is true1 and is what we have been all along insisting on4 8,it knows nothing either of ends1 or of the means of attaining them2 it implies no comparison1 judgment1 or choice40 ,this is assumption4 ,what is certain is that instinct does not betray signs of self-consciousness as to its own knowledge4 ,it has dismissed reference to first principles1 and is no longer under the law1 but under the grace of a settled conviction4 8,all seems directed by thought40 ,yes2 because all has been in earlier existences directed by thought4 8,without ever arriving at thought40 ,because it has got past thought1 and though 8directed by thought0 originally1 is now travelling in exactly the opposite direction4 ,it is not likely to reach thought again1 till people get to know worse and worse how to do things1 the oftener they practise them4 8,and if this phenomenon appear strange1 it must be observed that analogous states occur in ourselves4 ,all that we do from habit--walking1 writing1 or practising a mechanical act1 for instance--all these and many other very complex acts are performed without consciousness4 8,instinct appears stationary4 ,it does not1 like intelligence1 seem to grow and decay1 to gain and to lose4 ,it does not improve40 ,naturally4 ,for improvement can only as a general rule be looked for along the line of latest development1 that is to say1 in matters concerning which the creature is being still consciously exercised4 ,older questions are settled1 and the solution must be accepted as final1 for the question of living at all would be reduced to an absurdity1 if everything decided upon one day was to be undecided again the next2 as with painting or music1 so with life and politics1 let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind1 for decision with wrong will be commonly a better policy than indecision--,i had almost added with right2 and a firm purpose with risk will be better than an infirm one with temporary exemption from disaster4 ,every race has made its great blunders1 to which it has nevertheless adhered1 inasmuch as the corresponding modification of other structures and instincts was found preferable to the revolution which would be caused by a radical change of structure1 with consequent havoc among a legion of vested interests4 ,rudimentary organs are1 as has been often said1 the survivals of these interests--the signs of their peaceful and gradual extinction as living faiths2 they are also instances of the difficulty of breaking through any cant or trick which we have long practised1 and which is not sufficiently troublesome to make it a serious object with us to cure ourselves of the habit4 8,if it does not remain perfectly invariable1 at least it only varies within very narrow limits2 and though this question has been warmly debated in our day1 and is yet unsettled1 we may yet say that in instinct immutability is the law1 variation the exception40 ,this is quite as it should be4 ,genius will occasionally rise a little above convention1 but with an old convention immutability will be the rule4 8,such10 continues ,m4 ,ribot1 8are the admitted characters of instinct40 ,yes2 but are they not also the admitted characters of actions that are due to memory8 ,at the bottom of p4 #ae1 ,m4 ,ribot quotes the following from ,mr4 ,darwin3-- 8,we have reason to believe that aboriginal habits are long retained under domestication4 ,thus with the common ass1 we see signs of its original desert-life in its strong dislike to cross the smallest stream of water1 and in its pleasure in rolling in the dust4 ,the same strong dislike to cross a stream is common to the camel which has been domesticated from a very early period4 ,young pigs1 though so tame1 sometimes squat when frightened1 and then try to conceal themselves1 even in an open and bare place4 ,young turkeys1 and occasionally even young fowls1 when the hen gives the danger-cry1 run away and try to hide themselves1 like young partridges or pheasants1 in order that their mother may take flight1 of which she has lost the power4 ,the musk duck in its native country often perches and roosts on trees1 and our domesticated musk ducks1 though sluggish birds1 are fond of perching on the tops of barns1 walls1 c4 4 4 4 ,we know that the dog1 however well and regularly fed1 often buries like the fox any superfluous food2 we see him turning round and round on a carpet as if to trample down grass to form a bed4 4 4 4 ,in the delight with which lambs and kids crowd together and frisk upon the smallest hillock we see a vestige of their former alpine habits40 ,what does this delightful passage go to show1 if not that the young in all these cases must still have a latent memory of their past existences1 which is called into an active condition as soon as the associated ideas present themselves8 ,returning to ,m4 ,ribot's own observations1 we find he tells us that it usually requires three or four generations to fix the results of training1 and to prevent a return to the instincts of the wild state4 ,i think1 however1 it would not be presumptuous to suppose that if an animal after only three or four generations of training be restored to its original conditions of life1 it will forget its intermediate training and return to its old ways1 almost as readily as a ,london street ,arab would forget the beneficial effects of a weeks training in a reformatory school1 if he were then turned loose again on the streets4 ,so if we hatch wild ducks' eggs under a tame duck1 the ducklings 8will have scarce left the egg-shell when they obey the instincts of their race and take their flight40 ,so the colts from wild horses1 and mongrel young between wild and domesticated horses1 betray traces of their earlier memories4 ,on this ,m4 ,ribot says3 8,originally man had considerable trouble in taming the animals which are now domesticated2 and his work would have been in vain had not heredity0 7memory7 8come to his aid4 ,it may be said that after man has modified a wild animal to his will1 there goes on in its progeny a silent conflict between two heredities0 7memories71 8the one tending to fix the acquired modifications and the other to preserve the primitive instincts4 ,the latter often get the mastery1 and only after several generations is training sure of victory4 ,but we may see that in either case heredity0 7memory7 8always asserts its rights40 ,how marvellously is the above passage elucidated and made to fit in with the results of our recognised experience1 by the simple substitution of the word 8memory0 for 8heredity40 8,among the higher animals0--to continue quoting--8which are possessed not only of instinct1 but also of intelligence1 nothing is more common than to see mental dispositions1 which have evidently been acquired1 so fixed by heredity1 that they are confounded with instinct1 so spontaneous and automatic do they become4 ,young pointers have been known to point the first time they were taken out1 sometimes even better than dogs that had been for a long time in training4 ,the habit of saving life is hereditary in breeds that have been brought up to it1 as is also the shepherd dog's habit of moving around the flock and guarding it40 ,as soon as we have grasped the notion1 that instinct is only the epitome of past experience1 revised1 corrected1 made perfect1 and learnt by rote1 we no longer find any desire to separate 8instinct0 from 8mental dispositions1 which have evidently been acquired and fixed by heredity10 for the simple reason that they are one and the same thing4 ,a few more examples are all that my limits will allow--they abound on every side1 and the difficulty lies only in selecting--,m4 ,ribot being to hand1 ,i will venture to lay him under still further contributions4 ,on page #ai we find3--8,knight has shown experimentally the truth of the proverb1 #8a good hound is bred so1' he took every care that when the pups were first taken into the field1 they should receive no guidance from older dogs2 yet the very first day1 one of the pups stood trembling with anxiety1 having his eyes fixed and all his muscles strained at the partridges which their parents had been trained to point4 ,a spaniel belonging to a breed which had been trained to woodcock-shooting1 knew perfectly well from the first how to act like an old dog1 avoiding places where the ground was frozen1 and where it was1 therefore1 useless to seek the game1 as there was no scent4 ,finally1 a young polecat terrier was thrown into a state of great excitement the first time he ever saw one of these animals1 while a spaniel remained perfectly calm4 8,in ,south ,america1 according to ,roulin1 dogs belonging to a breed that has long been trained to the dangerous chase of the peccary1 when taken for the first time into the woods1 know the tactics to adopt quite as well as the old dogs1 and that without any instruction4 ,dogs of other races1 and unacquainted with the tactics1 are killed at once1 no matter how strong they may be4 ,the ,american greyhound1 instead of leaping at the stag1 attacks him by the belly1 and throws him over1 as his ancestors had been trained to do in hunting the ,indians4 8,thus1 then1 heredity transmits modification no less than natural instincts40 ,should not this rather be--8thus1 then1 we see that not only older and remoter habits1 but habits which have been practised for a comparatively small number of generations1 may be so deeply impressed on the individual that they may dwell in his memory1 surviving the so-called change of personality which he undergoes in each successive generation08 8,there is1 however1 an important difference to be noted3 the heredity of instincts admits of no exceptions1 while in that of modifications there are many40 ,it may be well doubted how far the heredity of instincts admits of no exceptions2 on the contrary1 it would seem probable that in many races geniuses have from time to time arisen who remembered not only their past experiences1 as far as action and habit went1 but have been able to rise in some degree above habit where they felt that improvement was possible1 and who carried such improvement into further practice1 by slightly modifying their structure in the desired direction on the next occasion that they had a chance of dealing with protoplasm at all4 ,it is by these rare instances of intellectual genius 7and ,i would add of moral genius1 if many of the instincts and structures of plants and animals did not show that they had got into a region as far above morals--other than enlightened self-interest--as they are above articulate consciousness of their own aims in many other respects7--it is by these instances of either rare good luck or rare genius that many species have been1 in all probability1 originated or modified4 ,nevertheless inappreciable modification of instinct is1 and ought to be1 the rule4 ,as to ,m4 ,ribot's assertion1 that to the heredity of modifications there are many exceptions1 ,i readily agree with it1 and can only say that it is exactly what ,i should expect2 the lesson long since learnt by rote1 and repeated in an infinite number of generations1 would be repeated unintelligently1 and with little or no difference1 save from a rare accidental slip1 the effect of which would be the culling out of the bungler who was guilty of it1 or from the still rarer appearance of an individual of real genius2 while the newer lesson would be repeated both with more hesitation and uncertainty1 and with more intelligence2 and this is well conveyed in ,m4 ,ribot's next sentence1 for he says--8,it is only when variations have been firmly rooted2 when having become organic1 they constitute a second nature1 which supplants the first2 when1 like instinct1 they have assumed a mechanical character1 that they can be transmitted40 ,how nearly ,m4 ,ribot comes to the opinion which ,i myself venture to propound will appear from the following further quotation4 ,after dealing with somnambulism1 and saying1 that if somnambulism were permanent and innate1 it would be impossible to distinguish it from instinct1 he continues3-- 8,hence it is less difficult than is generally supposed1 to conceive how intelligence may become instinct2 we might even say that1 leaving out of consideration the character of innateness1 to which we will return1 we have seen the metamorphosis take place4 ,there can then be no ground for making instinct a faculty apart1 sui generis1 a phenomenon so mysterious1 so strange1 that usually no other explanation of it is offered but that of attributing it to the direct act of the ,deity4 ,this whole mistake is the result of a defective psychology which makes no account of the unconscious activity of the soul40 ,we are tempted to add--8and which also makes no account of the bon fide character of the continued personality of successive generations40 8,but we are so accustomed10 he continues1 8to contrast the characters of instinct with those of intelligence--to say that instinct is innate1 invariable1 automatic1 while intelligence is something acquired1 variable1 spontaneous--that it looks at first paradoxical to assert that instinct and intelligence are identical4 8,it is said that instinct is innate4 ,but if1 on the one hand1 we bear in mind that many instincts are acquired1 and that1 according to a theory hereafter to be explained0 7which theory1 ,i frankly confess1 ,i never was able to get hold of71 8all instincts are only hereditary habits0 7italics mine72 8if1 on the other hand1 we observe that intelligence is in some sense held to be innate by all modern schools of philosophy1 which agree to reject the theory of the tabula rasa0 7if there is no tabula rasa1 there is continued psychological personality1 or words have lost their meaning71 8and to accept either latent ideas1 or priori forms of thought0 7surely only a periphrasis for continued personality and memory7 8or pre-ordination of the nervous system and of the organism2 it will be seen that this character of innateness does not constitute an absolute distinction between instinct and intelligence4 8,it is true that intelligence is variable1 but so also is instinct1 as we have seen4 ,in winter1 the ,rhine beaver plasters his wall to windward2 once he was a builder1 now a burrower2 once he lived in society1 now he is solitary4 ,intelligence itself can scarcely be more variable 4 4 4 instinct may be modified1 lost1 reawakened4 8,although intelligence is1 as a rule1 conscious1 it may also become unconscious and automatic1 without losing its identity4 ,neither is instinct always so blind1 so mechanical1 as is supposed1 for at times it is at fault4 ,the wasp that has faultily trimmed a leaf of its paper begins again4 ,the bee only gives the hexagonal form to its cell after many attempts and alterations4 ,it is difficult to believe that the loftier instincts0 7and surely1 then1 the more recent instincts7 8of the higher animals are not accompanied by at least a confused consciousness4 ,there is1 therefore1 no absolute distinction between instinct and intelligence2 there is not a single characteristic which1 seriously considered1 remains the exclusive property of either4 ,the contrast established between instinctive acts and intellectual acts is1 nevertheless1 perfectly true1 but only when we compare the extremes4 ,as instinct rises it approaches intelligence--as intelligence descends it approaches instinct40 ,m4 ,ribot and myself 7if ,i may venture to say so7 are continually on the verge of coming to an understanding1 when1 at the very moment that we seem most likely to do so1 we fly1 as it were1 to opposite poles4 ,surely the passage last quoted should be1 8,as instinct falls10 i4e41 becomes less and less certain of its ground1 8it approaches intelligence2 as intelligence rises10 i4e41 becomes more and more convinced of the truth and expediency of its convictions--8it approaches instinct40 ,enough has been said to show that the opinions which ,i am advancing are not new1 but ,i have looked in vain for the conclusions which1 it appears to me1 ,m4 ,ribot should draw from his facts2 throughout his interesting book ,i find the facts which it would seem should have guided him to the conclusions1 and sometimes almost the conclusions themselves1 but he never seems quite to have reached them1 nor has he arranged his facts so that others are likely to deduce them1 unless they had already arrived at them by another road4 ,i cannot1 however1 sufficiently express my obligations to ,m4 ,ribot4 ,i cannot refrain from bringing forward a few more instances of what ,i think must be considered by every reader as hereditary memory4 ,sydney ,smith writes3-- 8,sir ,james ,hall hatched some chickens in an oven4 ,within a few minutes after the shell was broken1 a spider was turned loose before this very youthful brood2 the destroyer of flies had hardly proceeded more than a few inches1 before he was descried by one of these oven-born chickens1 and1 at one peck of his bill1 immediately devoured4 ,this certainly was not imitation4 ,a female goat very near delivery died2 ,galen cut out the young kid1 and placed before it a bundle of hay1 a bunch of fruit1 and a pan of milk2 the young kid smelt to them all very attentively1 and then began to lap the milk4 ,this was not imitation4 ,and what is commonly and rightly called instinct1 cannot be explained away1 under the notion of its being imitation0 7,lecture xvii4 on ,moral ,philosophy74 ,it cannot1 indeed1 be explained away under the notion of its being imitation1 but ,i think it may well be so under that of its being memory4 ,again1 a little further on in the same lecture1 as that above quoted from1 we find3-- 8,ants and beavers lay up magazines4 ,where do they get their knowledge that it will not be so easy to collect food in rainy weather1 as it is in summer8 ,men and women know these things1 because their grandpapas and grandmammas have told them so4 ,ants hatched from the egg artificially1 or birds hatched in this manner1 have all this knowledge by intuition1 without the smallest communication with any of their relations4 ,now observe what the solitary wasp does2 she digs several holes in the sand1 in each of which she deposits an egg1 though she certainly knows not 787 that an animal is deposited in that egg1 and still less that this animal must be nourished with other animals4 ,she collects a few green flies1 rolls them up neatly in several parcels 7like ,bologna sausages71 and stuffs one parcel into each hole where an egg is deposited4 ,when the wasp worm is hatched1 it finds a store of provision ready made2 and what is most curious1 the quantity allotted to each is exactly sufficient to support it1 till it attains the period of wasphood1 and can provide for itself4 ,this instinct of the parent wasp is the more remarkable as it does not feed upon flesh itself4 ,here the little creature has never seen its parent2 for by the time it is born1 the parent is always eaten by sparrows2 and yet1 without the slightest education1 or previous experience1 it does everything that the parent did before it4 ,now the objectors to the doctrine of instinct may say what they please1 but young tailors have no intuitive method of making pantaloons2 a new-born mercer cannot measure diaper2 nature teaches a cook's daughter nothing about sippets4 ,all these things require with us seven years' apprenticeship2 but insects are like ,molire's persons of quality--they know everything 7as ,molire says71 without having learnt anything4 #8,les gens de qualit savent tout1 sans avoir rien appris4'0 ,how completely all difficulty vanishes from the facts so pleasantly told in this passage when we bear in mind the true nature of personal identity1 the ordinary working of memory1 and the vanishing tendency of consciousness concerning what we know exceedingly well4 ,my last instance ,i take from ,m4 ,ribot1 who writes3--8,gratiolet1 in his ,anatomie ,compare du ,systme ,nerveux1 states that an old piece of wolf's skin1 with the hair all worn away1 when set before a little dog1 threw the animal into convulsions of fear by the slight scent attaching to it4 ,the dog had never seen a wolf1 and we can only explain this alarm by the hereditary transmission of certain sentiments1 coupled with a certain perception of the sense of smell0 78,heredity10 p4 #dc74 ,i should prefer to say 8we can only explain the alarm by supposing that the smell of the wolf's skin0--the sense of smell being1 as we all know1 more powerful to recall the ideas that have been associated with it than any other sense--8brought up the ideas with which it had been associated in the dog's mind during many previous existences0--he on smelling the wolf's skin remembering all about wolves perfectly well4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,instincts ,,of ,,neuter ,,insects4 ,,in this chapter ,i will consider1 as briefly as possible1 the strongest argument that ,i have been able to discover against the supposition that instinct is chiefly due to habit4 ,i have said 8the strongest argument20 ,i should have said1 the only argument that struck me as offering on the face of it serious difficulties4 ,turning1 then1 to ,mr4 ,darwin's chapter on instinct 78,natural ,selection10 ed4 #ahgf1 p4 #bje71 we find substantially much the same views as those taken at a later date by ,m4 ,ribot1 and referred to in the preceding chapter4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes3-- 8,an action1 which we ourselves require experience to enable us to perform1 when performed by an animal1 more especially a very young one1 without experience1 and when performed by many animals in the same way without their knowing for what purpose it is performed1 is usually said to be instinctive40 ,the above should strictly be1 8without their being conscious of their own knowledge concerning the purpose for which they act as they do20 and though some may say that the two phrases come to the same thing1 ,i think there is an important difference1 as what ,i propose distinguishes ignorance from over-familiarity1 both which states are alike unself-conscious1 though with widely different results4 8,but ,i could show10 continues ,mr4 ,darwin1 8that none of these characters are universal4 ,a little dose of judgement or reason1 as ,pierre ,huber expresses it1 often comes into play even with animals low in the scale of nature4 8,frederick ,cuvier and several of the older metaphysicians have compared instinct with habit40 ,i would go further and would say1 that instinct1 in the great majority of cases1 is habit pure and simple1 contracted originally by some one or more individuals2 practised1 probably1 in a consciously intelligent manner during many successive lives1 until the habit has acquired the highest perfection which the circumstances admitted2 and1 finally1 so deeply impressed upon the memory as to survive that effacement of minor impressions which generally takes place in every fresh life-wave or generation4 ,i would say1 that unless the identity of offspring with their parents be so far admitted that the children be allowed to remember the deeper impressions engraved on the minds of those who begot them1 it is little less than trilling to talk1 as so many writers do1 about inherited habit1 or the experience of the race1 or1 indeed1 accumulated variations of instincts4 ,when an instinct is not habit1 as resulting from memory pure and simple1 it is habit modified by some treatment1 generally in the youth or embryonic stages of the individual1 which disturbs his memory1 and drives him on to some unusual course1 inasmuch as he cannot recognise and remember his usual one by reason of the change now made in it4 ,habits and instincts1 again1 may be modified by any important change in the condition of the parents1 which will then both affect the parent's sense of his own identity1 and also create more or less fault1 or dislocation of memory1 in the offspring immediately behind the memory of his last life4 ,change of food may at times be sufficient to create a specific modification--that is to say1 to affect all the individuals whose food is so changed1 in one and the same way--whether as regards structure or habit4 ,thus we see that certain changes in food 7and domicile71 from those with which its ancestors have been familiar1 will disturb the memory of a queen bee's egg1 and set it at such disadvantage as to make it make itself into a neuter bee2 but yet we find that the larva thus partly aborted may have its memories restored to it1 if not already too much disturbed1 and may thus return to its condition as a queen bee1 if it only again be restored to the food and domicile1 which its past memories can alone remember4 ,so we see that opium1 tobacco1 alcohol1 hasheesh1 and tea produce certain effects upon our own structure and instincts4 ,but though capable of modification1 and of specific modification1 which may in time become inherited1 and hence resolve itself into a true instinct or settled question1 yet ,i maintain that the main bulk of the instinct 7whether as affecting structure or habits of life7 will be derived from memory pure and simple2 the individual growing up in the shape he does1 and liking to do this or that when he is grown up1 simply from recollection of what he did last time1 and of what on the whole suited him4 ,for it must be remembered that a drug which should destroy some one part at an early embryonic stage1 and thus prevent it from development1 would prevent the creature from recognising the surroundings which affected that part when he was last alive and unmutilated1 as being the same as his present surroundings4 ,he would be puzzled1 for he would be viewing the position from a different standpoint4 ,if any important item in a number of associated ideas disappears1 the plot fails2 and a great internal change is an exceedingly important item4 ,life and things to a creature so treated at an early embryonic stage would not be life and things as he last remembered them2 hence he would not be able to do the same now as he did then2 that is to say1 he would vary both in structure and instinct2 but if the creature were tolerably uniform to start with1 and were treated in a tolerably uniform way1 we might expect the effect produced to be much the same in all ordinary cases4 ,we see1 also1 that any important change in treatment and surroundings1 if not sufficient to kill1 would and does tend to produce not only variability but sterility1 as part of the same story and for the same reason--namely1 default of memory2 this default will be of every degree of intensity1 from total failure1 to a slight disturbance of memory as affecting some one particular organ only2 that is to say1 from total sterility1 to a slight variation in an unimportant part4 ,so that even the slightest conceivable variations should be referred to changed conditions1 external or internal1 and to their disturbing effects upon the memory2 and sterility1 without any apparent disease of the reproductive system1 may be referred not so much to special delicacy or susceptibility of the organs of reproduction as to inability on the part of the creature to know where it is1 and to recognise itself as the same creature which it has been accustomed to reproduce4 ,mr4 ,darwin thinks that the comparison of habit with instinct gives 8an accurate notion of the frame of mind under which an instinctive action is performed1 but not10 he thinks1 8of its origin40 8,how unconsciously10 ,mr4 ,darwin continues1 8many habitual actions are performed1 indeed not rarely in direct opposition to our conscious will6 ,yet they may be modified by the will or by reason4 ,habits easily become associated with other habits1 with certain periods of time and states of body4 ,when once acquired1 they often remain constant throughout life4 ,several other points of resemblance between instincts and habits could be pointed out4 ,as in repeating a well-known song1 so in instincts1 one action follows another by a sort of rhythm4 ,if a person be interrupted in a song or in repeating anything by rote1 he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought2 so ,p4 ,huber found it was with a caterpillar1 which makes a very complicated hammock4 ,for if he took a caterpillar which had completed its hammock up to1 say1 the sixth stage of construction1 and put it into a hammock completed up only to the third stage1 the caterpillar simply re-performed the fourth1 fifth1 and sixth stages of construction4 ,if1 however1 a caterpillar were taken out of a hammock made up1 for instance1 to the third stage1 and were put into one finished up to the sixth stage1 so that much of its work was already done for it1 far from deriving any benefit from this1 it was much embarrassed1 and in order to complete its hammock1 seemed forced to start from the third stage1 where it had left off1 and thus tried to complete the already finished work40 ,i see ,i must have unconsciously taken my first chapter from this passage1 but it is immaterial4 ,i owe ,mr4 ,darwin much more than this4 ,i owe it to him that ,i believe in evolution at all4 ,i owe him for almost all the facts which have led me to differ from him1 and which ,i feel absolutely safe in taking for granted1 if he has advanced them4 ,nevertheless1 ,i believe that the conclusion arrived at in the passage which ,i will next quote is a mistaken one1 and that not a little only1 but fundamentally4 ,i shall therefore venture to dispute it4 ,the passage runs3-- 8,if we suppose any habitual action to become inherited--and it can be shown that this does sometimes happen--then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished4 4 4 4 ,but it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation1 and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations4 ,it can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted--namely1 those of the hive-bee and of many ants1 could not possibly have been acquired by habit40 78,origin of ,species10 p4 #bjf1 ed4 #ahgf47 ,the italics in this passage are mine4 ,no difficulty is opposed to my view 7as ,i call it1 for the sake of brevity7 by such an instinct as that of ants to milk aphids4 ,such instincts may be supposed to have been acquired in much the same way as the instinct of a farmer to keep a cow4 ,accidental discovery of the fact that the excretion was good1 with 8a little dose of judgement or reason0 from time to time appearing in an exceptionally clever ant1 and by him communicated to his fellows1 till the habit was so confirmed as to be capable of transmission in full unself-consciousness 7if indeed the instinct be unself-conscious in this case71 would1 ,i think1 explain this as readily as the slow and gradual accumulations of instincts which had never passed through the intelligent and self-conscious stage1 but had always prompted action without any idea of a why or a wherefore on the part of the creature itself4 ,for it must be remembered1 as ,i am afraid ,i have already perhaps too often said1 that even when we have got a slight variation of instinct1 due to some cause which we know nothing about1 but which ,i will not even for a moment call 8spontaneous0--a word that should be cut out of every dictionary1 or in some way branded as perhaps the most misleading in the language--we cannot see how it comes to be repeated in successive generations1 so as to be capable of being acted upon by 8natural selection0 and accumulated1 unless it be also capable of being remembered by the offspring of the varying creature4 ,it may be answered that we cannot know anything about this1 but that 8like father like son0 is an ultimate fact in nature4 ,i can only answer that ,i never observe any 8like father like son0 without the son's both having had every opportunity of remembering1 and showing every symptom of having remembered1 in which case ,i decline to go further than memory 7whatever memory may be7 as the cause of the phenomenon4 ,but besides inheritance1 teaching must be admitted as a means of at any rate modifying an instinct4 ,we observe this in our own case2 and we know that animals have great powers of communicating their ideas to one another1 though their manner of doing this is as incomprehensible by us as a plant's knowledge of chemistry1 or the manner in which an amba makes its test1 or a spider its web1 without having gone through a long course of mathematics4 ,i think most readers will allow that our early training and the theological systems of the last eighteen hundred years are likely to have made us involuntarily under-estimate the powers of animals low in the scale of life1 both as regards intelligence and the power of communicating their ideas to one another2 but even now we admit that ants have great powers in this respect4 ,a habit1 however1 which is taught to the young or each successive generation1 by older members of the community who have themselves received it by instruction1 should surely rank as an inherited habit1 and be considered as due to memory1 though personal teaching be necessary to complete the inheritance4 ,an objection suggests itself that if such a habit as the flight of birds1 which seems to require a little personal supervision and instruction before it is acquired perfectly1 were really due to memory1 the need of instruction would after a time cease1 inasmuch as the creature would remember its past method of procedure1 and would thus come to need no more teaching4 ,the answer lies in the fact1 that if a creature gets to depend upon teaching and personal help for any matter1 its memory will make it look for such help on each repetition of the action2 so we see that no man's memory will exert itself much until he is thrown upon memory as his only resource4 ,we may read a page of a book a hundred times1 but we do not remember it by heart unless we have either cultivated our powers of learning to repeat1 or have taken pains to learn this particular page4 ,and whether we read from a book1 or whether we repeat by heart1 the repetition is still due to memory2 only in the one case the memory is exerted to recall something which one saw only half a second ago1 and in the other1 to recall something not seen for a much longer period4 ,so ,i imagine an instinct or habit may be called an inherited habit1 and assigned to memory1 even though the memory dates1 not from the performance of the action by the learner when he was actually part of the personality of the teacher1 but rather from a performance witnessed by1 or explained by the teacher to1 the pupil at a period subsequent to birth4 ,in either case the habit is inherited in the sense of being acquired in one generation1 and transmitted with such modifications as genius and experience may have suggested4 ,mr4 ,darwin would probably admit this without hesitation2 when1 therefore1 he says that certain instincts could not possibly have been acquired by habit1 he must mean that they could not1 under the circumstances1 have been remembered by the pupil in the person of the teacher1 and that it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts can be thus remembered4 ,to which ,i assent readily so far as that it is difficult 7though not impossible7 to see how some of the most wonderful instincts of neuter ants and bees can be due to the fact that the neuter ant or bee was ever in part1 or in some respects1 another neuter ant or bee in a previous generation4 ,at the same time ,i maintain that this does not militate against the supposition that both instinct and structure are in the main due to memory4 ,for the power of receiving any communication1 and acting on it1 is due to memory2 and the neuter ant or bee may have received its lesson from another neuter ant or bee1 who had it from another and modified it2 and so back and back1 till the foundation of the habit is reached1 and is found to present little more than the faintest family likeness to its more complex descendant4 ,surely ,mr4 ,darwin cannot mean that it can be shewn that the wonderful instincts of neuter ants and bees cannot have been acquired either1 as above1 by instruction1 or by some not immediately obvious form of inherited transmission1 but that they must be due to the fact that the ant or bee is1 as it were1 such and such a machine1 of which if you touch such and such a spring1 you will get a corresponding action4 ,if he does1 he will find1 so far as ,i can see1 no escape from a position very similar to the one which ,i put into the mouth of the first of the two professors1 who dealt with the question of machinery in my earlier work1 8,erewhon10 and which ,i have since found that my great namesake made fun of in the following lines3-- 4 4 4 8,they now begun ,to spur their living engines on4 ,for as whipped tops and bandy'd balls1 ,the learned hold are animals3 ,so horses they affirm to be ,mere engines made by geometry1 ,and were invented first from engines ,as ,indian ,britons were from ,penguins40 --,hudibras1 ,canto ii4 line #ec1 c4 ,i can see1 then1 no difficulty in the development of the ordinary so-called instincts1 whether of ants or bees1 or the cuckoo1 or any other animal1 on the supposition that they were1 for the most part1 intelligently acquired with more or less labour1 as the case may be1 in much the same way as we see any art or science now in process of acquisition among ourselves1 but were ultimately remembered by offspring1 or communicated to it4 ,when the limits of the race's capacity had been attained 7and most races seem to have their limits1 unsatisfactory though the expression may very fairly be considered71 or when the creature had got into a condition1 so to speak1 of equilibrium with its surroundings1 there would be no new development of instincts1 and the old ones would cease to be improved1 inasmuch as there would be no more reasoning or difference of opinion concerning them4 ,the race1 therefore1 or species would remain in statu quo till either domesticated1 and so brought into contact with new ideas and placed in changed conditions1 or put under such pressure1 in a wild state1 as should force it to further invention1 or extinguish it if incapable of rising to the occasion4 ,that instinct and structure may be acquired by practice in one or more generations1 and remembered in succeeding ones1 is admitted by ,mr4 ,darwin1 for he allows 78,origin of ,species10 p4 #bjf7 that habitual action does sometimes become inherited1 and1 though he does not seem to conceive of such action as due to memory1 yet it is inconceivable how it is inherited1 if not as the result of memory4 ,it must be admitted1 however1 that when we come to consider the structures as well as the instincts of some of the neuter insects1 our difficulties seem greatly increased4 ,the neuter hive-bees have a cavity in their thighs in which to keep the wax1 which it is their business to collect2 but the drones and queen1 which alone bear offspring1 collect no wax1 and therefore neither want1 nor have1 any such cavity4 ,the neuter bees are also1 if ,i understand rightly1 furnished with a proboscis or trunk for extracting honey from flowers1 whereas the fertile bees1 who gather no honey1 have no such proboscis4 ,imagine1 if the reader will1 that the neuter bees differ still more widely from the fertile ones2 how1 then1 can they in any sense be said to derive organs from their parents1 which not one of their parents for millions of generations has ever had8 ,how1 again1 can it be supposed that they transmit these organs to the future neuter members of the community when they are perfectly sterile8 ,one can understand that the young neuter bee might be taught to make a hexagonal cell 7though ,i have not found that any one has seen the lesson being given7 inasmuch as it does not make the cell till after birth1 and till after it has seen other neuter bees who might tell it much in1 qu us1 a very little time2 but we can hardly understand its growing a proboscis before it could possibly want it1 or preparing a cavity in its thigh1 to have it ready to put wax into1 when none of its predecessors had ever done so1 by supposing oral communication1 during the larvahood4 ,nevertheless1 it must not be forgotten that bees seem to know secrets about reproduction1 which utterly baffle ourselves2 for example1 the queen bee appears to know how to deposit male or female1 eggs at will2 and this is a matter of almost inconceivable sociological importance1 denoting a corresponding amount of sociological and physiological knowledge generally4 ,it should not1 then1 surprise us if the race should possess other secrets1 whose working we are unable to follow1 or even detect at all4 ,sydney ,smith1 indeed1 writes3-- 8,the warmest admirers of honey1 and the greatest friends to bees1 will never1 ,i presume1 contend that the young swarm1 who begin making honey three or four months after they are born1 and immediately construct these mathematical cells1 should have gained their geometrical knowledge as we gain ours1 and in three months' time outstrip ,mr4 ,maclaurin in mathematics as much as they did in making honey4 ,it would take a senior wrangler at ,cambridge ten hours a day for three years together to know enough mathematics for the calculation of these problems1 with which not only every queen bee1 but every undergraduate grub1 is acquainted the moment it is born40 ,this last statement may be a little too strong1 but it will at once occur to the reader1 that as we know the bees do surpass ,mr4 ,maclaurin in the power of making honey1 they may also surpass him in capacity for those branches of mathematics with which it has been their business to be conversant during many millions of years1 and also in knowledge of physiology and psychology in so far as the knowledge bears upon the interests of their own community4 ,we know that the larva which develops into a neuter bee1 and that again which in time becomes a queen bee1 are the same kind of larva to start with2 and that if you give one of these larv the food and treatment which all its foremothers have been accustomed to1 it will turn out with all the structure and instincts of its foremothers--and that it only fails to do this because it has been fed1 and otherwise treated1 in such a manner as not one of its foremothers was ever yet fed or treated4 ,so far1 this is exactly what we should expect1 on the view that structure and instinct are alike mainly due to memory1 or to medicined memory4 ,give the larva a fair chance of knowing where it is1 and it shows that it remembers by doing exactly what it did before4 ,give it a different kind of food and house1 and it cannot be expected to be anything else than puzzled4 ,it remembers a great deal4 ,it comes out a bee1 and nothing but a bee2 but it is an aborted bee2 it is1 in fact1 mutilated before birth instead of after--with instinct1 as well as growth1 correlated to its abortion1 as we see happens frequently in the case of animals a good deal higher than bees that have been mutilated at a stage much later than that at which the abortion of neuter bees commences4 ,the larv being similar to start with1 and being similarly mutilated--i4e41 by change of food and dwelling1 will naturally exhibit much similarity of instinct and structure on arriving at maturity4 ,when driven from their usual course1 they must take some new course or die4 ,there is nothing strange in the fact that similar beings puzzled similarly should take a similar line of action4 ,i grant1 however1 that it is hard to see how change of food and treatment can puzzle an insect into such 8complex growth0 as that it should make a cavity in its thigh1 grow an invaluable proboscis1 and betray a practical knowledge of difficult mathematical problems4 ,but it must be remembered that the memory of having been queen bees and drones--which is all that according to my supposition the larv can remember1 7on a first view of the case71 in their own proper persons--would nevertheless carry with it a potential recollection of all the social arrangements of the hive4 ,they would thus potentially remember that the mass of the bees were always neuter bees2 they would remember potentially the habits of these bees1 so far as drones and queens know anything about them2 and this may be supposed to be a very thorough acquaintance2 in like manner1 and with the same limitation1 they would know from the very moment that they left the queen's body that neuter bees had a proboscis to gather honey with1 and cavities in their thighs to put wax into1 and that cells were to be made with certain angles--for surely it is not crediting the queen with more knowledge than she is likely to possess1 if we suppose her to have a fair acquaintance with the phenomena of wax and cells generally1 even though she does not make any2 they would know 7while still larv--and earlier7 the kind of cells into which neuter bees were commonly put1 and the kind of treatment they commonly received--they might therefore1 as eggs--immediately on finding their recollection driven from its usual course1 so that they must either find some other course1 or die--know that they were being treated as neuter bees are treated1 and that they were expected to develop into neuter bees accordingly2 they might know all this1 and a great deal more into the bargain1 inasmuch as even before being actually deposited as eggs they would know and remember potentially1 but unconsciously1 all that their parents knew and remembered intensely4 ,is it1 then1 astonishing that they should adapt themselves so readily to the position which they know it is for the social welfare of the community1 and hence of themselves1 that they should occupy1 and that they should know that they will want a cavity in their thighs and a proboscis1 and hence make such implements out of their protoplasm as readily as they make their wings8 ,i admit that1 under normal treatment1 none of the above-mentioned potential memories would be kindled into such a state of activity that action would follow upon them1 until the creature had attained a more or less similar condition to that in which its parent was when these memories were active within its mind3 but the essence of the matter is1 that these larv have been treated abnormally1 so that if they do not die1 there is nothing for it but that they must vary4 ,one cannot argue from the normal to the abnormal4 ,it would not1 then1 be strange if the potential memories should 7owing to the margin for premature or tardy development which association admits7 serve to give the puzzled larv a hint as to the course which they had better take1 or that1 at any rate1 it should greatly supplement the instruction of the 8nurse0 bees themselves by rendering the larv so1 as it were1 inflammable on this point1 that a spark should set them in a blaze4 ,abortion is generally premature4 ,thus the scars referred to in the last chapter as having appeared on the children of men who had been correspondingly wounded1 should not1 under normal circumstances1 have appeared in the offspring till the children had got fairly near the same condition generally as that in which their fathers were when they were wounded1 and even then1 normally1 there should have been an instrument to wound them1 much as their fathers had been wounded4 ,association1 however1 does not always stick to the letter of its bond4 ,the line1 again1 might certainly be taken that the difference in structure and instincts between neuter and fertile bees is due to the specific effects of certain food and treatment2 yet1 though one would be sorry to set limits to the convertibility of food and genius1 it seems hard to believe that there can be any untutored food which should teach a bee to make a hexagonal cell as soon as it was born1 or which1 before it was born1 should teach it to prepare such structures as it would require in after life4 ,if1 then1 food be considered as a direct agent in causing the structures and instinct1 and not an indirect agent1 merely indicating to the larva itself that it is to make itself after the fashion of neuter bees1 then we should bear in mind that1 at any rate1 it has been leavened and prepared in the stomachs of those neuter bees into which the larva is now expected to develop itself1 and may thus have in it more true germinative matter--gemmules1 in fact--than is commonly supposed4 ,food1 when sufficiently assimilated 7the whole question turning upon what is 8sufficiently071 becomes stored with all the experience and memories of the assimilating creature2 corn becomes hen1 and knows nothing but hen1 when hen has eaten it4 ,we know also that the neuter working-bees inject matter into the cell after the larva has been produced2 nor would it seem harsh to suppose that though devoid of a reproductive system like that of their parents1 they may yet be practically not so neuter as is commonly believed4 ,one cannot say what gemmules of thigh and proboscis may not have got into the neutral bees' stomachs1 if they assimilate their food sufficiently1 and thus into the larva4 ,mr4 ,darwin will be the first to admit that though a creature have no reproductive system1 in any ordinary sense of the word1 yet every unit or cell of its body may throw off gemmules which may be free to move over every part of the whole organism1 and which 8natural selection0 might in time cause to stray into food which had been sufficiently prepared in the stomachs of the neuter bees4 ,i cannot say1 then1 precisely in what way1 but ,i can see no reason for doubting that in some of the ways suggested above1 or in some combination of them1 the phenomena of the instincts of neuter ants and bees can be brought into the same category as the instincts and structure of fertile animals4 ,at any rate1 ,i see the great fact that when treated as they have been accustomed to be treated1 these neuters act as though they remembered1 and accordingly become queen bees2 and that they only depart from their ancestral course on being treated in such fashion as their ancestors can never have remembered2 also1 that when they have been thrown off their accustomed line of thought and action1 they only take that of their nurses1 who have been about them from the moment of their being deposited as eggs by the queen bee1 who have fed them from their own bodies1 and between whom and them there may have been all manner of physical and mental communication1 of which we know no more than we do of the power which enables a bee to find its way home after infinite shifting and turning among flowers1 which no human powers could systematise so as to avoid confusion4 ,or take it thus3 ,we know that mutilation at an early age produces an effect upon the structure and instincts of cattle1 sheep1 and horses2 and it might be presumed that if feasible at an earlier age1 it would produce a still more marked effect4 ,we observe that the effect produced is uniform1 or nearly so4 ,suppose mutilation to produce a little more effect than it does1 as we might easily do1 if cattle1 sheep1 and horses had been for ages accustomed to a mutilated class living among them1 which class had been always a caste apart1 and had fed the young neuters from their own bodies1 from an early embryonic stage onwards2 would any one in this case dream of advancing the structure and instincts of this mutilated class against the doctrine that instinct is inherited habit8 ,or1 if inclined to do this1 would he not at once refrain1 on remembering that the process of mutilation might be arrested1 and the embryo be developed into an entire animal by simply treating it in the way to which all its ancestors had been accustomed8 ,surely he would not allow the difficulty 7which ,i must admit in some measure to remain7 to outweigh the evidence derivable from these very neuter insects themselves1 as well as from such a vast number of other sources--all pointing in the direction of instinct as inherited habit4 #bci ,lastly1 it must be remembered that the instinct to make cells and honey is one which has no very great hold upon its possessors4 ,bees can make cells and honey1 nor do they seem to have any very violent objection to doing so2 but it is quite clear that there is nothing in their structure and instincts which urges them on to do these things for the mere love of doing them1 as a hen is urged to sit upon a chalk stone1 concerning which she probably is at heart utterly sceptical1 rather than not sit at all4 ,there is no honey and cell-making instinct so strong as the instinct to eat1 if they are hungry1 or to grow wings1 and make themselves into bees at all4 ,like ourselves1 so long as they can get plenty to eat and drink1 they will do no work4 ,under these circumstances1 not one drop of honey nor one particle of wax will they collect1 except1 ,i presume1 to make cells for the rearing of their young4 ,sydney ,smith writes3-- 8,the most curious instance of a change of instinct is recorded by ,darwin4 ,the bees carried over to ,barbadoes and the ,western ,isles ceased to lay up any honey after the first year1 as they found it not useful to them4 ,they found the weather so fine1 and materials for making honey so plentiful1 that they quitted their grave1 prudent1 and mercantile character1 became exceedingly profligate and debauched1 ate up their capital1 resolved to work no more1 and amused themselves by flying about the sugar-houses and stinging the blacks0 7,lecture ,,xvii4 on ,moral ,philosophy74 ,the ease1 then1 with which the honey-gathering and cell-making habits are relinquished1 would seem to point strongly in the direction of their acquisition at a comparatively late period of development4 ,i have dealt with bees only1 and not with ants1 which would perhaps seem to present greater difficulty1 inasmuch as in some families of these there are two1 or even three1 castes of neuters with well-marked and wide differences of structure and instinct2 but ,i think the reader will agree with me that the ants are sufficiently covered by the bees1 and that enough1 therefore1 has been said already4 ,mr4 ,darwin supposes that these modifications of structure and instinct have been effected by the accumulation of numerous slight1 profitable1 spontaneous variations on the part of the fertile parents1 which has caused them 7so1 at least1 ,i understand him7 to lay this or that particular kind of egg1 which should develop into a kind of bee or ant1 with this or that particular instinct1 which instinct is merely a co-ordination with structure1 and in no way attributable to use or habit in preceding generations4 ,even so1 one cannot see that the habit of laying this particular kind of egg might not be due to use and memory in previous generations on the part of the fertile parents1 8for the numerous slight spontaneous variations10 on which 8natural selection0 is to work1 must have had some cause than which none more reasonable than sense of need and experience presents itself2 and there seems hardly any limit to what long-continued faith and desire1 aided by intelligence1 may be able to effect4 ,but if sense of need and experience are denied1 ,i see no escape from the view that machines are new species of life4 ,mr4 ,darwin concludes3 8,i am surprised that no one has hitherto advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects against the well-known doctrine of inherited habit as advanced by ,lamarck0 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #bcc1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,after reading this1 one feels as though there was no more to be said4 ,the well-known doctrine of inherited habit1 as advanced by ,lamarck1 has indeed been long since so thoroughly exploded1 that it is not worth while to go into an explanation of what it was1 or to refute it in detail4 ,here1 however1 is an argument against it1 which is so much better than anything advanced yet1 that one is surprised it has never been made use of2 so we will just advance it1 as it were1 to slay the slain1 and pass on4 ,such1 at least1 is the effect which the paragraph above quoted produced upon myself1 and would1 ,i think1 produce on the great majority of readers4 ,when driven by the exigencies of my own position to examine the value of the demonstration more closely1 ,i conclude1 either that ,i have utterly failed to grasp ,mr4 ,darwin's meaning1 or that ,i have no less completely mistaken the value and bearing of the facts ,i have myself advanced in these few last pages4 ,failing this1 my surprise is1 not that 8no one has hitherto advanced0 the instincts of neuter insects as a demonstrative case against the doctrine of inherited habit1 but rather that ,mr4 ,darwin should have thought the case demonstrative2 or again1 when ,i remember that the neuter working bee is only an aborted queen1 and may be turned back again into a queen1 by giving it such treatment as it can alone be expected to remember--then ,i am surprised that the structure and instincts of neuter bees has never 7if never7 been brought forward in support of the doctrine of inherited habit as advanced by ,lamarck1 and against any theory which would rob such instincts of their foundation in intelligence1 and of their connection with experience and memory4 ,as for the instinct to mutilate1 that is as easily accounted for as any other inherited habit1 whether of man to mutilate cattle1 or of ants to make slaves1 or of birds to make their nests4 ,i can see no way of accounting for the existence of any one of these instincts1 except on the supposition that they have arisen gradually1 through perceptions of power and need on the part of the animal which exhibits them--these two perceptions advancing hand in hand from generation to generation1 and being accumulated in time and in the common course of nature4 ,i have already sufficiently guarded against being supposed to maintain that very long before an instinct or structure was developed1 the creature descried it in the far future1 and made towards it4 ,we do not observe this to be the manner of human progress4 ,our mechanical inventions1 which1 as ,i ventured to say in 8,erewhon10 through the mouth of the second professor1 are really nothing but extra-corporaneous limbs--a wooden leg being nothing but a bad kind of flesh leg1 and a flesh leg being only a much better kind of wooden leg than any creature could be expected to manufacture introspectively and consciously--our mechanical inventions have almost invariably grown up from small beginnings1 and without any very distant foresight on the part of the inventors4 ,when ,watt perfected the steam engine1 he did not1 it seems1 foresee the locomotive1 much less would any one expect a savage to invent a steam engine4 ,a child breathes automatically1 because it has learnt to breathe little by little1 and has now breathed for an incalculable length of time2 but it cannot open oysters at all1 nor even conceive the idea of opening oysters for two or three years after it is born1 for the simple reason that this lesson is one which it is only beginning to learn4 ,all ,i maintain is1 that1 give a child as many generations of practice in opening oysters as it has had in breathing or sucking1 and it would on being born1 turn to the oyster-knife no less naturally than to the breast4 ,we observe that among certain families of men there has been a tendency to vary in the direction of the use and development of machinery2 and that in a certain still smaller number of families1 there seems to be an almost infinitely great capacity for varying and inventing still further1 whether socially or mechanically2 while other families1 and perhaps the greater number1 reach a certain point and stop2 but we also observe that not even the most inventive races ever see very far ahead4 ,i suppose the progress of plants and animals to be exactly analogous to this4 ,mr4 ,darwin has always maintained that the effects of use and disuse are highly important in the development of structure1 and if1 as he has said1 habits are sometimes inherited--then they should sometimes be important also in the development of instinct1 or habit4 ,but what does the development of an instinct or structure1 or1 indeed1 any effect upon the organism produced by 8use and disuse10 imply8 ,it implies an effect produced by a desire to do something for which the organism was not originally well adapted or sufficient1 but for which it has come to be sufficient in consequence of the desire4 ,the wish has been father to the power2 but this again opens up the whole theory of ,lamarck1 that the development of organs has been due to the wants or desires of the animal in which the organ appears4 ,so far as ,i can see1 ,i am insisting on little more than this4 ,once grant that a blacksmith's arm grows thicker through hammering iron1 and you have an organ modified in accordance with a need or wish4 ,let the desire and the practice be remembered1 and go on for long enough1 and the slight alterations of the organ will be accumulated1 until they are checked either by the creature's having got all that he cares about making serious further effort to obtain1 or until his wants prove inconvenient to other creatures that are stronger than he1 and he is hence brought to a standstill4 ,use and disuse1 then1 with me1 and1 as ,i gather also1 with ,lamarck1 are the keys to the position1 coupled1 of course1 with continued personality and memory4 ,no sudden and striking changes would be effected1 except that occasionally a blunder might prove a happy accident1 as happens not unfrequently with painters1 musicians1 chemists1 and inventors at the present day2 or sometimes a creature1 with exceptional powers of memory or reflection1 would make his appearance in this race or in that4 ,we all profit by our accidents as well as by our more cunning contrivances1 so that analogy would point in the direction of thinking that many of the most happy thoughts in the animal and vegetable kingdom were originated much as certain discoveries that have been made by accident among ourselves4 ,these would be originally blind variations1 though even so1 probably less blind than we think1 if we could know the whole truth4 ,when originated1 they would be eagerly taken advantage of and improved upon by the animal in whom they appeared2 but it cannot be supposed that they would be very far in advance of the last step gained1 more than are those 8flukes0 which sometimes enable us to go so far beyond our own ordinary powers4 ,for if they were1 the animal would despair of repeating them4 ,no creature hopes1 or even wishes1 for very much more than he has been accustomed to all his life1 he and his family1 and the others whom he can understand1 around him4 ,it has been well said that 8enough0 is always 8a little more than one has40 ,we do not try for things which we believe to be beyond our reach1 hence one would expect that the fortunes1 as it were1 of animals should have been built up gradually4 ,our own riches grow with our desires and the pains we take in pursuit of them1 and our desires vary and increase with our means of gratifying them2 but unless with men of exceptional business aptitude1 wealth grows gradually by the adding field to field and farm to farm2 so with the limbs and instincts of animals2 these are but the things they have made or bought with their money1 or with money that has been left them by their forefathers1 which1 though it is neither silver nor gold1 but faith and protoplasm only1 is good money and capital notwithstanding4 ,i have already admitted that instinct may be modified by food or drugs1 which may affect a structure or habit as powerfully as we see certain poisons affect the structure of plants by producing1 as ,mr4 ,darwin tells us1 very complex galls upon their leaves4 ,i do not1 therefore1 for a moment insist on habit as the sole cause of instinct4 ,every habit must have had its originating cause1 and the causes which have started one habit will from time to time start or modify others2 nor can ,i explain why some individuals of a race should be cleverer than others1 any more than ,i can explain why they should exist at all2 nevertheless1 ,i observe it to be a fact that differences in intelligence and power of growth are universal in the individuals of all those races which we can best watch4 ,i also most readily admit that the common course of nature would both cause many variations to arise independently of any desire on the part of the animal 7much as we have lately seen that the moons of ,mars were on the point of being discovered three hundred years ago1 merely through ,galileo sending to ,kepler a ,latin anagram which ,kepler could not understand1 and arranged into the line--8,salve umbistineum geminatum ,martia prolem10 and interpreted to mean that ,mars had two moons1 whereas ,galileo had meant to say 8,altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi10 meaning that he had seen ,saturn's ring71 and would also preserve and accumulate such variations when they had arisen2 but ,i can no more believe that the wonderful adaptation of structures to needs1 which we see around us in such an infinite number of plants and animals1 can have arisen without a perception of those needs on the part of the creature in whom the structure appears1 than ,i can believe that the form of the dray-horse or greyhound--so well adapted both to the needs of the animal in his daily service to man1 and to the desires of man1 that the creature should do him this daily service--can have arisen without any desire on man's part to produce this particular structure1 or without the inherited habit of performing the corresponding actions for man1 on the part of the greyhound and dray-horse4 ,and ,i believe that this will be felt as reasonable by the great majority of my readers4 ,i believe that nine fairly intelligent and observant men out of ten1 if they were asked which they thought most likely to have been the main cause of the development of the various phases either of structure or instinct which we see around us1 namely--sense of need1 or even whim1 and hence occasional discovery1 helped by an occasional piece of good luck1 communicated1 it may be1 and generally adopted1 long practised1 remembered by offspring1 modified by changed surroundings1 and accumulated in the course of time--or1 the accumulation of small divergent1 indefinite1 and perfectly unintelligent variations1 preserved through the survival of their possessor in the struggle for existence1 and hence in time leading to wide differences from the original type--would answer in favour of the former alternative2 and if for no other cause yet for this--that in the human race1 which we are best able to watch1 and between which and the lower animals no difference in kind will1 ,i think1 be supposed1 but only in degree1 we observe that progress must have an internal current setting in a definite direction1 but whither we know not for very long beforehand2 and that without such internal current there is stagnation4 ,our own progress--or variation--is due not to small1 fortuitous inventions or modifications which have enabled their fortunate possessors to survive in times of difficulty1 not1 in fact1 to strokes of luck 7though these1 of course1 have had some effect--but not more1 probably1 than strokes of ill luck have counteracted7 but to strokes of cunning--to a sense of need1 and to study of the past and present which have given shrewd people a key with which to unlock the chambers of the future4 ,further1 ,mr4 ,darwin himself says 78,plants and ,animals under ,domestication10 ii4 p4 #bcg1 ed4 #ahge73-- 8,but ,i think we must take a broader view and conclude that organic beings when subjected during several generations to any change whatever in their conditions tend to vary3 the kind of variation which ensues depending in most cases in a far higher degree on the nature or constitution of the being1 than on the nature of the changed conditions40 ,and this we observe in man4 ,the history of a man prior to his birth is more important as far as his success or failure goes than his surroundings after birth1 important though these may indeed be4 ,the able man rises in spite of a thousand hindrances1 the fool fails in spite of every advantage4 8,natural selection10 however1 does not make either the able man or the fool4 ,it only deals with him after other causes have made him1 and would seem in the end to amount to little more than to a statement of the fact that when variations have arisen they will accumulate4 ,one cannot look1 as has already been said1 for the origin of species in that part of the course of nature which settles the preservation or extinction of variations which have already arisen from some unknown cause1 but one must look for it in the causes that have led to variation at all4 ,these causes must get1 as it were1 behind the back of 8natural selection10 which is rather a shield and hindrance to our perception of our own ignorance than an explanation of what these causes are4 ,the remarks made above will apply equally to plants such as the misletoe and red clover4 ,for the sake of brevity ,i will deal only with the misletoe1 which seems to be the more striking case4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes3-- 8,naturalists continually refer to external conditions1 such as climate1 food1 c41 as the only possible cause of variation4 ,in one limited sense1 as we shall hereafter see1 this may be true2 but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions1 the structure1 for instance1 of the woodpecker1 with its feet1 tail1 beak1 and tongue1 so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees4 ,in the case of the misletoe1 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 another1 it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite with its relations to several distinct organic beings1 by the effect of external conditions1 or of habit1 or of the volition of the plant itself0 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #c1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,i cannot see this4 ,to me it seems still more preposterous to account for it by the action of 8natural selection0 operating upon indefinite variations4 ,it would be preposterous to suppose that a bird very different from a woodpecker should have had a conception of a woodpecker1 and so by volition gradually grown towards it4 ,so in like manner with the misletoe4 ,neither plant nor bird knew how far they were going1 or saw more than a very little ahead as to the means of remedying this or that with which they were dissatisfied1 or of getting this or that which they desired2 but given perceptions at all1 and thus a sense of needs and of the gratification of those needs1 and thus hope and fear1 and a sense of content and discontent--given also the lowest power of gratifying those needs--given also that some individuals have these powers in a higher degree than others--given also continued personality and memory over a vast extent of time--and the whole phenomena of species and genera resolve themselves into an illustration of the old proverb1 that what is one man's meat is another man's poison4 ,life in its lowest form under the above conditions--and we cannot conceive of life at all without them--would be bound to vary1 and to result after not so very many millions of years in the infinite forms and instincts which we see around us4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,lamarck ,,and ,,mr4 ,,darwin4 ,,it will have been seen that in the preceding pages the theory of evolution1 as originally propounded by ,lamarck1 has been more than once supported1 as against the later theory concerning it put forward by ,mr4 ,darwin1 and now generally accepted4 ,it is not possible for me1 within the limits at my command1 to do anything like justice to the arguments that may be brought forward in favour of either of these two theories4 ,mr4 ,darwin's books are at the command of every one2 and so much has been discovered since ,lamarck's day1 that if he were living now1 he would probably state his case very differently2 ,i shall therefore content myself with a few brief remarks1 which will hardly1 however1 aspire to the dignity of argument4 ,according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 differentiations of structure and instinct have mainly come about through the accumulation of small1 fortuitous variations without intelligence or desire upon the part of the creature varying2 modification1 however1 through desire and sense of need1 is not denied entirely1 inasmuch as considerable effect is ascribed by ,mr4 ,darwin to use and disuse1 which involves1 as has been already said1 the modification of a structure in accordance with the wishes of its possessor4 ,according to ,lamarck1 genera and species have been evolved1 in the main1 by exactly the same process as that by which human inventions and civilisations are now progressing2 and this involves that intelligence1 ingenuity1 heroism1 and all the elements of romance1 should have had the main share in the development of every herb and living creature around us4 ,i take the following brief outline of the most important part of ,lamarck's theory from vol4 xxxvi4 of the ,naturalist's ,library 7,edinburgh1 #ahdc73-- 8,the more simple bodies10 says the editor1 giving ,lamarck's opinion without endorsing it1 8are easily formed1 and this being the case1 it is easy to conceive how in the lapse of time animals of a more complex structure should be produced1 for it must be admitted as a fundamental law1 that the production of a new organ in an animal body results from any new want or desire it may experience4 ,the first effort of a being just beginning to develop itself must be to procure subsistence1 and hence in time there comes to be produced a stomach or alimentary cavity40 7,thus we saw that the amba is in the habit of 8extemporising0 a stomach when it wants one47 8,other wants occasioned by circumstances will lead to other efforts1 which in their turn will generate new organs40 ,lamarck's wonderful conception was hampered by an unnecessary adjunct1 namely1 a belief in an inherent tendency towards progressive development in every low organism4 ,he was thus driven to account for the presence of many very low and very ancient organisms at the present day1 and fell back upon the theory1 which is not yet supported by evidence1 that such low forms are still continually coming into existence from inorganic matter4 ,but there seems no necessity to suppose that all low forms should possess an inherent tendency towards progression4 ,it would be enough that there should occasionally arise somewhat more gifted specimens of one or more original forms4 ,these would vary1 and the ball would be thus set rolling1 while the less gifted would remain in statu quo1 provided they were sufficiently gifted to escape extinction4 ,nor do ,i gather that ,lamarck insisted on continued personality and memory so as to account for heredity at all1 and so as to see life as a single1 or as at any rate1 only a few1 vast compound animals1 but without the connecting organism between each component item in the whole creature1 which is found in animals that are strictly called compound4 ,until continued personality and memory are connected with the idea of heredity1 heredity of any kind is little more than a term for something which one does not understand4 ,but there seems little priori difficulty as regards ,lamarck's main idea1 now that ,mr4 ,darwin has familiarised us with evolution1 and made us feel what a vast array of facts can be brought forward in support of it4 ,mr4 ,darwin tells us1 in the preface to his last edition of the 8,origin of ,species10 that ,lamarck was partly led to his conclusions by the analogy of domestic productions4 ,it is rather hard to say what these words imply2 they may mean anything from a baby to an apple dumpling1 but if they imply that ,lamarck drew inspirations from the gradual development of the mechanical inventions of man1 and from the progress of man's ideas1 ,i would say that of all sources this would seem to be the safest and most fertile from which to draw4 ,plants and animals under domestication are indeed a suggestive field for study1 but machines are the manner in which man is varying at this moment4 ,we know how our own minds work1 and how our mechanical organisations--for1 in all sober seriousness1 this is what it comes to--have progressed hand in hand with our desires2 sometimes the power a little ahead1 and sometimes the desire2 sometimes both combining to form an organ with almost infinite capacity for variation1 and sometimes comparatively early reaching the limit of utmost development in respect of any new conception1 and accordingly coming to a full stop2 sometimes making leaps and bounds1 and sometimes advancing sluggishly4 ,here we are behind the scenes1 and can see how the whole thing works4 ,we have man1 the very animal which we can best understand1 caught in the very act of variation1 through his own needs1 and not through the needs of others2 the whole process is a natural one2 the varying of a creature as much in a wild state as the ants and butterflies are wild4 ,there is less occasion here for the continual 8might be0 and 8may be10 which we are compelled to put up with when dealing with plants and animals1 of the workings of whose minds we can only obscurely judge4 ,also1 there is more prospect of pecuniary profit attaching to the careful study of machinery than can be generally hoped for from the study of the lower animals2 and though ,i admit that this consideration should not be carried too far1 a great deal of very unnecessary suffering will be spared to the lower animals2 for much that passes for natural history is little better than prying into other people's business1 from no other motive than curiosity4 ,i would1 therefore1 strongly advise the reader to use man1 and the present races of man1 and the growing inventions and conceptions of man1 as his guide1 if he would seek to form an independent judgement on the development of organic life4 ,for all growth is only somebody making something4 ,lamarck's theories fell into disrepute1 partly because they were too startling to be capable of ready fusion with existing ideas2 they were1 in fact1 too wide a cross for fertility2 partly because they fell upon evil times1 during the reaction that followed the ,french ,revolution2 partly because1 unless ,i am mistaken1 he did not sufficiently link on the experience of the race to that of the individual1 nor perceive the importance of the principle that consciousness1 memory1 volition1 intelligence1 c41 vanish1 or become latent1 on becoming intense4 ,he also appears to have mixed up matter with his system1 which was either plainly wrong1 or so incapable of proof as to enable people to laugh at him1 and pooh-pooh him2 but ,i believe it will come to be perceived1 that he has received somewhat scant justice at the hands of his successors1 and that his 8crude theories10 as they have been somewhat cheaply called1 are far from having had their last say4 ,returning to ,mr4 ,darwin1 we find1 as we have already seen1 that it is hard to say exactly how much ,mr4 ,darwin differs from ,lamarck1 and how much he agrees with him4 ,mr4 ,darwin has always maintained that use and disuse are highly important1 and this implies that the effect produced on the parent should be remembered by the offspring1 in the same way as the memory of a wound is transmitted by one set of cells to succeeding ones1 who long repeat the scar1 though it may fade finally away4 ,also1 after dealing with the manner in which one eye of a young flat-fish travels round the head till both eyes are on the same side of the fish1 he gives 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #ahh1 ed4 #ahge7 an instance of a structure 8which apparently owes its origin exclusively to use or habit40 ,he refers to the tail of some ,american monkeys 8which has been converted into a wonderfully perfect prehensile organ1 and serves as a fifth hand4 ,a reviewer10 he continues1 4 4 4 8remarks on this structure--#8,it is impossible to believe that in any number of ages the first slight incipient tendency to grasp1 could preserve the lives of the individuals possessing it1 or favour their chance of having and of rearing offspring4' ,but there is no necessity for any such belief4 ,habit1 and this almost implies that some benefit1 great or small1 is thus derived1 would in all probability suffice for the work40 ,if1 then1 habit can do this--and it is no small thing to develop a wonderfully perfect prehensile organ which can serve as a fifth hand--how much more may not habit do1 even though unaided1 as ,mr4 ,darwin supposes to have been the case in this instance1 by 8natural selection08 ,after attributing many of the structural and instinctive differences of plants and animals to the effects of use--as we may plainly do with ,mr4 ,darwin's own consent--after attributing a good deal more to unknown causes1 and a good deal to changed conditions1 which are bound1 if at all important1 to result either in sterility or variation--how much of the work of originating species is left for natural selection8--which1 as ,mr4 ,darwin admits 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #fc1 ed4 #ahgf71 does not induce variability1 but 8implies only the preservation of such variations as arise1 and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life80 ,an important part assuredly1 and one which we can never sufficiently thank ,mr4 ,darwin for having put so forcibly before us1 but an indirect part only1 like the part played by time and space1 and not1 ,i think1 the one which ,mr4 ,darwin would assign to it4 ,mr4 ,darwin himself has admitted that in the earlier editions of his 8,origin of ,species0 he 8underrated1 as it now seems probable1 the frequency and importance of modifications due to spontaneous variability40 ,and this involves the having over-rated the action of 8natural selection0 as an agent in the evolution of species4 ,but one gathers that he still believes the accumulation of small and fortuitous variations through the agency of 8natural selection0 to be the main cause of the present divergencies of structure and instinct4 ,i do not1 however1 think that ,mr4 ,darwin is clear about his own meaning4 ,i think the prominence given to 8natural selection0 in connection with the 8origin of species0 has led him1 in spite of himself1 and in spite of his being on his guard 7as is clearly shown by the paragraph on page #fc 8,natural ,selection10 above referred to71 to regard 8natural selection0 as in some way accounting for variation1 just as the use of the dangerous word 8spontaneous10--though he is so often on his guard against it1 and so frequently prefaces it with the words 8so-called10--would seem to have led him into very serious confusion of thought in the passage quoted at the beginning of this paragraph4 ,for after saying that he had underrated 8the frequency and importance of modifications due to spontaneous variability10 he continues1 8but it is impossible to attribute to this cause the innumerable structures which are so well adapted to the habits of life of each species40 ,that is to say1 it is impossible to attribute these innumerable structures to spontaneous variability4 ,what is spontaneous variability8 ,clearly1 from his preceding paragraph1 ,mr4 ,darwin means only 8so-called spontaneous variations10 such as 8the appearance of a moss-rose on a common rose1 or of a nectarine on a peach-tree10 which he gives as good examples of so-called spontaneous variation4 ,and these variations are1 after all1 due to causes1 but to unknown causes2 spontaneous variation being1 in fact1 but another name for variation due to causes which we know nothing about1 but in no possible sense a cause of variation4 ,so that when we come to put clearly before our minds exactly what the sentence we are considering amounts to1 it comes to this3 that it is impossible to attribute the innumerable structures which are so well adapted to the habits of life of each species to unknown causes4 8,i can no more believe in this10 continues ,mr4 ,darwin1 8than that the well-adapted form of a race-horse or greyhound1 which1 before the principle of selection by man was well understood1 excited so much surprise in the minds of the older naturalists1 can thus be explained0 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #aga1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,or1 in other words1 8,i can no more believe that the well-adapted structures of species are due to unknown causes1 than ,i can believe that the well-adapted form of a race-horse can be explained by being attributed to unknown causes40 ,i have puzzled over this paragraph for several hours with the sincerest desire to get at the precise idea which underlies it1 but the more ,i have studied it the more convinced ,i am that it does not contain1 or at any rate convey1 any clear or definite idea at all4 ,if ,i thought it was a mere slip1 ,i should not call attention to it2 this book will probably have slips enough of its own without introducing those of a great man unnecessarily2 but ,i submit that it is necessary to call attention to it here1 inasmuch as it is impossible to believe that after years of reflection upon his subject1 ,mr4 ,darwin should have written as above1 especially in such a place1 if his mind was really clear about his own position4 ,immediately after the admission of a certain amount of miscalculation1 there comes a more or less exculpatory sentence which sounds so right that ninety-nine people out of a hundred would walk through it1 unless led by some exigency of their own position to examine it closely but which yet upon examination proves to be as nearly meaningless as a sentence can be4 ,the weak point in ,mr4 ,darwin's theory would seem to be a deficiency1 so to speak1 of motive power to originate and direct the variations which time is to accumulate4 ,it deals admirably with the accumulation of variations in creatures already varying1 but it does not provide a sufficient number of sufficiently important variations to be accumulated4 ,given the motive power which ,lamarck suggested1 and ,mr4 ,darwin's mechanism would appear 7with the help of memory1 as bearing upon reproduction1 of continued personality1 and hence of inherited habit1 and of the vanishing tendency of consciousness7 to work with perfect ease4 ,mr4 ,darwin has made us all feel that in some way or other variations are accumulated1 and that evolution is the true solution of the present widely different structures around us1 whereas1 before he wrote1 hardly any one believed this4 ,however we may differ from him in detail1 the present general acceptance of evolution must remain as his work1 and a more valuable work can hardly be imagined4 ,nevertheless1 ,i cannot think that 8natural selection10 working upon small1 fortuitous1 indefinite1 unintelligent variations1 would produce the results we see around us4 ,one wants something that will give a more definite aim to variations1 and hence1 at times1 cause bolder leaps in advance4 ,one cannot but doubt whether so many plants and animals would be being so continually saved 8by the skin of their teeth10 as must be so saved if the variations from which genera ultimately arise are as small in their commencement and at each successive stage as ,mr4 ,darwin seems to believe4 ,god--to use the language of the ,bible--is not extreme to mark what is done amiss1 whether with plant or beast or man2 on the other hand1 when towers of ,siloam fall1 they fall on the just as well as the unjust4 ,one feels1 on considering ,mr4 ,darwin's position1 that if it be admitted that there is in the lowest creature a power to vary1 no matter how small1 one has got in this power as near the 8origin of species0 as one can ever hope to get4 ,for no one professes to account for the origin of life2 but if a creature with a power to vary reproduces itself at all1 it must reproduce another creature which shall also have the power to vary2 so that1 given time and space enough1 there is no knowing where such a creature could or would stop4 ,if the primordial cell had been only capable of reproducing itself once1 there would have followed a single line of descendants1 the chain of which might at any moment have been broken by casualty4 ,doubtless the millionth repetition would have differed very materially from the original--as widely1 perhaps1 as we differ from the primordial cell2 but it would only have differed by addition1 and could no more in any generation resume its latest development without having passed through the initial stage of being what its first forefather was1 and doing what its first forefather did1 and without going through all or a sufficient number of the steps whereby it had reached its latest differentiation1 than water can rise above its own level4 ,the very idea1 then1 of reproduction involves1 unless ,i am mistaken1 that1 no matter how much the creature reproducing itself may gain in power and versatility1 it must still always begin with itself again in each generation4 ,the primordial cell being capable of reproducing itself not only once1 but many times over1 each of the creatures which it produces must be similarly gifted2 hence the geometrical ratio of increase and the existing divergence of type4 ,in each generation it will pass rapidly and unconsciously through all the earlier stages of which there has been infinite experience1 and for which the conditions are reproduced with sufficient similarity to cause no failure of memory or hesitation2 but in each generation1 when it comes to the part in which the course is not so clear1 it will become conscious2 still1 however1 where the course is plain1 as in breathing1 digesting1 c41 retaining unconsciousness4 ,thus organs which present all the appearance of being designed--as1 for example1 the tip for its beak prepared by the embryo chicken--would be prepared in the end1 as it were1 by rote1 and without sense of design1 though none the less owing their origin to design4 ,the question is not concerning evolution1 but as to the main cause which has led to evolution in such and such shapes4 ,to me it seems that the 8,origin of ,variation10 whatever it is1 is the only true 8,origin of ,species10 and that this must1 as ,lamarck insisted1 be looked for in the needs and experiences of the creatures varying4 ,unless we can explain the origin of variations1 we are met by the unexplained at every step in the progress of a creature from its original homogeneous condition to its differentiation1 we will say1 as an elephant2 so that to say that an elephant has become an elephant through the accumulation of a vast number of small1 fortuitous1 but unexplained1 variations in some lower creatures1 is really to say that it has become an elephant owing to a series of causes about which we know nothing whatever1 or1 in other words1 that one does not know how it came to be an elephant4 ,but to say that an elephant has become an elephant owing to a series of variations1 nine-tenths of which were caused by the wishes of the creature or creatures from which the elephant is descended--this is to offer a reason1 and definitely put the insoluble one step further back4 ,the question will then turn upon the sufficiency of the reason--that is to say1 whether the hypothesis is borne out by facts4 ,the effects of competition would1 of course1 have an extremely important effect upon any creature1 in the same way as any other condition of nature under which it lived1 must affect its sense of need and its opinions generally4 ,the results of competition would be1 as it were1 the decisions of an arbiter settling the question whether such and such variation was really to the animal's advantage or not--a matter on which the animal will1 on the whole1 have formed a pretty fair judgement for itself4 ,undoubtedly the past decisions of such an arbiter would affect the conduct of the creature1 which would have doubtless had its shortcomings and blunders1 and would amend them4 ,the creature would shape its course according to its experience of the common course of events1 but it would be continually trying and often successfully1 to evade the law by all manner of sharp practice4 ,new precedents would thus arise1 so that the law would shift with time and circumstances2 but the law would not otherwise direct the channels into which life would flow1 than as laws1 whether natural or artificial1 have affected the development of the widely differing trades and professions among mankind4 ,these have had their origin rather in the needs and experiences of mankind than in any laws4 ,to put much the same as the above in different words4 ,assume that small favourable variations are preserved more commonly1 in proportion to their numbers1 than is perhaps the case1 and assume that considerable variations occur more rarely than they probably do occur1 how account for any variation at all8 8,natural selection0 cannot create the smallest variation unless it acts through perception of its mode of operation1 recognised inarticulately1 but none the less clearly1 by the creature varying4 8,natural selection0 operates on what it finds1 and not on what it has made4 ,animals that have been wise and lucky live longer and breed more than others less wise and lucky4 ,assuredly4 ,the wise and lucky animals transmit their wisdom and luck4 ,assuredly4 ,they add to their powers1 and diverge into widely different directions4 ,assuredly4 ,what is the cause of this8 ,surely the fact that they were capable of feeling needs1 and that they differed in their needs and manner of gratifying them1 and that they continued to live in successive generations1 rather than the fact that when lucky and wise they thrived and bred more descendants4 ,this last is an accessory hardly less important for the development of species than the fact of the continuation of life at all2 but it is an accessory of much the same kind as this1 for if animals continue to live at all1 they must live in some way1 and will find that there are good ways and bad ways of living4 ,an animal which discovers the good way will gradually develop further powers1 and so species will get further and further apart2 but the origin of this is to be looked for1 not in the power which decides whether this or that way was good1 but in the cause which determines the creature1 consciously or unconsciously1 to try this or that way4 ,but ,mr4 ,darwin might say that this is not a fair way of stating the issue4 ,he might say1 8,you beg the question2 you assume that there is an inherent tendency in animals towards progressive development1 whereas ,i say that there is no good evidence of any such tendency4 ,i maintain that the differences that have from time to time arisen have come about mainly from causes so far beyond our ken1 that we can only call them spontaneous2 and if so1 natural selection which you must allow to have at any rate played an important part in the accumulation of variations1 must also be allowed to be the nearest thing to the cause of ,specific differences1 which we are able to arrive at40 ,thus he writes 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #agf1 ed4 #ahgf73 8,although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of a tendency towards progressive development1 yet this necessarily follows1 as ,i have attempted to show in the fourth chapter1 through the continued action of natural selection40 ,mr4 ,darwin does not say that organic beings have no tendency to vary at all1 but only that there is no good evidence that they have a tendency to progressive development1 which1 ,i take it1 means1 to see an ideal a long way off1 and very different to their present selves1 which ideal they think will suit them1 and towards which they accordingly make4 ,i would admit this as contrary to all experience4 ,i doubt whether plants and animals have any innate tendency to vary at all1 being led to question this by gathering from 8,plants and ,animals under ,domestication0 that this is ,mr4 ,darwin's own opinion4 ,i am inclined rather to think that they have only an innate power to vary slightly1 in accordance with changed conditions1 and an innate capability of being affected both in structure and instinct1 by causes similar to those which we observe to affect ourselves4 ,but however this may be1 they do vary somewhat1 and unless they did1 they would not in time have come to be so widely different from each other as they now are4 ,the question is as to the origin and character of these variations4 ,we say they mainly originate in a creature through a sense of its needs1 and vary through the varying surroundings which will cause those needs to vary1 and through the opening up of new desires in many creatures1 as the consequence of the gratification of old ones2 they depend greatly on differences of individual capacity and temperament2 they are communicated1 and in the course of time transmitted1 as what we call hereditary habits or structures1 though these are only1 in truth1 intense and epitomised memories of how certain creatures liked to deal with protoplasm4 ,the question whether this or that is really good or ill1 is settled1 as the proof of the pudding by the eating thereof1 i4e41 by the rigorous competitive examinations through which most living organisms must pass4 ,mr4 ,darwin says that there is no good evidence in support of any great principle1 or tendency on the part of the creature itself1 which would steer variation1 as it were1 and keep its head straight1 but that the most marvellous adaptations of structures to needs are simply the result of small and blind variations1 accumulated by the operation of 8natural selection10 which is thus the main cause of the origin of species4 ,enough has perhaps already been said to make the reader feel that the question wants reopening2 ,i shall1 therefore1 here only remark that we may assume no fundamental difference as regards intelligence1 memory1 and sense of needs to exist between man and the lowest animals1 and that in man we do distinctly see a tendency towards progressive development1 operating through his power of profiting by and transmitting his experience1 but operating in directions which man cannot foresee for any long distance4 ,we also see this in many of the higher animals under domestication1 as with horses which have learnt to canter and dogs which point2 more especially we observe it along the line of latest development1 where equilibrium of settled convictions has not yet been fully attained4 ,one neither finds nor expects much a priori knowledge1 whether in man or beast2 but one does find some little in the beginnings of1 and throughout the development of1 every habit1 at the commencement of which1 and on every successive improvement in which1 deductive and inductive methods are1 as it were1 fused4 ,thus the effect1 where we can best watch its causes1 seems mainly produced by a desire for a definite object--in some cases a serious and sensible desire1 in others an idle one1 in others1 again1 a mistaken one2 and sometimes by a blunder which1 in the hands of an otherwise able creature1 has turned up trumps4 ,in wild animals and plants the divergences have been accumulated1 if they answered to the prolonged desires of the creature itself1 and if these desires were to its true ultimate good2 with plants or animals under domestication they have been accumulated if they answered a little to the original wishes of the creature1 and much1 to the wishes of man4 ,as long as man continued to like them1 they would be advantageous to the creature2 when he tired of them1 they would be disadvantageous to it1 and would accumulate no longer4 ,surely the results produced in the adaptation of structure to need among many plants and insects are better accounted for on this1 which ,i suppose to be ,lamarck's view1 namely1 by supposing that what goes on amongst ourselves has gone on amongst all creatures1 than by supposing that these adaptations are the results of perfectly blind and unintelligent variations4 ,let me give two examples of such adaptations1 taken from ,mr4 ,st4 ,george ,mivart's 8,genesis of ,species10 to which work ,i would wish particularly to call the reader's attention4 ,he should also read ,mr4 ,darwin's answers to ,mr4 ,mivart 7p4 #agf1 8,natural ,selection10 ed4 #ahgf1 and onwards74 ,mr4 ,mivart writes3-- 8,some insects which imitate leaves extend the imitation even to the very injuries on those leaves made by the attacks of insects or fungi4 ,thus speaking of the walking-stick insects1 ,mr4 ,wallace says1 #8,one of these creatures obtained by myself in ,borneo 7ceroxylus laceratus7 was covered over with foliaceous excrescences of a clear olive green colour1 so as exactly to resemble a stick grown over by a creeping moss or jungermannia4 ,the ,dyak who brought it me assured me it was grown over with moss1 though alive1 and it was only after a most minute examination that ,i could convince myself it was not so4' ,again1 as to the leaf butterfly1 he says1 #8,we come to a still more extraordinary part of the imitation1 for we find representations of leaves in every stage of decay1 variously blotched1 and mildewed1 and pierced with holes1 and in many cases irregularly covered with powdery black dots1 gathered into patches and spots so closely resembling the various kinds of minute fungi that grow on dead leaves1 that it is impossible to avoid thinking at first sight that the butterflies themselves have been attacked by real fungi4'0 ,i can no more believe that these artificial fungi in which the moth arrays itself are due to the accumulation of minute1 perfectly blind1 and unintelligent variations1 than ,i can believe that the artificial flowers which a woman wears in her hat can have got there without design2 or that a detective puts on plain clothes without the slightest intention of making his victim think that he is not a policeman4 ,again ,mr4 ,mivart writes3-- 8,in the work just referred to 7#8,the ,fertilisation of ,orchids'71 ,mr4 ,darwin gives a series of the most wonderful and minute contrivances1 by which the visits of insects are utilised for the fertilisation of orchids--structures so wonderful that nothing could well be more so1 except the attribution of their origin to minute1 fortuitous1 and indefinite variations4 8,the instances are too numerous and too long to quote1 but in his #8,origin of ,species' he describes two which must not be passed over4 ,in one 7coryanthes7 the orchid has its lower lip enlarged into a bucket1 above which stand two water-secreting horns4 ,these latter replenish the bucket1 from which1 when half-filled1 the water overflows by a spout on one side4 ,bees visiting the flower fall into the bucket and crawl out at the spout4 ,by the peculiar arrangement of the parts of the flower1 the first bee which does so1 carries away the pollen mass glued to his back1 and then when he has his next involuntary bath in another flower1 as he crawls out1 the pollen attached to him comes in contact with the stigma of that second flower and fertilises it4 ,in the other example 7catasetum71 when a bee gnaws a certain part of the flower1 he inevitably touches a long delicate projection which ,mr4 ,darwin calls the #8antenna4' #8,this antenna transmits a vibration to a membrane which is instantly ruptured2 this sets free a spring by which the pollen mass is shot forth like an arrow in the right direction1 and adheres by its viscid extremity to the back of the bee'0 78,genesis of ,species10 p4 #fc74 ,no one can tell a story so charmingly as ,mr4 ,darwin1 but ,i can no more believe that all this has come about without design on the part of the orchid1 and a gradual perception of the advantages it is able to take over the bee1 and a righteous determination to enjoy them1 than ,i can believe that a mousetrap or a steam-engine is the result of the accumulation of blind minute fortuitous variations in a creature called man1 which creature has never wanted either mousetraps or steam-engines1 but has had a sort of promiscuous tendency to make them1 and was benefited by making them1 so that those of the race who had a tendency to make them survived and left issue1 which issue would thus naturally tend to make more mousetraps and more steam-engines4 ,pursuing this idea still further1 can we for a moment believe that these additions to our limbs--for this is what they are--have mainly come about through the occasional birth of individuals1 who1 without design on their own parts1 nevertheless made them better or worse1 and who1 accordingly1 either survived and transmitted their improvement1 or perished1 they and their incapacity together8 ,when ,i can believe in this1 then--and not till then--can ,i believe in an origin of species which does not resolve itself mainly into sense of need1 faith1 intelligence1 and memory4 ,then1 and not till then1 can ,i believe that such organs as the eye and ear can have arisen in any other way than as the result of that kind of mental ingenuity1 and of moral as well as physical capacity1 without which1 till then1 ,i should have considered such an invention as the steam-engine to be impossible4 ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,mr4 ,,mivart ,,and ,,mr4 ,,darwin4 8,a ,,distinguished zoologist1 ,mr4 ,st4 ,george ,mivart10 writes ,mr4 ,darwin1 8has recently collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by myself and others against the theory of natural selection1 as propounded by ,mr4 ,wallace and myself1 and has illustrated them with admirable art and force0 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #agf1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,i have already referred the reader to ,mr4 ,mivart's work1 but quote the above passage as showing that ,mr4 ,mivart will not1 probably1 be found to have left much unsaid that would appear to make against ,mr4 ,darwin's theory4 ,it is incumbent upon me both to see how far ,mr4 ,mivart's objections are weighty as against ,mr4 ,darwin1 and also whether or not they tell with equal force against the view which ,i am myself advocating4 ,i will therefore touch briefly upon the most important of them1 with the purpose of showing that they are serious as against the doctrine that small fortuitous variations are the origin of species1 but that they have no force against evolution as guided by intelligence and memory4 ,but before doing this1 ,i would demur to the words used by ,mr4 ,darwin1 and just quoted above1 namely1 8the theory of natural selection40 ,i imagine that ,i see in them the fallacy which ,i believe to run through almost all ,mr4 ,darwin's work1 namely1 that 8natural selection0 is a theory 7if1 indeed1 it can be a theory at all71 in some way accounting for the origin of variation1 and so of species--8natural selection10 as we have already seen1 being unable to 8induce variability10 and being only able to accumulate what--on the occasion of each successive variation1 and so during the whole process--must have been originated by something else4 ,again1 ,mr4 ,darwin writes--8,in considering the origin of species it is quite conceivable that a naturalist1 reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings1 or their embryological relations1 their geographical distribution1 geological succession1 and other such facts1 might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created1 but had descended1 like varieties from other species4 ,nevertheless1 such a conclusion1 even if well founded1 would be unsatisfactory1 until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world had been modified1 so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which justly excites our admiration0 78,origin of ,species10 p4 #b1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,after reading the above we feel that nothing more satisfactory could be desired4 ,we are sure that we are in the hands of one who can indeed tell us 8how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified10 and we are no less sure that though others may have written upon the subject before1 there has been1 as yet1 no satisfactory explanation put forward of the grand principle upon which modification has proceeded4 ,then follows a delightful volume1 with facts upon facts concerning animals1 all showing that species is due to successive small modifications accumulated in the course of nature4 ,but one cannot suppose that ,lamarck ever doubted this2 for he can never have meant to say1 that a low form of life made itself into an elephant at one or two great bounds2 and if he did not mean this1 he must have meant that it made itself into an elephant through the accumulation of small successive modifications2 these1 he must have seen1 were capable of accumulation in the scheme of nature1 though he may not have dwelt on the manner in which this is accomplished1 inasmuch as it is obviously a matter of secondary importance in comparison with the origin of the variations themselves4 ,we believe1 however1 throughout ,mr4 ,darwin's book1 that we are being told what we expected to be told2 and so convinced are we1 by the facts adduced1 that in some way or other evolution must be true1 and so grateful are we for being allowed to think this1 that we put down the volume without perceiving that1 whereas ,lamarck did adduce a great and general cause of variation1 the insufficiency of which1 in spite of errors of detail1 has yet to be shown1 ,mr4 ,darwin's main cause of variation resolves itself into a confession of ignorance4 ,this1 however1 should detract but little from our admiration for ,mr4 ,darwin's achievement4 ,any one can make people see a thing if he puts it in the right way1 but ,mr4 ,darwin made us see evolution1 in spite of his having put it1 in what seems to not a few1 an exceedingly mistaken way4 ,yet his triumph is complete1 for no matter how much any one now moves the foundation1 he cannot shake the superstructure1 which has become so currently accepted as to be above the need of any support from reason1 and to be as difficult to destroy as it was originally difficult of construction4 ,less than twenty years ago1 we never met with1 or heard of1 any one who accepted evolution2 we did not even know that such a doctrine had been ever broached2 unless it was that some one now and again said that there was a very dreadful book going about like a rampant lion1 called 8,vestiges of ,creation10 whereon we said that we would on no account read it1 lest it should shake our faith2 then we would shake our heads and talk of the preposterous folly and wickedness of such shallow speculations4 ,had not the book of ,genesis been written for our learning8 ,yet1 now1 who seriously disputes the main principles of evolution8 ,i cannot believe that there is a bishop on the bench at this moment who does not accept them2 even the 8holy priests0 themselves bless evolution as their predecessors blessed ,cleopatra--when they ought not4 ,it is not he who first conceives an idea1 nor he who sets it on its legs and makes it go on all fours1 but he who makes other people accept the main conclusion1 whether on right grounds or on wrong ones1 who has done the greatest work as regards the promulgation of an opinion4 ,and this is what ,mr4 ,darwin has done for evolution4 ,he has made us think that we know the origin of species1 and so of genera1 in spite of his utmost efforts to assure us that we know nothing of the causes from which the vast majority of modifications have arisen--that is to say1 he has made us think we know the whole road1 though he has almost ostentatiously blindfolded us at every step of the journey4 ,but to the end of time1 if the question be asked1 8,who taught people to believe in evolution80 there can only be one answer--that it was ,mr4 ,darwin4 99 99 99 99 99 ,mr4 ,mivart urges with much force the difficulty of starting any modification on which 8natural selection0 is to work1 and of getting a creature to vary in any definite direction4 ,thus1 after quoting from ,mr4 ,wallace some of the wonderful cases of 8mimicry0 which are to be found among insects1 he writes3-- 8,now1 let us suppose that the ancestors of these various animals were all destitute of the very special protection they at present possess1 as on the ,darwinian hypothesis we must do4 ,let it be also conceded that small deviations from the antecedent colouring or form would tend to make some of their ancestors escape destruction1 by causing them more or less frequently to be passed over or mistaken by their persecutors4 ,yet the deviation must1 as the event has shown1 in each case1 be in some definite direction1 whether it be towards some other animal or plant1 or towards some dead or inorganic matter4 ,but as1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 there is a constant tendency to indefinite variation1 and as the minute incipient variations will be in all directions1 they must tend to neutralise each other1 and at first to form such unstable modifications1 that it is difficult1 if not impossible1 to see how such indefinite modifications of insignificant beginnings can ever build up a sufficiently appreciable resemblance to a leaf1 bamboo1 or other object for 8natural selection10 to seize upon and perpetuate4 ,this difficulty is augmented when we consider--a point to be dwelt upon hereafter--how necessary it is that many individuals should be similarly modified simultaneously4 ,this has been insisted on in an able article in the #8,north ,british ,review' for ,june #ahfg1 p4 #bhf1 and the consideration of the article has occasioned ,mr4 ,darwin0 78,origin of ,species10 #eth ed41 p4 #ajd7 8to make an important modification in his views0 78,genesis of ,species10 p4 #ch74 ,to this ,mr4 ,darwin rejoins3-- 8,but in all the foregoing cases the insects in their original state1 no doubt1 presented some rude and accidental resemblance to an object commonly found in the stations frequented by them4 ,nor is this improbable1 considering the almost infinite number of surrounding objects1 and the diversity of form and colour of the host of insects that exist0 78,natural ,selection10 p4 #ahb1 ed4 #ahgf74 ,mr4 ,mivart has just said3 8,it is difficult to see how such indefinite modifications of insignificant beginnings can ever build up a sufficiently appreciable resemblance to a leaf1 bamboo1 or other object1 for #8natural selection' to work upon40 ,the answer is1 that 8natural selection0 did not begin to work until1 from unknown causes1 an appreciable resemblance had nevertheless been presented4 ,i think the reader will agree with me that the development of the lowest life into a creature which bears even 8a rude resemblance0 to the objects commonly found in the station in which it is moving in its present differentiation1 requires more explanation than is given by the word 8accidental40 ,mr4 ,darwin continues3 8,as some rude resemblance is necessary for the first start10 c42 and a little lower he writes3 8,assuming that an insect originally happened to resemble in some degree a dead twig or a decayed leaf1 and that it varied slightly in many ways1 then all the variations which rendered the insect at all more like any such object1 and thus favoured its escape1 would be preserved1 while other variations would be neglected1 and ultimately lost1 or if they rendered the insect at all less like the imitated object1 they would be eliminated40 ,but here1 again1 we are required to begin with ,natural ,selection when the work is already in great part done1 owing to causes about which we are left completely in the dark2 we may1 ,i think1 fairly demur to the insects originally happening to resemble in some degree a dead twig or a decayed leaf4 ,and when we bear in mind that the variations1 being supposed by ,mr4 ,darwin to be indefinite1 or devoid of aim1 will appear in every direction1 we cannot forget what ,mr4 ,mivart insists upon1 namely1 that the chances of many favourable variations being counteracted by other unfavourable ones in the same creature are not inconsiderable4 ,nor1 again1 is it likely that the favourable variation would make its mark upon the race1 and escape being absorbed in the course of a few generations1 unless--as ,mr4 ,mivart elsewhere points out1 in a passage to which ,i shall call the reader's attention presently--a larger number of similarly varying creatures made their appearance at the same time than there seems sufficient reason to anticipate1 if the variations can be called fortuitous4 8,there would10 continues ,mr4 ,darwin1 8indeed be force in ,mr4 ,mivart's objection if we were to attempt to account for the above resemblances1 independently of #8natural selection1' through mere fluctuating variability2 but as the case stands1 there is none40 ,this comes to saying that1 if there was no power in nature which operates so that of all the many fluctuating variations1 those only are preserved which tend to the resemblance which is beneficial to the creature1 then indeed there would be difficulty in understanding how the resemblance could have come about2 but that as there is a beneficial resemblance to start with1 and as there is a power in nature which would preserve and accumulate further beneficial resemblance1 should it arise from this cause or that1 the difficulty is removed4 ,but ,mr4 ,mivart does not1 ,i take it1 deny the existence of such a power in nature1 as ,mr4 ,darwin supposes1 though1 if ,i understand him rightly1 he does not see that its operation upon small fortuitous variations is at all the simple and obvious process1 which on a superficial view of the case it would appear to be4 ,he thinks--and ,i believe the reader will agree with him--that this process is too slow and too risky4 ,what he wants to know is1 how the insect came even rudely to resemble the object1 and how1 if its variations are indefinite1 we are ever to get into such a condition as to be able to report progress1 owing to the constant liability of the creature which has varied favourably1 to play the part of ,penelope and undo its work1 by varying in some one of the infinite number of other directions which are open to it--all of which1 except this one1 tend to destroy the resemblance1 and yet may be in some other respect even more advantageous to the creature1 and so tend to its preservation4 ,moreover1 here1 too1 ,i think 7though ,i cannot be sure71 we have a recurrence of the original fallacy in the words--8,if we were to account for the above resemblances1 independently of #8natural selection1' through mere fluctuating variability40 ,surely ,mr4 ,darwin does1 after all1 8account for the resemblances through mere fluctuating variability10 for 8natural selection0 does not account for one single variation in the whole list of them from first to last1 other than indirectly1 as shewn in the preceding chapter4 ,it is impossible for me to continue this subject further2 but ,i would beg the reader to refer to other paragraphs in the neighbourhood of the one just quoted1 in which he may--though ,i do not think he will--see reason to think that ,i should have given ,mr4 ,darwin's answer more fully4 ,i do not quote ,mr4 ,darwin's next paragraph1 inasmuch as ,i see no great difficulty about 8the last touches of perfection in mimicry10 provided ,mr4 ,darwin's theory will account for any mimicry at all4 ,if it could do this1 it might as well do more2 but a strong impression is left on my mind1 that without the help of something over and above the power to vary1 which should give a definite aim to variations1 all the 8natural selection0 in the world would not have prevented stagnation and self-stultification1 owing to the indefinite tendency of the variations1 which thus could not have developed either a preyer or a preyee1 but would have gone round and round and round the primordial cell till they were weary of it4 ,as against ,mr4 ,darwin1 therefore1 ,i think that the objection just given from ,mr4 ,mivart is fatal4 ,i believe1 also1 that the reader will feel the force of it much more strongly if he will turn to ,mr4 ,mivart's own pages4 ,against the view which ,i am myself supporting1 the objection breaks down entirely1 for grant 8a little dose of judgement and reason0 on the part of the creature itself--grant also continued personality and memory--and a definite tendency is at once given to the variations4 ,the process is thus started1 and is kept straight1 and helped forward through every stage by 8the little dose of reason10 c41 which enabled it to take its first step4 ,we are1 in fact1 no longer without a helm1 but can steer each creature that is so discontented with its condition1 as to make a serious effort to better itself1 into some--and into a very distant--harbour4 99 99 99 99 99 ,it has been objected against ,mr4 ,darwin's theory that if all species and genera have come to differ through the accumulation of minute but--as a general rule--fortuitous variations1 there has not been time enough1 so far as we are able to gather1 for the evolution of all existing forms by so slow a process4 ,on this subject ,i would again refer the reader to ,mr4 ,mivart's book1 from which ,i take the following3-- 8,sir ,william ,thompson has lately advanced arguments from three distinct lines of inquiry agreeing in one approximate result4 ,the three lines of inquiry are--7#a7 the action of the tides upon the earth's rotation2 7#b7 the probable length of time during which the sun has illuminated this planet2 and 7#c7 the temperature of the interior of the earth4 ,the result arrived at by these investigations is a conclusion that the existing state of things on the earth1 life on the earth1 all geological history showing continuity of life1 must be limited within some such period of past time as one hundred million years4 ,the first question which suggests itself1 supposing ,sir ,w4 ,thompson's views to be correct1 is3 ,has this period been anything like enough for the evolution of all organic forms by #8natural selection'8 ,the second is3 ,has the period been anything like enough for the deposition of the strata which must have been deposited if all organic forms have been evolved by minute steps1 according to the ,darwinian theory80 78,genesis of ,species10 p4 #aed74 ,mr4 ,mivart then quotes from ,mr4 ,murphy--whose work ,i have not seen--the following passage3-- 8,darwin justly mentions the greyhound as being equal to any natural species in the perfect co-ordination of its parts1 #8all adapted for extreme fleetness and for running down weak prey4' ,yet it is an artificial species 7and not physiologically a species at all7 formed by a long-continued selection under domestication2 and there is no reason to suppose that any of the variations which have been selected to form it have been other than gradual and almost imperceptible4 ,suppose that it has taken five hundred years to form the greyhound out of his wolf-like ancestor4 ,this is a mere guess1 but it gives the order of magnitude4 ,now1 if so1 how long would it take to obtain an elephant from a protozoon or even from a tadpole-like fish8 ,ought it not to take much more than a million times as long80 78,genesis of ,species10 p4 #aee74 ,i should be very sorry to pronounce any opinion upon the foregoing data2 but a general impression is left upon my mind1 that if the differences between an elephant and a tadpole-like fish have arisen from the accumulation of small variations that have had no direction given them by intelligence and sense of needs1 then no time conceivable by man would suffice for their development4 ,but grant 8a little dose of reason and judgement10 even to animals low down in the scale of nature1 and grant this1 not only during their later life1 but during their embryological existence1 and see with what infinitely greater precision of aim and with what increased speed the variations would arise4 ,evolution entirely unaided by inherent intelligence must be a very slow1 if not quite inconceivable1 process4 ,evolution helped by intelligence would still be slow1 but not so desperately slow4 ,one can conceive that there has been sufficient time for the second1 but one cannot conceive it for the first4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i find from ,mr4 ,mivart that objection has been taken to ,mr4 ,darwin's views1 on account of the great odds that exist against the appearance of any given variation at one and the same time1 in a sufficient number of individuals1 to prevent its being obliterated almost as soon as produced by the admixture of unvaried blood which would so greatly preponderate around it2 and indeed the necessity for a nearly simultaneous and similar variation1 or readiness so to vary on the part of many individuals1 seems almost a postulate for evolution at all4 ,on this subject ,mr4 ,mivart writes3-- 8,the #8,north ,british ,review' 7speaking of the supposition that species is changed by the survival of a few individuals in a century through a similar and favourable variation7 says-- 8#8,it is very difficult to see how this can be accomplished1 even when the variation is eminently favourable indeed2 and still more1 when the advantage gained is very slight1 as must generally be the case4 ,the advantage1 whatever it may be1 is utterly outbalanced by numerical inferiority4 ,a million creatures are born2 ten thousand survive to produce offspring4 ,one of the million has twice as good a chance as any other of surviving1 but the chances are fifty to one against the gifted individuals being one of the hundred survivors4 ,no doubt the chances are twice as great against any other individual1 but this does not prevent their being enormously in favour of some average individual4 ,however slight the advantage may be1 if it is shared by half the individuals produced1 it will probably be present in at least fifty-one of the survivors1 and in a larger proportion of their offspring2 but the chances are against the preservation of any one 8sport0 7i4e41 sudden marked variation7 in a numerous tribe4 ,the vague use of an imperfectly-understood doctrine of chance1 has led ,darwinian supporters1 first1 to confuse the two cases above distinguished1 and secondly1 to imagine that a very slight balance in favour of some individual sport must lead to its perpetuation4 ,all that can be said is that in the above example the favoured sport would be preserved once in fifty times4 ,let us consider what will be its influence on the main stock when preserved4 ,it will breed and have a progeny of say #ajj2 now this progeny will1 on the whole1 be intermediate between the average individual and the sport4 ,the odds in favour of one of this generation of the new breed will be1 say one and a half to one1 as compared with the average individual2 the odds in their favour will1 therefore1 be less than that of their parents2 but owing to their greater number the chances are that about one and a half of them would survive4 ,unless these breed together--a most improbable event--their progeny would again approach the average individual2 there would be #aej of them1 and their superiority would be1 say in the ratio of one and a quarter to one2 the probability would now be that nearly two of them would survive1 and have #bjj children with an eighth superiority4 ,rather more than two of these would survive2 but the superiority would again dwindle2 until after a few generations it would no longer be observed1 and would count for no more in the struggle for life than any of the hundred trifling advantages which occur in the ordinary organs4 8#8,an illustration will bring this conception home4 ,suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by negroes1 and to have established himself in friendly relations with a powerful tribe1 whose customs he has learnt4 ,suppose him to possess the physical strength1 energy1 and ability of a dominant white race1 and let the food of the island suit his constitution2 grant him every advantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native2 concede that in the struggle for existence1 his chance of a long life will be much superior to that of the native chiefs2 yet from all these admissions there does not follow the conclusion1 that after a limited or unlimited number of generations1 the inhabitants of the island will be white4 ,our shipwrecked hero would probably become king2 he would kill a great many blacks in the struggle for existence2 he would have a great many wives and children 4 4 4 ,in the first generation there will be some dozens of intelligent young mulattoes1 much superior in average intelligence to the negroes4 ,we might expect the throne for some generations to be occupied by a more or less yellow king2 but can any one believe that the whole island will gradually acquire a white1 or even a yellow population8 4 4 4 ,darwin says1 that in the struggle for life a grain may turn the balance in favour of a given structure1 which will then be preserved4 ,but one of the weights in the scale of nature is due to the number of a given tribe4 ,let there be #gjjj ,a's and #gjjj ,b's representing two varieties of a given animal1 and let all the ,b's1 in virtue of a slight difference of structure1 have the better chance by one-thousandth part4 ,we must allow that there is a slight probability that the descendants of ,b will supplant the descendants of ,a2 but let there be #gjja ,a's against #gjjj ,b's at first1 and the chances are once more equal1 while if there be #gjjb ,a's to start1 the odds would be laid on the ,a's4 ,thus they stand a greater chance of being killed2 but1 then1 they can better afford to be killed4 ,the grain will only turn the scales when these are very nicely balanced1 and an advantage in numbers counts for weight1 even as an advantage in structure4 ,as the numbers of the favoured variety diminish1 so must its relative advantages increase1 if the chance of its existence is to surpass the chance of its extinction1 until hardly any conceivable advantage would enable the descendants of a single pair to exterminate the descendants of many thousands1 if they and their descendants are supposed to breed freely with the inferior variety1 and so gradually lose their ascendancy1'0 78,north ,british ,review10 ,june #ahfg1 p4 #bhf 8,genesis of ,species10 p4 #fd1 and onwards74 ,against this it should be remembered that there is always an antecedent probability that several specimens of a given variation would appear at one time and place4 ,this would probably be the case even on ,mr4 ,darwin's hypothesis1 that the variations are fortuitous2 if they are mainly guided by sense of need and intelligence1 it would almost certainly be so1 for all would have much the same idea as to their well-being1 and the same cause which would lead one to vary in this direction would lead not a few others to do so at the same time1 or to follow suit4 ,thus we see that many human ideas and inventions have been conceived independently but simultaneously4 ,the chances1 moreover1 of specimens that have varied successfully1 intermarrying1 are1 ,i think1 greater than the reviewer above quoted from would admit4 ,i believe that on the hypothesis that the variations are fortuitous1 and certainly on the supposition that they are intelligent1 they might be looked for in members of the same family1 who would hence have a better chance of finding each other out4 ,serious as is the difficulty advanced by the reviewer as against ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 it may be in great measure parried without departing from ,mr4 ,darwin's own position1 but the 8little dose of judgement and reason0 removes it1 absolutely and entirely4 ,as for the reviewer's shipwrecked hero1 surely the reviewer must know that ,mr4 ,darwin would no more expect an island of black men to be turned white1 or even perceptibly whitened after a few generations1 than the reviewer himself would do so4 ,but if we turn from what 8might0 or what 8would0 happen to what 8does0 happen1 we find that a few white families have nearly driven the ,indian from the ,united ,states1 the ,australian natives from ,australia1 and the ,maories from ,new ,zealand4 ,true1 these few families have been helped by immigration2 but it will be admitted that this has only accelerated a result which would otherwise1 none the less surely1 have been effected4 ,there is all the difference between a sudden sport1 or even a variety introduced from a foreign source1 and the gradual1 intelligent1 and1 in the main1 steady1 growth of a race towards ends always a little1 but not much1 in advance of what it can at present compass1 until it has reached equilibrium with its surroundings4 ,so far as ,mr4 ,darwin's variations are of the nature of 8sport10 i4e41 rare1 and owing to nothing that we can in the least assign to any known cause1 the reviewer's objections carry much weight4 ,against the view here advocated1 they are powerless4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i cannot here go into the difficulties of the geologic record1 but they too will1 ,i believe1 be felt to be almost infinitely simplified by supposing the development of structure and instinct to be guided by intelligence and memory1 which1 even under unstable conditions1 would be able to meet in some measure the demands made upon them4 99 99 99 99 99 ,when ,mr4 ,mivart deals with evolution and ethics1 ,i am afraid that ,i differ from him even more widely than ,i have done from ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,he writes 78,genesis of ,species10 p4 #bcd73 8,that #8natural selection' could not have produced from the sensations of pleasure and pain experienced by brutes a higher degree of morality than was useful2 therefore it could have produced any amount of #8beneficial habits1' but not abhorrence of certain acts as impure and sinful40 ,possibly 8natural selection0 may not be able to do much in the way of accumulating variations that do not arise2 but that1 according to the views supported in this volume1 all that is highest and most beautiful in the soul1 as well as in the body1 could be1 and has been1 developed from beings lower than man1 ,i do not greatly doubt4 ,mr4 ,mivart and myself should probably differ as to what is and what is not beautiful4 ,thus he writes of 8the noble virtue of a ,marcus ,aurelius0 7p4 #bce71 than whom1 for my own part1 ,i know few respectable figures in history to whom ,i am less attracted4 ,i cannot but think that ,mr4 ,mivart has taken his estimate of this emperor at second-hand1 and without reference to the writings which happily enable us to form a fair estimate of his real character4 ,take the opening paragraphs of the 8,thoughts0 of ,marcus ,aurelius1 as translated by ,mr4 ,long3-- 8,from the reputation and remembrance of my father ,i learned modesty and a manly character2 from my mother1 piety and beneficence1 abstinence not only from evil deeds1 but even from evil thoughts4 4 4 4 ,from my great-grandfather1 not to have frequented public schools1 and to have had good teachers at home1 and to know that on such things a man should spend liberally 4 4 4 ,from ,diognetus 4 4 4 ,i learned to have become intimate with philosophy1 4 4 4 and to have written dialogues in my youth1 and to have desired a plank bed and skin1 and whatever else of the kind belongs to the ,greek discipline4 4 4 4 ,from ,rusticus ,i received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline20 and so on to the end of the chapter1 near which1 however1 it is right to say that there appears a redeeming touch1 in so far as that he thanks the gods that he could not write poetry1 and that he had never occupied himself about the appearance of things in the heavens4 ,or1 again1 opening ,mr4 ,long's translation at random ,i find 7p4 #cg73-- 8,as physicians have always their instruments and knives ready for cases which suddenly require their skill1 so do thou have principles ready for the understanding of things divine and human1 and for doing everything1 even the smallest1 with a recollection of the bond that unites the divine and human to one another4 ,for neither wilt thou do anything well which pertains to man without at the same time having a reference to things divine2 nor the contrary40 ,unhappy one6 ,no wonder the ,roman empire went to pieces soon after him4 ,if ,i remember rightly1 he established and subsidised professorships in all parts of his dominions4 ,whereon the same befell the arts and literature of ,rome as befell ,italian painting after the ,academic system had taken root at ,bologna under the ,caracci4 ,mr4 ,martin ,tupper1 again1 is an amiable and well-meaning man1 but we should hardly like to see him in ,lord ,beaconsfield's place4 ,the ,athenians poisoned ,socrates2 and ,aristophanes--than whom few more profoundly religious men have ever been born--did not1 so far as we can gather1 think the worse of his countrymen on that account4 ,it is not improbable that if they had poisoned ,plato too1 ,aristophanes would have been well enough pleased2 but ,i think he would have preferred either of these two men to ,marcus ,aurelius4 ,i know nothing about the loving but manly devotion of a ,st4 ,lewis1 but ,i strongly suspect that ,mr4 ,mivart has taken him1 too1 upon hearsay4 ,on the other hand1 among dogs we find examples of every heroic quality1 and of all that is most perfectly charming to us in man4 ,as for the possible development of the more brutal human natures from the more brutal instincts of the lower animals1 those who read a horrible story told in a note1 pp4 #bcc1 #bcd of ,mr4 ,mivart's 8,genesis of ,species10 will feel no difficulty on that score4 ,i must admit1 however1 that the telling of that story seems to me to be a mistake in a philosophical work1 which should not1 ,i think1 unless under compulsion1 deal either with the horrors of the ,french ,revolution--or of the ,spanish or ,italian ,inquisition4 ,for the rest of ,mr4 ,mivart's objections1 ,i must refer the reader to his own work4 ,i have been unable to find a single one1 which ,i do not believe to be easily met by the ,lamarckian view1 with the additions 7if indeed they are additions1 for ,i must own to no very profound knowledge of what ,lamarck did or did not say71 which ,i have in this volume proposed to make to it4 ,at the same time ,i admit1 that as against the ,darwinian view1 many of them seem quite unanswerable4 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,concluding ,,remarks4 ,,here1 then1 ,i leave my case1 though well aware that ,i have crossed the threshold only of my subject4 ,my work is of a tentative character1 put before the public as a sketch or design for a1 possibly1 further endeavour1 in which ,i hope to derive assistance from the criticisms which this present volume may elicit4 ,such as it is1 however1 for the present ,i must leave it4 ,we have seen that we cannot do anything thoroughly till we can do it unconsciously1 and that we cannot do anything unconsciously till we can do it thoroughly2 this at first seems illogical2 but logic and consistency are luxuries for the gods1 and the lower animals1 only4 ,thus a boy cannot really know how to swim till he can swim1 but he cannot swim till he knows how to swim4 ,conscious effort is but the process of rubbing off the rough corners from these two contradictory statements1 till they eventually fit into one another so closely that it is impossible to disjoin them4 ,whenever1 therefore1 we see any creature able to go through any complicated and difficult process with little or no effort--whether it be a bird building her nest1 or a hen's egg making itself into a chicken1 or an ovum turning itself into a baby--we may conclude that the creature has done the same thing on a very great number of past occasions4 ,we found the phenomena exhibited by heredity to be so like those of memory1 and to be so utterly inexplicable on any other supposition1 that it was easier to suppose them due to memory in spite of the fact that we cannot remember having recollected1 than to believe that because we cannot so remember1 therefore the phenomena cannot be due to memory4 ,we were thus led to consider 8personal identity10 in order to see whether there was sufficient reason for denying that the experience1 which we must have clearly gained somewhere1 was gained by us when we were in the persons of our forefathers2 we found1 not without surprise1 that unless we admitted that it might be so gained1 in so far as that we once actually were our remotest ancestor1 we must change our ideas concerning personality altogether4 ,we therefore assumed that the phenomena of heredity1 whether as regards instinct or structure were mainly due to memory of past experiences1 accumulated and fused till they had become automatic1 or quasi automatic1 much in the same way as after a long life-- 4 4 4 8,old experience do attain ,to something like prophetic strain40 ,after dealing with certain phenomena of memory1 but more especially with its abeyance and revival1 we inquired what the principal corresponding phenomena of life and species should be1 on the hypothesis that they were mainly due to memory4 ,i think ,i may say that we found the hypothesis fit in with actual facts in a sufficiently satisfactory manner4 ,we found not a few matters1 as1 for example1 the sterility of hybrids1 the phenomena of old age1 and puberty as generally near the end of development1 explain themselves with more completeness than ,i have yet heard of their being explained on any other hypothesis4 ,we considered the most important difficulty in the way of instinct as hereditary habit1 namely1 the structure and instincts of neuter insects2 these are very unlike those of their parents1 and cannot apparently be transmitted to offspring by individuals of the previous generation1 in whom such structure and instincts appeared1 inasmuch as these creatures are sterile4 ,i do not say that the difficulty is wholly removed1 inasmuch as some obscurity must be admitted to remain as to the manner in which the structure of the larva is aborted2 this obscurity is likely to remain till we know more of the early history of civilisation among bees than ,i can find that we know at present2 but ,i believe the difficulty was reduced to such proportions as to make it little likely to be felt in comparison with that of attributing instinct to any other cause than inherited habit1 or inherited habit modified by changed conditions4 ,we then inquired what was the great principle underlying variation1 and answered1 with ,lamarck1 that it must be 8sense of need20 and though not without being haunted by suspicion of a vicious circle1 and also well aware that we were not much nearer the origin of life than when we started1 we still concluded that here was the truest origin of species1 and hence of genera2 and that the accumulation of variations1 which in time amounted to specific and generic differences1 was due to intelligence and memory on the part of the creature varying1 rather than to the operation of what ,mr4 ,darwin has called 8natural selection40 ,at the same time we admitted that the course of nature is very much as ,mr4 ,darwin has represented it1 in this respect1 in so far as that there is a struggle for existence1 and that the weaker must go to the wall4 ,but we denied that this part of the course of nature would lead to much1 if any1 accumulation of variation1 unless the variation was directed mainly by intelligent sense of need1 with continued personality and memory4 ,we conclude1 therefore1 that the small1 structureless1 impregnate ovum from which we have each one of us sprung1 has a potential recollection of all that has happened to each one of its ancestors prior to the period at which any such ancestor has issued from the bodies of its progenitors--provided1 that is to say1 a sufficiently deep1 or sufficiently often-repeated1 impression has been made to admit of its being remembered at all4 ,each step of normal development will lead the impregnate ovum up to1 and remind it of1 its next ordinary course of action1 in the same way as we1 when we recite a well-known passage1 are led up to each successive sentence by the sentence which has immediately preceded it4 ,and for this reason1 namely1 that as it takes two people 8to tell0 a thing--a speaker and a comprehending listener1 without which last1 though much may have been said1 there has been nothing told--so also it takes two people1 as it were1 to 8remember0 a thing--the creature remembering1 and the surroundings of the creature at the time it last remembered4 ,hence1 though the ovum immediately after impregnation is instinct with all the memories of both parents1 not one of these memories can normally become active till both the ovum itself1 and its surroundings1 are sufficiently like what they respectively were1 when the occurrence now to be remembered last took place4 ,the memory will then immediately return1 and the creature will do as it did on the last occasion that it was in like case as now4 ,this ensures that similarity of order shall be preserved in all the stages of development1 in successive generations4 ,life1 then1 is faith founded upon experience1 which experience is in its turn founded upon faith--or more simply1 it is memory4 ,plants and animals only differ from one another because they remember different things2 plants and animals only grow up in the shapes they assume because this shape is their memory1 their idea concerning their own past history4 ,hence the term 8,natural ,history10 as applied to the different plants and animals around us4 ,for surely the study of natural history means only the study of plants and animals themselves1 which1 at the moment of using the words 8,natural ,history10 we assume to be the most important part of nature4 ,a living creature well supported by a mass of healthy ancestral memory is a young and growing creature1 free from ache or pain1 and thoroughly acquainted with its business so far1 but with much yet to be reminded of4 ,a creature which finds itself and its surroundings not so unlike those of its parents about the time of their begetting it1 as to be compelled to recognise that it never yet was in any such position1 is a creature in the heyday of life4 ,a creature which begins to be aware of itself is one which is beginning to recognise that the situation is a new one4 ,it is the young and fair1 then1 who are the truly old and the truly experienced2 it is they who alone have a trustworthy memory to guide them2 they alone know things as they are1 and it is from them that1 as we grow older1 we must study if we would still cling to truth4 ,the whole charm of youth lies in its advantage over age in respect of experience1 and where this has for some reason failed1 or been misapplied1 the charm is broken4 ,when we say that we are getting old1 we should say rather that we are getting new or young1 and are suffering from inexperience1 which drives us into doing things which we do not understand1 and lands us1 eventually1 in the utter impotence of death4 ,the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of little children4 ,a living creature bereft of all memory dies4 ,if bereft of a great part of memory1 it swoons or sleeps2 and when its memory returns1 we say it has returned to life4 ,life and death1 then1 should be memory and forgetfulness1 for we are dead to all that we have forgotten4 ,life is that property of matter whereby it can remember4 ,matter which can remember is living2 matter which cannot remember is dead4 ,life1 then1 is memory4 ,the life of a creature is the memory of a creature4 ,we are all the same stuff to start with1 but we remember different things1 and if we did not remember different things we should be absolutely like each other4 ,as for the stuff itself of which we are made1 we know nothing save only that it is 8such as dreams are made of40 99 99 99 99 99 ,i am aware that there are many expressions throughout this book1 which are not scientifically accurate4 ,thus ,i imply that we tend towards the centre of the earth1 when1 ,i believe1 ,i should say we tend towards to the centre of gravity of the earth4 ,i speak of 8the primordial cell10 when ,i mean only the earliest form of life1 and ,i thus not only assume a single origin of life when there is no necessity for doing so1 and perhaps no evidence to this effect1 but ,i do so in spite of the fact that the amba1 which seems to be 8the simplest form of life10 does not appear to be a cell at all4 ,i have used the word 8beget10 of what1 ,i am told1 is asexual generation1 whereas the word should be confined to sexual generation only4 ,many more such errors have been pointed out to me1 and ,i doubt not that a larger number remain of which ,i know nothing now1 but of which ,i may perhaps be told presently4 ,i did not1 however1 think that in a work of this description the additional words which would have been required for scientific accuracy were worth the paper and ink and loss of breadth which their introduction would entail4 ,besides1 ,i know nothing about science1 and it is as well that there should be no mistake on this head2 ,i neither know1 nor want to know1 more detail than is necessary to enable me to give a fairly broad and comprehensive view of my subject4 ,when for the purpose of giving this1 a matter importunately insisted on being made out1 ,i endeavoured to make it out as well as ,i could2 otherwise--that is to say1 if it did not insist on being looked into1 in spite of a good deal of snubbing1 ,i held that1 as it was blurred and indistinct in nature1 ,i had better so render it in my work4 ,nevertheless1 if one has gone for some time through a wood full of burrs1 some of them are bound to stick4 ,i am afraid that ,i have left more such burrs in one part and another of my book1 than the kind of reader whom ,i alone wish to please will perhaps put up with4 ,fortunately1 this kind of reader is the best-natured critic in the world1 and is long suffering of a good deal that the more consciously scientific will not tolerate2 ,i wish1 however1 that ,i had not used such expressions as 8centres of thought and action0 quite so often4 ,as for the kind of inaccuracy already alluded to1 my reader will not1 ,i take it1 as a general rule1 know1 or wish to know1 much more about science than ,i do1 sometimes perhaps even less2 so that he and ,i shall commonly be wrong in the same places1 and our two wrongs will make a sufficiently satisfactory right for practical purposes4 ,of course1 if ,i were a specialist writing a treatise or primer on such and such a point of detail1 ,i admit that scientific accuracy would be de rigueur2 but ,i have been trying to paint a picture rather than to make a diagram1 and ,i claim the painter's license 8quidlibet audendi40 ,i have done my utmost to give the spirit of my subject1 but if the letter interfered with the spirit1 ,i have sacrificed it without remorse4 ,may not what is commonly called a scientific subject have artistic value which it is a pity to neglect8 ,but if a subject is to be treated artistically--that is to say1 with a desire to consider not only the facts1 but the way in which the reader will feel concerning those facts1 and the way in which he will wish to see them rendered1 thus making his mind a factor of the intention1 over and above the subject itself--then the writer must not be denied a painter's license4 ,if one is painting a hillside at a sufficient distance1 and cannot see whether it is covered with chestnut-trees or walnuts1 one is not bound to go across the valley to see4 ,if one is painting a city1 it is not necessary that one should know the names of the streets4 ,if a house or tree stands inconveniently for one's purpose1 it must go without more ado2 if two important features1 neither of which can be left out1 want a little bringing together or separating before the spirit of the place can be well given1 they must be brought together1 or separated4 ,which is a more truthful view1 of ,shrewsbury1 for example1 from a spot where ,st4 ,alkmund's spire is in parallax with ,st4 ,mary's--a view which should give only the one spire which can be seen1 or one which should give them both1 although the one is hidden8 ,there would be1 ,i take it1 more representation in the misrepresentation than in the representation--8the half would be greater than the whole10 unless1 that is to say1 one expressly told the spectator that ,st4 ,alkmund's spire was hidden behind ,st4 ,mary's--a sort of explanation which seldom adds to the poetical value of any work of art4 ,do what one may1 and no matter how scientific one may be1 one cannot attain absolute truth4 ,the question is rather1 how do people like to have their error8 than1 will they go without any error at all8 ,all truth and no error cannot be given by the scientist more than by the artist2 each has to sacrifice truth in one way or another2 and even if perfect truth could be given1 it is doubtful whether it would not resolve itself into unconsciousness pure and simple1 consciousness being1 as it were1 the clash of small conflicting perceptions1 without which there is neither intelligence nor recollection possible4 ,it is not1 then1 what a man has said1 nor what he has put down with actual paint upon his canvass1 which speaks to us with living language--it is what he has thought to us 7as is so well put in the letter quoted on page #hc71 by which our opinion should be guided2--what has he made us feel that he had it in him1 and wished to do8 ,if he has said or painted enough to make us feel that he meant and felt as we should wish him to have done1 he has done the utmost that man can hope to do4 ,i feel sure that no additional amount of technical accuracy would make me more likely to succeed1 in this respect1 if ,i have otherwise failed2 and as this is the only success about which ,i greatly care1 ,i have left my scientific inaccuracies uncorrected1 even when aware of them4 ,at the same time1 ,i should say that ,i have taken all possible pains as regards anything which ,i thought could materially affect the argument one way or another4 ,it may be said that ,i have fallen between two stools1 and that the subject is one which1 in my hands1 has shown neither artistic nor scientific value4 ,this would be serious4 ,to fall between two stools1 and to be hanged for a lamb1 are the two crimes which-- 8,nor gods1 nor men1 nor any schools allow40 ,of the latter1 ,i go in but little danger2 about the former1 ,i shall know better when the public have enlightened me4 ,the practical value of the views here advanced 7if they be admitted as true at all7 would appear to be not inconsiderable1 alike as regards politics or the well-being of the community1 and medicine which deals with that of the individual4 ,in the first case we see the rationale of compromise1 and the equal folly of making experiments upon too large a scale1 and of not making them at all4 ,we see that new ideas cannot be fused with old1 save gradually and by patiently leading up to them in such a way as to admit of a sense of continued identity between the old and the new4 ,this should teach us moderation4 ,for even though nature wishes to travel in a certain direction1 she insists on being allowed to take her own time2 she will not be hurried1 and will cull a creature out even more surely for forestalling her wishes too readily1 than for lagging a little behind them4 ,so the greatest musicians1 painters1 and poets owe their greatness rather to their fusion and assimilation of all the good that has been done up to1 and especially near about1 their own time1 than to any very startling steps they have taken in advance4 ,such men will be sure to take some1 and important1 steps forward2 for unless they have this power1 they will not be able to assimilate well what has been done already1 and if they have it1 their study of older work will almost indefinitely assist it2 but1 on the whole1 they owe their greatness to their completer fusion and assimilation of older ideas2 for nature is distinctly a fairly liberal conservative rather than a conservative liberal4 ,all which is well said in the old couplet-- 8,be not the first by whom the new is tried1 ,nor yet the last to throw the old aside40 ,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 more than we do 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 this1 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 treatment1 and no change at all4 ,friends have complained to me that they can never tell whether ,i am in jest or earnest4 ,i think1 however1 it should be sufficiently apparent that ,i am in very serious earnest1 perhaps too much so1 from the first page of my book to the last4 ,i am not aware of a single argument put forward which is not a bon fide argument1 although1 perhaps1 sometimes admitting of a humorous side4 ,if a grain of corn looks like a piece of chaff1 ,i confess ,i prefer it occasionally to something which looks like a grain1 but which turns out to be a piece of chaff only4 ,there is no lack of matter of this description going about in some very decorous volumes2 ,i have1 therefore1 endeavoured1 for a third time1 to furnish the public with a book whose fault should lie rather in the direction of seeming less serious than it is1 than of being less so than it seems4 ,at the same time1 ,i admit that when ,i began to write upon my subject ,i did not seriously believe in it4 ,i saw1 as it were1 a pebble upon the ground1 with a sheen that pleased me2 taking it up1 ,i turned it over and over for my amusement1 and found it always grow brighter and brighter the more ,i examined it4 ,at length ,i became fascinated1 and gave loose rein to self-illusion4 ,the aspect of the world seemed changed2 the trifle which ,i had picked up idly had proved to be a talisman of inestimable value1 and had opened a door through which ,i caught glimpses of a strange and interesting transformation4 ,then came one who told me that the stone was not mine1 but that it had been dropped by ,lamarck1 to whom it belonged rightfully1 but who had lost it2 whereon ,i said ,i cared not who was the owner1 if only ,i might use it and enjoy it4 ,now1 therefore1 having polished it with what art and care one who is no jeweller could bestow upon it1 ,i return it1 as best ,i may1 to its possessor4 ,what am ,i to think or say8 ,that ,i tried to deceive others till ,i have fallen a victim to my own falsehood8 ,surely this is the most reasonable conclusion to arrive at4 ,or that ,i have really found ,lamarck's talisman1 which had been for some time lost sight of8 ,will the reader bid me wake with him to a world of chance and blindness8 ,or can ,i persuade him to dream with me of a more living faith than either he or ,i had as yet conceived as possible8 ,as ,i have said1 reason points remorselessly to an awakening1 but faith and hope still beckon to the dream4 ,,appendix ,,author',s ,,addenda ,i ,see ,page #ac ,,but ,i may say in passing that though articulate speech and the power to maintain the upright position come much about the same time1 yet the power of making gestures of more or less significance is prior to that of walking uprightly1 and therefore to that of speech4 ,not only is gesticulation the earlier faculty in the individual1 but it was so also in the history of our race4 ,our semi-simious ancestors could gesticulate long before they could talk articulately4 ,it is significant of this that gesture is still found easier than speech even by adults1 as may be observed on our river steamers1 where the captain moves his hand but does not speak1 a boy interpreting his gesture into language4 ,to develop this here would complicate the argument2 let us be content to note it and pass on4 ,,ii ,see ,page #ah ,nevertheless1 the smallness of the effort touches upon the deepest mystery of organic life--the power to originate1 to err1 to sport1 the power which differentiates the living organism from the machine1 however complicated4 ,the action and working of this power is found to be like the action of any other mental and1 therefore1 physical power 7for all physical action of living beings is but the expression of a mental action71 but ,i can throw no light upon its origin any more than upon the origin of life4 ,this1 too1 must be noted and passed over4 ,,iii ,see ,page #be ,how different from the above uncertain sound is the full clear note of one who truly believes3-- 8,the ,church of ,england is commonly called a ,lutheran church1 but whoever compares it with the ,lutheran churches on the ,continent will have reason to congratulate himself on its superiority4 ,it is in fact a church sui generis1 yielding in point of dignity1 purity and decency of its doctrines1 establishment and ceremonies1 to no congregation of christians in the world2 modelled to a certain and considerable extent1 but not entirely1 by our great and wise pious reformers on the doctrines of ,luther1 so far as they are in conformity with the sure and solid foundation on which it rests1 and we trust for ever will rest--the authority of the ,holy ,scriptures1 ,jesus ,christ himself being the chief corner stone40 78,sketch of ,modern and ,ancient ,geography10 by ,dr4 ,samuel ,butler1 of ,shrewsbury4 ,ed4 #ahac47 ,this is the language of faith1 compelled by the exigencies of the occasion to be for a short time conscious of its own existence1 but surely very little likely to become so to the extent of feeling the need of any assistance from reason4 ,it is the language of one whose convictions are securely founded upon the current opinion of those among whom he has been born and bred2 and of all merely post-natal faiths a faith so founded is the strongest4 ,it is pleasing to see that the only alterations in the edition of #ahch consist in spelling ,christians with a capital ,c and the omission of the epithet 8wise0 as applied to the reformers1 an omission more probably suggested by a desire for euphony than by any nascent doubts concerning the applicability of the epithet itself4 ,,iv4 ,see ,page #bci ,,or take1 again1 the constitution of the ,church of ,england4 ,the bishops are the spiritual queens1 the clergy are the neuter workers4 ,they differ widely in structure 7for dress must be considered as a part of structure71 in the delicacy of the food they eat and the kind of house they inhabit1 and also in many of their instincts1 from the bishops1 who are their spiritual parents4 ,not only this1 but there are two distinct kinds of neuter workers--priests and deacons2 and of the former there are deans1 archdeacons1 prebends1 canons1 rural deans1 vicars1 rectors1 curates1 yet all spiritually sterile4 ,in spite of this sterility1 however1 is there anyone who will maintain that the widely differing structures and instincts of these castes are not due to inherited spiritual habit8 ,still less will he be inclined to do so when he reflects that by such slight modification of treatment as consecration and endowment any one of them can be rendered spiritually fertile4 ,,footnotes vii ,although the original edition of 8,life and ,habit0 is dated #ahgh1 the book was actually published in ,december1 #ahgg4 #ac ,see ,appendix 7note for page #ac74 #ah ,see ,appendix 7note for page #ah74 #be ,see ,appendix 7note for page #be74 #bci ,see ,appendix 7note for page #bci74