{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12506/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12506","id":"gutenberg_12506","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12506","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Teaching & Education","Science"],"text":"=CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES.=\n\nBY\n\nTHOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n1873.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe \"Critiques and Addresses\" gathered together in this volume, like\nthe \"Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,\" published three years ago,\ndeal chiefly with educational, scientific, and philosophical subjects;\nand, in fact, indicate the high-water mark of the various tides of\noccupation by which I have been carried along since the beginning of\nthe year 1870.\n\nIn the end of that year, a confidence in my powers of work, which,\nunfortunately, has not been justified by events, led me to allow\nmyself to be brought forward as a candidate for a seat on the London\nSchool Board. Thanks to the energy of my supporters I was elected, and\ntook my share in the work of that body during the critical first year\nof its existence. Then my health gave way, and I was obliged to resign\nmy place among colleagues whose large practical knowledge of the\nbusiness of primary education, and whose self-sacrificing zeal in the\ndischarge of the onerous and thankless duties thrown upon them by\nthe Legislature, made it a pleasure to work with them, even though my\nposition was usually that of a member of the minority.\n\nI mention these circumstances in order to account for (I had almost\nsaid to apologize for) the existence of the two papers which head\nthe present series, and which are more or less political, both in the\nlower and in the higher senses of that word.\n\nThe question of the expediency of any form of State Education is, in\nfact, a question of those higher politics which lie above the region\nin which Tories, Whigs, and Radicals \"delight to bark and bite.\" In\ndiscussing it in my address on \"Administrative Nihilism,\" I found\nmyself, to my profound regret, led to diverge very widely (though even\nmore perhaps in seeming than in reality) from the opinions of a man of\ngenius to whom I am bound by the twofold tie of the respect due to a\nprofound philosopher and the affection given to a very old friend. But\nhad I no other means of knowing the fact, the kindly geniality of Mr.\nHerbert Spencer's reply[1] assures me that the tie to which I refer\nwill bear a much heavier strain than I have put, or ever intend to\nput, upon it, and I rather rejoice that I have been the means of\ncalling forth so vigorous a piece of argumentative writing. Nor is\nthis disinterested joy at an attack upon myself diminished by the\ncircumstance, that, in all humility, but in all sincerity, I think it\nmay be repulsed.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Specialized Administration;\" _Fortnightly Review_,\nDecember 1871.]\n\nMr. Spencer complains that I have first misinterpreted, and then\nmiscalled, the doctrine of which he is so able an expositor. It would\ngrieve me very much if I were really open to this charge. But what are\nthe facts? I define this doctrine as follows:--\n\n    \"Those who hold these views support them by two lines of\n    argument. They enforce them deductively by arguing from an\n    assumed axiom, that the State has no right to do anything but\n    protect its subjects from aggression. The State is simply a\n    policeman, and its duty, neither more nor less than to prevent\n    robbery and murder and enforce contracts. It is not to promote\n    good, nor even to do anything to prevent evil, except by the\n    enforcement of penalties upon those who have been guilty\n    of obvious and tangible assaults upon purse or person. And,\n    according to this view, the proper form of government is\n    neither a monarchy, an aristocracy, nor a democracy, but an\n    _astynomocracy_, or police government. On the other hand,\n    these views are supported _\u00e0 posteriori_ by an induction from\n    observation, which professes to show that whatever is done by\n    a Government beyond these negative limits, is not only sure\n    to be done badly, but to be done much worse than private\n    enterprise would have done the same thing.\"\n\nI was filled with surprised regret when I learned from the conclusion\nof the article on \"Specialized Administration,\" that this statement is\nheld by Mr. Spencer to be a misinterpretation of his views. Perhaps\nI ought to be still more sorry to be obliged to declare myself, even\nnow, unable to discover where my misinterpretation lies, or in what\nrespect my presentation of Mr. Spencer's views differs from his own\nmost recent version of them. As the passage cited above shows I have\ncarefully defined the sense in which I use the terms which I employ,\nand, therefore, I am not greatly concerned to defend the abstract\nappropriateness of the terms themselves. And when Mr. Spencer\nmaintains the only proper functions of Government to be those which\nare comprehensible under the description of \"Negatively regulative\ncontrol,\" I may suggest that the difference between such \"Negative\nAdministration\" and \"Administrative Nihilism,\" in the sense defined by\nme, is not easily discernible.\n\nHaving, as I hope, relieved myself from the suspicion of having\nmisunderstood or misrepresented Mr. Spencer's views, I might, if I\ncould forget that I am writing a preface, proceed to the discussion\nof the parallel which he elaborates, with much knowledge and power,\nbetween the physiological and the social organisms. But this is not\nthe place for a controversy involving so many technicalities, and\nI content myself with one remark, namely, that the whole course of\nmodern physiological discovery tends to show, with more and more\nclearness, that the vascular system, or apparatus for distributing\ncommodities in the animal organism, is eminently under the control of\nthe cerebro-spinal nervous centres--a fact which, unless I am again\nmistaken, is contrary to one of Mr. Spencer's fundamental assumptions.\nIn the animal organism, Government does meddle with trade, and even\ngoes so far as to tamper a good deal with the currency.\n\nIn the same number of the _Fortnightly Review_ as that which contains\nMr. Spencer's essay, Miss Helen Taylor assails me--though, I am bound\nto admit, more in sorrow than in anger--for what she terms, my\n\"New Attack on Toleration.\" It is I, this time, who may complain of\nmisinterpretation, if the greater part of Miss Taylor's article\n(with which I entirely sympathise) is supposed to be applicable to\nmy \"intolerance.\" Let us have full-toleration, by all means, upon\nall questions in which there is room for doubt, or which cannot be\ndistinctly proved to affect the welfare of mankind. But when Miss\nTaylor has shown what basis exists for criminal legislation, except\nthe clear right of mankind not to tolerate that which is demonstrably\ncontrary to the welfare of society, I will admit that such\ndemonstration ought only to be believed in by the \"curates and\nold women\" to whom she refers. Recent events have not weakened the\nconviction I expressed in a much-abused speech at the London School\nBoard, that Ultramontanism is demonstrably the enemy of society; and\nmust be met with resistance, merely passive if possible, but active if\nnecessary, by \"the whole power of the State.\"\n\nNext in order, it seems proper that I should briefly refer to my\nfriend Mr. Mivart's onslaught upon my criticism of Mr. Darwin's\ncritics, himself among the number, which will be found in this\nvolume. In \"Evolution and its Consequences\"[1] I am accused of\nmisrepresentation, misquotation, misunderstanding, and numerous other\nnegative and positive literary and scientific sins; and much subtle\ningenuity is expended by Mr. Mivart in attempting to extricate himself\nfrom the position in which my exposition of the real opinions of\nFather Suarez has placed him. So much more, in fact, has Mr. Mivart's\ningenuity impressed me than any other feature of his reply, that I\nshall take the liberty of re-stating the main issue between us; and,\nfor the present, leaving that issue alone to the judgment of the\npublic.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Contemporary Review_, January 1872.]\n\nIn his book on the \"Genesis of Species\" Mr. Mivart, after discussing\nthe opinions of sundry Catholic writers of authority, among whom he\nespecially includes St. Augustin, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Jesuit\nSuarez, proceeds to say: \"It is then evident that ancient and most\nvenerable theological authorities distinctly assert _derivative_\ncreation, and thus their teachings harmonize with all that modern\nscience can possibly require.\"[1] By the \"derivative creation\" of\norganic forms, Mr. Mivart understands, \"that God created them by\nconferring on the material world the power to evolve them under\nsuitable conditions.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Bunsen's \"Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal\nHistory,\" vol. i.p. 349. 1854.]\n\nOn the contrary, I proved by evidence, which Mr. Mivart does not\nventure to impugn, that Suarez, in his \"Tractatus de Opere sex\nDierum,\" expressly rejects St. Augustin's and St. Thomas' views; that\nhe vehemently advocates the literal interpretation of the account of\nthe creation given in the Book of Genesis; and that he treats with\nutter scorn the notion that the Almighty could have used the language\nof that Book, unless He meant it to be taken literally.\n\nMr. Mivart, therefore, either has read Suarez and has totally\nmisrepresented him--a hypothesis which, I hope I need hardly say, I do\nnot for a moment entertain: or, he has got his information at second\nhand, and has himself been deceived. But in that case, it is surely\nan imprudence on his part, to reproach me with having \"read Suarez _ad\nhoc_, and evidently without the guidance of anyone familiar with\nthat author.\" No doubt, in the matter of guidance, Mr. Mivart has the\nadvantage of me. Nevertheless, the guides who supplied him with his\nreferences to Suarez' \"Metaphysica,\" while they left him in ignorance\nof the existence of the \"Tractatus,\" are guides with whose services\nit might be better to dispense; leaders who wilfully shut their eyes,\nbeing even more liable to lodge one in a ditch, than blind leaders.\n\nAt the time when the essay on \"Methods and Results of Ethnology\" was\nwritten, I had not met with a passage in Professor Max M\u00fcller's \"Last\nResults of Turanian Researches\"[1] which shows so appositely, that\nthe profoundest study of philology leads to conclusions respecting the\nrelation of Ethnology with Philology, similar to those at which I had\narrived in approaching the question from the Anatomist's side, that I\ncannot refrain from quoting it:\n\n[Footnote 1: LONDON, _April_ 1873.]\n\n    \"Nor should we, in our phonological studies, either expect or\n    desire more than general hints from physical ethnology. The\n    proper and rational connection between the two sciences is\n    that of mutual advice and suggestion, but nothing more. Much\n    of the confusion of terms and indistinctness of principles,\n    both in Ethnology and Phonology, are due to the combined\n    study of these heterogeneous sciences. Ethnological race\n    and phonological race are not commensurate, except in\n    ante-historical times, or perhaps at the very dawn of history.\n    With the migration of tribes, their wars, their colonies,\n    their conquests and alliances, which, if we may judge from\n    their effects, must have been much more violent in the\n    ethnic, than even in the political, period of history, it is\n    impossible to imagine that race and language should continue\n    to run parallel. The physiologist should pursue his own\n    science unconcerned about language.\"\n\nIt is further desirable to remark that the statements in this Essay\nrespecting the forms of Native American crania need rectification. On\nthis point, I refer the reader who is interested in the subject to\nmy paper \"On the Form of the Cranium among the Patagonians and the\nFuegians\" published in the _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_ for\n1868.\n\nIf the problem discussed in my address to the British Association\nin 1870 has not yet received its solution, it is not because the\nchampions of Abiogenesis have been idle, or wanting in confidence. But\nevery new assertion on their side has been met by a counter assertion;\nand though the public may have been led to believe that so much noise\nmust indicate rapid progress, one way or the other, an impartial\ncritic will admit, with sorrow, that the question has been \"marking\ntime\" rather than marching. In mere sound, these two processes are not\nso very different.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nI.\n\nADMINISTRATIVE NIHILISM. (An Address delivered to the Members of\nthe Midland Institute, on the 9th of October, 1871, and subsequently\npublished in the _Fortnightly Review_)\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE SCHOOL BOARDS: WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND WHAT THEY MAY DO. (The\n_Contemporary Review_, 1870)\n\n\nIII.\n\nON MEDICAL EDUCATION. (An Address to the Students of the Faculty of\nMedicine in University College, London, 1870)\n\n\nIV.\n\nYEAST. (The _Contemporary Review_, 1871)\n\n\nV.\n\nON THE FORMATION OF COAL. (A Lecture delivered before the Members of\nthe Bradford Philosophical Institution, and subsequently published in\nthe _Contemporary Review_)\n\n\nVI.\n\nON CORAL AND CORAL REEFS. (_Good Words_, 1870)\n\n\nVII.\n\nON THE METHODS AND RESULTS OF ETHNOLOGY. (The _Fortnightly Review_,\n1865)\n\n\nVIII.\n\nON SOME FIXED POINTS IN BRITISH ETHNOLOGY. (The _Contemporary Review_,\n1871)\n\n\nIX.\n\nPALAEONTOLOGY AND THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION. (The Presidential Address\nto the Geological Society, 1870)\n\n\nX.\n\nMR. DARWIN'S CRITICS. (The _Contemporary Review_, 1871)\n\n\nXI.\n\nTHE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS. (A Review of Haeckel's \"Nat\u00fcrliche\nSch\u00f6pfungs-Geschichte.\" The _Academy_, 1869)\n\n\nXII.\n\nBISHOP BERKELEY ON THE METAPHYSICS OF SENSATION. _(Macmillan's\nMagazine_, 1871)\n\n\n\n\nCRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nADMINISTRATIVE NIHILISM.\n\n(AN ADDRESS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE MIDLAND INSTITUTE, OCTOBER 9TH,\n1871.)\n\n\nTo me, and, as I trust, to the great majority of those whom I address,\nthe great attempt to educate the people of England which has just been\nset afoot, is one of the most satisfactory and hopeful events in our\nmodern history. But it is impossible, even if it were desirable,\nto shut our eyes to the fact, that there is a minority, not\ninconsiderable in numbers, nor deficient in supporters of weight and\nauthority, in whose judgment all this legislation is a step in the\nwrong direction, false in principle, and consequently sure to produce\nevil in practice.\n\nThe arguments employed by these objectors are of two kinds. The first\nis what I will venture to term the caste argument; for, if logically\ncarried out, it would end in the separation of the people of this\ncountry into castes, as permanent and as sharply defined, if not as\nnumerous, as those of India. It is maintained that the whole fabric\nof society will be destroyed if the poor, as well as the rich, are\neducated; that anything like sound and good education will only make\nthem discontented with their station and raise hopes which, in the\ngreat majority of cases, will be bitterly disappointed. It is said:\nThere must be hewers of wood and drawers of water, scavengers and\ncoalheavers, day labourers and domestic servants, or the work of\nsociety will come to a standstill. But, if you educate and refine\neverybody, nobody will be content to assume these functions, and all\nthe world will want to be gentlemen and ladies.\n\nOne hears this argument most frequently from the representatives of\nthe well-to-do middle class; and, coming from them, it strikes me as\npeculiarly inconsistent, as the one thing they admire, strive after,\nand advise their own children to do, is to get on in the world, and,\nif possible, rise out of the class in which they were born into that\nabove them. Society needs grocers and merchants as much as it needs\ncoalheavers; but if a merchant accumulates wealth and works his way to\na baronetcy, or if the son of a greengrocer becomes a lord chancellor,\nor an archbishop, or, as a successful soldier, wins a peerage, all the\nworld admires them; and looks with pride upon the social system which\nrenders such achievements possible. Nobody suggests that there is\nanything wrong in _their_ being discontented with _their_ station; or\nthat, in _their_ cases society suffers by men of ability reaching the\npositions for which nature has fitted them.\n\nBut there are better replies than those of the _tu quoque_ sort to the\ncaste argument. In the first place, it is not true that education,\nas such, unfits men for rough and laborious, or even disgusting,\noccupations. The life of a sailor is rougher and harder than that of\nnine landsmen out of ten, and yet, as every ship's captain knows, no\nsailor was ever the worse for possessing a trained intelligence. The\nlife of a medical practitioner, especially in the country, is harder\nand more laborious than that of most artisans, and he is constantly\nobliged to do things which, in point of pleasantness, cannot be ranked\nabove scavengering--yet he always ought to be, and he frequently is,\na highly educated man. In the second place, though it may be granted\nthat the words of the catechism, which require a man to do his duty in\nthe station to which it has pleased God to call him, give an admirable\ndefinition of our obligation to ourselves and to society; yet the\nquestion remains, how is any given person to find out what is the\nparticular station to which it has pleased God to call him? A new-born\ninfant does not come into the world labelled scavenger, shopkeeper,\nbishop, or duke. One mass of red pulp is just like another to all\noutward appearance. And it is only by finding out what his faculties\nare good for, and seeking, not for the sake of gratifying a paltry\nvanity, but as the highest duty to himself and to his fellow-men,\nto put himself into the position in which they can attain their full\ndevelopment, that the man discovers his true station. That which is to\nbe lamented, I fancy, is not that society should do its utmost to help\ncapacity to ascend from the lower strata to the higher, but that it\nhas no machinery by which to facilitate the descent of incapacity from\nthe higher strata to the lower. In that noble romance, the \"Republic\"\n(which is now, thanks to the Master of Balliol, as intelligible to\nus all, as if it had been written in our mother tongue), Plato makes\nSocrates say that he should like to inculcate upon the citizens of his\nideal state just one \"royal lie.\"\n\n    \"'Citizens,' we shall say to them in our tale--'You are\n    brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you\n    have the power of command, and these he has composed of\n    gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others\n    of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again, who are to be\n    husbandmen and craftsmen, he has made of brass and iron; and\n    the species will generally be preserved in the children. But\n    as you are of the same original family, a golden parent will\n    sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son.\n    And God proclaims to the rulers, as a first principle, that\n    before all they should watch over their offspring, and see\n    what elements mingle with their nature; for if the son of a\n    golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron,\n    then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of\n    the ruler must not be pitiful towards his child because he has\n    to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan;\n    just as there may be others sprung from the artisan class, who\n    are raised to honour, and become guardians and auxiliaries.\n    For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the\n    State, it will then be destroyed.'\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"The Dialogues of Plato.\" Translated into English, with\nAnalysis and Introduction, by B. Jowett, M.A. Vol. ii. p. 243.]\n\nTime, whose tooth gnaws away everything else, is powerless against\ntruth; and the lapse of more than two thousand years has not weakened\nthe force of these wise words. Nor is it necessary that, as Plato\nsuggests, society should provide functionaries expressly charged with\nthe performance of the difficult duty of picking out the men of brass\nfrom those of silver and gold. Educate, and the latter will certainly\nrise to the top; remove all those artificial props by which the brass\nand iron folk are kept at the top, and, by a law as sure as that of\ngravitation, they will gradually sink to the bottom. We have all\nknown noble lords who would have been coachmen, or gamekeepers, or\nbilliard-markers, if they had not been kept afloat by our social\ncorks; we have all known men among the lowest ranks, of whom everyone\nhas said, \"What might not that man have become, if he had only had a\nlittle education?\"\n\nAnd who that attends, even in the most superficial way, to the\nconditions upon which the stability of modern society--and especially\nof a society like ours, in which recent legislation has placed\nsovereign authority in the hands of the masses, whenever they are\nunited enough to wield their power--can doubt that every man of high\nnatural ability, who is both ignorant and miserable, is as great a\ndanger to society as a rocket without a stick is to the people\nwho fire it? Misery is a match that never goes out; genius, as an\nexplosive power, beats gunpowder hollow; and if knowledge, which\nshould give that power guidance, is wanting, the chances are not small\nthat the rocket will simply run a-muck among friends and foes. What\ngives force to the socialistic movement which is now stirring\nEuropean society to its depths, but a determination on the part of the\nnaturally able men among the proletariat, to put an end, somehow or\nother, to the misery and degradation in which a large proportion of\ntheir fellows are steeped? The question, whether the means by which\nthey purpose to achieve this end are adequate or not, is at this\nmoment the most important of all political questions--and it is beside\nmy present purpose to discuss it. All I desire to point out is, that\nif the chance of the controversy being decided calmly and rationally,\nand not by passion and force, looks miserably small to an impartial\nbystander, the reason is that not one in ten thousand of those who\nconstitute the ultimate court of appeal, by which questions of the\nutmost difficulty, as well as of the most momentous gravity, will have\nto be decided, is prepared by education to comprehend the real nature\nof the suit brought before their tribunal.\n\nFinally, as to the ladies and gentlemen question, all I can say is,\nwould that every woman-child born into this world were trained to be\na lady, and every man-child a gentleman! But then I do not use those\nmuch-abused words by way of distinguishing people who wear fine\nclothes, and live in fine houses, and talk aristocratic slang, from\nthose who go about in fustian, and live in back slums, and talk gutter\nslang. Some inborn plebeian blindness, in fact, prevents me from\nunderstanding what advantage the former have over the latter. I have\nnever even been able to understand why pigeon-shooting at Hurlingham\nshould be refined and polite, while a rat-killing match in Whitechapel\nis low; or why \"What a lark\" should be coarse, when one hears \"How\nawfully jolly\" drop from the most refined lips twenty times in an\nevening.\n\nThoughtfulness for others, generosity, modesty, and self-respect, are\nthe qualities which make a real gentleman, or lady, as distinguished\nfrom the veneered article which commonly goes by that name. I by no\nmeans wish to express any sentimental preference for Lazarus against\nDives, but, on the face of the matter, one does not see why the\npractice of these virtues should be more difficult in one state of\nlife than another; and any one who has had a wide experience among all\nsorts and conditions of men, will, I think, agree with me that they\nare as common in the lower ranks of life as in the higher.\n\nLeaving the caste argument aside then, as inconsistent with the\npractice of those who employ it, as devoid of any justification in\ntheory, and as utterly mischievous if its logical consequences were\ncarried out, let us turn to the other class of objectors. To these\nopponents, the Education Act is only one of a number of pieces of\nlegislation to which they object on principle; and they include under\nlike condemnation the Vaccination Act, the Contagious Diseases Act,\nand all other sanitary Acts; all attempts on the part of the State to\nprevent adulteration, or to regulate injurious trades; all legislative\ninterference with anything that bears directly or indirectly on\ncommerce, such as shipping, harbours, railways, roads, cab-fares, and\nthe carriage of letters; and all attempts to promote the spread of\nknowledge by the establishment of teaching bodies, examining\nbodies, libraries, or museums, or by the sending out of scientific\nexpeditions; all endeavours to advance art by the establishment of\nschools of design, or picture galleries; or by spending money upon\nan architectural public building when a brick box would answer the\npurpose. According to their views, not a shilling of public money must\nbe bestowed upon a public park or pleasure-ground; not sixpence upon\nthe relief of starvation, or the cure of disease. Those who hold\nthese views support them by two lines of argument. They enforce them\ndeductively by arguing from an assumed axiom, that the State has no\nright to do anything but protect its subjects from aggression. The\nState is simply a policeman, and its duty is neither more nor less\nthan to prevent robbery and murder and enforce contracts. It is not to\npromote good, nor even to do anything to prevent evil, except by the\nenforcement of penalties upon those who have been guilty of obvious\nand tangible assaults upon purses or persons. And, according to\nthis view, the proper form of government is neither a monarchy,\nan aristocracy, nor a democracy, but an _astynomocracy_, or\npolice government. On the other hand, these views are supported _\u00e0\nposteriori_, by an induction from observation, which professes to show\nthat whatever is done by a Government beyond these negative limits, is\nnot only sure to be done badly, but to be done much worse than private\nenterprise would have done the same thing.\n\nI am by no means clear as to the truth of the latter proposition. It\nis generally supported by statements which prove clearly enough that\nthe State does a great many things very badly. But this is really\nbeside the question. The State lives in a glass house; we see what it\ntries to do, and all its failures, partial or total, are made the most\nof. But private enterprise is sheltered under good opaque bricks and\nmortar. The public rarely knows what it tries to do, and only hears\nof failures when they are gross and patent to all the world. Who is\nto say how private enterprise would come out if it tried its hand\nat State work? Those who have had most experience of joint-stock\ncompanies and their management, will probably be least inclined to\nbelieve in the innate superiority of private enterprise over State\nmanagement. If continental bureaucracy and centralization be fraught\nwith multitudinous evils, surely English beadleocracy and parochial\nobstruction are not altogether lovely. If it be said that, as a matter\nof political experience, it is found to be for the best interests,\nincluding the healthy and free development, of a people, that the\nState should restrict itself to what is absolutely necessary, and\nshould leave to the voluntary efforts of individuals as much as\nvoluntary effort can be got to do, nothing can be more just. But, on\nthe other hand, it seems to me that nothing can be less justifiable\nthan the dogmatic assertion that State interference, beyond the limits\nof home and foreign police, must, under all circumstances, do harm.\n\nSuppose, however, for the sake of argument, that we accept the\nproposition that the functions of the State may be properly summed up\nin the one great negative commandment,--\"Thou shalt not allow any man\nto interfere with the liberty of any other man,\"--I am unable to see\nthat the logical consequence is any such restriction of the power of\nGovernment, as its supporters imply. If my next-door neighbour\nchooses to have his drains in such a state as to create a poisonous\natmosphere, which I breathe at the risk of typhus and diphtheria, he\nrestricts my just freedom to live just as much as if he went about\nwith a pistol, threatening my life; if he is to be allowed to let\nhis children go unvaccinated, he might as well be allowed to leave\nstrychnine lozenges about in the way of mine; and if he brings them up\nuntaught and untrained, to earn their living, he is doing his best\nto restrict my freedom, by increasing the burden of taxation for the\nsupport of gaols and workhouses, which I have to pay.\n\nThe higher the state of civilization, the more completely do the\nactions of one member of the social body influence all the rest, and\nthe less possible is it for any one man to do a wrong thing\nwithout interfering, more or less, with the freedom of all his\nfellow-citizens. So that, even upon the narrowest view of the\nfunctions of the State, it must be admitted to have wider powers than\nthe advocates of the police theory are disposed to admit.\n\nIt is urged, I am aware, that if the right of the State to step beyond\nthe assigned limits is admitted at all, there is no stopping; and that\nthe principle which justifies the State in enforcing vaccination or\neducation, will also justify it in prescribing my religious belief,\nor my mode of carrying on my trade or profession; in determining the\nnumber of courses I have for dinner, or the pattern of my waistcoat.\n\nBut surely the answer is obvious that, on similar grounds, the right\nof a man to eat when he is hungry might be disputed, because if you\nonce allow that he may eat at all, there is no stopping him until he\ngorges himself, and suffers all the ills of a surfeit. In practice,\nthe man leaves off when reason tells him he has had enough; and, in\na properly organized State, the Government, being nothing but the\ncorporate reason of the community, will soon find out when State\ninterference has been carried far enough. And, so far as my\nacquaintance with those who carry on the business of Government goes,\nI must say that I find them far less eager to interfere with the\npeople, than the people are to be interfered with. And the reason is\nobvious. The people are keenly sensible of particular evils, and, like\na man suffering from pain, desire an immediate remedy. The statesman,\non the other hand, is like the physician, who knows that he can stop\nthe pain at once by an opiate; but who also knows that the opiate may\ndo more harm than good in the long run. In three cases out of four the\nwisest thing he can do is to wait, and leave the case to nature. But\nin the fourth case, in which the symptoms are unmistakable, and the\ncause of the disease distinctly known, prompt remedy saves a life.\nIs the fact that a wise physician will give as little medicine as\npossible any argument for his abstaining from giving any at all?\n\nBut the argument may be met directly. It may be granted that the\nState, or corporate authority of the people, might with perfect\npropriety order my religion, or my waistcoat, if as good grounds\ncould be assigned for such an order as for the command to educate my\nchildren. And this leads us to the question which lies at the root of\nthe whole discussion--the question, namely, upon what foundation\ndoes the authority of the State rest, and how are the limits of that\nauthority to be determined?\n\nOne of the oldest and profoundest of English philosophers, Hobbes of\nMalmesbury, writes thus:--\n\n    \"The office of the sovereign, be it monarch or an assembly,\n    consisteth in the end for which he was entrusted with the\n    sovereign power, namely, the procuration of _the safety_ of\n    the people: to which he is obliged by the law of nature, and\n    to render an account thereof to God, the author of that law,\n    and to none but Him. But by safety, here, is not meant a bare\n    preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which\n    every man by lawful industry, without danger or hurt to the\n    commonwealth, shall acquire to himself.\"\n\nAt first sight this may appear to be a statement of the police-theory\nof government, pure and simple; but it is not so. For Hobbes goes on\nto say:--\n\n    \"And this is intended should be done, not by care applied to\n    individuals, further than their protection from injuries, when\n    they shall complain; but by a general providence contained in\n    public instruction both of doctrine and example; and in the\n    making and executing of good laws to which individual persons\n    may apply their own cases.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Leviathan,\" Molesworth's ed. p. 322.]\n\nTo a witness of the civil war between Charles I. and the Parliament,\nit is not wonderful that the dissolution of the bonds of society which\nis involved in such strife should appear to be \"the greatest evil that\ncan happen in this life;\" and all who have read the \"Leviathan\" know\nto what length Hobbes's anxiety for the preservation of the authority\nof the representative of the sovereign power, whatever its shape,\nleads him. But the justice of his conception of the duties of the\nsovereign power does not seem to me to be invalidated by his monstrous\ndoctrines respecting the sacredness of that power.\n\nTo Hobbes, who lived during the break-up of the sovereign power by\npopular force, society appeared to be threatened by everything which\nweakened that power: but, to John Locke, who witnessed the evils which\nflow from the attempt of the sovereign power to destroy the rights\nof the people by fraud and violence, the danger lay in the other\ndirection.\n\nThe safety of the representative of the sovereign power itself is to\nLocke a matter of very small moment, and he contemplates its abolition\nwhen it ceases to do its duty, and its replacement by another, as a\nmatter of course. The great champion of the revolution of 1688 could\ndo no less. Nor is it otherwise than natural that he should seek to\nlimit, rather than to enlarge, the powers of the State, though in\nsubstance he entirely agrees with Hobbes's view of its duties:--\n\n    \"But though men,\" says he, \"when they enter into society, give\n    up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the\n    state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far\n    disposed of by the Legislature as the good of society shall\n    require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the\n    better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no\n    rational creature can be supposed to change his condition\n    with an intention to be worse), the power of the society,\n    or legislation, constituted by them can never be supposed to\n    extend further than the common good, but is obliged to secure\n    every one's property by providing against those three defects\n    above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and\n    uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme\n    power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established\n    standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not\n    by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who\n    are to decide controversies by those laws: and to employ the\n    force of the community at home only in the execution of such\n    laws; or abroad, to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and\n    secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this\n    to be directed to no other end than the peace, safety, and\n    public good of the people.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Locke's Essay, \"Of Civil Government,\" \u00a7 131.]\n\nJust as in the case of Hobbes, so in that of Locke, it may at first\nsight appear from this passage that the latter philosopher's views of\nthe functions of Government incline to the negative, rather than the\npositive, side. But a further study of Locke's writings will at\nonce remove this misconception. In the famous \"Letter concerning\nToleration,\" Locke says:--\n\n    \"The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men\n    constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and\n    _advancing_ their own civil interests.\n\n    \"Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency\n    of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money,\n    lands, houses, furniture, and the like.\n\n    \"It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial\n    execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in\n    general, and to every one of his subjects in particular, the\n    just possession of those things belonging to this life.\n\n    \"... The whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only\n    to these civil concernments.... All civil power, right,\n    and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of\n    promoting these things.\"\n\nElsewhere in the same \"Letter,\" Locke lays down the proposition that\nif the magistrate understand washing a child \"to be profitable to the\ncuring or preventing any disease that children are subject unto, and\nesteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law, in that\ncase he may order it to be done.\"\n\nLocke seems to differ most widely from Hobbes by his strong advocacy\nof a certain measure of toleration in religious matters. But the\nreason why the civil magistrate ought to leave religion alone is,\naccording to Locke, simply this, that \"true and saving religion\nconsists in the inward persuasion of the mind.\" And since \"such is the\nnature of the understanding that it cannot be compelled to the belief\nof anything by outward force,\" it is absurd to attempt to make men\nreligious by compulsion. I cannot discover that Locke fathers the pet\ndoctrine of modern Liberalism, that the toleration of error is a good\nthing in itself, and to be reckoned among the cardinal virtues; on\nthe contrary, in this very \"Letter on Toleration\" he states in the\nclearest language that \"No opinion contrary to human society, or to\nthose moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil\nsociety, are to be tolerated by the magistrate.\" And the practical\ncorollary which he draws from this proposition is that there ought to\nbe no toleration for either Papists or Atheists.\n\nAfter Locke's time the negative view of the functions of Government\ngradually grew in strength, until it obtained systematic and able\nexpression in Wilhelm von Humboldt's \"Ideen,\"[1] the essence of which\nis the denial that the State has a right to be anything more than\nchief policeman. And, of late years, the belief in the efficacy of\ndoing nothing, thus formulated, has acquired considerable popularity\nfor several reasons. In the first place, men's speculative convictions\nhave become less and less real; their tolerance is large because their\nbelief is small; they know that the State had better leave things\nalone unless it has a clear knowledge about them; and, with reason,\nthey suspect that the knowledge of the governing power may stand no\nhigher than the very low watermark of their own.\n\n[Footnote 1: An English translation has been published under the title\nof \"Essay on the Sphere and Duties of Government.\"]\n\nIn the second place, men have become largely absorbed in the mere\naccumulation of wealth; and as this is a matter in which the plainest\nand strongest form of self-interest is intensely concerned, science\n(in the shape of Political Economy) has readily demonstrated that\nself-interest may be safely left to find the best way of attaining\nits ends. Rapidity and certainty of intercourse between different\ncountries, the enormous development of the powers of machinery, and\ngeneral peace (however interrupted by brief periods of warfare), have\nchanged the face of commerce as completely as modern artillery has\nchanged that of war. The merchant found himself as much burdened by\nancient protective measures as the soldier by his armour--and negative\nlegislation has been of as much use to the one as the stripping off\nof breast-plates, greaves, and buff-coat to the other. But because the\nsoldier is better without his armour it does not exactly follow that\nit is desirable that our defenders should strip themselves stark\nnaked; and it is not more apparent why _laissez-faire_--great and\nbeneficial as it may be in all that relates to the accumulation of\nwealth--should be the one great commandment which the State is to\nobey in all other matters; and especially in those in which the\njustification of _laissez-faire_, namely, the keen insight given by\nthe strong stimulus of direct personal interest, in matters clearly\nunderstood, is entirely absent.\n\nThirdly, to the indifference generated by the absence of fixed\nbeliefs, and to the confidence in the efficacy of _laissez-faire_,\napparently justified by experience of the value of that principle when\napplied to the pursuit of wealth, there must be added that nobler and\nbetter reason for a profound distrust of legislative interference,\nwhich animates Von Humboldt and shines forth in the pages of Mr.\nMill's famous Essay on Liberty--I mean the just fear lest the end\nshould be sacrificed to the means; lest freedom and variety should be\ndrilled and disciplined out of human life in order that the great mill\nof the State should grind smoothly.\n\nOne of the profoundest of living English philosophers, who is at the\nsame time the most thoroughgoing and consistent of the champions of\nastynomocracy, has devoted a very able and ingenious essay[1] to the\ndrawing out of a comparison between the process by which men have\nadvanced from the savage state to the highest civilization, and that\nby which an animal passes from the condition of an almost shapeless\nand structureless germ, to that in which it exhibits a highly\ncomplicated structure and a corresponding diversity of powers. Mr.\nSpencer says with great justice--\n\n[Footnote 1: \"The Social Organism:\" Essays. Second Series.]\n\n    \"That they gradually increase in mass; that they become,\n    little by little, more complex; that, at the same time, their\n    parts grow more mutually dependent; and that they continue to\n    live and grow as wholes, while successive generations of their\n    units appear and disappear,--are broad peculiarities which\n    bodies politic display, in common with all living bodies, and\n    in which they and living bodies differ from everything else.\"\n\nIn a very striking passage of this essay Mr. Spencer shows with what\nsingular closeness a parallel between the development of a nervous\nsystem, which is the governing power of the body in the series of\nanimal organisms, and that of government, in the series of social\norganisms, can be drawn:--\n\n    \"Strange as the assertion, will be thought,\" says Mr. Spencer,\n    \"our Houses of Parliament discharge in the social economy\n    functions that are, in sundry respects, comparable to those\n    discharged by the cerebral masses in a vertebrate animal....\n    The cerebrum co-ordinates the countless heterogeneous\n    considerations which affect the present and future welfare of\n    the individual as a whole; and the Legislature co-ordinates\n    the countless heterogeneous considerations which affect the\n    immediate and remote welfare of the whole community. We may\n    describe the office of the brain as that of _averaging_ the\n    interests of life, physical, intellectual, moral, social; and\n    a good brain is one in which the desires answering to their\n    respective interests are so balanced, that the conduct they\n    jointly dictate sacrifice none of them. Similarly we may\n    describe the office of Parliament as that of _averaging_ the\n    interests of the various classes in a community; and a good\n    Parliament is one in which the parties answering to these\n    respective interests are so balanced, that their united\n    legislation concedes to each class as much as consists with\n    the claims of the rest.\"\n\nAll this appears to be very just. But if the resemblances between the\nbody physiological and the body politic are any indication, not only\nof what the latter is, and how it has become what it is, but of what\nit ought to be, and what it is tending to become, I cannot but think\nthat the real force of the analogy is totally opposed to the negative\nview of State function.\n\nSuppose that, in accordance with this view, each muscle were to\nmaintain that the nervous system had no right to interfere with its\ncontraction, except to prevent it from hindering the contraction of\nanother muscle; or each gland, that it had a right to secrete, so long\nas its secretion interfered with no other; suppose every separate cell\nleft free to follow its own \"interests,\" and _laissez-faire_ lord of\nall, what would become of the body physiological?\n\nThe fact is that the sovereign power of the body thinks for the\nphysiological organism, acts for it, and rules the individual\ncomponents with a rod of iron. Even the blood-corpuscles can't hold a\npublic meeting without being accused of \"congestion\"--and the brain,\nlike other despots whom we have known, calls out at once for the\nuse of sharp steel against them. As in Hobbes's \"Leviathan,\" the\nrepresentative of the sovereign authority in the living organism,\nthough he derives all his powers from the mass which he rules, is\nabove the law. The questioning of his authority involves death, or\nthat partial death which we call paralysis. Hence, if the analogy of\nthe body politic with the body physiological counts for anything, it\nseems to me to be in favour of a much larger amount of governmental\ninterference than exists at present, or than I, for one, at all desire\nto see. But, tempting as the opportunity is, I am not disposed to\nbuild up any argument in favour of my own case upon this analogy,\ncurious, interesting, and in many respects close, as it is, for it\ntakes no cognizance of certain profound and essential differences\nbetween the physiological and the political bodies.\n\nMuch as the notion of a \"social contract\" has been ridiculed, it\nnevertheless seems to be clear enough, that all social organization\nwhatever depends upon what is substantially a contract, whether\nexpressed or implied, between the members of the society. No society\never was, or ever can be, really held together by force. It may seem\na paradox to say that a slaveholder does not make his slaves work\nby force, but by agreement. And yet it is true. There is a contract\nbetween the two which, if it were written out, would run in these\nterms:--\"I undertake to feed, clothe, house, and not to kill, flog,\nor otherwise maltreat you, Quashie, if you perform a certain amount of\nwork.\" Quashie, seeing no better terms to be had, accepts the bargain,\nand goes to work accordingly. A highwayman who garottes me, and then\nclears out my pockets, robs me by force in the strict sense of the\nwords; but if he puts a pistol to my head and demands my money or\nmy life, and I, preferring the latter, hand over my purse, we have\nvirtually made a contract, and I perform one of the terms of that\ncontract. If, nevertheless, the highwayman subsequently shoots me,\neverybody will see that, in addition to the crimes of murder and\ntheft, he has been guilty of a breach of contract.\n\nA despotic Government, therefore, though often a mere combination\nof slaveholding and highway robbery, nevertheless implies a contract\nbetween governor and governed, with voluntary submission on the part\nof the latter; and _\u00e0 fortiori_, all other forms of government are in\nlike case.\n\nNow a contract between any two men implies a restriction of the\nfreedom of each in certain particulars. The highwayman gives up his\nfreedom to shoot me, on condition of my giving up my freedom to do\nas I like with my money: I give up my freedom to kill Quashie, on\ncondition of Quashie's giving up his freedom to be idle. And the\nessence and foundation of every social organization, whether simple\nor complex, is the fact that each member of the society voluntarily\nrenounces his freedom in certain directions, in return for the\nadvantages which he expects from association with the other members\nof that society. Nor are constitutions, laws, or manners, in ultimate\nanalysis, anything but so many expressed or implied contracts between\nthe members of a society to do this, or abstain from that.\n\nIt appears to me that this feature constitutes the difference\nbetween the social and the physiological organism. Among the higher\nphysiological organisms, there is none which is developed by the\nconjunction of a number of primitively independent existences into\na complex whole. The process of social organization appears to be\ncomparable, not so much to the process of organic development, as\nto the synthesis of the chemist, by which independent elements are\ngradually built up into complex aggregations--in which each element\nretains an independent individuality, though held in subordination to\nthe whole. The atoms of carbon and hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, which\nenter into a complex molecule, do not lose the powers originally\ninherent in them, when they unite to form that molecule, the\nproperties of which express those forces of the whole aggregation\nwhich are not neutralized and balanced by one another. Each atom has\ngiven up something, in order that the atomic society, or molecule, may\nsubsist. And as soon as any one or more of the atoms thus associated\nresumes the freedom which it has renounced, and follows some external\nattraction, the molecule is broken up, and all the peculiar properties\nwhich depended upon its constitution vanish.\n\nEvery society, great or small, resembles such a complex molecule,\nin which the atoms are represented by men, possessed of all those\nmultifarious attractions and repulsions which are manifested in their\ndesires and volitions, the unlimited power of satisfying which, we\ncall freedom. The social molecule exists in virtue of the renunciation\nof more or less of this freedom by every individual. It is decomposed,\nwhen the attraction of desire leads to the resumption of that freedom,\nthe suppression of which is essential to the existence of the social\nmolecule. And the great problem of that social chemistry we call\npolitics, is to discover what desires of mankind may be gratified, and\nwhat must be suppressed, if the highly complex compound, society,\nis to avoid decomposition. That the gratification of some of\nmen's desires shall be renounced is essential to order; that the\nsatisfaction of others shall be permitted is no less essential to\nprogress; and the business of the sovereign authority--which is, or\nought-to be, simply a delegation of the people appointed to act for\nits good--appears to me to be, not only to enforce the renunciation of\nthe anti-social desires, but, wherever it may be necessary, to promote\nthe satisfaction of those which are conducive to progress.\n\nThe great metaphysician, Immanuel Kant, who is at his greatest when\nhe discusses questions which are not metaphysical, wrote, nearly a\ncentury ago, a wonderfully instructive essay entitled \"A Conception of\nUniversal History in relation to Universal Citizenship,\"[1] from which\nI will borrow a few pregnant sentences:--\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltb\u00fcrgerlichen\nAbsicht,\" 1784. This paper has been translated by De Quincey, and\nattention has been recently drawn to its \"signal merits\" by the Editor\nof the _Fortnightly Review_ in his Essay on Condorcet. (_Fortnightly\nReview_, No. xxxviii. N.S. pp. 136, 137.)]\n\n    \"The means of which Nature has availed herself, in order to\n    bring about the development of all the capacities of man, is\n    the antagonism of those capacities to social organization,\n    so far as the latter does in the long run necessitate their\n    definite correlation. By antagonism, I here mean the unsocial\n    sociability of mankind--that is, the combination in them of\n    an impulse to enter into society, with a thorough spirit\n    of opposition which constantly threatens to break up this\n    society. The ground of this lies in human nature. Man has an\n    inclination to enter into society, because in that state he\n    feels that he becomes more a man, or, in other words, that his\n    natural faculties develop. But he has also a great tendency to\n    isolate himself, because he is, at the same time, aware of the\n    unsocial peculiarity of desiring to have everything his own\n    way; and thus, being conscious of an inclination to oppose\n    others, he is naturally led to expect opposition from them.\n\n    \"Now it is this opposition which awakens all the dormant\n    powers of men, stimulates them to overcome their inclination\n    to be idle, and, spurred by the love of honour, or power, or\n    wealth, to make themselves a place among their fellows, whom\n    they can neither do with, nor do without.\n\n    \"Thus they make the first steps from brutishness towards\n    culture, of which the social value of man is the measure. Thus\n    all talents become gradually developed, taste is formed,\n    and by continual enlightenment the foundations of a way of\n    thinking are laid, which gradually changes the mere rude\n    capacity of moral perception into determinate practical\n    principles; and thus society, which is originated by a sort\n    of pathological compulsion, becomes metamorphosed into a moral\n    unity.\" (_Loc. cit_. p. 147.)\n\n    \"All the culture and art which adorn humanity, the most\n    refined social order, are produced by that unsociability which\n    is compelled by its own existence to discipline itself, and\n    so by enforced art to bring the seeds implanted by nature into\n    full flower.\" (_Loc. cit_. p. 148.)\n\nIn these passages, as in others of this remarkable tract, Kant\nanticipates the application of the \"struggle for existence\" to\npolitics, and indicates the manner in which the evolution of society\nhas resulted from the constant attempt of individuals to strain its\nbonds. If individuality has no play, society does not advance; if\nindividuality breaks out of all bounds, society perishes.\n\nBut when men living in society once become aware that their welfare\ndepends upon, two opposing tendencies of equal importance--the one\nrestraining, the other encouraging, individual freedom--the\nquestion \"What are the functions of Government?\" is translated into\nanother--namely, What ought we men, in our corporate capacity, to do,\nnot only in the way of restraining that free individuality which is\ninconsistent with the existence of society, but in encouraging that\nfree individuality which is essential to the evolution of the\nsocial organization? The formula which truly defines the function of\nGovernment must contain the solution of both the problems involved,\nand not merely of one of them.\n\nLocke has furnished us with such a formula, in the noblest, and at the\nsame time briefest, statement of the purpose of Government known to\nme:--\n\n\"THE END OF GOVERNMENT IS THE GOOD OF MANKIND.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Of Civil Government,\" \u00a7 229.]\n\nBut the good of mankind is not a something which is absolute and\nfixed for all men, whatever their capacities or state of civilization.\nDoubtless it is possible to imagine a true \"Civitas Dei,\" in which\nevery man's moral faculty shall be such as leads him to control all\nthose desires which run counter to the good of mankind, and to cherish\nonly those which conduce to the welfare of society; and in which every\nman's native intellect shall be sufficiently strong, and his culture\nsufficiently extensive, to enable him to know what he ought to do and\nto seek after. And, in that blessed State, police will be as much a\nsuperfluity as every other kind of government.\n\nBut the eye of man has not beheld that State, and is not likely to\nbehold it for some time to come. What we do see, in fact, is that\nStates are made up of a considerable number of the ignorant and\nfoolish, a small proportion of genuine knaves, and a sprinkling of\ncapable and honest men, by whose efforts the former are kept in a\nreasonable state of guidance, and the latter of repression. And, such\nbeing the case, I do not see how any limit whatever can be laid down\nas to the extent to which, under some circumstances, the action of\nGovernment may be rightfully carried.\n\nWas our own Government wrong in suppressing Thuggee in India? If not,\nwould it be wrong in putting down any enthusiast who attempted to set\nup the worship of Astarte in the Haymarket? Has the State no right to\nput a stop to gross and open violations of common decency? And if\nthe State has, as I believe it has, a perfect right to do all these\nthings, are we not bound to admit, with Locke, that it may have a\nright to interfere with \"Popery\" and \"Atheism,\" if it be really true\nthat the practical consequences of such beliefs con be proved to\nbe injurious to civil society? The question where to draw the line\nbetween those things with which the State ought, and those with which\nit ought not, to interfere, then, is one which must be left to be\ndecided separately for each individual case. The difficulty which\nmeets the statesman is the same as that which meets us all in\nindividual life, in which our abstract rights are generally clear\nenough, though it is frequently extremely hard to say at what point it\nis wise to cease our attempts to enforce them.\n\nThe notion that the social body should be organized in such a manner\nas to advance the welfare of its members, is as old as political\nthought; and the schemes of Plato, More, Robert Owen, St. Simon,\nComte, and the modern socialists, bear witness that, in every age, men\nwhose capacity is of no mean order, and whose desire to benefit\ntheir fellows has rarely been excelled, have been strongly, nay,\nenthusiastically, convinced that Government may attain its end--the\ngood of the people--by some more effectual process than the very\nsimple and easy one of putting its hands in its pockets, and letting\nthem alone.\n\nIt may be, that all the schemes of social organization which have\nhitherto been propounded are impracticable follies. But if this be so,\nthe fact proves, not that the idea which underlies them is worthless,\nbut only that the science of politics is in a very rudimentary and\nimperfect state. Politics, as a science, is not older than astronomy;\nbut though the subject-matter of the latter is vastly less complex\nthan that of the former, the theory of the moon's motions is not quite\nsettled yet.\n\nPerhaps it may help us a little way towards getting clearer notions of\nwhat the State may and what it may not do, if, assuming the truth of\nLocke's maxim that \"the end of Government is the good of mankind,\" we\nconsider a little what the good, of mankind is.\n\nI take it that the good of mankind means the attainment, by every\nman, of all the happiness which he can enjoy without diminishing the\nhappiness of his fellow-men.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Hie est itaque finis ad quem tendo, talem scilicet\nNaturam acquirere, et ut multi mecum eam acquirant, conari hoc est\nde mea felicitate etiam operam dare, ut alii multi idem atque ego\nintelligant, ut eorum intellectus et cupiditas prorsus cum meo\nintellectu et cupiditate convenient: atque hoc fiat, necesse est\ntantum de Natura intelligere, quantum sufficit ad talem naturam\nacquirendam; deinde formare talem societatem qualis est desideranda,\nut quam plurimi quam facillime et secure eo perveniant.\"--B. SPINOZA,\n_De Intellectus Emendatione Tractatus._]\n\nIf we inquire what kinds of happiness come under this definition, we\nfind those derived from the sense of security or peace; from\nwealth, or commodity, obtained by commerce; from Art--whether it\nbe architecture, sculpture, painting, music, or literature; from\nknowledge, or science; and, finally, from sympathy or friendship. No\nman is injured, but the contrary, by peace. No man is any the worse\noff because another acquires wealth by trade, or by the exercise of\na profession; on the contrary, he cannot have acquired his wealth,\nexcept by benefiting others to the full extent of what they considered\nto be its value; and his wealth is no more than fairy gold if he does\nnot go on benefiting others in the same way. A thousand men may enjoy\nthe pleasure derived from a picture, a symphony, or a poem, without\nlessening the happiness of the most devoted connoisseur. The\ninvestigation of nature is an infinite pasture-ground, where all\nmay graze, and where the more bite, the longer the grass grows, the\nsweeter is its flavour, and the more it nourishes. If I love a friend,\nit is no damage to me, but rather a pleasure, if all the world also\nlove him and think of him as highly as I do.\n\nIt appears to be universally agreed, for the reasons already\nmentioned, that it is unnecessary and undesirable for the State\nto attempt to promote the acquisition of wealth by any direct\ninterference with commerce. But there is no such agreement as to the\nfurther question whether the State may not promote the acquisition of\nwealth by indirect means. For example, may the State make a road, or\nbuild a harbour, when it is quite clear that by so doing it will open\nup a productive district, and thereby add enormously to the total\nwealth of the community? And if so, may the State, acting for the\ngeneral good, take charge of the means of communication between its\nmembers, or of the postal and telegraph services? I have not yet met\nwith any valid, argument against the propriety of the State doing\nwhat our Government does in this matter; except the assumption, which\nremains to be proved, that Government will manage these things worse\nthan private enterprise would do. Nor is there any agreement upon the\nstill more important question whether the State ought, or ought not,\nto regulate the distribution of wealth. If it ought not, then all\nlegislation which regulates inheritance--the statute of Mortmain, and\nthe like--is wrong in principle; and, when a rich man dies, we\nought to return to the state of nature, and have a scramble for\nhis property. If, on the other hand, the authority of the State is\nlegitimately employed in regulating these matters, then it is an open\nquestion, to be decided entirely by evidence as to what tends to\nthe highest good of the people, whether we keep our present laws,\nor whether we modify them. At present the State protects men in the\npossession and enjoyment of their property, and defines what that\nproperty is. The justification for its so doing is that its action\npromotes the good of the people. If it can be clearly proved that the\nabolition of property would tend still, more to promote the good of\nthe people, the State will have the same justification for abolishing\nproperty that it now has for maintaining it.\n\nAgain, I suppose it is universally agreed that it would be useless\nand absurd for the State to attempt to promote friendship and sympathy\nbetween man and man directly. But I see no reason why, if it be\notherwise expedient, the State may not do something towards that\nend indirectly. For example, I can conceive the existence of an\nEstablished Church which should be a blessing to the community. A\nChurch in which, week by week, services should be devoted, not to the\niteration of abstract propositions in theology, but to the setting\nbefore men's minds of an ideal of true, just, and pure living; a place\nin which those who are weary of the burden of daily cares, should\nfind a moment's rest in the contemplation of the higher life which is\npossible for all, though attained by so few; a place in which the man\nof strife and of business should have time to think how small, after\nall, are the rewards he covets compared with peace and charity. Depend\nupon it, if such a Church existed, no one would seek to disestablish\nit.\n\nWhatever the State may not do, however, it is universally agreed that\nit may take charge of the maintenance of internal and external peace.\nEven the strongest advocate of administrative nihilism admits that\nGovernment may prevent aggression of one man on another. But this\nimplies the maintenance of an army and navy, as much as of a body of\npolice; it implies a diplomatic as well as a detective force; and it\nimplies, further, that the State, as a corporate whole, shall have\ndistinct and definite views as to its wants, powers, and obligations.\n\nFor independent States stand in the same relation to one another as\nmen in a state of nature, or unlimited freedom. Each endeavours to\nget all it can, until the inconvenience of the state of war suggests\neither the formation of those express contracts we call treaties,\nor mutual consent to those implied contracts which are expressed by\ninternational law. The moral rights of a State rest upon the same\nbasis as those of an individual. If any number of States agree to\nobserve a common set of international laws, they have, in fact, set up\na sovereign authority or supra-national government, the end of\nwhich, like that of all governments, is the good of mankind; and the\npossession of as much freedom by each State, as is consistent with\nthe attainment of that end. But there is this difference: that the\ngovernment thus set up over nations is ideal, and has no concrete\nrepresentative of the sovereign power; whence the only way of settling\nany dispute finally is to fight it out. Thus the supra-national\nsociety is continually in danger of returning to the state of nature,\nin which contracts are void; and the possibility of this contingency\njustifies a government in restricting the liberty of its subjects in\nmany ways that would otherwise be unjustifiable.\n\nFinally, with respect to the advancement of science and art. I have\nnever yet had the good fortune to hear any valid reason alleged why\nthat corporation of individuals we call the State may not do what\nvoluntary effort fails in doing, either from want of intelligence or\nlack of will. And here it cannot be alleged that the action of the\nState is always hurtful. On the contrary, in every country in Europe,\nuniversities, public libraries, picture galleries, museums, and\nlaboratories, have been established by the State, and have done\ninfinite service to the intellectual and moral progress and the\nrefinement of mankind.\n\nA few days ago I received from one of the most eminent members of the\nInstitut of France a pamphlet entitled \"Pourquoi la France n'a\npas trouv\u00e9 d'hommes sup\u00e9rieurs au moment du p\u00e9ril.\" The writer, M.\nPasteur, has no doubt that the cause of the astounding collapse of\nhis countrymen is to be sought in the miserable neglect of the higher\nbranches of culture, which has been one of the many disgraces of the\nSecond Empire, if not of its predecessors.\n\n    \"Au point o\u00f9 nous sommes arriv\u00e9s de ce qu'on appelle la\n    _civilisation moderne_, la culture des sciences dans leur\n    expression la plus \u00e9lev\u00e9e est peut-\u00eatre plus n\u00e9cessaire encore\n    \u00e0 l'\u00e9tat moral d'une nation qu'\u00e0 sa prosp\u00e9rit\u00e9 materielle.\n\n    \"Les grandes d\u00e9couvertes, les m\u00e9ditations de la pens\u00e9e dans\n    les arts, dans les sciences et dans les lettres, en un mot les\n    travaux d\u00e9sint\u00e9resses de l'esprit dans tous les genres,\n    les centres d'enseignement propres \u00e0 les faire conna\u00eetre,\n    introduisent dans le corps social tout entier l'esprit\n    philosophique ou scientifique, cet esprit de discernement qui\n    soumet tout \u00e0 une raison s\u00e9v\u00e8re, condamne l'ignorance,\n    dissipe les pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s et les erreurs. Ils \u00e9l\u00e8vent le niveau\n    intellectuel, le sentiment moral; par eux, l'id\u00e9e divine\n    elle-m\u00eame se r\u00e9pand et s'exalte.... Si, au moment du p\u00e9ril\n    supr\u00eame, la France n'a pas trouv\u00e9 des hommes sup\u00e9rieurs pour\n    mettre en oeuvre ses ressources et le courage de ses enfants,\n    il faut l'attribuer, j'en ai la conviction, \u00e0 ce que la France\n    EST d\u00e9sint\u00e9ress\u00e9e, depuis un demi-si\u00e8cle, des grands travaux\n    de la pens\u00e9e, particuli\u00e9rement dans les sciences exactes.\"\n\nIndividually, I have no love for academies on the continental model,\nand still less for the system of decorating men of distinction in\nscience, letters, or art, with orders and titles, or enriching them\nwith sinecures. What men of science want is only a fair day's wages\nfor more than a fair day's work; and most of us, I suspect, would be\nwell content if, for our days and nights of unremitting toil, we could\nsecure the pay which a first-class Treasury clerk earns without any\nobviously trying strain upon his faculties. The sole order of nobility\nwhich, in my judgment, becomes a philosopher, is that rank which\nhe holds in the estimation of his fellow-workers, who are the only\ncompetent judges in such matters. Newton and Cuvier lowered themselves\nwhen the one accepted an idle knighthood, and the other became a\nbaron of the empire. The great men who went to their graves as Michael\nFaraday and George Grote seem to me to have understood the dignity of\nknowledge better when they declined all such meretricious trappings.\n\nBut it is one thing for the State to appeal to the vanity and ambition\nwhich are to be found in philosophical as in other breasts, and\nanother to offer men who desire to do the hardest of work for the most\nmodest of tangible rewards, the means of making themselves useful to\ntheir age and generation. And this is just what the State does when it\nfounds a public library or museum, or provides the means of scientific\nresearch by such grants of money as that administered by the Royal\nSociety.\n\nIt is one thing, again, for the State to take all the higher education\nof the nation into its own hands; it is another to stimulate and to\naid, while they are yet young and weak, local efforts to the same\nend. The Midland Institute, Owens College in Manchester, the newly\ninstituted Science College in Newcastle, are all noble products of\nlocal energy and munificence. But the good they are doing is not\nlocal--the commonwealth, to its uttermost limits, shares in the\nbenefits they confer; and I am at a loss to understand upon what\nprinciple of equity the State, which admits the principle of payment\non results, refuses to give a fair equivalent for these benefits; or\non what principle of justice the State, which admits the obligation\nof sharing the duty of primary education with a locality, denies the\nexistence of that obligation when the higher education is in question.\n\nTo sum up: If the positive advancement of the peace, wealth, and the\nintellectual and moral development of its members, are objects which\nthe Government, as the representative of the corporate authority of\nsociety, may justly strive after, in fulfilment of its end--the good\nof mankind; then it is clear that the Government may undertake to\neducate the people. For education promotes peace by teaching men the\nrealities of life and the obligations which are involved in the very\nexistence of society; it promotes intellectual development, not only\nby training the individual intellect, but by sifting out from the\nmasses of ordinary or inferior capacities, those who are competent\nto increase the general welfare by occupying higher positions; and,\nlastly, it promotes morality and refinement, by teaching men to\ndiscipline themselves, and by leading them to see that the highest, as\nit is the only permanent, content is to be attained, not by grovelling\nin the rank and steaming valleys of sense, but by continual striving\ntowards those high peaks, where, resting in eternal calm, reason\ndiscerns the undefined but bright ideal of the highest Good--\"a cloud\nby day, a pillar of fire by night.\"\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE SCHOOL BOARDS: WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND WHAT THEY MAY DO.\n\n\nAn electioneering manifesto would be out of place in the pages of this\nReview; but any suspicion that may arise in the mind of the reader\nthat the following pages partake of that nature, will be dispelled,\nif he reflect that they cannot be published[1] until after the day\non which the ratepayers of the metropolis will have decided which\ncandidates for seats upon the Metropolitan School Board they will\ntake, and which they will leave.\n\n[Footnote 1: Notwithstanding Mr. Huxley's intentions, the Editor took\nupon himself, in what seemed to him to be the public interest, to send\nan extract from this article to the newspapers--before the day of the\nelection of the School Board.--EDITOR of the _Contemporary Review_.]\n\nAs one of those candidates, I may be permitted to say, that I feel\nmuch in the frame of mind of the Irish bricklayer's labourer, who bet\nanother that he could not carry him to the top of the ladder in his\nhod. The challenged hodman won his wager, but as the stakes were\nhanded over, the challenger wistfully remarked, \"I'd great hopes of\nfalling at the third round from the top.\" And, in view of the work\nand the worry which awaits the members of the School Boards, I must\nconfess to an occasional ungrateful hope that the friends who are\ntoiling upwards with me in their hod, may, when they reach \"the third\nround from the top,\" let me fall back into peace and quietness.\n\nBut whether fortune befriend me in this rough method, or not, I should\nlike to submit to those of whom I am a potential, but of whom I may\nnot be an actual, colleague, and to others who may be interested in\nthis most important problem--how to get the Education Act to work\nefficiently--some considerations as to what are the duties of the\nmembers of the School Boards, and what are the limits of their power.\n\nI suppose no one will be disposed to dispute the proposition, that\nthe prime duty of every member of such a Board is to endeavour to\nadminister the Act honestly; or in accordance, not only with its\nletter, but with its spirit. And if so, it would seem that the first\nstep towards this very desirable end is, to obtain a clear notion of\nwhat that letter signifies, and what that spirit implies; or, in\nother words, what the clauses of the Act are intended to enjoin and to\nforbid. So that it is really not admissible, except for factious and\nabusive purposes, to assume that any one who endeavours to get at\nthis clear meaning is desirous only of raising quibbles and making\ndifficulties.\n\nReading the Act with this desire to understand it, I find that its\nprovisions may be classified, as might naturally be expected, under\ntwo heads: the one set relating to the subject-matter of education;\nthe other to the establishment, maintenance, and administration of the\nschools in which that education is to be conducted.\n\nNow it is a most important circumstance, that all the sections of the\nAct, except four, belong to the latter division; that is, they refer\nto mere matters of administration. The four sections in question are\nthe seventh, the fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the ninety-seventh. Of\nthese, the seventh, the fourteenth, and the ninety-seventh deal with\nthe subject-matter of education, while the sixteenth defines the\nnature of the relations which are to exist between the \"Education\nDepartment\" (an euphemism for the future Minister of Education)\nand the School Boards. It is the sixteenth clause which is the most\nimportant, and, in some respects, the most remarkable of all. It runs\nthus:--\n\n    \"If the School Board do, or permit, any act in contravention\n    of, or fail to comply with, the regulations, according to\n    which a school provided by them is required by this Act to\n    be conducted, the Education Department may declare the School\n    Board to be, and such Board shall accordingly be deemed to be,\n    a Board in default, and the Education Department may proceed\n    accordingly; and every act, or omission, of any member of\n    the School Board, or manager appointed by them, or any\n    person under the control of the Board, shall be deemed to be\n    _permitted_ by the Board, unless the contrary be proved.\n\n    \"If any dispute arises as to whether the School Board have\n    done, or permitted, any act in contravention of, or have\n    failed to comply with, the said regulations, _the matter\n    shall be referred to the Education Department, whose decision\n    thereon shall be final_.\"\n\nIt will be observed that this clause gives the Minister of Education\nabsolute power over the doings of the School Boards. He is not\nonly the administrator of the Act, but he is its interpreter. I\nhad imagined that on the occurrence of a dispute, not as regards a\nquestion of pure administration, but as to the meaning of a clause of\nthe Act, a case might be taken and referred to a court of justice. But\nI am led to believe that the Legislature has, in the present instance,\ndeliberately taken this power out of the hands of the judges and\nlodged it in those of the Minister of Education, who, in accordance\nwith our method of making Ministers, will necessarily be a political\npartisan, and who may be a strong theological sectary into the\nbargain. And I am informed by members of Parliament who watched the\nprogress of the Act, that the responsibility for this unusual state of\nthings rests, not with the Government, but with the Legislature, which\nexhibited a singular disposition to accumulate power in the hands of\nthe future Minister of Education, and to evade the more troublesome\ndifficulties of the education question by leaving them to be settled\nbetween that Minister and the School Boards.\n\nI express no opinion whether it is, or is not, desirable that such\npowers of controlling all the School Boards in the country should be\npossessed by a person who may be, like Mr. Forster, eminently likely\nto use these powers justly and wisely, but who also may be quite the\nreverse. I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that such powers\nare given to the Minister, whether he be fit or unfit. The extent\nof these powers becomes apparent when the other sections of the Act\nreferred to are considered. The fourth clause of the seventh section\nsays:--\n\n    \"The school shall be conducted in accordance with the\n    conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in\n    order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant.\"\n\nWhat these conditions are appears from the following clauses of the\nninety-seventh section:--\n\n    \"The conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary\n    school in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant shall\n    be those contained in the minutes of the Education Department\n    in force for the time being.... Provided that no such minute\n    of the Education Department, not in force at the time of the\n    passing of this Act, shall be deemed to be in force until\n    it has lain for not less than one month on the table of both\n    Houses of Parliament.\"\n\nLet us consider how this will work in practice. A school established\nby a School Board may receive support from three sources--from the\nrates, the school fees, and the Parliamentary grant. The latter may be\nas great as the two former taken together; and as it may be assumed,\nwithout much risk of error, that a constant pressure will be exerted\nby the ratepayers on the members who represent them, to get as much\nout of the Government, and as little out of the rates, as possible,\nthe School Boards will have a very strong motive for shaping the\neducation they give, as nearly as may be, on the model which the\nEducation Minister offers for their imitation, and for the copying of\nwhich he is prepared to pay.\n\nThe Revised Code did not compel any schoolmaster to leave off teaching\nanything; but, by the very simple process of refusing to pay for many\nkinds of teaching, it has practically put an end to them. Mr. Forster\nis said to be engaged in revising the Revised Code; a successor of\nhis may re-revise it--and there will be no sort of check upon\nthese revisions and counter-revisions, except the possibility of a\nParliamentary debate, when the revised, or added, minutes are laid\nupon the table. What chance is there that any such debate will take\nplace on a matter of detail relating to elementary education--a\nsubject with which members of the Legislature, having been, for the\nmost part, sent to our public schools thirty years ago, have not the\nleast practical acquaintance, and for which they care nothing, unless\nit derives a political value from its connection with sectarian\npolitics?\n\nI cannot but think, then, that the School Boards will have the\nappearance, but not the reality, of freedom of action, in regard to\nthe subject-matter of what is commonly called \"secular\" education.\n\nAs respects what is commonly called \"religious\" education, the power\nof the Minister of Education is even more despotic. An interest,\nalmost amounting to pathos, attaches itself, in my mind, to the\nfrantic exertions which are at present going on in almost every school\ndivision, to elect certain candidates whose names have never before\nbeen heard of in connection with education, and who are either\nsectarian partisans, or nothing. In my own particular division, a body\norganized _ad hoc_ is moving heaven and earth to get the seven seats\nfilled by seven gentlemen, four of whom are good Churchmen, and three\nno less good Dissenters. But why should this seven times heated fiery\nfurnace of theological zeal be so desirous to shed its genial warmth\nover the London School Board? Can it be that these zealous sectaries\nmean to evade the solemn pledge given in the Act?\n\n    \"No religious catechism or religious formulary which is\n    distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in\n    the school.\"\n\nI confess I should have thought it my duty to reject any such\nsuggestion, as dishonouring to a number of worthy persons, if it had\nnot been for a leading article and some correspondence which appeared\nin the _Guardian_ of November 9th, 1870.\n\nThe _Guardian_ is, as everybody knows, one of the best of the\n\"religious\" newspapers; and, personally. I have every reason to speak\nhighly of the fairness, and indeed kindness, with which the editor\nis good enough to deal with a writer who must, in many ways, be so\nobjectionable to him as myself. I quote the following passages from a\nleading article on a letter of mine, therefore, with all respect, and\nwith a genuine conviction that the course of conduct advocated by the\nwriter must appear to him in a very different light from that under\nwhich I see it:--\n\n    \"The first of these points is the interpretation which\n    Professor Huxley puts on the 'Cowper-Temple clause.' It is,\n    in fact, that which we foretold some time ago as likely to be\n    forced upon it by those who think with him. The clause itself\n    was one of those compromises which it is very difficult to\n    define or to maintain logically. On the one side was the\n    simple freedom to School Boards to establish what schools they\n    pleased, which Mr. Forster originally gave, but against\n    which the Nonconformists lifted up their voices, because they\n    conceived it likely to give too much power to the Church. On\n    the other side there was the proposition to make the schools\n    secular--intelligible enough, but in the consideration of\n    public opinion simply impossible--and there was the vague\n    impracticable idea, which Mr. Gladstone thoroughly tore to\n    pieces, of enacting that the teaching of all schoolmasters\n    in the new schools should be strictly 'undenominational.' The\n    Cowper-Temple clause was, we repeat, proposed simply to tide\n    over the difficulty. It was to satisfy the Nonconformists and\n    the 'unsectarian,' as distinct from the secular party of\n    the League, by forbidding all distinctive 'catechisms and\n    formularies,' which might have the effect of openly assigning\n    the schools to this or that religious body. It refused, at the\n    same time, to attempt the impossible task of defining what\n    was undenominational; and its author even contended, if\n    we understood him correctly, that it would in no way, even\n    indirectly, interfere with the substantial teaching of any\n    master in any school. This assertion we always believed to be\n    untenable; we could not see how, in the face of this clause,\n    a distinctly denominational tone could be honestly given to\n    schools nominally general. But beyond this mere suggestion of\n    an attempt at a general tone of comprehensiveness in religious\n    teaching it was not intended to go, and only because such was\n    its limitation was it accepted by the Government and by the\n    House.\n\n    \"But now we are told that it is to be construed as doing\n    precisely that which it refused to do. A 'formulary,' it\n    seems, is a collection of formulas, and formulas are simply\n    propositions of whatever kind touching religious faith. All\n    such propositions, if they cannot be accepted by all\n    Christian denominations, are to be proscribed; and it is added\n    significantly that the Jews also are a denomination, and so\n    that any teaching distinctively Christian is perhaps to be\n    excluded, lest it should interfere with their freedom and\n    rights. Are we then to fall back on the simple reading of\n    the letter of the Bible? No! this, it is granted, would be\n    an 'unworthy pretence.' The teacher is to give 'grammatical,\n    geographical, or historical explanations;' but he is to keep\n    clear of 'theology proper,' because, as Professor Huxley takes\n    great pains to prove, there is no theological teaching which\n    is not opposed by some sect or other, from Roman Catholicism\n    on the one hand to Unitarianism on the other. It was not,\n    perhaps, hard to see that this difficulty would be started;\n    and to those who, like Professor Huxley, look at it\n    theoretically, without much practical experience of schools,\n    it may appear serious or unanswerable. But there is very\n    little in it practically; when it is faced determinately and\n    handled firmly, it will soon shrink into its true\n    dimensions. The class who are least frightened at it are the\n    school-teachers, simply because they know most about it. It is\n    quite clear that the school-managers must be cautioned against\n    allowing their schools to be made places of proselytism:\n    but when this is done, the case is simple enough. Leave the\n    masters under this general understanding to teach freely; if\n    there is ground of complaint, let it be made, but leave the\n    _onus pro-bandi_ on the objectors. For extreme peculiarities\n    of belief or unbelief there is the Conscience Clause; as\n    to the mass of parents, they will be more anxious to have\n    religion taught than afraid of its assuming this or that\n    particular shade. They will trust the school-managers\n    and teachers till they have reason to distrust them, and\n    experience has shown that they may trust them safely enough.\n    Any attempt to throw the burden of making the teaching\n    undenominational upon the managers must be sternly resisted:\n    it is simply evading the intentions of the Act in an elaborate\n    attempt to carry them out. We thank Professor Huxley for the\n    warning. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.\"\n\nA good deal of light seems to me to be thrown on the practical\nsignificance of the opinions expressed in the foregoing extract by the\nfollowing interesting letter, which appeared in the same paper:--\n\n    \"Sir,--I venture to send to you the substance of a\n    correspondence with the Education Department upon the question\n    of the lawfulness of religious teaching in rate schools under\n    section 14 (2) of the Act. I asked whether the words 'which\n    is distinctive,' &c., taken grammatically as limiting the\n    prohibition of any religious formulary, might be construed\n    as allowing (subject, however, to the other provisions of the\n    Act) any religious formulary common to any two denominations\n    anywhere in England to be taught in such schools; and if\n    practically the limit could not be so extended, but would have\n    to be fixed according to the special circumstances of each\n    district, then what degree of general acceptance in a district\n    would exempt such a formulary from the prohibition? The answer\n    to this was as follows:--'It was understood, when clause 14 of\n    the Education Act was discussed in the House of Commons,\n    that, according to a well-known rule of interpreting Acts\n    of Parliament, \"denomination\" must be held to include\n    \"denominations.\" When any dispute is referred to the Education\n    Department under the last paragraph of section 16, it will be\n    dealt with according to the circumstances of the case.'\n\n    \"Upon my asking further if I might hence infer that the\n    lawfulness of teaching any religious formulary in a rate\n    school would thus depend _exclusively_ on local circumstances,\n    and would accordingly be so decided by the Education\n    Department in case of dispute, I was informed in explanation\n    that 'their lordships'' letter was intended to convey to\n    me that no general rule, beyond that stated in the first\n    paragraph of their letter, could at present be laid down by\n    them; and that their decision in each particular case must\n    depend on the special circumstances accompanying it.\n\n    \"I think it would appear from this that it may yet be in many\n    cases both lawful and expedient to teach religious formularies\n    in rate schools.\n\n    \"H.I. Steyning, _November_ 5, 1870.\"\n\nOf course I do not mean to suggest that the editor of the _Guardian_\nis bound by the opinions of his correspondent; but I cannot help\nthinking that I do not misrepresent him, when I say that he also\nthinks \"that it may yet be, in many cases, both lawful and\nexpedient to teach religious formularies in rate schools under these\ncircumstances.\"\n\nIt is not uncharitable, therefore, to assume that, the express words\nof the Act of Parliament notwithstanding, all the sectaries who are\ntoiling so hard for seats in the London School Board have the lively\nhope of the gentleman from Steyning, that it may be \"both lawful and\nexpedient to teach religious formularies in rate schools;\" and\nthat they mean to do their utmost to bring this happy consummation\nabout.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: A passage in an article on the \"Working of the Education\nAct,\" in the _Saturday Review_ for Nov. 19, 1870, completely justifies\nthis anticipation of the line of action which the sectaries mean to\ntake. After commending the Liverpool compromise, the writer goes on to\nsay:--\n\n\"If this plan is fairly adopted in Liverpool, the fourteenth clause\nof the Act will in effect be restored to its original form, and the\nmajority of the ratepayers in each district be permitted to decide to\nwhat denomination the school shall belong.\"\n\nIn a previous paragraph the writer speaks of a possible \"mistrust\"\nof one another by the members of the Board, and seems to anticipate\n\"accusations of dishonesty.\" If any of the members of the Board adopt\nhis views, I think it highly probable that he may turn out to be a\ntrue prophet.]\n\nNow the pathetic emotion to which I have referred, as accompanying my\ncontemplations of the violent struggles of so many excellent persons,\nis caused by the circumstance that, so far as I can judge, their\nlabour is in vain.\n\nSupposing that the London School Board contains, as it probably will\ndo, a majority of sectaries; and that they carry over the heads of a\nminority, a resolution that certain theological formulas, about which\nthey all happen to agree,--say, for example, the doctrine of the\nTrinity,--shall be taught in the schools. Do they fondly imagine that\nthe minority will not at once dispute their interpretation of the Act,\nand appeal to the Education Department to settle that dispute? And if\nso, do they suppose that any Minister of Education, who wants to keep\nhis place, will tighten boundaries which the Legislature has left\nloose; and will give a \"final decision\" which shall be offensive to\nevery Unitarian and to every Jew in the House of Commons, besides\ncreating a precedent which will afterwards be used to the injury of\nevery Nonconformist? The editor of the _Guardian_ tells his friends\nsternly to resist every attempt to throw the burden of making the\nteaching undenominational on the managers, and thanks me for the\nwarning I have given him. I return the thanks, with interest, for\n_his_ warning, as to the course the party he represents intends\nto pursue, and for enabling me thus to draw public attention to a\nperfectly constitutional and effectual mode of checkmating them.\n\nAnd, in truth, it is wonderful to note the surprising entanglement\ninto which our able editor gets himself in the struggle between his\nnative honesty and judgment and the necessities of his party. \"We\ncould not see,\" says he, \"in the face of this clause how a distinct\ndenominational tone could be honestly given to schools nominally\ngeneral.\" There speaks the honest and clearheaded man. \"Any attempt\nto throw the burden of making the teaching undenominational must be\nsternly resisted.\" There speaks the advocate holding a brief for his\nparty. \"Verily,\" as Trinculo says, \"the monster hath two mouths:\" the\none, the forward mouth, tells us very justly that the teaching cannot\n\"honestly\" be \"distinctly denominational;\" but the other, the\nbackward mouth, asserts that it must by no manner of means be\n\"undenominational.\" Putting the two utterances together, I can only\ninterpret them to mean that the teaching is to be \"indistinctly\ndenominational.\" If the editor of the _Guardian_ had not shown signs\nof anger at my use of the term \"theological fog,\" I should have been\ntempted to suppose it must have been what he had in his mind, under\nthe name of \"indistinct denominationalism.\" But this reading being\nplainly inadmissible, I can only imagine that he inculcates the\nteaching of formulas common to a number of denominations.\n\nBut the Education Department has already told the gentleman from\nSteyning that any such proceeding will be illegal. \"According to a\nwell-known rule of interpreting Acts of Parliament, 'denomination'\nwould be held to include 'denominations.'\" In other words, we must\nread the Act thus:--\n\n\"No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of\nany particular _denominations_ shall be taught.\"\n\nThus we are really very much indebted to the editor of the _Guardian_\nand his correspondent. The one has shown us that the sectaries mean\nto try to get as much denominational teaching as they can agree upon\namong themselves, forced into the elementary schools; while the other\nhas obtained a formal declaration from the Education Department that\nany such attempt will contravene the Act of Parliament, and that,\ntherefore, the unsectarian, law-abiding members of the School Boards\nmay safely reckon upon, bringing down upon their opponents the heavy\nhand of the Minister of Education.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Since this paragraph was written, Mr. Forster, in\nspeaking at the Birkbeck Institution, has removed all doubt as to\nwhat his \"final decision\" will be in the case of such disputes being\nreferred to him:--\"I have the fullest confidence that in the reading\nand explaining of the Bible, what the children will be taught will be\nthe great truths of Christian life and conduct, which all of us desire\nthey should know, and that no effort will be made to cram into their\npoor little minds, theological dogmas which their tender age prevents\nthem from understanding.\"]\n\nSo much for the powers of the School Boards. Limited as they seem to\nbe, it by no means follows that such Boards, if they are composed of\nintelligent and practical men, really more in earnest about education\nthan about sectarian squabbles, may not exert a very great amount of\ninfluence. And, from many circumstances, this is especially likely to\nbe the case with the London School Board, which, if it conducts itself\nwisely, may become a true educational parliament, as subordinate\nin authority to the Minister of Education, theoretically, as the\nLegislature is to the Crown, and yet, like the Legislature, possessed\nof great practical authority. And I suppose that no Minister\nof Education would be other than glad to have the aid of the\ndeliberations of such a body, or fail to pay careful attention to its\nrecommendations.\n\nWhat, then, ought to be the nature and scope of the education which\na School Board should endeavour to give to every child under its\ninfluence, and for which it should try to obtain the aid of the\nParliamentary grants? In my judgment it should include at least the\nfollowing kinds of instruction and of discipline:--\n\n1. Physical training and drill, as part of the regular business of the\nschool.\n\nIt is impossible to insist too much on the importance of this part\nof education for the children of the poor of great towns. All\nthe conditions of their lives are unfavourable to their physical\nwell-being. They are badly lodged, badly housed, badly fed, and live\nfrom one year's end to another in bad air, without chance of a change.\nThey have no play-grounds; they amuse themselves with marbles and\nchuck-farthing, instead of cricket or hare-and-hounds; and if it were\nnot for the wonderful instinct which leads all poor children of tender\nyears to run under the feet of cab-horses whenever they can, I know\nnot how they would learn to use their limbs with agility.\n\nNow there is no real difficulty about teaching drill and the simpler\nkinds of gymnastics. It is done admirably well, for example, in the\nNorth Surrey Union schools; and a year or two ago, when I had an\nopportunity of inspecting these schools, I was greatly struck with\nthe effect of such training upon the poor little waifs and strays of\nhumanity, mostly picked out of the gutter, who are being made into\ncleanly, healthy, and useful members of society in that excellent\ninstitution.\n\nWhatever doubts people may entertain about the efficacy of natural\nselection, there can be none about artificial selection; and the\nbreeder who should attempt to make, or keep up, a fine stock of pigs,\nor sheep, under the conditions to which the children of the poor\nare exposed, would be the laughing-stock even of the bucolic mind.\nParliament has already done something in this direction, by declining\nto be an accomplice in the asphyxiation of school children. It refuses\nto make any grant to a school in which the cubical contents of the\nschool-room are inadequate to allow of proper respiration. I should\nlike to see it make another step in the same direction, and either\nrefuse to give a grant to a school in which physical training is not\na part of the programme, or, at any rate, offer to pay upon such\ntraining. If something of the kind is not done, the English physique,\nwhich has been, and is still, on the whole, a grand one, will become\nas extinct as the dodo, in the great towns.\n\nAnd then the moral and intellectual effect of drill, as an\nintroduction to, and aid of, all other sorts of training, must not be\noverlooked. If you want to break in a colt, surely the first thing to\ndo is to catch him and get him quietly to face his trainer; to know\nhis voice and bear his hand; to learn that colts have something else\nto do with their heels than to kick them up whenever they feel so\ninclined; and to discover that the dreadful human figure has no desire\nto devour, or even to beat him, but that, in case of attention and\nobedience, he may hope for patting and even a sieve of oats.\n\nBut, your \"street Arabs,\" and other neglected poor children, are\nrather worse and wilder than colts; for the reason that the horse-colt\nhas only his animal instincts in him, and his mother, the mare, has\nbeen always tender over him, and never came home drunk and kicked him\nin her life; while the man-colt is inspired by that very real devil,\nperverted manhood, and _his_ mother may have done all that and more.\nSo, on the whole, it may probably be even more expedient to begin your\nattempt to get at the higher nature of the child, than at that of the\ncolt, from the physical side.\n\n2. Next in order to physical training I put the instruction of\nchildren, and especially of girls, in the elements of household work\nand of domestic economy; in the first place for their own sakes, and\nin the second for that of their future employers.\n\nEveryone who knows anything of the life of the English poor is aware\nof the misery and waste caused by their want of knowledge of domestic\neconomy, and by their lack of habits of frugality and method. I\nsuppose it is no exaggeration to say that a poor Frenchwoman would\nmake the money which the wife of a poor Englishman spends in food\ngo twice as far, and at the same time turn out twice as palatable a\ndinner. Why Englishmen, who are so notoriously fond of good living,\nshould be so helplessly incompetent in the art of cookery, is one of\nthe great mysteries of nature; but from the varied abominations of\nthe railway refreshment-rooms to the monotonous dinners of the poor,\nEnglish feeding is either wasteful or nasty, or both.\n\nAnd as to domestic service, the groans of the housewives of England\nascend to heaven! In five cases out of six, the girl who takes a\n\"place\" has to be trained by her mistress in the first rudiments of\ndecency and order; and it is a mercy if she does not turn up her\nnose at anything like the mention of an honest and proper economy.\nThousands of young girls are said to starve, or worse, yearly in\nLondon; and at the same time thousands of mistresses of households\nare ready to pay high wages for a decent housemaid, or cook, or a fair\nworkwoman; and can by no means get what they want.\n\nSurely, if the elementary schools are worth anything, they may put an\nend to a state of things which is demoralizing the poor, while it is\nwasting the lives of those better off in small worries and annoyances.\n\n3. But the boys and girls for whose education the School Boards have\nto provide, have not merely to discharge domestic duties, but each\nof them is a member of a social and political organization of\ngreat complexity, and has, in future life, to fit himself into that\norganization, or be crushed by it. To this end it is surely needful,\nnot only that they should be made acquainted with the elementary laws\nof conduct, but that their affections should be trained, so as to love\nwith all their hearts that conduct which tends to the attainment of\nthe highest good for themselves and their fellow-men, and to hate with\nall their hearts that opposite course of action which is fraught with\nevil.\n\nSo far as the laws of conduct are determined by the intellect, I\napprehend that they belong to science, and to that part of science\nwhich is called morality. But the engagement of the affections in\nfavour of that particular kind of conduct which we call good, seems to\nme to be something quite beyond mere science. And I cannot but think\nthat it, together with the awe and reverence, which have no kinship\nwith base fear, but arise whenever one tries to pierce below the\nsurface of things, whether they be material or spiritual, constitutes\nall that has any unchangeable reality in religion.\n\nAnd just as I think it would, be a mistake to confound the science,\nmorality, with the affection, religion; so do I conceive it to be a\nmost lamentable and mischievous error, that the science, theology,\nis so confounded in the minds of many--indeed, I might say, of the\nmajority of men.\n\nI do not express any opinion as to whether theology is a true science,\nor whether it does not come under the apostolic definition of \"science\nfalsely so called;\" though I may be permitted to express the belief\nthat if the Apostle to whom that much misapplied phrase is due\ncould make the acquaintance of much of modern theology, he would not\nhesitate a moment in declaring that it is exactly what he meant the\nwords to denote.\n\nBut it is at any rate conceivable, that the nature of the Deity, and\nHis relations to the universe, and more especially to mankind, are\ncapable of being ascertained, either inductively or deductively, or\nby both processes. And, if they have been ascertained, then a body of\nscience has been formed which is very properly called theology.\n\nFurther, there can be no doubt that affection for the Being thus\ndefined and described by theologic science would be properly termed\nreligion; but it would not be the whole of religion. The affection for\nthe ethical ideal defined by moral science would claim equal if not\nsuperior rights. For suppose theology established the existence of an\nevil deity--and some theologies, even Christian ones, have come very\nnear this,--is the religious affection to be transferred from the\nethical ideal to any such omnipotent demon? I trow not. Better\na thousand times that the human race should perish under his\nthunderbolts than it should say, \"Evil, be thou my good.\"\n\nThere is nothing new, that I know of, in this statement of the\nrelations of religion with the science of morality on the one hand and\nthat of theology on the other. But I believe it to be altogether\ntrue, and very needful, at this time, to be clearly and emphatically\nrecognized as such, by those who have to deal with the education\nquestion.\n\nWe are divided into two parties--the advocates of so-called\n\"religious\" teaching on the one hand, and those of so-called \"secular\"\nteaching on the other. And both parties seem to me to be not only\nhopelessly wrong, but in such a position that if either succeeded\ncompletely, it would discover, before many years were over, that\nit had made a great mistake and done serious evil to the cause of\neducation.\n\nFor, leaving aside the more far-seeing minority on each side, what the\n\"religious\" party is crying for is mere theology, under the name\nof religion; while the \"secularists\" have unwisely and wrongfully\nadmitted the assumption of their opponents, and demand the abolition\nof all \"religious\" teaching, when they only want to be free of\ntheology--Burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches!\n\nBut my belief is, that no human being, and no society composed of\nhuman beings, ever did, or ever will, come to much, unless their\nconduct was governed and guided by the love of some ethical ideal.\nUndoubtedly, your gutter child may be converted by mere intellectual\ndrill into \"the subtlest of all the beasts of the field;\" but we know\nwhat has become of the original of that description, and there is\nno need to increase the number of those who imitate him successfully\nwithout being aided by the rates. And if I were compelled to choose\nfor one of my own children, between a school in which real religious\ninstruction is given, and one without it, I should prefer the former,\neven though the child might have to take a good deal of theology with\nit. Nine-tenths of a dose of bark is mere half-rotten wood; but one\nswallows it for the sake of the particles of quinine, the beneficial\neffect of which may be weakened, but is not destroyed, by the wooden\ndilution, unless in a few cases of exceptionally tender stomachs.\n\nHence, when the great mass of the English people declare that they\nwant to have the children in the elementary schools taught the Bible,\nand when it is plain from the terms of the Act, the debates in and\nout of Parliament, and especially the emphatic declarations of\nthe Vice-President of the Council, that it was intended that such\nBible-reading should be permitted, unless good cause for prohibiting\nit could be shown, I do not see what reason there is for opposing that\nwish. Certainly, I, individually, could with no shadow of consistency\noppose the teaching of the children of other people to do that which\nmy own children are taught to do. And, even if the reading the Bible\nwere not, as I think it is, consonant with political reason and\njustice, and with a desire to act in the spirit of the education\nmeasure, I am disposed to think it might still be well to read that\nbook in the elementary schools.\n\nI have always been strongly in favour of secular education, in the\nsense of education without theology; but I must confess I have been\nno less seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures the\nreligious feeling, which is the essential basis of conduct, was to\nbe kept up, in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion on these\nmatters, without the use of the Bible. The Pagan moralists lack life\nand colour, and even the noble Stoic, Marcus Antoninus, is too high\nand refined for an ordinary child. Take the Bible as a whole; make the\nseverest deductions which fair criticism can dictate for shortcomings\nand positive errors; eliminate, as a sensible lay-teacher would do, if\nleft to himself, all that it is not desirable for children to occupy\nthemselves with; and there still remains in this old literature a vast\nresiduum of moral beauty and grandeur. And then consider the great\nhistorical fact that, for three centuries, this book has been woven\ninto the life of all that is best and noblest in English history;\nthat it has become the national epic of Britain, and is as familiar to\nnoble and simple, from John-o'-Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante\nand Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is written in the noblest\nand purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary\nform; and, finally, that it forbids the veriest hind who never left\nhis village to be ignorant of the existence of other countries and\nother civilizations, and of a great past, stretching back to the\nfurthest limits of the oldest nations in the world. By the study of\nwhat other book could children be so much humanized and made to\nfeel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills,\nlike themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between\ntwo eternities; and earns the blessings or the curses of all time,\naccording to its effort to do good and hate evil, even as they also\nare earning their payment for their work?\n\nOn the whole, then, I am in favour of reading the Bible, with\nsuch grammatical, geographical, and historical explanations by a\nlay-teacher as may be needful, with rigid exclusion of any further\ntheological teaching than that contained in the Bible itself. And in\nstating what this is, the teacher would do well not to go beyond the\nprecise words of the Bible; for if he does, he will, in the first\nplace, undertake a task beyond his strength, seeing that all the\nJewish and Christian sects have been at work upon that subject for\nmore than two thousand years, and have not yet arrived, and are not in\nthe least likely to arrive, at an agreement; and, in the second\nplace, he will certainly begin to teach something distinctively\ndenominational, and thereby come into violent collision with the Act\nof Parliament.\n\n4. The intellectual training to be given in the elementary schools\nmust of course, in the first place, consist in learning to use the\nmeans of acquiring knowledge, or reading, writing, and arithmetic; and\nit will be a great matter to teach reading so completely that the act\nshall have become easy and pleasant. If reading remains \"hard,\" that\naccomplishment will not be much resorted to for instruction, and still\nless for amusement--which last is one of its most valuable uses to\nhard-worked people.\n\nBut along with a due proficiency in the use of the means of learning,\na certain amount of knowledge, of intellectual discipline, and of\nartistic training should be conveyed in the elementary schools; and in\nthis direction--for reasons which I am afraid to repeat, having\nurged them so often--I can conceive no subject-matter of education\nso appropriate and so important as the rudiments of physical science,\nwith drawing, modelling, and singing. Not only would such teaching\nafford the best possible preparation for the technical schools about\nwhich so much is now said, but the organization for carrying it into\neffect already exists. The Science and Art Department, the operations\nof which have already attained considerable magnitude, not only offers\nto examine and pay the results of such examination in elementary\nscience and art, but it provides what is still more important, viz.\na means of giving children of high natural ability, who are just as\nabundant among the poor as among the rich, a helping hand. A good old\nproverb tells us that \"One should not take a razor to cut a block:\"\nthe razor is soon spoiled, and the block is not so well cut as it\nwould be with a hatchet. But it is worse economy to prevent a possible\nWatt from being anything but a stoker, or to give a possible Faraday\nno chance of doing anything but to bind books. Indeed, the loss in\nsuch cases of mistaken vocation has no measure; it is absolutely\ninfinite and irreparable. And among the arguments in favour of the\ninterference of the State in education, none seems to be stronger\nthan this--that it is the interest of every one that ability should be\nneither wasted, nor misapplied, by any one; and, therefore, that every\none's representative, the State, is necessarily fulfilling the wishes\nof its constituents when it is helping the capacities to reach their\nproper places.\n\nIt may be said that the scheme of education here sketched is too large\nto be effected in the time during which the children will remain at\nschool; and, secondly, that even if this objection did not exist, it\nwould cost too much.\n\nI attach no importance whatever to the first objection until the\nexperiment has been fairly tried. Considering how much catechism,\nlists of the kings of Israel, geography of Palestine, and the like,\nchildren are made to swallow now, I cannot believe there will be any\ndifficulty in inducing them to go through the physical training, which\nis more than half play; or the instruction in household work, or in\nthose duties to one another and to themselves, which have a daily and\nhourly practical interest. That children take kindly to elementary\nscience and art no one can doubt who has tried the experiment\nproperly. And if Bible-reading is not accompanied by constraint and\nsolemnity, as if it were a sacramental operation, I do not believe\nthere is anything in which children take more pleasure. At least I\nknow that some of the pleasantest recollections of my childhood are\nconnected with the voluntary study of an ancient Bible which belonged\nto my grandmother. There were splendid pictures in it, to be sure; but\nI recollect little or nothing about them save a portrait of the\nhigh priest in his vestments. What come vividly back on my mind are\nremembrances of my delight in the histories of Joseph and of David;\nand of my keen appreciation of the chivalrous kindness of Abraham in\nhis dealings with Lot. Like a sudden flash there returns back upon\nme, my utter scorn of the pettifogging meanness of Jacob, and my\nsympathetic grief over the heartbreaking lamentation of the cheated\nEsau, \"Hast thou not a blessing for me also, O my father?\" And I see,\nas in a cloud, pictures of the grand phantasmagoria of the Book of\nRevelation.\n\nI enumerate, as they issue, the childish impressions which come\ncrowding out of the pigeon-holes in my brain, in which they have lain\nalmost undisturbed for forty years. I prize them as an evidence that a\nchild of five or six years old, left to his own devices, may be deeply\ninterested in the Bible, and draw sound moral sustenance from it. And\nI rejoice that I was left to deal with the Bible alone; for if I had\nhad some theological \"explainer\" at my side, he might have tried,\nas such do, to lessen my indignation against Jacob, and thereby have\nwarped my moral sense for ever; while the great apocalyptic spectacle\nof the ultimate triumph of right and justice might have been turned to\nthe base purposes of a pious lampooner of the Papacy.\n\nAnd as to the second objection--costliness--the reply is, first, that\nthe rate and the Parliamentary grant together ought to be enough,\nconsidering that science and art teaching is already provided\nfor; and, secondly, that if they are not, it may be well for the\neducational parliament to consider what has become of those endowments\nwhich were originally intended to be devoted, more or less largely, to\nthe education of the poor.\n\nWhen the monasteries were spoiled, some of their endowments were\napplied to the foundation of cathedrals; and in all such cases it was\nordered that a certain portion of the endowment should be applied to\nthe purposes of education. How much is so applied? Is that which may\nbe so applied given to help the poor, who cannot pay for education, or\ndoes it virtually subsidize the comparatively rich, who can? How\nare Christ's Hospital and Alleyn's foundation securing their right\npurposes, or how far are they perverted into contrivances for\naffording relief to the classes who can afford to pay for education?\nHow--But this paper is already too long, and, if I begin, I may find\nit hard to stop asking questions of this kind, which after all are\nworthy only of the lowest of Radicals.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nON MEDICAL EDUCATION.\n\n(AN ADDRESS TO THE STUDENTS OF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE IN UNIVERSITY\nCOLLEGE, LONDON, MAY 18, 1870, ON THE OCCASION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF\nPRIZES FOR THE SESSION.)\n\n\nIt has given me sincere pleasure to be here to-day, at the desire of\nyour highly respected President and the Council of the College. In\nlooking back upon my own past, I am sorry to say that I have found\nthat it is a quarter of a century since I took part in those hopes and\nin those fears by which you have all recently been agitated, and which\nnow are at an end. But, although so long a time has elapsed since\nI was moved by the same feelings, I beg leave to assure you that my\nsympathy with both victors and vanquished remains fresh--so fresh,\nindeed, that I could almost try to persuade myself that, after all, it\ncannot be so very long ago. My business during the last hour, however,\nhas been to show that sympathy with one side only, and I assure you\nI have done my best to play my part heartily, and to rejoice in the\nsuccess of those who have succeeded. Still, I should like to remind\nyou at the end of it all, that success on an occasion of this kind,\nvaluable and important as it is, is in reality only putting the foot\nupon one rung of the ladder which leads upwards; and that the rung of\na ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot\nlong enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher. I trust\nthat you will all regard these successes as simply reminders that your\nnext business is, having enjoyed the success of the day, no longer to\nlook at that success, but to look forward to the next difficulty\nthat is to be conquered. And now, having had so much to say to the\nsuccessful candidates, you must forgive me if I add that a sort of\nundercurrent of sympathy has been going on in my mind all the time for\nthose who have not been successful, for those valiant knights who have\nbeen overthrown in your tourney, and have not made their appearance in\npublic. I trust that, in accordance with old custom, they, wounded and\nbleeding, have been carried off to their tents, to be carefully tended\nby the fairest of maidens; and in these days, when the chances are\nthat every one of such maidens will be a qualified practitioner,\nI have no doubt that all the splinters will have been carefully\nextracted, and that they are now physically healed. But there may\nremain some little fragment of moral or intellectual discouragement,\nand therefore I will take the liberty to remark that your chairman\nto-day, if he occupied his proper place, would be among them. Your\nchairman, in virtue of his position, and for the brief hour that he\noccupies that position, is a person of importance; and it may be some\nconsolation to those who have failed if I say, that the quarter of a\ncentury which I have been speaking of, takes me back to the time\nwhen I was up at the University of London, a candidate for honours in\nanatomy and physiology, and when I was exceedingly well beaten by my\nexcellent friend Dr. Ransom, of Nottingham. There is a person here\nwho recollects that circumstance very well. I refer to your venerated\nteacher and mine, Dr. Sharpey. He was at that time one of the\nexaminers in anatomy and physiology, and you may be quite sure that,\nas he was one of the examiners, there remained not the smallest doubt\nin my mind of the propriety of his judgment, and I accepted my defeat\nwith the most comfortable assurance that I had thoroughly well earned\nit. But, gentlemen, the competitor having been a worthy one, and\nthe examination, a fair one, I cannot say that I found in that\ncircumstance anything very discouraging. I said to myself, \"Never\nmind; what's the next thing to be done?\" And I found that policy of\n\"never minding\" and going on to the next thing to be done, to be the\nmost important of all policies in the conduct of practical life. It\ndoes not matter how many tumbles you have in this life, so long as you\ndo not get dirty when you tumble; it is only the people who have to\nstop to be washed and made clean, who must necessarily lose the race.\nAnd I can assure you that there is the greatest practical benefit\nin making a few failures early in life. You learn that which is of\ninestimable importance--that there are a great many people in the\nworld who are just as clever as you are. You learn to put your trust,\nby and by, in an economy and frugality of the exercise of your powers,\nboth moral and intellectual; and you very soon find out, if you have\nnot found it out before, that patience and tenacity of purpose are\nworth more than twice their weight of cleverness. In fact, if I were\nto go on discoursing on this subject, I should become almost eloquent\nin praise of non-success; but, lest so doing should seem, in any way,\nto wither well-earned laurels, I will turn from that topic, and ask\nyou to accompany me in some considerations touching another subject\nwhich has a very profound interest for me, and which I think ought to\nhave an equally profound interest for you.\n\nI presume that the great majority of those whom I address propose to\ndevote themselves to the profession of medicine; and I do not doubt,\nfrom the evidences of ability which have been given to-day, that\nI have before me a number of men who will rise to eminence in that\nprofession, and who will exert a great and deserved influence upon\nits future. That in which I am interested, and about which I wish to\nspeak, is the subject of medical education, and I venture to speak\nabout it for the purpose, if I can, of influencing you, who may have\nthe power of influencing the medical education of the future. You may\nask, by what authority do I venture, being a person not concerned in\nthe practice of medicine, to meddle with that subject? I can only tell\nyou it is a fact, of which a number of you I dare say are aware by\nexperience (and I trust the experience has no painful associations),\nthat I have been for a considerable number of years (twelve or\nthirteen years to the best of my recollection) one of the examiners in\nthe University of London. You are further aware that the men who\ncome up to the University of London are the picked men of the medical\nschools of London, and therefore such observations as I may have\nto make upon the state of knowledge of these gentlemen, if they be\njustified, in regard to any faults I may have to find, cannot be held\nto indicate defects in the capacity, or in the power of application of\nthose gentlemen, but must be laid, more or less, to the account of the\nprevalent system of medical education. I will tell you what has struck\nme--but in speaking in this frank way, as one always does about the\ndefects of one's friends, I must beg you to disabuse your minds of\nthe notion that I am alluding to any particular school, or to any\nparticular college, or to any particular person; and to believe that\nif I am silent when I should be glad to speak with high praise, it is\nbecause that praise would come too close to this locality. What has\nstruck me, then, in this long experience of the men best instructed in\nphysiology from the medical schools of London, is (with the many and\nbrilliant exceptions to which I have referred), taking it as a whole,\nand broadly, the singular unreality of their knowledge of physiology.\nNow, I use that word \"unreality\" advisedly: I do not say \"scanty;\" on\nthe contrary, there is plenty of it--a great deal too much of it--but\nit is the quality, the nature of the knowledge, which I quarrel with.\nI know I used to have--I don't know whether I have now, but I had once\nupon a time--a bad reputation among students for setting up a very\nhigh standard of acquirement, and I dare say you may think that the\nstandard of this old examiner, who happily is now very nearly an\nextinct examiner, has been pitched too high. Nothing of the kind, I\nassure you. The defects I have noticed, and the faults I have to find,\narise entirely from the circumstance that my standard is pitched too\nlow. This is no paradox, gentlemen, but quite simply the fact.\nThe knowledge I have looked for was a real, precise, thorough, and\npractical knowledge of fundamentals; whereas that which the best of\nthe candidates, in a large proportion of cases, have had to give me\nwas a large, extensive, and inaccurate knowledge of superstructure;\nand that is what I mean by saying that my demands went too low,\nand not too high. What I have had to complain of is, that a large\nproportion of the gentlemen who come up for physiology to the\nUniversity of London do not know it as they know their anatomy, and\nhave not been taught it as they have been taught their anatomy. Now, I\nshould not wonder at all if I heard a great many \"No, noes\" here; but\nI am not talking about University College; as I have told you before,\nI am talking about the average education of medical schools. What I\nhave found, and found so much reason to lament, is, that while anatomy\nhas been taught as a science ought to be taught, as a matter of\nautopsy, and observation, and strict discipline; in a very large\nnumber of cases, physiology has been taught as if it were a mere\nmatter of books and of hearsay. I declare to you, gentlemen, that\nI have often expected to be told, when I have been asked a question\nabout the circulation of the blood, that Professor Breitkopf is\nof opinion that it circulates, but that the whole thing is an open\nquestion. I assure you that I am hardly exaggerating the state of mind\non matters of fundamental importance which I have found over and over\nagain to obtain, among gentlemen coming up to that picked examination\nof the University of London. Now, I do not think that is a desirable\nstate of things. I cannot understand why physiology should not be\ntaught--in fact, you have here abundant evidence that it can be\ntaught--with the same definiteness and the same precision as anatomy\nis taught. And you may depend upon this, that the only physiology\nwhich is to be of any good whatever in medical practice, or in its\napplication to the study of medicine, is that physiology which a man\nknows of his own knowledge; just as the only anatomy which would be\nof any good to the surgeon is the anatomy which he knows of his own\nknowledge. Another peculiarity I have found in the physiology which\nhas been current, and that is, that in the minds of a great many\ngentlemen it has been supplanted by histology. They have learnt a\ngreat deal of histology, and they have fancied that histology and\nphysiology are the same things. I have asked for some knowledge of the\nphysics and the mechanics and the chemistry of the human body, and I\nhave been met by talk about cells. I declare to you I believe it will\ntake me two years, at least, of absolute rest from the business of\nan examiner to hear the word \"cell,\" \"germinal matter,\" or \"carmine,\"\nwithout a sort of inward shudder.\n\nWell, now, gentlemen, I am sure my colleagues in this examination will\nbear me out in saying that I have not been exaggerating the evils and\ndefects which are current--have been current--in a large quantity\nof the physiological teaching, the results of which come before\nexaminers. And it becomes a very interesting question to know how all\nthis comes about, and in what way it can be remedied. How it comes\nabout will be perfectly obvious to any one who has considered the\ngrowth of medicine. I suppose that medicine and surgery first began\nby some savage, more intelligent than the rest, discovering that a\ncertain herb was good for a certain pain, and that a certain pull,\nsomehow or other, set a dislocated joint right. I suppose all things\nhad their humble beginnings, and medicine and surgery were in the same\ncondition. People who wear watches know nothing about watchmaking. A\nwatch goes wrong and it stops; you see the owner giving it a shake,\nor, if he is very bold, he opens the case, and gives the balance-wheel\na turn. Gentlemen, that is empirical practice, and you know what are\nthe results upon the watch. I should think you can divine what are the\nresults of analogous operations upon the human body. And because men\nof sense very soon found that such were the effects of meddling with\nvery complicated machinery they did not understand, I suppose the\nfirst thing, as being the easiest, was to study the nature of the\nworks of the human watch, and the next thing was to study the way the\nparts worked together, and the way the watch worked. Thus, by degrees,\nwe have had growing up our body of anatomists, or knowers of the\nconstruction of the human watch, and our physiologists, who know how\nthe machine works. And just as any sensible man, who has a valuable\nwatch, does not meddle with it himself, but goes to some one who has\nstudied watchmaking, and understands what the effect of doing this\nor that may be; so, I suppose, the man who, having charge of that\nvaluable machine, his own body, wants to have it kept in good order,\ncomes to a professor of the medical art for the purpose of having it\nset right, believing that, by deduction from the facts of structure\nand from the facts of function, the physician will divine what may be\nthe matter with his bodily watch at that particular time, and what may\nbe the best means of setting it right. If that may be taken as a\njust representation of the relation of the theoretical branches of\nmedicine--what we may call the institutes of medicine, to use an old\nterm--to the practical branches, I think it will be obvious to you\nthat they are of prime and fundamental importance. Whatever tends to\naffect the teaching of them injuriously must tend to destroy and\nto disorganize the whole fabric of the medical art. I think every\nsensible man has seen this long ago; but the difficulties in the way\nof attaining good teaching in the different branches of the theory, or\ninstitutes, of medicine are very serious. It is a comparatively\neasy matter--pray mark that I use the word \"comparatively\"--it is a\ncomparatively easy matter to learn anatomy and to teach it; it is a\nvery difficult matter to learn physiology and to teach it. It is a\nvery difficult matter to know and to teach those branches of physics\nand those branches of chemistry which bear directly upon physiology;\nand hence it is that, as a matter of fact, the teaching of physiology,\nand the teaching of the physics and the chemistry which bear upon it,\nmust necessarily be in a state of relative imperfection; and there is\nnothing to be grumbled at in the fact that this relative imperfection\nexists. But is the relative imperfection which exists only such as\nis necessary, or is it made worse by our practical arrangements? I\nbelieve--and if I did not so believe I should not have troubled you\nwith these observations--I believe it is made infinitely worse by\nour practical arrangements, or rather, I ought to say, our very\nunpractical arrangements. Some very wise man long ago affirmed that\nevery question, in the long run, was a question of finance; and there\nis a good deal to be said for that view. Most assuredly the question\nof medical teaching is, in a very large and broad sense, a question of\nfinance. What I mean is this: that in London the arrangements of the\nmedical schools, and the number of them, are such as to render it\nalmost impossible that men who confine themselves to the teaching\nof the theoretical branches of the profession should be able to make\ntheir bread by that operation; and, you know, if a man cannot make his\nbread, he cannot teach--at least his teaching comes to a speedy end.\nThat is a matter of physiology. Anatomy is fairly well taught, because\nit lies in the direction of practice, and a man is all the better\nsurgeon for being a good anatomist. It does not absolutely interfere\nwith the pursuits of a practical surgeon if he should hold a Chair\nof Anatomy--though I do not for one moment say that he would not be a\nbetter teacher if he did not devote himself to practice. (Applause.)\nYes, I know exactly what that cheer means, but I am keeping as\ncarefully as possible from any sort of allusion to Professor Ellis.\nBut the fact is, that even human anatomy has now grown to be so large\na matter, that it takes the whole devotion of a man's life to put the\ngreat mass of knowledge upon that subject into such a shape that it\ncan be teachable to the mind of the ordinary student. What the student\nwants in a professor is a man who shall stand between him and the\ninfinite diversity and variety of human knowledge, and who shall\ngather all that together, and extract from it that which is capable\nof being assimilated by the mind. That function is a vast and an\nimportant one, and unless, in such subjects as anatomy, a man is\nwholly free from other cares, it is almost impossible that he can\nperform it thoroughly and well. But if it be hardly possible for a man\nto pursue anatomy without actually breaking with his profession, how\nis it possible for him to pursue physiology?\n\nI get every year those very elaborate reports of Henle and\nMeissner--volumes of, I suppose, 400 pages altogether--and they\nconsist merely of abstracts of the memoirs and works which have been\nwritten on Anatomy and Physiology--only abstracts of them! How is\na man to keep up his acquaintance with all that is doing in the\nphysiological world--in a world advancing with enormous strides every\nday and every hour--if he has to be distracted with the cares of\npractice? You know very well it must be impracticable to do so. Our\nmen of ability join our medical schools with an eye to the future.\nThey take the Chairs of Anatomy or of Physiology; and by and by they\nleave those Chairs for the more profitable pursuits into which they\nhave drifted by professional success, and so they become clothed,\nand physiology is bare. The result is, that in those schools in which\nphysiology is thus left to the benevolence, so to speak, of those\nwho have no time to look to it, the effect of such teaching comes\nout obviously, and is made manifest in what I spoke of just now--the\nunreality, the bookishness of the knowledge of the taught. And if this\nis the case in physiology, still more must it be the case in those\nbranches of physics which are the foundation of physiology; although\nit may be less the case in chemistry, because for an able chemist a\ncertain honourable and independent career lies in the direction of\nhis work, and he is able, like the anatomist, to look upon what he\nmay teach to the student as not absolutely taking him away from his\nbread-winning pursuits.\n\nBut it is of no use to grumble about this state of things unless\none is prepared to indicate some sort of practical remedy. And I\nbelieve--and I venture to make the statement because I am wholly\nindependent of all sorts of medical schools, and may, therefore, say\nwhat I believe without being supposed to be affected by any personal\ninterest--but I say I believe that the remedy for this state of\nthings, for that imperfection of our theoretical knowledge which keeps\ndown the ability of England at the present time in medical matters,\nis a mere affair of mechanical arrangement; that so long as you have\na dozen medical schools scattered about in different parts of the\nmetropolis, and dividing the students among them, so long, in all the\nsmaller schools at any rate, it is impossible that any other state of\nthings than that which I have been depicting should obtain. Professors\nmust live; to live they must occupy themselves with practice, and\nif they occupy themselves with practice, the pursuit of the abstract\nbranches of science must go to the wall. All this is a plain and\nobvious matter of common-sense reasoning. I believe you will never\nalter this state of things until, either by consent or by _force\nmajeure_--and I should be very sorry to see the latter applied--but\nuntil there is some new arrangement, and until all the theoretical\nbranches of the profession, the institutes of medicine, are taught in\nLondon in not more than one or two, or at the outside three, central\ninstitutions, no good will be effected. If that large body of men, the\nmedical students of London, were obliged in the first place to get a\nknowledge of the theoretical branches of their profession in two or\nthree central schools, there would be abundant means for maintaining\nable professors--not, indeed, for enriching them, as they would be\nable to enrich themselves by practice--but for enabling them to make\nthat choice which such men are so willing to make; namely, the choice\nbetween wealth and a modest competency, when that modest competency\nis to be combined with a scientific career, and the means of advancing\nknowledge. I do not believe that all the talking about, and tinkering\nof, medical education will do the slightest good until the fact\nis clearly recognized, that men must be thoroughly grounded in the\ntheoretical branches of their profession, and that to this end the\nteaching of those theoretical branches must be confined to two or\nthree centres.\n\nNow let me add one other word, and that is, that if I were a despot, I\nwould cut down these branches to a very considerable extent. The next\nthing to be done beyond that which I mentioned just now, is to go\nback to primary education. The great step towards a thorough medical\neducation is to insist upon the teaching of the elements of the\nphysical sciences in all schools, so that medical students shall not\ngo up to the medical colleges utterly ignorant of that with which they\nhave to deal; to insist on the elements of chemistry, the elements of\nbotany, and the elements of physics being taught in our ordinary\nand common schools, so that there shall be some preparation for\nthe discipline of medical colleges. And, if this reform were once\neffected, you might confine the \"Institutes of Medicine\" to physics\nas applied to physiology--to chemistry as applied to physiology--to\nphysiology itself, and to anatomy. Afterwards, the student, thoroughly\ngrounded in these matters, might go to any hospital he pleased for\nthe purpose of studying the practical branches of his profession. The\npractical teaching might be made as local as you like; and you\nmight use to advantage the opportunities afforded by all these\nlocal institutions for acquiring a knowledge of the practice of the\nprofession. But you may say: \"This is abolishing a great deal; you are\ngetting rid of botany and zoology to begin with.\" I have not a doubt\nthat they ought to be got rid of, as branches of special medical\neducation; they ought to be put back to an earlier stage, and made\nbranches of general education. Let me say, by way of self-denying\nordinance, for which you will, I am sure, give me credit, that I\nbelieve that comparative anatomy ought to be absolutely abolished.\nI say so, not without a certain fear of the Vice-Chancellor of the\nUniversity of London who sits upon my left. But I do not think the\ncharter gives him very much power over me; moreover, I shall soon come\nto an end of my examinership, and therefore I am not afraid, but shall\ngo on to say what I was going to say, and that is, that in my belief\nit is a downright cruelty--I have no other word for it--to require\nfrom gentlemen who are engaged in medical studies, the pretence--for\nit is nothing else, and can be nothing else, than a pretence--of a\nknowledge of comparative anatomy as part of their medical curriculum.\nMake it part of their Arts teaching if you like, make it part of their\ngeneral education if you like, make it part of their qualification for\nthe scientific degree by all means--that is its proper place; but to\nrequire that gentlemen whose whole faculties should be bent upon\nthe acquirement of a real knowledge of human physiology should\nworry themselves with getting up hearsay about the alternation of\ngenerations in the Salpae is really monstrous. I cannot characterize\nit in any other way. And having sacrificed my own pursuit, I am sure I\nmay sacrifice other people's; and I make this remark with all the\nmore willingness because I discovered, on reading the name-of your\nProfessors just now, that the Professor of Materia Medica is not\npresent. I must confess, if I had my way I should abolish Materia\nMedica[1] altogether. I recollect, when I was first under examination\nat the University of London, Dr. Pereira was the examiner, and you\nknow that \"Pereira's Materia Medica\" was a book _de omnibus rebus_. I\nrecollect my struggles with that book late at night and early in the\nmorning (I worked very hard in those days), and I do believe that I\ngot that book into my head somehow or other, but then I will undertake\nto say that I forgot it all a week afterwards. Not one trace of a\nknowledge of drugs has remained in my memory from that time to this;\nand really, as a matter of common sense, I cannot understand the\narguments for obliging a medical man to know all about drugs and\nwhere they come from. Why not make him belong to the Iron and Steel\nInstitute, and learn something about cutlery, because he uses knives?\n\n[Footnote 1: It will, I hope, be understood that I do not include\nTherapeutics under this head.]\n\nBut do not suppose that, after all these deductions, there would not\nbe ample room for your activity. Let us count up what we have left. I\nsuppose all the time for medical education that can be hoped for is,\nat the outside, about four years. Well, what have you to master in\nthose four years upon my supposition? Physics applied to physiology;\nchemistry applied to physiology; physiology; anatomy; surgery;\nmedicine (including therapeutics); obstetrics; hygiene; and medical\njurisprudence--nine subjects for four years! And when you consider\nwhat those subjects are, and that the acquisition of anything beyond\nthe rudiments of any one of them may tax the energies of a lifetime,\nI think that even those energies which you young gentlemen have\nbeen displaying for the last hour or two might be taxed to keep you\nthoroughly up to what is wanted for your medical career.\n\nI entertain a very strong conviction that any one who adds to medical\neducation one iota or tittle beyond what is absolutely necessary, is\nguilty of a very grave offence. Gentlemen, it will depend upon the\nknowledge that you happen to possess,--upon your means of applying it\nwithin your own field of action,--whether the bills of mortality of\nyour district are increased or diminished; and that, gentlemen, is a\nvery serious consideration indeed. And, under those circumstances, the\nsubjects with which you have to deal being so difficult, their extent\nso enormous, and the time at your disposal so limited, I could not\nfeel my conscience easy if I did not, on such an occasion as this,\nraise a protest against employing your energies upon the acquisition\nof any knowledge which may not be absolutely needed in your future\ncareer.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nYEAST.\n\n\nIT has been known, from time immemorial, that the sweet liquids which\nmay be obtained by expressing the juices of the fruits and stems\nof various plants, or by steeping malted barley in hot water, or\nby mixing honey with water--are liable to undergo a series of very\nsingular changes, if freely exposed to the air and left to themselves,\nin warm weather. However clear and pellucid the liquid may have been\nwhen first prepared, however carefully it may have been freed, by\nstraining and filtration, from even the finest visible impurities, it\nwill not remain clear. After a time it will become cloudy and turbid;\nlittle bubbles will be seen rising to the surface, and their abundance\nwill increase until the liquid hisses as if it were simmering on\nthe fire. By degrees, some of the solid particles which produce the\nturbidity of the liquid collect at its surface into a scum, which\nis blown up by the emerging air-bubbles into a thick, foamy froth.\nAnother moiety sinks to the bottom, and accumulates as a muddy\nsediment, or \"lees.\"\n\nWhen this action has continued, with more or less violence, for\na certain time, it gradually moderates. The evolution of bubbles\nslackens, and finally comes to an end; scum and lees alike settle at\nthe bottom, and the fluid is once more clear and transparent. But\nit has acquired properties of which no trace existed in the original\nliquid. Instead of being a mere sweet fluid, mainly composed of sugar\nand water, the sugar has more or less completely disappeared, and it\nhas acquired that peculiar smell and taste which we call \"spirituous.\"\nInstead of being devoid of any obvious effect upon the animal economy,\nit has become possessed of a very wonderful influence on the nervous\nsystem; so that in small doses it exhilarates, while in larger it\nstupefies, and may even destroy life.\n\nMoreover, if the original fluid is put into a still, and heated for a\nwhile, the first and last product of its distillation is simple water;\nwhile, when the altered fluid is subjected to the same process, the\nmatter which is first condensed in the receiver is found to be a\nclear, volatile substance, which is lighter than water, has a pungent\ntaste and smell, possesses the intoxicating powers of the fluid in\nan eminent degree, and takes fire the moment it is brought in contact\nwith a flame. The alchemists called this volatile liquid, which\nthey obtained from wine, \"spirits of wine,\" just as they called\nhydrochloric acid \"spirits of salt,\" and as we, to this day, call\nrefined turpentine \"spirits of turpentine.\" As the \"spiritus,\" or\nbreath, of a man was thought to be the most refined and subtle part\nof him, the intelligent essence of man was also conceived as a sort\nof breath, or spirit; and, by analogy, the most refined essence of\nanything was called its \"spirit.\" And thus it has come about that we\nuse the same word for the soul of man and for a glass of gin.\n\nAt the present day, however, we even more commonly use another name\nfor this peculiar liquid--namely, \"alcohol,\" and its origin is not\nless singular. The Dutch physician, Van Helmont, lived in the latter\npart of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century--in\nthe transition period between alchemy and chemistry--and was rather\nmore alchemist than chemist. Appended to his \"Opera Omnia,\" published\nin 1707, there is a very needful \"Clavis ad obscuriorum sensum\nreferandum,\" in which the following passage occurs:--\n\n    \"ALCOHOL.--Chymicis est liquor aut pulvis summ\u00e8 subtilisatus,\n    vocabulo Orientalibus quoque, cum primis Habessinis,\n    familiari, quibus _cohol_ speciatim pulverem impalpabilem ex\n    antimonio pro oculis tin-gendis denotat ... Hodie autem, ob\n    analogiam, quivis pulvis teuerior, ut pulvis oculorum cancri\n    summe subtilisatus _alcohol_ audit, hand aliter ac spiritus\n    rectificatissimi _alcolisati_ dicuntur.\"\n\nSimilarly, Robert Boyle speaks of a fine powder as \"alcohol;\" and,\nso late as the middle of the last century, the English lexicographer,\nNathan Bailey, defines \"alcohol\" as \"the pure substance of anything\nseparated from the more gross, a very fine and impalpable powder, or a\nvery pure, well-rectified spirit.\" But, by the time of the publication\nof Lavoisier's \"Trait\u00e9 \u00c9l\u00e9mentaire de Chimie,\" in 1789, the term\n\"alcohol,\" \"alkohol,\" or \"alkool\" (for it is spelt in all three ways),\nwhich Van Helmont had applied primarily to a fine powder, and\nonly secondarily to spirits of wine, had lost its primary meaning\naltogether; and, from the end of the last century until now, it has,\nI believe, been used exclusively as the denotation of spirits of wine,\nand bodies chemically allied to that substance.\n\nThe process which gives rise to alcohol in a saccharine fluid is known\nto us as \"fermentation;\" a term based upon the apparent boiling up or\n\"effervescence\" of the fermenting liquid, and of Latin origin.\n\nOur Teutonic cousins call the same process \"g\u00e4hren,\" \"g\u00e4sen,\"\n\"g\u00f6schen,\" and \"gischen;\" but, oddly enough, we do not seem to have\nretained their verb or their substantive denoting the action itself,\nthough we do use names identical with, or plainly derived from, theirs\nfor the scum and lees. These are called, in Low German, \"g\u00e4scht\"\nand \"gischt;\" in Anglo-Saxon, \"gest,\" \"gist,\" and \"yst,\" whence our\n\"yeast.\" Again, in Low German and in Anglo-Saxon, there is another\nname for yeast, having the form \"barm,\" or \"beorm;\" and, in the\nMidland Counties, \"barm\" is the name by which yeast is still best\nknown. In High German, there is a third name for yeast, \"hefe,\" which\nis not represented in English, so far as I know.\n\nAll these words are said by philologers to be derived from roots\nexpressive of the intestine motion of a fermenting substance. Thus\n\"hefe\" is derived from \"heben,\" to raise; \"barm\" from \"beren\" or\n\"b\u00e4ren,\" to bear up; \"yeast,\" \"yst,\" and \"gist,\" have all to do with\nseething and foam, with \"yeasty waves,\" and \"gusty\" breezes.\n\nThe same reference to the swelling up of the fermenting substance is\nseen in the Gallo-Latin terms \"levure\" and \"leaven.\"\n\nIt is highly creditable to the ingenuity of our ancestors that the\npeculiar property of fermented liquids, in virtue of which they \"make\nglad the heart of man,\" seems to have been known in the remotest\nperiods of which we have any record. All savages take to alcoholic\nfluids as if they were to the manner born. Our Vedic forefathers\nintoxicated themselves with the juice of the \"soma;\" Noah, by a not\nunnatural reaction against a superfluity of water, appears to have\ntaken the earliest practicable opportunity of qualifying that which\nhe was obliged to drink; and the ghosts of the ancient Egyptians were\nsolaced by pictures of banquets in which the winecup passes round,\ngraven on the walls of their tombs. A knowledge of the process of\nfermentation, therefore, was in all probability possessed by the\nprehistoric populations of the globe; and it must have become a matter\nof great interest even to primaeval wine-bibbers to study the methods\nby which fermented liquids could be surely manufactured. No doubt,\ntherefore, it was soon discovered that the most certain, as well as\nthe most expeditious, way of making a sweet juice ferment was to add\nto it a little of the scum, or lees, of another fermenting juice.\nAnd it can hardly be questioned that this singular excitation of\nfermentation in one fluid, by a sort of infection, or inoculation,\nof a little ferment taken from some other fluid, together with the\nstrange swelling, foaming, and hissing of the fermented substance,\nmust have always attracted attention from the more thoughtful.\nNevertheless, the commencement of the scientific analysis of the\nphenomena dates from a period not earlier than the first half of the\nseventeenth century.\n\nAt this time, Van Helmont made a first step, by pointing out that the\npeculiar hissing and bubbling of a fermented liquid is due, not to the\nevolution of common air (which he, as the inventor of the term \"gas,\"\ncalls \"gas ventosum\"), but to that of a peculiar kind of air such\nas is occasionally met with in caves, mines, and wells, and which he\ncalls \"gas sylvestre.\"\n\nBut a century elapsed before the nature of this \"gas sylvestre,\" or,\nas it was afterwards called, \"fixed air,\" was clearly determined, and\nit was found to be identical with that deadly \"choke-damp\" by which\nthe lives of those who descend into old wells, or mines, or brewers'\nvats, are sometimes suddenly ended; and with the poisonous a\u00ebriform\nfluid which is produced by the combustion of charcoal, and now goes by\nthe name of carbonic acid gas.\n\nDuring the same time it gradually became clear that the presence of\nsugar was essential to the production of alcohol and the evolution of\ncarbonic acid gas, which are the two great and conspicuous products of\nfermentation. And finally, in 1787, the Italian chemist, Fabroni, made\nthe capital discovery that the yeast ferment, the presence of which\nis necessary to fermentation, is what he termed a \"vegeto-animal\"\nsubstance--or is a body which gives off ammoniacal salts when it is\nburned, and is, in other ways, similar to the gluten of plants and the\nalbumen and casein of animals.\n\nThese discoveries prepared the way for the illustrious Frenchman,\nLavoisier, who first approached the problem of fermentation with a\ncomplete conception of the nature of the work to be done. The words\nin which he expresses this conception, in the treatise on elementary\nchemistry to which reference has already been made, mark the year 1789\nas the commencement of a revolution of not less moment in the world of\nscience than that which simultaneously burst over the political world,\nand soon engulfed Lavoisier himself in one of its mad eddies.\n\n\"We may lay it down as an incontestable axiom that, in all the\noperations of art and nature, nothing is created; an equal quantity\nof matter exists both before and after the experiment: the quality and\nquantity of the elements remain precisely the same, and nothing takes\nplace beyond changes and modifications in the combinations of these\nelements. Upon this principle, the whole art of performing chemical\nexperiments depends; we must always suppose an exact equality between\nthe elements of the body examined and those of the products of its\nanalysis.\n\n\"Hence, since from must of grapes we procure alcohol and carbonic\nacid, I have an undoubted right to suppose that must consists of\ncarbonic acid and alcohol. From these premisses we have two modes\nof ascertaining what passes during vinous fermentation: either\nby determining the nature of, and the elements which compose, the\nfermentable substances; or by accurately examining the products\nresulting from fermentation; and it is evident that the knowledge\nof either of these must lead to accurate conclusions concerning the\nnature and composition of the other. From these considerations it\nbecame necessary accurately to determine the constituent elements of\nthe fermentable substances; and for this purpose I did not make use\nof the compound juices of fruits, the rigorous analysis of which\nis perhaps impossible, but made choice of sugar, which is easily\nanalysed, and the nature of which I have already explained. This\nsubstance is a true vegetable oxyd, with two bases, composed of\nhydrogen and carbon, brought to the state of an oxyd by means of a\ncertain proportion of oxygen; and these three elements are combined\nin such a way that a very slight force is sufficient to destroy the\nequilibrium of their connection.\"\n\nAfter giving the details of his analysis of sugar and of the products\nof fermentation, Lavoisier continues:--\n\n\"The effect of the vinous fermentation upon sugar is thus reduced to\nthe mere separation of its elements into two portions; one part is\noxygenated at the expense of the other, so as to form carbonic acid;\nwhile the other part, being disoxygenated in favour of the latter, is\nconverted into the combustible substance called alkohol; therefore,\nif it were possible to re-unite alkohol and carbonic acid together, we\nought to form sugar.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Elements of Chemistry.\" By M. Lavoisier. Translated by\nRobert Kerr. Second Edition, 1793 (pp. 186--196).]\n\nThus Lavoisier thought he had demonstrated that the carbonic acid and\nthe alcohol which are produced by the process of fermentation, are\nequal in weight to the sugar which disappears; but the application of\nthe more refined methods of modern chemistry to the investigation of\nthe products of fermentation by Pasteur, in 1860, proved that this is\nnot exactly true, and that there is a deficit of from 5 to 7 per cent.\nof the sugar which is not covered by the alcohol and carbonic acid\nevolved. The greater part of this deficit is accounted for by the\ndiscovery of two substances, glycerine and succinic acid, of the\nexistence of which Lavoisier was unaware, in the fermented liquid.\nBut about 1-1/2 per cent. still remains to be made good. According to\nPasteur, it has been appropriated by the yeast, but the fact that such\nappropriation takes place cannot be said to be actually proved.\n\nHowever this may be, there can be no doubt that the constituent\nelements of fully 98 per cent. of the sugar which has vanished during\nfermentation have simply undergone rearrangement; like the soldiers\nof a brigade, who at the word of command divide themselves into the\nindependent regiments to which they belong. The brigade is sugar, the\nregiments are carbonic acid, succinic acid, alcohol, and glycerine.\n\nFrom the time of Fabroni, onwards, it has been admitted that the agent\nby which this surprising rearrangement of the particles of the sugar\nis effected is the yeast. But the first thoroughly conclusive evidence\nof the necessity of yeast for the fermentation of sugar was furnished\nby Appert, whose method of preserving perishable articles of food\nexcited so much attention in France at the beginning of this century.\nGay-Lussac, in his \"M\u00e9moire sur la Fermentation,\"[1] alludes to\nAppert's method of preserving beer-wort unfermented for an indefinite\ntime, by simply boiling the wort and closing the vessel in which the\nboiling fluid is contained, in such a way as thoroughly to exclude\nair; and he shows that, if a little yeast be introduced into such\nwort, after it has cooled, the wort at once begins to ferment, even\nthough every precaution be taken to exclude air. And this statement\nhas since received full confirmation from Pasteur.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Annales de Chimie,\" 1810.]\n\nOn the other hand, Schwann, Schroeder and Dusch, and Pasteur, have\namply proved that air may be allowed to have free access to beer-wort,\nwithout exciting fermentation, if only efficient precautions are taken\nto prevent the entry of particles of yeast along with the air.\n\nThus, the truth that the fermentation of a simple solution of sugar in\nwater depends upon the presence of yeast, rests upon an unassailable\nfoundation; and the inquiry into the exact nature of the substance\nwhich possesses such a wonderful chemical influence becomes profoundly\ninteresting.\n\nThe first step towards the solution of this problem was made two\ncenturies ago by the patient and painstaking Dutch naturalist,\nLeeuwenhoek, who in the year 1680 wrote thus:--\n\n    \"Saepissimo examinavi fermentum cerevisiae, semperque hoc ex\n    globulis per materiam pellucidam fluitantibus, quam cerevisiam\n    esse censui, constare observavi: vidi etiam evidentissime,\n    unumquemque hujus fermenti globulum denuo ex sex distinctis\n    globullis constare, accurate eidem quantitate et formae, cui\n    globulis sanguinis nostri, respondentibus.\n\n    \"Verum talis mini de horum origine et formatione conceptus\n    formabam; globulis nempe ex quibus farina Tritici, Hordei,\n    Avenae, Fagotritici, se constat aquae calore dissolvi et aquae\n    commisceri; hac, vero aqua, quam cerevisiam vocare licet,\n    refrigescente, multos ex minimis particulis in cerevisia\n    coadunari, et hoc pacto efficere particulam sive globulum,\n    quae sexta pars est globuli faecis, et iterum sex ex hisce\n    globulis conjungi.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Leeuwenhoek, \"Arcana Naturae Detecta.\" Ed. Nov., 1721.]\n\nThus Leeuwenhoek discovered that yeast consists of globules floating\nin a fluid; but he thought that they were merely the starchy particles\nof the grain from which the wort was made, re-arranged. He discovered\nthe fact that yeast had a definite structure, but not the meaning of\nthe fact. A century and a half elapsed, and the investigation of\nyeast was recommenced almost simultaneously by Cagniard de la Tour in\nFrance, and by Schwann and K\u00fctzing in Germany. The French observer\nwas the first to publish his results; and the subject received at his\nhands and at those of his colleague, the botanist Turpin, full and\nsatisfactory investigation.\n\nThe main conclusions at which they arrived are these. The globular,\nor oval, corpuscles which float so thickly in the yeast as to make it\nmuddy, though the largest are not more than one two-thousandth of\nan inch in diameter, and the smallest may measure less than one\nseven-thousandth of an inch, are living organisms. They multiply with\ngreat rapidity, by giving off minute buds, which soon attain the size\nof their parent, and then either become detached or remain united,\nforming the compound globules of which Leeuwenhoek speaks, though the\nconstancy of their arrangement in sixes existed only in the worthy\nDutchman's imagination.\n\nIt was very soon made out that these yeast organisms, to which Turpin\ngave the name of _Torula cerevisiae_, were more nearly allied to the\nlower Fungi than to anything else. Indeed Turpin, and subsequently\nBerkeley and Hoffmann, believed that they had traced the development\nof the _Torula_ into the well-known and very common mould--the\n_Penicillium glaucum_. Other observers have not succeeded in verifying\nthese statements; and my own observations lead me to believe, that\nwhile the connection between _Torula_ and the moulds is a very close\none, it is of a different nature from that which has been supposed. I\nhave never been able to trace the development of _Torula_ into a true\nmould; but it is quite easy to prove that species of true mould,\nsuch as _Penicillium_, when sown in an appropriate nidus, such as\na solution of tartrate of ammonia and yeast-ash, in water, with or\nwithout sugar, give rise to _Torulae_, similar in all respects to _T.\ncerevisiae_, except that they are, on the average, smaller. Moreover,\nBail has observed the development of a _Torula_ larger than _T.\ncerevisiae_, from a _Mucor_, a mould allied to _Penicillium_.\n\nIt follows, therefore, that the _Torulae_, or organisms of yeast,\nare veritable plants; and conclusive experiments have proved that the\npower which causes the rearrangement of the molecules of the sugar is\nintimately connected with the life and growth of the plant. In fact,\nwhatever arrests the vital activity of the plant also prevents it from\nexciting fermentation.\n\nSuch being the facts with regard to the nature of yeast, and the\nchanges which it effects in sugar, how are they to be accounted for?\nBefore modern chemistry had come into existence, Stahl, stumbling,\nwith the stride of genius, upon the conception which lies at the\nbottom of all modern views of the process, put forward the notion that\nthe ferment, being in a state of internal motion, communicated\nthat motion to the sugar, and thus caused its resolution into new\nsubstances. And Lavoisier, as we have seen, adopts substantially the\nsame view, (But Fabroni, full of the then novel conception of acids\nand bases and double decompositions, propounded the hypothesis that\nsugar is an oxide with two bases, and the ferment a carbonate with two\nbases; that the carbon of the ferment unites with the oxygen of the\nsugar, and gives rise to carbonic acid; while the sugar, uniting with\nthe nitrogen of the ferment, produces a new substance analogous to\nopium. This is decomposed by distillation, and gives rise to alcohol.)\nNext, in 1803, Th\u00e9nard propounded a hypothesis which partakes somewhat\nof the nature of both Stahl's and Fabroni's views. \"I do not believe\nwith Lavoisier,\" he says, \"that all the carbonic acid formed proceeds\nfrom the sugar. How, in that case, could we conceive the action of the\nferment on it? I think that the first portions of the acid are due\nto a combination of the carbon of the ferment with the oxygen of the\nsugar, and that it is by carrying off a portion of oxygen from\nthe last that the ferment causes the fermentation to commence--the\nequilibrium between the principles of the sugar being disturbed, they\ncombine afresh to form carbonic acid and alcohol.\"\n\nThe three views here before us may be familiarly exemplified by\nsupposing the sugar to be a card-house. According to Stahl, the\nferment is somebody who knocks the table, and shakes the card-house\ndown; according to Fabroni, the ferment takes out some cards, but puts\nothers in their places; according to Th\u00e9nard, the ferment simply takes\na card out of the bottom story, the result of which is that all the\nothers fall.\n\nAs chemistry advanced, facts came to light which put a new face upon\nStahl's hypothesis, and gave it a safer foundation than it previously\npossessed. The general nature of these phenomena may be thus\nstated:--A body, A, without giving to, or taking from, another\nbody, B, any material particles, causes B to decompose into other\nsubstances, C, D, E, the sum of the weights of which is equal to the\nweight of B, which decomposes.\n\nThus, bitter almonds contain two substances, amygdalin and synaptase,\nwhich can be extracted, in a separate state, from the bitter almonds.\nThe amygdalin thus obtained, if dissolved in water, undergoes no\nchange; but if a little synaptase be added to the solution, the\namygdalin splits up into bitter almond oil, prussic acid, and a kind\nof sugar.\n\nA short time after Cagniard de la Tour discovered the yeast plant,\nLiebig, struck with the similarity between this and other such\nprocesses and the fermentation of sugar, put forward the hypothesis\nthat yeast contains a substance which acts upon sugar, as synaptase\nacts upon amygdalin. And as the synaptase is certainly neither\norganized nor alive, but a mere chemical substance, Liebig treated\nCagniard de la Tour's discovery with no small contempt, and, from\nthat time to the present, has steadily repudiated the notion that the\ndecomposition of the sugar is, in any sense, the result of the vital\nactivity of the _Torula_. But, though the notion that the _Torula_ is\na creature which eats sugar and excretes carbonic acid and alcohol,\nwhich is not unjustly ridiculed in the most surprising paper that\never made its appearance in a grave scientific journal[1], may be\nuntenable, the fact that the _Torulae_ are alive, and that yeast does\nnot excite fermentation unless it contains living _Torulae_, stands\nfast. Moreover, of late years, the essential participation of living\norganisms in fermentation other than the alcoholic, has been clearly\nmade out by Pasteur and other chemists.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Das entr\u00e4thselte Geheimniss der geistigen G\u00e4hrung\n(Vorl\u00e4ufige briefliche Mittheilung)\" is the title of an anonymous\ncontribution, to W\u00f6hler and Liebig's \"Annalen der Pharmacie\" for\n1839, in which a somewhat Rabelaisian imaginary description of the\norganization of the \"yeast animals\" and of the manner in which their\nfunctions are performed, is given with a circumstantiality worthy\nof the author of Gulliver's Travels. As a specimen of the writer's\nhumour, his account of what happens when fermentation comes to an end\nmay suffice. \"Sobald n\u00e4mlich die Thiere keinen Zucker mehr vorfinden,\nso fressen sie sich gegenseitig selbst auf, was durch eine eigene\nManipulation geschicht; alles wird verdaut bis auf die Eier, welche\nunver\u00e4ndert durch den Darmkanal hineingehen; man hat zuletzt wieder\ng\u00e4hrungsf\u00e4hige Hefe, n\u00e4mlich den Saamen der Thiere, der \u00fcbrig\nbleibt.\"]\n\nHowever, it may be asked, is there any necessary opposition between\nthe so-called \"vital\" and the strictly physico-chemical views of\nfermentation? It is quite possible that the living _Torula_ may excite\nfermentation in sugar, because it constantly produces, as an essential\npart of its vital manifestations, some substance which acts upon the\nsugar, just as the synaptase acts upon the amygdalin. Or it may\nbe, that, without the formation of any such special substance,\nthe physical condition of the living tissue of the yeast plant is\nsufficient to effect that small disturbance of the equilibrium of the\nparticles of the sugar, which Lavoisier thought sufficient to effect\nits decomposition.\n\nPlatinum in a very fine state of division--known as platinum black, or\n_noir de platine_--has the very singular property of causing alcohol\nto change into acetic acid with great rapidity. The vinegar plant,\nwhich is closely allied to the yeast plant, has a similar effect upon\ndilute alcohol, causing it to absorb the oxygen of the air, and become\nconverted into vinegar; and Liebig's eminent opponent, Pasteur, who\nhas done so much for the theory and the practice of vinegar-making,\nhimself suggests that in this case--\n\n    \"La cause du ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne physique qui accompagne la vie de la\n    plante r\u00e9side dans un \u00e9tat physique propre, analogue \u00e0 celui\n    du noir de platine. Mais il est essentiel de remarquer que cet\n    \u00e9tat physique de la plante est \u00e9troitement li\u00e9 avec la vie de\n    cette plante.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Etudes sur les Mycodermes,\" Comptes-Rendus, liv., 1862.]\n\nNow, if the vinegar plant gives rise to the oxidation of alcohol,\non account of its merely physical constitution, it is at any rate\npossible that the physical constitution of the yeast plant may exert a\ndecomposing influence on sugar.\n\nBut, without presuming to discuss a question which leads us into the\nvery arcana of chemistry, the present state of speculation upon the\n_modus operandi_ of the yeast plant in producing fermentation is\nrepresented, on the one hand, by the Stahlian doctrine, supported by\nLiebig, according to which the atoms of the sugar are shaken into new\ncombinations, either directly by the _Torulae_, or indirectly, by some\nsubstance formed by them; and, on the other hand, by the Th\u00e9nardian\ndoctrine, supported by Pasteur, according to which the yeast plant\nassimilates part of the sugar, and, in so doing, disturbs the rest,\nand determines its resolution into the products of fermentation.\nPerhaps the two views are not so much opposed as they seem at first\nsight to be.\n\n\nBut the interest which attaches to the influence of the yeast plants\nupon the medium in which they live and grow does not arise solely\nfrom its bearing upon the theory of fermentation. So long ago as 1838,\nTurpin compared the _Torulae_ to the ultimate elements of the tissues\nof animals and plants--\"Les organes \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires de leurs tissus,\ncomparables aux petits v\u00e9g\u00e9taux des levures ordinaires, sont aussi les\nd\u00e9compositeurs des substances qui les environnent.\"\n\nAlmost at the same time, and, probably, equally guided by his study of\nyeast, Schwann was engaged in those remarkable investigations into\nthe form and development of the ultimate structural elements of the\ntissues of animals, which led him to recognize their fundamental\nidentity with the ultimate structural elements of vegetable organisms.\n\nThe yeast plant is a mere sac, or \"cell,\" containing a semi-fluid\nmatter, and Schwann's microscopic analysis resolved all living\norganisms, in the long run, into an aggregation of such sacs or cells,\nvariously modified; and tended to show, that all, whatever their\nultimate complication, begin their existence in the condition of such\nsimple cells.\n\nIn his famous \"Mikroskopische Untersuchungen,\" Schwann speaks of\n_Torula_ as a \"cell;\" and, in a remarkable note to the passage in\nwhich he refers to the yeast plant, Schwann says:--\n\n    \"I have been unable to avoid mentioning fermentation, because\n    it is the most fully and exactly known operation of cells,\n    and represents, in the simplest fashion, the process which is\n    repeated by every cell of the living body.\"\n\nIn other words, Schwann conceives that every cell of the living body\nexerts an influence on the matter which surrounds and permeates it,\nanalogous to that which a _Torula_ exerts on the saccharine solution\nby which it is bathed. A wonderfully suggestive thought, opening up\nviews of the nature of the chemical processes of the living body,\nwhich have hardly yet received all the development of which they are\ncapable.\n\nKant defined the special peculiarity of the living body to be that the\nparts exist for the sake of the whole and the whole for the sake of\nthe parts. But when Turpin and Schwann resolved the living body into\nan aggregation of quasi-independent cells, each, like a _Torula_,\nleading its own life and having its own laws of growth and\ndevelopment, the aggregation being dominated and kept working towards\na definite end only by a certain harmony among these units, or by the\nsuperaddition of a controlling apparatus, such as a nervous system,\nthis conception ceased to be tenable. The cell lives for its own sake,\nas well as for the sake of the whole organism; and the cells, which\nfloat in the blood, live at its expense, and profoundly modify it, are\nalmost as much independent organisms as the _Torulae_ which float in\nbeer-wort.\n\nSchwann burdened his enunciation of the \"cell theory\" with two false\nsuppositions; the one, that the structures he called \"nucleus\" and\n\"cell-wall\" are essential to a cell; the other, that cells are usually\nformed independently of other cells; but, in 1839, it was a vast and\nclear gain to arrive at the conception, that the vital functions of\nall the higher animals and plants are the resultant of the forces\ninherent in the innumerable minute cells of which they are composed,\nand that each of them is, itself, an equivalent of one of the lowest\nand simplest of independent living beings--the _Torula._\n\nFrom purely morphological investigations, Turpin and Schwann, as we\nhave seen, arrived at the notion of the fundamental unity of structure\nof living beings. And, before long, the researches of chemists\ngradually led up to the conception of the fundamental unity of their\ncomposition.\n\nSo far back as 1803, Th\u00e9nard pointed out, in most distinct terms, the\nimportant fact that yeast contains a nitrogenous \"animal\" substance;\nand that such a substance is contained in all ferments. Before him,\nFabroni and Fourcroy speak of the \"vegeto-animal\" matter of yeast.\nIn 1844 Mulder endeavoured to demonstrate that a peculiar substance,\nwhich he called \"protein,\" was essentially characteristic of living\nmatter. In 1846, Payen writes:--\n\n    \"Enfin, une loi sans exception me semble appara\u00eetre dans les\n    faits nombreux que j'ai observ\u00e9s et conduire \u00e0 envisager sous\n    un nouveau jour la vie v\u00e9g\u00e9tale; si je ne m'abuse, tout ce\n    que dans les tissus v\u00e9g\u00e9taux la vue directe o\u00f9 amplifi\u00e9e nous\n    permet de discerner sous la forme de cellules et de vaisseaux,\n    ne repr\u00e9sente autre chose que les enveloppes protectrices,\n    les r\u00e9servoirs et les conduits, \u00e0 l'aide desquels les corps\n    anim\u00e9s qui les secr\u00e8tent et les fa\u00e7onnent, se logent, puisent\n    et charriant leurs aliments, d\u00e9posent et isolent les mati\u00e8res\n    excr\u00e9t\u00e9es.\"\n\nAnd again:--\n\n    \"A fin de compl\u00eater aujourd'hui l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9 du fait g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, je\n    rappellerai que les corps, dou\u00e9 des fonctions accomplies\n    dans les tissus des plantes, sont form\u00e9s des \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui\n    constituent, en proportion peu variable, les organismes\n    animaux; qu'ainsi l'on est conduit \u00e0 reconna\u00eetre une immense\n    unit\u00e9 de composition \u00e9l\u00e9mentaire dans tous les corps vivants\n    de la nature.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"M\u00e9m. sur les D\u00e9veloppements des V\u00e9g\u00e9taux,\" &c.--\"M\u00e9m.\nPr\u00e9sent\u00e9es.\" ix. 1846.]\n\nIn the year (1846) in which these remarkable passages were published,\nthe eminent German botanist, Von Mohl, invented the word \"protoplasm,\"\nas a name for one portion of those nitrogenous contents of the cells\nof living plants, the close chemical resemblance of which to the\nessential constituents of living animals is so strongly indicated by\nPayen. And through the twenty-five years that have passed, since the\nmatter of life was first called protoplasm, a host of investigators,\namong whom Cohn, Max Schulze, and K\u00fchne must be named as leaders, have\naccumulated evidence, morphological, physiological, and chemical, in\nfavour of that \"immense unit\u00e9 de composition \u00e9l\u00e9mentaire dans tous les\ncorps vivants de la nature,\" into which Payen had, so early, a clear\ninsight.\n\nAs far back as 1850, Cohn wrote, apparently without any knowledge of\nwhat Payen had said before him:--\n\n    \"The protoplasm of the botanist, and the contractile substance\n    and sarcode of the zoologist, must be, if not identical, yet\n    in a high degree analogous substances. Hence, from this point\n    of view, the difference between animals and plants consists\n    in this; that, in the latter, the contractile substance, as\n    a primordial utricle, is enclosed within an inert cellulose\n    membrane, which permits it only to exhibit an internal motion,\n    expressed by the phenomena of rotation and circulation, while,\n    in the former, it is not so enclosed. The protoplasm in the\n    form of the primordial utricle is, as it were, the animal\n    element in the plant, but which is imprisoned, and only\n    becomes free in the animal; _or_, to strip off the metaphor\n    which obscures simple thought, the energy of organic vitality\n    which is manifested in movement is especially exhibited by a\n    nitrogenous contractile substance, which in plants is limited\n    and fettered by an inert membrane, in animals not so.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Cohn, \"Ueber Protococcus pluvialis,\" in the \"Nova Acta\"\nfor 1850.]\n\nIn 1868, thinking that an untechnical statement of the views current\namong the leaders of biological science might be interesting to the\ngeneral public, I gave a lecture embodying them in Edinburgh. Those\nwho have not made the mistake of attempting to approach biology,\neither by the high _\u00e0 priori_ road of mere philosophical speculation,\nor by the mere low _\u00e0 posteriori_ lane offered by the tube of a\nmicroscope, but have taken the trouble to become acquainted with\nwell-ascertained facts and with their history, will not need to be\ntold that in what I had to say \"as regards protoplasm\" in my lecture\n\"On the Physical Basis of Life,\" there was nothing new; and, as I\nhope, nothing that the present state of knowledge does not justify us\nin believing to be true. Under these circumstances, my surprise may be\nimagined, when I found, that the mere statement of facts and of views,\nlong familiar to me as part of the common scientific property of\ncontinental workers, raised a sort of storm in this country, not only\nby exciting the wrath of unscientific persons whose pet prejudices\nthey seemed to touch, but by giving rise to quite superfluous\nexplosions on the part of some who should have been better informed.\n\nDr. Stirling, for example, made my essay the subject of a special\ncritical lecture[1], which I have read with much interest, though, I\nconfess, the meaning of much of it remains as dark to me as does the\n\"Secret of Hegel\" after Dr. Stirling's elaborate revelation of it.\nDr. Stirling's method of dealing with the subject is peculiar.\n\"Protoplasm\" is a question of history, so far as it is a name; of\nfact, so far as it is a thing. Dr. Stirling has not taken the trouble\nto refer to the original authorities for his history, which is\nconsequently a travesty; and still less has he concerned himself with\nlooking at the facts, but contents himself with taking them also at\nsecondhand. A most amusing example of this fashion of dealing with\nscientific statements is furnished by Dr. Stirling's remarks upon my\naccount of the protoplasm of the nettle hair. That account was drawn\nup from careful and often-repeated observation of the facts. Dr.\nStirling thinks he is offering a valid criticism, when he says that my\nvalued friend Professor Stricker gives a somewhat different statement\nabout protoplasm. But why in the world did not this distinguished\nHegelian look at a nettle hair for himself, before venturing to\nspeak about the matter at all? Why trouble himself about what either\nStricker or I say, when any tyro can see the facts for himself, if he\nis provided with those not rare articles, a nettle and a microscope?\nBut I suppose this would have been \"_Aufkl\u00e4rung_\"--a recurrence to the\nbase common-sense philosophy of the eighteenth century, which liked\nto see before it believed, and to understand before it criticised. Dr.\nStirling winds up his paper with the following paragraph:--\n\n[Footnote 1: Subsequently published under the title of \"As regards\nProtoplasm.\"]\n\n    \"In short, the whole position of Mr. Huxley, (1) that all\n    organisms consist alike of the same life-matter, (2) which\n    life-matter is, for its part, due only to chemistry, must be\n    pronounced untenable--nor less untenable (3) the materialism\n    he would found on it.\"\n\nThe paragraph contains three distinct assertions concerning my views,\nand just the same number of utter misrepresentations of them. That\nwhich I have numbered (1) turns on the ambiguity of the word \"same,\"\nfor a discussion of which I would refer Dr. Stirling to a great hero\nof \"_Aufkl\u00e4rung_\", Archbishop Whately; statement number (2) is, in my\njudgment, absurd, and certainly I have never said anything resembling\nit; while, as to number (3), one great object of my essay was to show\nthat what is called \"materialism,\" has no sound philosophical basis!\n\nAs we have seen, the study of yeast has led investigators face to face\nwith problems of immense interest in pure chemistry, and in animal and\nvegetable morphology. Its physiology is not less rich in subjects for\ninquiry. Take, for example, the singular fact that yeast will increase\nindefinitely when grown in the dark, in water containing only tartrate\nof ammonia, a small percentage of mineral salts, and sugar. Out of\nthese materials the _Torulae_ will manufacture nitrogenous protoplasm,\ncellulose, and fatty matters, in any quantity, although they are\nwholly deprived of those rays of the sun, the influence of which is\nessential to the growth of ordinary plants. There has been a great\ndeal of speculation lately, as to how the living organisms buried\nbeneath two or three thousand fathoms of water, and therefore in all\nprobability almost deprived of light, live.\n\nIf any of them possess the same powers as yeast (and the same capacity\nfor living without light is exhibited by some other fungi) there would\nseem to be no difficulty about the matter.\n\nOf the pathological bearings of the study of yeast, and other such\norganisms, I have spoken elsewhere. It is certain that, in\nsome animals, devastating epidemics are caused by fungi of low\norder--similar to those of which _Torula_ is a sort of offshoot. It is\ncertain that such diseases are propagated by contagion and infection,\nin just the same way as ordinary contagious and infectious diseases\nare propagated. Of course, it does not follow from this, that all\ncontagious and infectious diseases are caused by organisms of as\ndefinite and independent a character as the _Torula_; but, I think,\nit does follow that it is prudent and wise to satisfy oneself in each\nparticular case, that the \"germ theory\" cannot and will not explain\nthe facts, before having recourse to hypotheses which have no equal\nsupport from analogy.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nON THE FORMATION OF COAL.\n\n\nThe lumps of coal in a coal-scuttle very often have a roughly cubical\nform. If one of them be picked out and examined with a little care, it\nwill be found that its six sides are not exactly alike. Two opposite\nsides are comparatively smooth and shining, while the other four are\nmuch rougher, and are marked by lines which run parallel with the\nsmooth sides. The coal readily splits along these lines, and the split\nsurfaces thus formed are parallel with the smooth faces. In other\nwords, there is a sort of rough and incomplete stratification in the\nlump of coal, as if it were a book, the leaves of which had stuck\ntogether very closely.\n\nSometimes the faces along which the coal splits are not smooth, but\nexhibit a thin layer of dull, charred-looking substance, which is\nknown as \"mineral charcoal.\"\n\nOccasionally one of the faces of a lump of coal will present\nimpressions, which are obviously those of the stem, or leaves, of a\nplant; but though hard mineral masses of pyrites, and even fine mud,\nmay occur here and there, neither sand nor pebbles are met with.\n\nWhen the coal burns, the chief ultimate products of its combustion\nare carbonic acid, water, and ammoniacal products, which escape up the\nchimney; and a greater or less amount of residual earthy salts, which\ntake the form of ash. These products are, to a great extent, such as\nwould result from the burning of so much wood.\n\nThese properties of coal may be made out without any very refined\nappliances, but the microscope reveals something more. Black and\nopaque as ordinary coal is, slices of it become transparent if they\nare cemented in Canada balsam, and rubbed down very thin, in the\nordinary way of making thin sections of non-transparent bodies. But\nas the thin slices, made in this way, are very apt to crack and break\ninto fragments, it is better to employ marine glue as the cementing\nmaterial. By the use of this substance, slices of considerable size\nand of extreme thinness and transparency may be obtained.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: My assistant in the Museum of Practical Geology, Mr.\nNewton, invented this excellent method of obtaining thin slices of\ncoal.]\n\nNow let us suppose two such slices to be prepared from our lump of\ncoal--one parallel with the bedding, the other perpendicular to it;\nand let us call the one the horizontal, and the other the vertical,\nsection. The horizontal section will present more or less rounded\nyellow patches and streaks, scattered irregularly through the dark\nbrown, or blackish, ground substance; while the vertical section will\nexhibit more elongated bars and granules of the same yellow materials,\ndisposed in lines which correspond, roughly, with the general\ndirection of the bedding of the coal.\n\nThis is the microscopic structure of an ordinary piece of coal. But if\na great series of coals, from different localities and seams, or even\nfrom different parts of the same seam, be examined, this structure\nwill be found to vary in two directions. In the anthracitic, or\nstone-coals, which burn like coke, the yellow matter diminishes, and\nthe ground substance becomes more predominant, and blacker, and more\nopaque, until it becomes impossible to grind a section thin enough to\nbe translucent; while, on the other hand, in such as the \"Better-Bed\"\ncoal of the neighbourhood of Bradford, which burns with much flame,\nthe coal is of a far lighter colour, and transparent sections are very\neasily obtained. In the browner parts of this coal, sharp eyes will\nreadily detect multitudes of curious little coin-shaped bodies, of a\nyellowish brown colour, embedded in the dark brown ground substance.\nOn the average, these little brown bodies may have a diameter of about\none-twentieth of an inch. They lie with their flat surfaces nearly\nparallel with the two smooth faces of the block in which they are\ncontained; and, on one side of each, there may be discerned a figure,\nconsisting of three straight linear marks, which radiate from the\ncentre of the disk, but do not quite reach its circumference. In the\nhorizontal section these disks are often converted into more or less\ncomplete rings; while in the vertical sections they appear like thick\nhoops, the sides of which have been pressed together. The disks are,\ntherefore, flattened bags; and favourable sections show that the\nthree-rayed marking is the expression of three clefts, which penetrate\none wall of the bag.\n\nThe sides of the bags are sometimes closely approximated; but, when\nthe bags are less flattened, their cavities are, usually, filled with\nnumerous, irregularly rounded, hollow bodies, having the same kind of\nwall as the large ones, but not more than one seven-hundredth of an\ninch in diameter.\n\nIn favourable specimens, again, almost the whole ground substance\nappears to be made up of similar bodies--more or less carbonized\nor blackened--and, in these, there can be no doubt that, with the\nexception of patches of mineral charcoal, here and there, the whole\nmass of the coal is made up of an accumulation of the larger and of\nthe smaller sacs.\n\nBut, in one and the same slice, every transition can be observed from\nthis structure to that which has been described as characteristic of\nordinary coal. The latter appears to rise out of the former, by the\nbreaking-up and increasing carbonization of the larger and the smaller\nsacs. And, in the anthracitic coals, this process appears to have gone\nto such a length, as to destroy the original structure altogether, and\nto replace it by a completely carbonized substance.\n\nThus coal may be said, speaking broadly, to be composed of two\nconstituents: firstly, mineral charcoal; and, secondly, coal proper.\nThe nature of the mineral charcoal has long since been determined. Its\nstructure shows it to consist of the remains of the stems and leaves\nof plants, reduced to little more than their carbon. Again, some of\nthe coal is made up of the crushed and flattened bark, or outer coat,\nof the stems of plants, the inner wood of which has completely decayed\naway. But what I may term the \"saccular matter\" of the coal, which,\neither in its primary or in its degraded form, constitutes by far the\ngreater part of all the bituminous coals I have examined, is certainly\nnot mineral charcoal; nor is its structure that of any stem or leaf.\nHence its real nature is, at first, by no means apparent, and has been\nthe subject of much discussion.\n\nThe first person who threw any light upon the problem, as far as I\nhave been able to discover, was the well-known geologist, Professor\nMorris. It is now thirty-four years since he carefully described and\nfigured the coin-shaped bodies, or larger sacs, as I have called\nthem, in a note appended to the famous paper \"On the Coal-brookdale\nCoal-Field,\" published at that time, by the present President of\nthe Geological Society, Mr. Prestwich. With much sagacity, Professor\nMorris divined the real nature of these bodies, and boldly\naffirmed them to be the spore-cases of a plant allied to the living\nclub-mosses.\n\nBut discovery sometimes makes a long halt; and it is only a few\nyears since Mr. Carruthers determined the plant (or rather one of the\nplants) which produces these spore-cases, by finding the discoidal\nsacs still adherent to the leaves of the fossilized cone which\nproduced them. He gave the name of _Flemingites gracilis_ to the plant\nof which the cones form a part. The branches and stem of this plant\nare not yet certainly known, but there is no sort of doubt that it was\nclosely allied to the _Lepidodendron_, the remains of which abound in\nthe coal formation. The _Lepidodendra_ were shrubs and trees which put\none more in mind of an _Araucaria_ than of any other familiar plant;\nand the ends of the fruiting branches were terminated by cones, or\ncatkins, somewhat like the bodies so named in a fir, or a willow.\nThese conical fruits, however, did not produce seeds; but the leaves\nof which they were composed bore upon their surfaces sacs full of\nspores or sporangia, such as those one sees on the under surface of a\nbracken leaf. Now, it is these sporangia of the Lepidodendroid plant\n_Flemingites_ which were identified by Mr. Carruthers with the free\nsporangia described by Professor Morris, which are the same as the\nlarge sacs of which I have spoken. And, more than this, there is\nno doubt that the small sacs are the spores, which were originally\ncontained in the sporangia.\n\nThe living club-mosses are, for the most part, insignificant and\ncreeping herbs, which, superficially, very closely resemble true\nmosses, and none of them reach more than two or three feet in height.\nBut, in their essential structure, they very closely resemble the\nearliest Lepidodendroid trees of the coal: their stems and leaves are\nsimilar; so are their cones; and no less like are the sporangia and\nspores; while even in their size, the spores of the _Lepidodendron_\nand those of the existing _Lycopodium_, or club-moss, very closely\napproach one another.\n\nThus, the singular conclusion is forced upon us, that the greater and\nthe smaller sacs of the \"Better-Bed\" and other coals, in which the\nprimitive structure is well preserved, are simply the sporangia and\nspores of certain plants, many of which were closely allied to the\nexisting club-mosses. And if, as I believe, it can be demonstrated\nthat ordinary coal is nothing but \"saccular\" coal which has undergone\na certain amount of that alteration which, if continued, would convert\nit into anthracite; then, the conclusion is obvious, that the great\nmass of the coal we burn is the result of the accumulation of the\nspores and spore-cases of plants, other parts of which have furnished\nthe carbonized stems and the mineral charcoal, or have left their\nimpressions on the surfaces of the layer.\n\nOf the multitudinous speculations which, at various times, have been\nentertained respecting the origin and mode of formation of coal,\nseveral appear to be negatived, and put out of court, by the\nstructural facts the significance of which I have endeavoured to\nexplain. These facts, for example, do not permit us to suppose that\ncoal is an accumulation of peaty matter, as some have held.\n\nAgain, the late Professor Quekett was one of the first observers\nwho gave a correct description of what I have termed the \"saccular\"\nstructure of coal; and, rightly perceiving that this structure was\nsomething quite different from that of any known plant, he imagined\nthat it proceeded from some extinct vegetable organism which was\npeculiarly abundant amongst the coal-forming plants. But this\nexplanation is at once shown to be untenable when the smaller and the\nlarger sacs are proved to be spores or sporangia.\n\nSome, once more, have imagined that coal was of submarine origin; and\nthough the notion is amply and easily refuted by other considerations,\nit may be worth while to remark, that it is impossible to comprehend\nhow a mass of light and resinous spores should have reached the bottom\nof the sea, or should have stopped in that position if they had got\nthere.\n\nAt the same time, it is proper to remark that I do not presume to\nsuggest that all coal must needs have the same structure; or that\nthere may not be coals in which the proportions of wood and spores, or\nspore-cases, are very different from those which I have examined. All\nI repeat is, that none of the coals which have come under my notice\nhave enabled me to observe such a difference. But, according to\nPrincipal Dawson, who has so sedulously examined the fossil remains of\nplants in North America, it is otherwise with the vast accumulations\nof coal in that country.\n\n    \"The true coal,\" says Dr. Dawson, \"consists principally of\n    the flattened bark of Sigillarioid and other trees, intermixed\n    with leaves of Ferns and _Cordaites_, and other herbaceous\n    _d\u00e9bris_, and with fragments of decayed wood, constituting\n    'mineral charcoal,' all these materials having manifestly\n    alike grown and accumulated where we find them.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Acadian Geology,\" 2nd edition, p. 138.]\n\nWhen I had the pleasure of seeing Principal Dawson in London last\nsummer, I showed him my sections of coal, and begged him to re-examine\nsome of the American coals on his return to Canada, with an eye to the\npresence of spores and sporangia, such as I was able to show him in\nour English and Scotch coals. He has been good enough to do so; and in\na letter dated September 26th, 1870, he informs me that--\n\n    \"Indications of spore-cases are rare, except in certain coarse\n    shaly coals and portions of coals, and in the roofs of the\n    seams. The most marked case I have yet met with is the shaly\n    coal referred to as containing _Sporangites_ in my paper\n    on the conditions of accumulation of coal (_Journal of the\n    Geological Society_, vol. xxii. pp. 115, 139, and 165). The\n    purer coals certainly consist principally of cubical tissues\n    with some true woody matter, and the spore-cases, &c.,\n    are chiefly in the coarse and shaly layers. This is my old\n    doctrine in my two papers in the _Journal of the Geological\n    Society_, and I see nothing to modify it. Your observations,\n    however, make it probable that the frequent _clear spots_ in\n    the cannels are spore-cases.\"\n\nDr. Dawson's results are the more remarkable, as the numerous\nspecimens of British coal, from various localities, which I have\nexamined, tell one tale as to the predominance of the spore and\nsporangium element in their composition; and as it is exactly in the\nfinest and purest coals, such as the \"Better-Bed\" coal of Lowmoor,\nthat the spores and sporangia obviously constitute almost the entire\nmass of the deposit.\n\nCoal, such as that which has been described, is always found in\nsheets, or \"seams,\" varying from a fraction of an inch to many feet\nin thickness, enclosed in the substance of the earth at very various\ndepths, between beds of rock of different kinds. As a rule, every seam\nof coal rests upon a thicker, or thinner, bed of clay, which is known\nas \"under-clay.\" These alternations of beds of coal, clay, and rock\nmay be repeated many times, and are known as the \"coal-measures;\"\nand in some regions, as in South Wales and in Nova Scotia, the\ncoal-measures attain a thickness of twelve or fourteen thousand\nfeet, and enclose eighty or a hundred seams of coal, each with its\nunder-clay, and separated from those above and below by beds of\nsandstone and shale.\n\nThe position of the beds which constitute the coal-measures is\ninfinitely diverse. Sometimes they are tilted up vertically, sometimes\nthey are horizontal, sometimes curved into great basins; sometimes\nthey come to the surface, sometimes they are covered up by thousands\nof feet of rock. But, whatever their present position, there is\nabundant and conclusive evidence that every under-clay was once a\nsurface soil. Not only do carbonized root-fibres frequently abound in\nthese under-clays; but the stools of trees, the trunks of which are\nbroken off and confounded with the bed of coal, have been repeatedly\nfound passing into radiating roots, still embedded in the under-clay.\nOn many parts of the coast of England, what are commonly known as\n\"submarine forests\" are to be seen at low water. They consist, for the\nmost part, of short stools of oak, beech, and fir trees, still fixed\nby their long roots in the bed of blue clay in which they originally\ngrew. If one of these submarine forest beds should be gradually\ndepressed and covered up by new deposits, it would present just the\nsame characters as an under-clay of the coal, if the _Sigillaria_ and\n_Lepidodendron_ of the ancient world were substituted for the oak, or\nthe beech, of our own times.\n\nIn a tropical forest, at the present day, the trunks of fallen trees,\nand the stools of such trees as may have been broken by the violence\nof storms, remain entire for but a short time. Contrary to what might\nbe expected, the dense wood of the tree decays, and suffers from the\nravages of insects, more swiftly than the bark. And the traveller,\nsetting his foot on a prostrate trunk, finds that it is a mere shell,\nwhich breaks under his weight, and lands his foot amidst the insects,\nor the reptiles, which have sought food or refuge within.\n\nThe trees of the coal forests present parallel conditions. When the\nfallen trunks which have entered into the composition of the bed of\ncoal are identifiable, they are mere double shells of bark, flattened\ntogether in consequence of the destruction of the woody core; and Sir\nCharles Lyell and Principal Dawson discovered, in the hollow stools\nof coal trees of Nova Scotia, the remains of snails, millipedes,\nand salamander-like creatures, embedded in a deposit of a different\ncharacter from that which surrounded the exterior of the trees. Thus,\nin endeavouring to comprehend the formation of a seam of coal, we must\ntry to picture to ourselves a thick forest, formed for the most part\nof trees like gigantic club-mosses, mares-tails, and tree ferns, with\nhere and there some that had more resemblance to our existing yews and\nfir-trees. We must suppose that, as the seasons rolled by, the plants\ngrew and developed their spores and seeds; that they shed these in\nenormous quantities, which accumulated on the ground beneath; and\nthat, every now and then, they added a dead frond or leaf; or, at\nlonger intervals, a rotten branch, or a dead trunk, to the mass.\n\nA certain proportion of the spores and seeds no doubt fulfilled their\nobvious function, and, carried by the wind to unoccupied regions,\nextended the limits of the forest; many might be washed away by rain\ninto streams, and be lost; but a large portion must have remained, to\naccumulate like beech-mast, or acorns, beneath the trees of a modern\nforest.\n\nBut, in this case, it may be asked, why does not our English coal\nconsist of stems and leaves to a much greater extent than it does?\nWhat is the reason of the predominance of the spores and spore-cases\nin it?\n\nA ready answer to this question is afforded by the study of a living\nfull-grown club-moss. Shake it upon a piece of paper, and it emits a\ncloud of fine dust, which falls over the paper, and is the well-known\nLycopodium powder. Now this powder used to be, and I believe still\nis, employed for two objects, which seem at first sight to have no\nparticular connection with one another. It is, or was, employed in\nmaking lightning, and in making pills. The coats of the spores contain\nso much resinous matter, that a pinch of Lycopodium powder, thrown\nthrough the flame of a candle, burns with an instantaneous flash,\nwhich has long done duty for lightning on the stage. And the same\ncharacter makes it a capital coating for pills; for the resinous\npowder prevents the drug from being wetted by the saliva, and thus\nbars the nauseous flavour from the sensitive papillae of the tongue.\n\nBut this resinous matter, which lies in the walls of the spores and\nsporangia, is a substance not easily altered by air and water,\nand hence tends to preserve these bodies, just as the bituminized\ncerecloth preserves an Egyptian mummy; while, on the other hand, the\nmerely woody stem and leaves tend to rot, as fast as the wood of the\nmummy's coffin has rotted. Thus the mixed heap of spores, leaves,\nand stems in the coal-forest would be persistently searched by the\nlong-continued action of air and rain; the leaves and stems would\ngradually be reduced to little but their carbon, or, in other words,\nto the condition of mineral charcoal in which we find them; while the\nspores and sporangia remained as a comparatively unaltered and compact\nresiduum.\n\nThere is, indeed, tolerably clear evidence that the coal must, under\nsome circumstances, have been converted into a substance hard enough\nto be rolled into pebbles, while it yet lay at the surface of the\nearth; for in some seams of coal, the courses of rivulets, which must\nhave been living water, while the stratum in which their remains are\nfound was still at the surface, have been observed to contain rolled\npebbles of the very coal through which the stream has cut its way.\n\nThe structural facts are such as to leave no alternative but to adopt\nthe view of the origin of such coal as I have described, which has\njust been stated; but, happily, the process is not without analogy at\nthe present day. I possess a specimen of what is called \"white coal\"\nfrom Australia. It is an inflammable material, burning with a bright\nflame, and having much the consistence and appearance of oat-cake,\nwhich, I am informed, covers a considerable area. It consists, almost\nentirely, of a compacted mass of spores and spore-cases. But the fine\nparticles of blown sand which are scattered through it, show that it\nmust have accumulated, suba\u00ebrially, upon the surface of a soil covered\nby a forest of cryptogamous plants, probably tree-ferns.\n\nAs regards this important point of the suba\u00ebrial region of coal, I am\nglad to find myself in entire accordance with Principal Dawson,\nwho bases his conclusions upon other, but no less forcible,\nconsiderations. In a passage, which is the continuation of that\nalready cited, he writes:--\n\n    \"(3) The microscopical structure and chemical composition of\n    the beds of cannel coal and earthy bitumen, and of the more\n    highly bituminous and carbonaeceous shale, show them to have\n    been of the nature of the fine vegetable mud which accumulates\n    in the ponds and shallow lakes of modern swamps. When such\n    fine vegetable sediment is mixed, as is often the case, with\n    clay, it becomes similar to the bituminous limestone and\n    calcareo-bituminous shales of the coal-measures. (4) A few of\n    the under-clays, which support beds of coal, are of the nature\n    of the vegetable mud above referred to; but the greater part\n    are argillo-arenaceous in composition, with little vegetable\n    matter, and bleached by the drainage from them of water\n    containing the products of vegetable decay. They are, in\n    short, loamy or clay soils, and must have been sufficiently\n    above water to admit of drainage. The absence of sulphurets,\n    and the occurrence of carbonate of iron in connection with\n    them, prove that, when they existed as soils, rain-water, and\n    not sea-water, percolated them. (5) The coal and the fossil\n    forests present many evidences of suba\u00ebrial conditions. Most\n    of the erect and prostrate trees had become hollow shells of\n    bark before they were finally embedded, and their wood had\n    broken into cubical pieces of mineral charcoal. Land-snails\n    and galley-worms _Xylobius_ crept into them, and they became\n    dens, or traps, for reptiles. Large quantities of mineral\n    charcoal occur on the surface of all the large beds of\n    coal. None of these appearances could have been produced by\n    subaqueous action. (6) Though the roots of the _Sigillaria_\n    bear more resemblance to the rhizomes of certain aquatic\n    plants; yet, structurally, they are absolutely identical with\n    the roots of Cycads, which the stems also resemble. Further,\n    the _Sigillariae_ grew on the same soils which supported\n    Conifers, _Lepidodendra, Cordaites_, and Ferns--plants which\n    could not have grown in water. Again, with the exception\n    perhaps of some _Pinnulariae_ and _Asterophyllites_, there\n    is a remarkable absence from the coal measures of any form of\n    properly aquatic vegetation. (7) The occurrence of marine, or\n    brackish-water animals, in the roofs of coal-beds, or even\n    in the coal itself, affords no evidence of subaqueous\n    accumulation, since the same thing occurs in the case of\n    modern submarine forests. For these and other reasons, some of\n    which are more fully stated in the papers already referred\n    to, while I admit that the areas of coal accumulation were\n    frequently submerged, I must maintain that the true coal is a\n    suba\u00ebrial accumulation by vegetable growth on soils, wet and\n    swampy it is true, but not submerged.\"\n\nI am almost disposed to doubt whether it is necessary to make the\nconcession of \"wet and swampy;\" otherwise, there is nothing that I\nknow of to be said against this excellent conspectus of the reasons\nfor believing in the suba\u00ebrial origin of coal.\n\nBut the coal accumulated upon the area covered by one of the great\nforests of the carboniferous epoch would, in course of time, have\nbeen wasted away by the small, but constant, wear and tear of rain and\nstreams, had the land which supported it remained at the same level,\nor been gradually raised to a greater elevation. And, no doubt, as\nmuch coal as now exists has been destroyed, after its formation, in\nthis way. What are now known as coal districts owe their importance to\nthe fact that they were areas of slow depression, during a greater or\nless portion of the carboniferous epoch; and that, in virtue of this\ncircumstance, Mother Earth was enabled to cover up her vegetable\ntreasures, and preserve them from destruction.\n\nWherever a coal-field now exists, there must formerly have been free\naccess for a great river, or for a shallow sea, bearing sediment in\nthe shape of sand and mud. When the coal-forest area became slowly\ndepressed, the waters must have spread over it, and have deposited\ntheir burden upon the surface of the bed of coal, in the form of\nlayers, which are now converted into shale, or sandstone. Then\nfollowed a period of rest, in which the superincumbent shallow waters\nbecame completely filled up, and finally replaced, by fine mud, which\nsettled down into a new under-clay, and furnished the soil for a fresh\nforest growth. This flourished, and heaped up its spores and wood into\ncoal, until the stage of slow depression recommenced. And, in some\nlocalities, as I have mentioned, the process was repeated until the\nfirst of the alternating beds had sunk to near three miles below its\noriginal level at the surface of the earth.\n\nIn reflecting on the statement, thus briefly made, of the main facts\nconnected with the origin of the coal formed during the carboniferous\nepoch, two or three considerations suggest themselves.\n\nIn the first place, the great phantom of geological time rises before\nthe student of this, as of all other, fragments of the history of our\nearth--springing irrepressibly out of the facts, like the Djin from\nthe jar which the fisherman so incautiously opened; and like the Djin\nagain, being vaporous, shifting, and indefinable, but unmistakably\ngigantic. However modest the bases of one's calculation may be,\nthe minimum of time assignable to the coal period remains something\nstupendous.\n\nPrincipal Dawson is the last person likely to be guilty of\nexaggeration in this matter, and it will be well to consider what he\nhas to say about it:--\n\n    \"The rate of accumulation of coal was very slow. The climate\n    of the period, in the northern temperate zone, was of such\n    a character that the true conifers show rings of growth, not\n    larger, nor much less distinct, than those of many of their\n    modern congeners. The _Sigillariae_ and _Calamites_ were not,\n    as often supposed, composed wholly, or even principally, of\n    lax and soft tissues, or necessarily short-lived. The former\n    had, it is true, a very thick inner bark; but their dense\n    woody axis, their thick and nearly imperishable outer bark,\n    and their scanty and rigid foliage, would indicate no very\n    rapid growth or decay. In the case of the _Sigillariae_, the\n    variations in the leaf-scars in different parts of the trunk,\n    the intercalation of new ridges at the surface representing\n    that of new woody wedges in the axis, the transverse marks\n    left by the stages of upward growth, all indicate that several\n    years must have been required for the growth of stems of\n    moderate size. The enormous roots of these trees, and the\n    condition of the coal-swamps, must have exempted them from the\n    danger of being overthrown by violence. They probably fell in\n    successive generations from natural decay; and making every\n    allowance for other materials, we may safely assert that every\n    foot of thickness of pure bituminous coal implies the\n    quiet growth and fall of at least fifty generations of\n    _Sigillariae_, and therefore an undisturbed condition of\n    forest growth enduring through many centuries. Further, there\n    is evidence that an immense amount of loose parenchymatous\n    tissue, and even of wood, perished by decay, and we do not\n    know to what extent even the most durable tissues may have\n    disappeared in this way; so that, in many coal-seams, we may\n    have only a very small part of the vegetable matter produced.\"\n\nUndoubtedly the force of these reflections is not diminished when the\nbituminous coal, as in Britain, consists of accumulated spores and\nspore-cases, rather than of stems. But, suppose we adopt Principal\nDawson's assumption, that one foot of coal represents fifty\ngenerations of coal plants; and, further, make the moderate\nsupposition that each generation of coal plants took ten years to come\nto maturity--then, each foot-thickness of coal represents five hundred\nyears. The superimposed beds of coal in one coal-field may amount to\na thickness of fifty or sixty feet, and therefore the coal alone, in\nthat field, represents 500 x 50 = 25,000 years. But the actual coal is\nbut an insignificant portion of the total deposit, which, as has been\nseen, may amount to between two and three miles of vertical thickness.\nSuppose it be 12,000 feet--which is 240 times the thickness of the\nactual coal--is there any reason why we should believe it may not have\ntaken 240 times as long to form? I know of none. But, in this case,\nthe time which the coal-field represents would be 25,000 x 240\n=6,000,000 years. As affording a definite chronology, of course such\ncalculations as these are of no value; but they have much use in\nfixing one's attention upon a possible minimum. A man may be puzzled\nif he is asked how long Rome took a-building; but he is proverbially\nsafe if he affirms it not to have been built in a day; and our\ngeological calculations are all, at present, pretty much on that\nfooting.\n\nA second consideration which the study of the coal brings prominently\nbefore the mind of anyone who is familiar with palaeontology is, that\nthe coal Flora, viewed in relation to the enormous period of time\nwhich it lasted, and to the still vaster period which has elapsed\nsince it flourished, underwent little change while it endured, and in\nits peculiar characters, differs strangely little from that which at\npresent exists.\n\nThe same species of plants are to be met with throughout the whole\nthickness of a coal-field, and the youngest are not sensibly different\nfrom the oldest. But more than this. Notwithstanding that the\ncarboniferous period is separated from us by more than the whole time\nrepresented by the secondary and tertiary formations, the great types\nof vegetation were as distinct then as now. The structure of the\nmodern club-moss furnishes a complete explanation of the fossil\nremains of the _Lepidodendra_, and the fronds of some of the ancient\nferns are hard to distinguish from existing ones. At the same time,\nit must be remembered, that there is nowhere in the world, at present,\nany _forest_ which bears more than a rough analogy with a coal-forest.\nThe types may remain, but the details of their form, their relative\nproportions, their associates, are all altered. And the tree-fern\nforest of Tasmania, or New Zealand, gives one only a faint and remote\nimage of the vegetation of the ancient world.\n\nOnce more, an invariably-recurring lesson of geological history,\nat whatever point its study is taken up: the lesson of the almost\ninfinite slowness of the modification of living forms. The lines of\nthe pedigrees of living things break off almost before they begin to\nconverge.\n\nFinally, yet another curious consideration. Let us suppose that one of\nthe stupid, salamander-like Labyrinthodonts, which pottered, with\nmuch belly and little leg, like Falstaff in his old age, among the\ncoal-forests, could have had thinking power enough in his small brain\nto reflect upon the showers of spores which kept on falling through\nyears and centuries, while perhaps not one in ten million fulfilled\nits apparent purpose, and reproduced the organism which gave it birth:\nsurely he might have been excused for moralizing upon the thoughtless\nand wanton extravagance which Nature displayed in her operations.\n\nBut we have the advantage over our shovel-headed predecessor--or\npossibly ancestor--and can perceive that a certain vein of thrift runs\nthrough this apparent prodigality. Nature is never in a hurry, and\nseems to have had always before her eyes the adage, \"Keep a thing long\nenough, and you will find a use for it.\" She has kept her beds of coal\nmany millions of years without being able to find much use for them;\nshe has sent them down beneath the sea, and the sea-beasts could make\nnothing of them; she has raised them up into dry land, and laid the\nblack veins bare, and still, for ages and ages, there was no living\nthing on the face of the earth that could see any sort of value in\nthem; and it was only the other day, so to speak, that she turned a\nnew creature out of her workshop, who by degrees acquired sufficient\nwits to make a fire, and then to discover that the black rock would\nburn.\n\nI suppose that nineteen hundred years ago, when Julius Caesar was good\nenough to deal with Britain as we have dealt with New Zealand, the\nprimaeval Briton, blue with cold and woad, may have known that the\nstrange black stone, of which he found lumps here and there in his\nwanderings, would burn, and so help to warm his body and cook his\nfood. Saxon, Dane, and Norman swarmed into the land. The English\npeople grew into a powerful nation, and Nature still waited for a full\nreturn of the capital she had invested in the ancient club-mosses. The\neighteenth century arrived, and with it James Watt. The brain of that\nman was the spore out of which was developed the steam-engine, and all\nthe prodigious trees and branches of modern industry which have grown\nout of this. But coal is as much an essential condition of this growth\nand development as carbonic acid is for that of a club-moss. Wanting\ncoal, we could not have smelted the iron needed to make our engines,\nnor have worked our engines when we had got them. But take away the\nengines, and the great towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire vanish like a\ndream. Manufactures give place to agriculture and pasture, and not ten\nmen can live where now ten thousand are amply supported.\n\nThus, all this abundant wealth of money and of vivid life is Nature's\ninterest upon her investment in club-mosses, and the like, so long\nago. But what becomes of the coal which is burnt in yielding this\ninterest? Heat comes out of it, light comes out of it, and if we could\ngather together all that goes up the chimney; and all that remains in\nthe grate of a thoroughly-burnt coal-fire, we should find ourselves in\npossession of a quantity of carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and mineral\nmatters, exactly equal in weight to the coal. But these are the very\nmatters with which Nature supplied the club-mosses which made the\ncoal. She is paid back principal and interest at the same time; and\nshe straightway invests the carbonic acid, the water, and the ammonia\nin new forms of life, feeding with them the plants that now live.\nThrifty Nature! Surely no prodigal, but most notable of housekeepers!\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nON CORAL AND CORAL REEFS.\n\n\nThe marine productions which are commonly known by the names of\n\"Corals\" and \"Corallines,\" were thought by the ancients to be\nsea-weeds, which had the singular property of becoming hard and\nsolid, when they were fished up from their native depths and came into\ncontact with the air.\n\n    \"Sic et curalium, quo primum contigit auras Tempore durescit:\n    mollis fuit herba sub undis,\"\n\nsays Ovid (Metam. xv.); and it was not until the seventeenth century\nthat Boccone was emboldened, by personal experience of the facts, to\ndeclare that the holders of this belief were no better than \"idiots,\"\nwho had been misled by the softness of the outer coat of the living\nred coral to imagine that it was soft all through.\n\nMesser Boccone's strong epithet is probably undeserved, as the\nnotion he controverts, in all likelihood, arose merely from the\nmisinterpretation of the strictly true statement which any coral\nfisherman would make to a curious inquirer; namely, that the outside\ncoat of the red coral is quite soft when it is taken out of the sea.\nAt any rate, he did good service by eliminating this much error from\nthe current notions about coral. But the belief that corals are plants\nremained, not only in the popular, but in the scientific mind; and\nit received what appeared to be a striking confirmation from the\nresearches of Marsigli in 1706. For this naturalist, having the\nopportunity of observing freshly-taken red coral, saw that its\nbranches were beset with what looked like delicate and beautiful\nflowers, each having eight petals. It was true that these \"flowers\"\ncould protrude and retract themselves, but their motions were hardly\nmore extensive, or more varied, than those of the leaves of the\nsensitive plant; and therefore they could not be held to militate\nagainst the conclusion so strongly suggested by their form and their\ngrouping upon the branches of a tree-like structure.\n\nTwenty years later, a pupil of Marsigli, the young Marseilles\nphysician, Peyssonel, conceived the desire to study these singular\nsea-plants, and was sent by the French Government on a mission to the\nMediterranean for that purpose. The pupil undertook the investigation\nfull of confidence in the ideas of his master, but being able to see\nand think for himself, he soon discovered that those ideas by no means\naltogether corresponded with reality. In an essay entitled \"Trait\u00e9 du\nCorail,\" which was communicated to the French Academy of Science, but\nwhich has never been published, Peyssonel writes:--\n\n    \"Je fis fleurir le corail dans des vases pleins d'eau de mer,\n    et j'observai que ce que nous croyons \u00eatre la fleur de cette\n    pr\u00e9tendue plante n'\u00e9tait au vrai, qu'un insecte semblable \u00e0\n    une petite Ortie ou Poulpe. J'avais le plaisir de voir remuer\n    les pattes, ou pieds, de cette Ortie, et ayant mis le vase\n    plein d'eau o\u00f9 le corail \u00e9tait \u00e0 une douce chaleur aupr\u00e8s\n    du feu, tous les petites insectes s'\u00e9panouirent ... L'Ortie\n    sortie \u00e9tend les pieds, et forme ce que M. de Marsigli et moi\n    avions pris pour les p\u00e9tales de la fleur. Le calice de cette\n    pr\u00e9tendue fleur est le corps m\u00eame de l'animal avanc\u00e9 et sorti\n    hors de la cellule.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: This extract from Peysonnel's manuscript is given by\nM. Lacaze Duthiers in his valuable \"Histoire Naturelle du Corail\"\n(1866).]\n\nThe comparison of the flowers of the coral to a \"petite ortie\" or\n\"little nettle\" is perfectly just, but needs explanation. \"Ortie de\nmer,\" or \"sea-nettle,\" is, in fact, the French appellation for our\n\"sea-anemone,\" a creature with which everybody, since the great\naquarium mania, must have become familiar, even to the limits of\nboredom. In 1710, the great naturalist, R\u00e9aumur, had written a memoir\nfor the express purpose of demonstrating that these \"orties\" are\nanimals; and with this important paper Peyssonel must necessarily have\nbeen familiar. Therefore, when he declared the \"flowers\" of the red\ncoral to be little \"orties,\" it was the same thing as saying that\nthey were animals of the same general nature as sea-anemones. But\nto Peyssonel's contemporaries this was an extremely startling\nannouncement. It was hard to imagine the existence of such a thing\nas an association of animals into a structure with stem and branches\naltogether like a plant, and fixed to the soil as a plant is fixed;\nand the naturalists of that day preferred not to imagine it. Even\nR\u00e9aumur could not bring himself to accept the notion, and France being\nblessed with Academicians, whose great function (as the late Bishop\nWilson and an eminent modern writer have so well shown) is to cause\nsweetness and light to prevail, and to prevent such unmannerly fellows\nas Peyssonel from blurting out unedifying truths, they suppressed him;\nand, as aforesaid, his great work remained in manuscript, and may\nat this day be consulted by the curious in that state, in the\n\"Biblioth\u00e8que du Mus\u00e9um d'Histoire Naturelle.\" Peyssonel, who\nevidently was a person of savage and untameable disposition, so far\nfrom appreciating the kindness of the Academicians in giving him time\nto reflect upon the unreasonableness, not to say rudeness, of making\npublic statements in opposition to the views of some of the most\ndistinguished of their body, seems bitterly to have resented the\ntreatment he met with. For he sent all further communications to the\nRoyal Society of London, which never had, and it is to be hoped never\nwill have, anything of an academic constitution; and finally took\nhimself off to Guadaloupe, and became lost to science altogether.\n\nFifteen or sixteen years after the date of Peyssonel's suppressed\npaper, the Abb\u00e9 Trembley published his wonderful researches upon the\nfresh-water _Hydra_. Bernard de Jussieu and Guettard followed them\nup by like inquiries upon the marine sea-anemones and corallines;\nR\u00e9aumur, convinced against his will of the entire justice of\nPeyssonel's views, adopted them, and made him a half-and-half apology\nin the preface to the next published volume of the \"M\u00e9moires pour\nservir \u00e0 l'Histoire des Insectes;\" and, from this time forth,\nPeyssonel's doctrine that corals are the work of animal organisms has\nbeen part of the body of established scientific truth.\n\nPeyssonel, in the extract from his memoir already cited, compares the\nflower-like animal of the coral to a \"poulpe,\" which is the French\nform of the name \"polypus,\"--\"the many-footed,\"--which the ancient\nnaturalists gave to the soft-bodied cuttle-fishes, which, like the\ncoral animal, have eight arms, or tentacles, disposed around a central\nmouth. R\u00e9aumur, admitting the analogy indicated by Peyssonel, gave the\nname of _polypes_, not only to the sea-anemone, the coral animal, and\nthe fresh-water _Hydra_, but to what are now known as the _Polyzoa_,\nand he termed the skeleton which they fabricate a \"_polypier_\" or\n\"polypidom.\"\n\nThe progress of discovery, since R\u00e9aumur's time, has made us very\ncompletely acquainted with the structure and habits of all these\npolypes. We know that, among the sea-anemones and coral-forming\nanimals, each polype has a mouth leading to a stomach, which is open\nat its inner end, and thus communicates freely with the general cavity\nof the body; that the tentacles placed round the mouth are hollow, and\nthat they perform the part of arms in seizing and capturing prey. It\nis known that many of these creatures are capable of being multiplied\nby artificial division, the divided halves growing, after a time, into\ncomplete and separate animals; and that many are able to perform a\nvery similar process naturally, in such a manner that one polype may,\nby repeated incomplete divisions, give rise to a sort of sheet,\nor turf, formed by innumerable connected, and yet independent,\ndescendants. Or, what is still more common, a polype may throw out\nbuds, which are converted into polypes, or branches bearing polypes,\nuntil a tree-like mass, sometimes of very considerable size, is\nformed.\n\nThis is what happens in the case of the red coral of commerce. A\nminute polype, fixed to the rocky bottom of the deep sea, grows up\ninto a branched trunk. The end of every branch and twig is terminated\nby a polype; and all the polypes are connected together by a fleshy\nsubstance, traversed by innumerable canals which place each polype in\ncommunication with every other, and carry nourishment to the substance\nof the supporting stem. It is a sort of natural co-operative store,\nevery polype helping the whole, at the same time as it helps itself.\nThe interior of the stem, like that of the branches, is solidified\nby the deposition of carbonate of lime in its tissue, somewhat in the\nsame fashion as our own bones are formed of animal matter impregnated\nwith lime salts; and it is this dense skeleton (usually turned\ndeep red by a peculiar colouring matter) cleared of the soft animal\ninvestment, as the heart-wood of a tree might be stripped of its bark,\nwhich is the red coral.\n\nIn the case of the red coral, the hard skeleton belongs to the\ninterior of the stem and branches only; but in the commoner white\ncorals, each polype has a complete skeleton of its own. These\npolypes ate sometimes solitary, in which case the whole skeleton is\nrepresented by a single cup, with partitions radiating from its centre\nto its circumference. When the polypes formed by budding or division\nremain associated, the polypidom is sometimes made up of nothing but\nan aggregation of these cups, while at other times the cups are at\nonce separated and held together, by an intermediate substance, which\nrepresents the branches of the red coral. The red coral polype\nagain is a comparatively rare animal, inhabiting a limited area, the\nskeleton of which has but a very insignificant mass; while the white\ncorals are very common, occur in almost all seas, and form skeletons\nwhich are sometimes extremely massive.\n\nWith a very few exceptions, both the red and the white coral polypes\nare, in their adult state, firmly adherent to the sea-bottom; nor do\ntheir buds naturally become detached and locomotive. But, in addition\nto budding and division, these creatures possess the more ordinary\nmethods of multiplication; and, at particular seasons, they give\nrise to numerous eggs of minute size. Within these eggs the young are\nformed, and they leave the egg in a condition which has no sort of\nresemblance to the perfect animal. It is, in fact, a minute oval body,\nmany hundred times smaller than the full-grown creature, and it\nswims about with great activity by the help of multitudes of little\nhair-like filaments, called cilia, with which its body is covered.\nThese cilia all lash the water in one direction, and so drive the\nlittle body along as if it were propelled by thousands of extremely\nminute paddles. After enjoying its freedom for a longer or shorter\ntime, and being carried either by the force of its own cilia, or by\ncurrents which bear it along, the embryo coral settles down to the\nbottom, loses its cilia, and becomes fixed to the rock, gradually\nassuming the polype form and growing up to the size of its parent.\nAs the infant polypes of the coral may retain this free and active\ncondition for many hours, or even days, and as a tidal or other\ncurrent in the sea may easily flow at the speed of two or even\nmore miles in an hour, it is clear that the embryo must often be\ntransported to very considerable distances from the parent. And it\nis easily understood how a single polype, which may give rise to\nhundreds, or perhaps thousands, of embryos, may, by this process of\npartly active and partly passive migration, cover an immense surface\nwith its offspring. The masses of coral which may be formed by the\nassemblages of polypes which spring by budding, or by dividing, from a\nsingle polype, occasionally attain very considerable dimensions. Such\nskeletons are sometimes great plates, many feet long and several feet\nin thickness; or they may form huge half globes, like the brainstone\ncorals, or may reach the magnitude of stout shrubs, or even small\ntrees. There is reason to believe that such masses as these take a\nlong time to form, and hence that the age a polype tree, or polype\nturf, may attain, may be considerable. But, sooner or later, the coral\npolypes, like all other things, die; the soft flesh decays, while the\nskeleton is left as a stony mass at the bottom of the sea, where it\nretains its integrity for a longer or a shorter time, according as its\nposition affords it more or less protection from the wear and tear of\nthe waves.\n\nThe polypes which give rise to the white coral are found, as has been\nsaid, in the seas of all parts of the world; but in the temperate and\ncold oceans they are scattered and comparatively small in size,\nso that the skeletons of those which die do not accumulate in any\nconsiderable quantity. But it is otherwise in the greater part of the\nocean which lies in the warmer parts of the world, comprised within a\ndistance of about 1,800 miles on each side of the equator. Within the\nzone thus bounded, by far the greater part of the ocean is inhabited\nby coral polypes, which not only form very strong and large skeletons,\nbut associate together into great masses, like the thickets and the\nmeadow turf, or, better still, the accumulations of peat, to which\nplants give rise on the dry land. These masses of stony matter, heaped\nup beneath the waters of the ocean, become as dangerous to mariners\nas so much ordinary rock, and to these, as to common rock ridges, the\nseaman gives the name of \"reefs.\"\n\nSuch coral reefs cover many thousand square miles in the Pacific and\nin the Indian Oceans. There is one reef, or rather great series of\nreefs, called the Barrier Reef, which stretches, almost continuously,\nfor more than 1,100 miles off the east coast of Australia. Multitudes\nof the island in the Pacific are either reefs themselves, or are\nsurrounded by reefs. The Red Sea is in many parts almost a maze of\nsuch reefs; and they abound no less in the West Indies, along the\ncoast of Florida, and even as far north as the Bahama Islands. But it\nis a very remarkable circumstance that, within the area of what we may\ncall the \"coral zone,\" there are no coral reefs upon the west coast of\nAmerica, nor upon the west coast of Africa; and it is a general fact\nthat the reefs are interrupted, or absent, opposite the mouths of\ngreat rivers. The causes of this apparent caprice in the distribution\nof coral reefs are not far to seek. The polypes which fabricate them\nrequire for their vigorous growth a temperature which must not fall\nbelow 68 degrees Fahrenheit all the year round, and this temperature\nis only to be found within the distance on each side of the equator\nwhich has been mentioned, or thereabouts. But even within the coral\nzone this degree of warmth is not everywhere to be had. On the west\ncoast of America, and on the corresponding coast of Africa, currents\nof cold water from the icy regions which surround the South Pole set\nnorthward, and it appears to be due to their cooling influence that\nthe sea in these regions is free from the reef builders. Again, the\ncoral polypes cannot live in water which is rendered brackish by\nfloods from the land, or which is perturbed by mud from the same\nsource, and hence it is that they cease to exist opposite the mouths\nof rivers, which damage them in both these ways.\n\nSuch is the general distribution of the reef-building corals, but\nthere are some very interesting and singular circumstances to be\nobserved in the conformation of the reefs, when we consider them\nindividually. The reefs, in fact, are of three different kinds; some\nof them stretch out from the shore, almost like a prolongation of the\nbeach, covered only by shallow water, and in the case of an island,\nsurrounding it like a fringe of no considerable breadth. These are\ntermed \"fringing reefs.\" Others are separated by a channel which may\nattain a width of many miles, and a depth of twenty or thirty fathoms\nor more, from the nearest land; and when this land is an island, the\nreef surrounds it like a low wall, and the sea between the reef and\nthe land is, as it were, a moat inside this wall. Such reefs as these\nare called \"encircling\" when they surround an island; and \"barrier\"\nreefs, when they stretch parallel with the coast of a continent.\nIn both these cases there is ordinary dry land inside the reef, and\nseparated from it only by a narrower or a wider, a shallower or a\ndeeper, space of sea, which is called a \"lagoon,\" or \"inner passage.\"\nBut there is a third kind of reef, of very common occurrence in the\nPacific and Indian Oceans, which goes by the name of an \"Atoll.\" This\nis, to all intents and purposes, an encircling reef, without anything\nto encircle; or, in other words, without an island in the middle\nof its lagoon. The atoll has exactly the appearance of a vast,\nirregularly oval, or circular, breakwater, enclosing smooth water in\nits midst. The depth of the water in the lagoon rarely exceeds twenty\nor thirty fathoms, but, outside the reef, it deepens with great\nrapidity to 200 or 300 fathoms. The depth immediately outside the\nbarrier, or encircling, reefs, may also be very considerable; but, at\nthe outer edge of a fringing reef, it does not amount usually to more\nthan twenty or twenty-five fathoms; in other words, from 120 to 150\nfeet.\n\nThus, if the water of the ocean could be suddenly drained away, we\nshould see the atolls rising from the sea-bed like vast truncated\ncones, and resembling so many volcanic craters, except that their\nsides would be steeper than those of an ordinary volcano. In the case\nof the encircling reefs, the cone, with the enclosed island, would\nlook like Vesuvius with Monte Nuovo within the old crater of Somma;\nwhile, finally, the island with a fringing reef would have the\nappearance of an ordinary hill, or mountain, girded by a vast parapet,\nwithin which would lie a shallow moat. And the dry bed of the Pacific\nmight afford grounds for an inhabitant of the moon to speculate\nupon the extraordinary subterranean activity to which these vast and\nnumerous \"craters\" bore witness!\n\nWhen the structure of a fringing reef is investigated, the bottom of\nthe lagoon is found to be covered with fine whitish mud, which results\nfrom the breaking up of the dead corals. Upon this muddy floor there\nlie, here and there, growing corals, or occasionally great blocks of\ndead coral, which have been torn by storms from the outer edge of\nthe reef, and washed into the lagoon. Shell-fish and worms of various\nkinds abound; and fish, some of which prey upon the coral, sport in\nthe deeper pools. But the corals which are to be seen growing in the\nshallow waters of the lagoon are of a different kind from those which\nabound on the outer edge of the reef, and of which the reef is built\nup. Close to the seaward edge of the reef, over which, even in calm\nweather, a surf almost always breaks, the coral rock is encrusted with\na thick coat of a singular vegetable organism, which contains a great\ndeal of lime--the so-called _Nullipora_. Beyond this, in the part of\nthe edge of the reef which is always covered by the breaking waves,\nthe living, true, reef--polypes make their appearance; and, in\ndifferent forms, coat the steep seaward face of the reef to a depth of\n100 or even 150 feet. Beyond this depth the sounding-lead rests, not\nupon the wall-like face of the reef, but on the ordinary shelving\nsea-bottom. And the distance to which a fringing reef extends from the\nland corresponds with that at which the sea has a depth of twenty or\nfive-and-twenty fathoms.\n\nIf, as we have supposed, the sea could be suddenly withdrawn from\naround an island provided with a fringing reef, such as the Mauritius,\nthe reef would present the aspect of a terrace, its seaward face,\n100 feet or more high, blooming with the animal flowers of the coral,\nwhile its surface would be hollowed out into a shallow and irregular\nmoat-like excavation.\n\nThe coral mud, which occupies the bottom of the lagoon, and with which\nall the interstices of the coral skeletons which accumulate to form\nthe reef are filled up, does not proceed from the washing action of\nthe waves alone; innumerable fishes, and other creatures which prey\nupon the coral, add a very important contribution of finely-triturated\ncalcareous matter; and the corals and mud becoming incorporated\ntogether, gradually harden and give rise to a sort of limestone rock,\nwhich may vary a good deal in texture. Sometimes it remains friable\nand chalky, but, more often, the infiltration of water, charged with\ncarbonic acid, dissolves some of the calcareous matter, and deposits\nit elsewhere in the interstices of the nascent rock, thus glueing\nand cementing the particles together into a hard mass; or it may even\ndissolve the carbonate of lime more extensively, and re-deposit it in\na crystalline form. On the beach of the lagoon, where the coral sand\nis washed into layers by the action of the waves, its grains become\nthus fused together into strata of a limestone, so hard that they\nring when struck with a hammer, and inclined at a gentle angle,\ncorresponding with that of the surface of the beach. The hard parts\nof the many animals which live upon the reef become imbedded in this\ncoral limestone, so that a block may be full of shells of bivalves and\nunivalves, or of sea-urchins; and even sometimes encloses the eggs of\nturtles in a state of petrifaction. The active and vigorous growth of\nthe reef goes on only at the seaward margins, where the polypes are\nexposed to the wash of the surf, and are thereby provided with an\nabundant supply of air and of food. The interior portion of the reef\nmay be regarded as almost wholly an accumulation of dead skeletons.\nWhere a river comes down from the land there is a break in the reef,\nfor the reasons which have been already mentioned.\n\nThe origin and mode of formation of a fringing reef, such as that just\ndescribed, are plain enough. The embryos of the coral polypes have\nfixed themselves upon the submerged shore of the island, as far out as\nthey could live, namely, to a depth of twenty or twenty-five fathoms.\nOne generation has succeeded another, building itself up upon the dead\nskeletons of its predecessor. The mass has been consolidated by\nthe infiltration of coral mud, and hardened by partial solution and\nredeposition, until a great rampart of coral rock 100 or 150 feet high\non its seaward face has been formed all round the island, with only\nsuch gaps as result from the outflow of rivers, in the place of\nsally-ports.\n\nThe structure of the rocky accumulation in the encircling reefs and\nin the atolls is essentially the same as in the fringing reef. But, in\naddition to the differences of depth inside and out, they present\nsome other peculiarities. These reefs, and especially the atolls, are\nusually interrupted at one part of their circumference, and this part\nis always situated on the leeward side of the reef, or that which is\nthe more sheltered side. Now, as all these reefs are situated within\nthe region in which the trade-winds prevail, it follows that, on the\nnorth side of the equator, where the trade-wind is a north-easterly\nwind, the opening of the reef is on the south-west side: while in the\nsouthern hemisphere, where the trade-winds blow from the south-east,\nthe opening lies to the north-west. The curious practical result\nfollows from this structure, that the lagoons of these reefs really\nform admirable harbours, if a ship can only get inside them. But the\nmain difference between the encircling reefs and the atolls, on the\none hand, and the fringing reefs on the other, lies in the fact of the\nmuch greater depth of water on the seaward faces of the former. As a\nconsequence of this fact, the whole of this face is not, as it is in\nthe case of the fringing reef, covered with living coral polypes. For,\nas we have seen, these polypes cannot live at a greater depth than\nabout twenty-five fathoms; and actual observation has shown that\nwhile, down to this depth, the sounding-lead will bring up branches of\nlive coral from the outer wall of such a reef, at a greater depth it\nfetches to the surface nothing but dead coral and coral sand. We must,\ntherefore, picture to ourselves an atoll, or an encircling reef, as\nfringed for 100 feet, or more, from its summit, with coral polypes\nbusily engaged in fabricating coral; while, below this comparatively\nnarrow belt, its surface is a bare and smooth expanse of coral sand,\nsupported upon and within a core of coral limestone. Thus, if the bed\nof the Pacific were suddenly laid bare, as was just now supposed, the\nappearance of the reef-mountains would be exactly the reverse of that\npresented by many high mountains on land. For these are white with\nsnow at the top, while their bases are clothed with an abundant and\ngaudily-coloured vegetation. But the coral cones would look grey and\nbarren below, while their summits would be gay with a richly-coloured\nparterre of flower-like coral polypes.\n\nThe practical difficulties of sounding upon, and of bringing up\nportions of, the seaward face of an atoll or of an encircling reef,\nare so great, in consequence of the constant and dangerous swell which\nsets towards it, that no exact information concerning the depth to\nwhich the reefs are composed of coral has yet been obtained. There is\nno reason to doubt, however, that the reef-cone has the same structure\nfrom its summit to its base, and that its sea-wall is throughout\nmainly composed of dead coral.\n\nAnd now arises a serious difficulty. If the coral polypes cannot live\nat a greater depth than 100 or 150 feet, how can they have built up\nthe base of the reef-cone, which may be 2,000 feet, or more, below the\nsurface of the sea?\n\nIn order to get over this objection, it was at one time supposed that\nthe reef-building polypes had settled upon the summits of a chain\nof submarine mountains. But what is there in physical geography\nto justify the assumption of the existence of a chain of mountains\nstretching for 1,000 miles or more, and so nearly of the same height,\nthat none should rise above the level of the sea, nor fall 150 feet\nbelow that level?\n\nHow again, on this hypothesis, are atolls to be accounted for, unless,\nas some have done, we take refuge in the wild supposition that every\natoll corresponds with the crater of a submarine volcano? And what\nexplanation does it afford of the fact that, in some parts of the\nocean, only atolls and encircling reefs occur, while others present\nnone but fringing reefs?\n\nThese and other puzzling facts remained insoluble until the\npublication, in the year 1840, of Mr. Darwin's famous work on\ncoral reefs; in which a key was given to all the difficult problems\nconnected with the subject, and every difficulty was shown to be\ncapable of solution by deductive reasoning from a happy combination of\ncertain well-established geological and biological truths. Mr.\nDarwin, in fact, showed, that so long as the level of the sea remains\nunaltered in any area in which coral reefs are being formed, or if the\nlevel of the sea relatively to that of the land is falling, the\nonly reefs which can be formed are fringing reefs. While if, on the\ncontrary, the level of the sea is rising relatively to that of the\nland, at a rate not faster than that at which the upward growth of\nthe coral can keep pace with it, the reef will gradually pass from the\ncondition of a fringing, into that of an encircling or barrier reef.\nAnd, finally, that if the relative level of the sea rise so much that\nthe encircled land is completely submerged, the reef must necessarily\npass into the condition of an atoll.\n\nFor, suppose the relative level of the sea to remain stationary, after\na fringing reef has reached that distance from the land at which\nthe depth of water amounts to 150 feet. Then the reef cannot extend\nseaward by the migration of coral germs, because these coral germs\nwould find the bottom of the sea to be too deep for them to live in.\nAnd the only manner in which the reef could extend outwards, would\nbe by the gradual accumulation, at the foot of its seaward face, of a\ntalus of coral fragments torn off by the violence of the waves, which\ntalus might, in course of time, become high enough to bring its upper\nsurface within the limits of coral growth, and in that manner provide\na sort of factitious sea-bottom upon which the coral embryos might\nperch. If, on the other hand, the level of the sea were slowly and\ngradually lowered, it is clear that the parts of its bottom originally\nbeyond the limit of coral growth, would gradually be brought within\nthe required distance of the surface, and thus the reef might be\nindefinitely extended. But this process would give rise neither to an\nencircling reef nor to an atoll, but to a broad belt of upheaved\ncoral rock, increasing the dimensions of the dry land, and continuous\nseawards with the fresh fringing reef.\n\nSuppose, however, that the sea-level rose instead of falling, at the\nsame slow and gradual rate at which we know it to be rising in some\nparts of the world--not more, in fact, than a few inches, or, at\nmost, a foot or two, in a hundred years. Then, while the reef would\nbe unable to extend itself seaward, the sea-bottom outside it being\ngradually more and more removed from the depth at which the life of\nthe coral polypes is possible, it would be able to grow upwards\nas fast as the sea rose. But the growth would take place almost\nexclusively around the circumference of the reef, this being the only\nregion in which the coral polypes would find the conditions favourable\nfor their existence. The bottom of the lagoon would be raised, in the\nmain, only by the coral _d\u00e9bris_ and coral mud, formed in the manner\nalready described; consequently, the margins of the reef would\nrise faster than the bottom, or, in other words, the lagoon would\nconstantly become deeper. And, at the same time, it would gradually\nincrease in breadth; as the rising sea, covering more and more of the\nland, would occupy a wider space between the edge of the reef and what\nremained of the land. Thus the rising sea would eventually convert a\nlarge island with a fringing reef, into a small island surrounded by\nan encircling reef. And it will be obvious that when the rising of the\nsea has gone so far as completely to cover the highest points of the\nisland, the reef will have passed into the condition of an atoll.\n\nBut how is it possible that the relative level of the land and sea\nshould be altered to this extent? Clearly, only in one of two ways:\neither the sea must have risen over those areas which are now covered\nby atolls and encircling reefs; or, the land upon which the sea rests\nmust have been depressed to a corresponding extent.\n\nIf the sea has risen, its rise must have taken place over the whole\nworld simultaneously, and it must have risen to the same height over\nall parts of the coral zone. Grounds have been shown for the belief\nthat the general level of the sea may have been different at different\ntimes; it has been suggested, for example, that the accumulation of\nice about the poles during one of the cold periods of the earth's\nhistory, necessarily implies a diminution in the volume of the sea\nproportioned to the amount of its water thus permanently locked up in\nthe Arctic and Antarctic ice-cellars; while, in the warm periods,\nthe greater or less disappearance of the polar ice-cap implies a\ncorresponding addition of water to the ocean. And no doubt this\nreasoning must be admitted to be sound in principle; though it is very\nhard to say what practical effect the additions and subtractions thus\nmade have had on the level of the ocean; inasmuch as such additions\nand subtractions might be either intensified or nullified, by\ncontemporaneous changes in the level of the land. And no one has yet\nshown that any such great melting of polar ice, and consequent raising\nof the level of the water of the ocean, has taken place since the\nexisting atolls began to be formed.\n\nIn the absence of any evidence that the sea has ever risen to the\nextent required to give rise to the encircling reefs and the atolls,\nMr. Darwin adopted the opposite hypothesis, viz. that the land has\nundergone extensive and slow depression in those localities in which\nthese structures exist.\n\nIt seems, at first, a startling paradox, to suppose that the land\nis less fixed than the sea; but that such is the case is the uniform\ntestimony of geology. Beds of sandstone or limestone, thousands of\nfeet thick, and all full of marine remains, occur in various parts of\nthe earth's surface, and prove, beyond a doubt, that when these beds\nwere formed, that portion of the sea-bottom which they then occupied\nunderwent a slow and gradual depression to a distance which cannot\nhave been less than the thickness of those beds, and may have been\nvery much greater. In supposing, therefore, that the great areas of\nthe Pacific and of the Indian Ocean, over which atolls and encircling\nreefs are found scattered, have undergone a depression of some\nhundreds, or, it may be, thousands of feet, Mr. Darwin made a\nsupposition which had nothing forced or improbable, but was entirely\nin accordance with what we know to have taken place over similarly\nextensive areas, in other periods of the world's history. But Mr.\nDarwin subjected his hypothesis to an ingenious indirect test. If\nhis view be correct, it is clear that neither atolls, nor encircling\nreefs, should be found in those portions of the ocean in which we have\nreason to believe, on independent grounds, that the sea-bottom has\nlong been either stationary, or slowly rising. Now it is known that,\nas a general rule, the level of the land is either stationary, or is\nundergoing a slow upheaval, in the neighbourhood of active volcanoes;\nand, therefore, neither atolls nor encircling reefs ought to be found\nin regions in which volcanoes are numerous and active. And this turns\nout to be the case. Appended to Mr. Darwin's great work on coral\nreefs, there is a map on which atolls and encircling reefs are\nindicated by one colour, fringing reefs by another, and active\nvolcanoes by a third. And it is at once obvious that the lines of\nactive volcanoes lie around the margins of the areas occupied by the\natolls and the encircling reefs. It is exactly as if the upheaving\nvolcanic agencies had lifted up the edges of these great areas, while\ntheir centres had undergone a corresponding depression. An atoll area\nmay, in short, be pictured as a kind of basin, the margins of which\nhave been pushed up by the subterranean forces, to which the craters\nof the volcanoes have, at intervals, given vent.\n\nThus we must imagine the area of the Pacific now covered by the\nPolynesian Archipelago, as having been, at some former time,\noccupied by large islands, or, may be, by a great continent, with the\nordinarily diversified surface of plain, and hill, and mountain chain.\nThe shores of this great land were doubtless fringed by coral reefs;\nand, as it slowly underwent depression, the hilly regions, converted\ninto islands, became, at first, surrounded by fringing reefs, and\nthen, as depression went on, these became converted into encircling\nreefs, and these, finally, into atolls, until a maze of reefs and\ncoral-girdled islets took the place of the original land masses.\n\nThus the atolls and the encircling reefs furnish us with clear, though\nindirect, evidence of changes in the physical geography of large parts\nof the earth's surface; and even, as my lamented friend, the late\nProfessor Jukes, has suggested, give us indications of the manner in\nwhich some of the most puzzling facts connected with the distribution\nof animals have been brought about. For example, Australia and New\nGuinea are separated by Torres Straits, a broad belt of sea 100 or\n120 miles wide. Nevertheless, there is in many respects a curious\nresemblance between the land animals which inhabit New Guinea and\nthe land animals which inhabit Australia. But, at the same time, the\nmarine shell-fish which are found in the shallow waters of the shores\nof New Guinea, are quite different from those which are met with upon\nthe coasts of Australia. Now, the eastern end of Torres Straits is\nfull of atolls, which, in fact, form the northern termination of the\nGreat Barrier Reef which skirts the eastern coast of Australia. It\nfollows, therefore, that the eastern end of Torres Straits is an area\nof depression, and it is very possible, and on many grounds highly\nprobable, that, in former times, Australia and New Guinea were\ndirectly connected together, and that Torres Straits did not exist.\nIf this were the case, the existence of cassowaries and of marsupial\nquadrupeds, both in New Guinea and in Australia, becomes intelligible;\nwhile the difference between the littoral molluscs of the north and\nthe south shores of Torres Straits is readily explained by the great\nprobability that, when the depression in question took place, and\nwhat was, at first, an arm of the sea became converted into a strait\nseparating Australia from New Guinea, the northern shore of this new\nsea became tenanted with marine animals from the north, while the\nsouthern shore was peopled by immigrants from the already existing\nmarine Australian fauna.\n\nInasmuch as the growth of the reef depends upon that of successive\ngenerations of coral polypes, and as each generation takes a certain\ntime to grow to its full size, and can only separate its calcareous\nskeleton from the water in which it lives at a certain rate, it is\nclear that the reefs are records not only of changes in physical\ngeography, but of the lapse of time. It is by no means easy, however,\nto estimate the exact value of reef-chronology, and the attempts which\nhave been made to determine the rate at which a reef grows vertically,\nhave yielded anything but precise results. A cautious writer, Mr.\nDana, whose extensive study of corals and coral reefs makes him an\neminently competent judge, states his conclusion in the following\nterms:--\n\n    \"The rate of growth of the common branching madrepore is not\n    over one and a half inches a year. As the branches are open,\n    this would not be equivalent to more than half an inch in\n    height of solid coral for the whole surface covered by\n    the madrepore; and, as they are also porous, to not over\n    three-eighths of an inch of solid limestone. But a coral\n    plantation has large bare patches without corals, and the\n    coral sands are widely distributed by currents, part of them\n    to depths over one hundred feet where there are no living\n    corals; not more than one-sixth of the surface of a reef\n    region is, in fact, covered with growing species. This reduces\n    the three-eighths to _one-sixteenth_. Shells and other organic\n    relics may contribute one-fourth as much as corals. At the\n    outside, the average upward increase of the whole reef-ground\n    per year would not exceed _one-eighth_ of an inch.\n\n    \"Now some reefs are at least two thousand feet thick, which at\n    one-eighth of an inch a year, corresponds to one hundred and\n    ninety-two thousand years.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Dana, \"Manual of Geology,\" p. 591.]\n\nHalve, or quarter, this estimate if you will, in order to be certain\nof erring upon the right side, and still there remains a prodigious\nperiod during which the ancestors of the existing coral polypes have\nbeen undisturbedly at work; and during which, therefore, the climatal\nconditions over the coral area must have been much what they are now.\n\nAnd all this lapse of time has occurred within the most recent period\nof the history of the earth. The remains of reefs formed by coral\npolypes of different kinds from those which exist now, enter largely\ninto the composition of the limestones of the Jurassic period; and\nstill more widely different coral polypes have contributed their quota\nto the vast thickness of the carboniferous and Devonian strata. Then\nas regards the latter group of rocks in America, the high authority\nalready quoted tells us:--\n\n    \"The Upper Helderberg period is eminently the coral reef\n    period of the palaeozoic ages. Many of the rocks abound in\n    coral, and are as truly coral reefs as the modern reefs of the\n    Pacific. The corals are sometimes standing on the rocks in the\n    position they had when growing: others are lying in fragments,\n    as they were broken and heaped by the waves; and others were\n    reduced to a compact limestone by the finer trituration before\n    consolidation into rock. This compact variety is the most\n    common kind among the coral reef rocks of the present seas;\n    and it often contains but few distinct fossils, although\n    formed in water that abounded in life. At the fall of the\n    Ohio, near Louisville, there is a magnificent display of\n    the old reef. Hemispherical _Favosites_, five or six feet\n    in diameter, lie there nearly as perfect as when they were\n    covered by their flower-like polypes; and besides these,\n    there are various branching corals, and a profusion of\n    _Cyathophiyllia_, or cup-corals.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Dana, \"Manual of Geology,\" p. 272.]\n\nThus, in all the great periods of the earth's history of which we\nknow anything, a part of the then living matter has had the form of\npolypes, competent to separate from the water of the sea the carbonate\nof lime necessary for their own skeletons. Grain by grain, and\nparticle by particle, they have built up vast masses of rock, the\nthickness of which is measured by hundreds of feet, and their area by\nthousands of square miles. The slow oscillations of the crust of the\nearth, producing great changes in the distribution of land and water,\nhave often obliged the living matter of the coral-builders to shift\nthe locality of its operations; and, by variation and adaptation to\nthese modifications of condition, its forms have as often changed. The\nwork it has done in the past is, for the most part, swept away, but\nfragments remain; and, if there were no other evidence, suffice to\nprove the general constancy of the operations of Nature in this world,\nthrough periods of almost inconceivable duration.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nON THE METHODS AND RESULTS OF ETHNOLOGY.\n\n\nEthonology is the science which determines the distinctive characters\nof the persistent modifications of mankind; which ascertains the\ndistribution of those modifications in present and past times, and\nseeks to discover the causes, or conditions of existence, both of\nthe modifications and of their distribution. I say \"persistent\"\nmodifications, because, unless incidentally, ethnology has nothing to\ndo with chance and transitory peculiarities of human structure. And\nI speak of \"persistent modifications\" or \"stocks\" rather than of\n\"varieties,\" or \"races,\" or \"species,\" because each of these last\nwell-known terms implies, on the part of its employer, a preconceived\nopinion touching one of those problems, the solution of which is the\nultimate object of the science; and in regard to which, therefore,\nethnologists are especially bound to keep their minds open and their\njudgments freely balanced.\n\nEthnology, as thus defined, is a branch of anthropology, the great\nscience which unravels the complexities of human structure; traces out\nthe relations of man to other animals; studies all that is especially\nhuman in the mode in which man's complex functions are performed; and\nsearches after the conditions which have determined his presence in\nthe world. And anthropology is a section of zoology, which again is\nthe animal half of biology--the science of life and living things.\n\nSuch is the position of ethnology, such are the objects of the\nethnologist. The paths or methods, by following which he may hope to\nreach his goal, are diverse. He may work at man from the point of\nview of the pure zoologist, and investigate the anatomical and\nphysiological peculiarities of Negroes, Australians, or Mongolians,\njust as he would inquire into those of pointers, terriers, and\nturnspits,--\"persistent modifications\" of man's almost universal\ncompanion. Or he may seek aid from researches into the most human\nmanifestation of humanity--language; and assuming that what is true of\nspeech is true of the speaker--a hypothesis as questionable in science\nas it is in ordinary life--he may apply to mankind themselves the\nconclusions drawn from a searching analysis of their words and\ngrammatical forms.\n\nOr, the ethnologist may turn to the study of the practical life\nof men; and relying upon the inherent conservatism and small\ninventiveness of untutored mankind, he may hope to discover in manners\nand customs, or in weapons, dwellings, and other handiwork, a clue to\nthe origin of the resemblances and differences of nations. Or, he may\nresort to that kind of evidence which is yielded by history proper,\nand consists of the beliefs of men concerning past events, embodied\nin traditional, or in written, testimony. Or, when that thread breaks,\narchaeology, which is the interpretation of the unrecorded remains of\nman's works, belonging to the epoch since the world has reached its\npresent condition, may still guide him. And, when even the dim light\nof archaeology fades, there yet remains paleontology, which, in these\nlatter years, has brought to daylight once more the exuvia of ancient\npopulations, whose world was not our world, who have been buried in\nriver beds immemorially dry, or carried by the rush of waters into\ncaves, inaccessible to inundation since the dawn of tradition.\n\nAlong each, or all, of these paths the ethnologist may press towards\nhis goal; but they are not equally straight, or sure, or easy to\ntread. The way of palaeontology has but just been laid open to us.\nArchaeological and historical investigations are of great value for\nall those peoples whose ancient state has differed widely from their\npresent condition, and who have the good or evil fortune to possess a\nhistory. But on taking a broad survey of the world, it is astonishing\nhow few nations present either condition. Respecting five-sixths of\nthe persistent modifications of mankind, history and archaeology are\nabsolutely silent. For half the rest, they might as well be silent for\nanything that is to be made of their testimony. And, finally, when the\nquestion arises as to what was the condition of mankind more than a\npaltry two or three thousand years ago, history and archaeology are,\nfor the most part, mere dumb dogs. What light does either of these\nbranches of knowledge throw on the past of the man of the New World,\nif we except the Central Americans and the Peruvians; on that of the\nAfricans, save those of the valley of the Nile and a fringe of the\nMediterranean; on that of all the Polynesian, Australian, and central\nAsiatic peoples, the former of whom probably, and the last certainly,\nwere, at the dawn of history, substantially what they are now? While\nthankfully accepting what history has to give him, therefore, the\nethnologist must not look for too much from her.\n\nIs more to be expected from inquiries into the customs and handicrafts\nof men? It is to be feared not. In reasoning from identity of custom\nto identity of stock the difficulty always obtrudes itself, that\nthe minds of men being everywhere similar, differing in quality and\nquantity but not in kind of faculty, like circumstances must tend to\nproduce like contrivances; at any rate, so long as the need to be\nmet and conquered is of a very simple kind. That two nations use\ncalabashes or shells for drinking-vessels, or that they employ\nspears, or clubs, or swords and axes of stone and metal as weapons and\nimplements, cannot be regarded as evidence that these two nations\nhad a common origin, or even that intercommunication ever took place\nbetween them; seeing that the convenience of using calabashes or\nshells for such purposes, and the advantage of poking an enemy with a\nsharp stick, or hitting him with a heavy one, must be early forced\nby nature upon the mind of even the stupidest savage. And when he had\nfound out the use of a stick, he would need no prompting to discover\nthe value of a chipped or wetted stone, or an angular piece of native\nmetal, for the same object. On the other hand, it may be doubted\nwhether the chances are not greatly against independent peoples\narriving at the manufacture of a boomerang, or of a bow; which last,\nif one comes to think of it, is a rather complicated apparatus; and\nthe tracing of the distribution of inventions as complex as these,\nand of such strange customs as betel-chewing and tobacco-smoking, may\nafford valuable ethnological hints.\n\nSince the time of Leibnitz, and guided by such men as Humboldt, Abel\nRemusat, and Klaproth, Philology has taken far higher ground. Thus\nPrichard affirms that \"the history of nations, termed Ethnology, must\nbe mainly founded on the relations of their languages.\"\n\nAn eminent living philologer, August Schleicher, in a recent essay,\nputs forward the claims of his science still more forcibly:--\n\n    \"If, however, language is the human [Greek: kat ezochh\u00ean], the\n    suggestion arises whether it should not form the basis of\n    any scientific systematic arrangement of mankind; whether the\n    foundation of the natural classification of the genus Homo has\n    not been discovered in it.\n\n    \"How little constant are cranial peculiarities and other\n    so-called race characters! Language, on the other hand,\n    is always a perfectly constant diagnostic. A German may\n    occasionally compete in hair and prognathism with a negro,\n    but a negro language will never be his mother tongue. Of how\n    little importance for mankind the so-called race characters\n    are, is shown by the fact that speakers of languages belonging\n    to one and the same linguistic family may exhibit the\n    peculiarities of various races. Thus the settled Osmanli Turk\n    exhibits Caucasian characters, while other so-called Tartaric\n    Turks exemplify the Mongol type. On the other hand, the\n    Magyar and the Basque do not depart in any essential physical\n    peculiarity from the Indo-Germans, whilst the Magyar, Basque,\n    and Indo-Germanic tongues are widely different. Apart from\n    their inconstancy, again, the so-called race characters can\n    hardly yield a scientifically natural system. Languages, on\n    the other hand, readily fall into a natural arrangement, like\n    that of which other vital products are susceptible, especially\n    when viewed from their morphological side.... The externally\n    visible structure of the cerebral and facial skeletons, and\n    of the body generally, is less important than that no less\n    material but infinitely more delicate corporeal structure, the\n    function of which is speech. I conceive, therefore, that\n    the natural classification of languages is also the natural\n    classification of mankind. With language, moreover, all the\n    higher manifestations of man's vital activity are closely\n    interwoven, so that these receive due recognition in and by\n    that of speech.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: August Schleicher. Ueber die Bedeutung der Sprache f\u00fcr\ndie Naturgeschichte des Menschen, pp. 16-18. Weimar, 1858.]\n\nWithout the least desire to depreciate the value of philology as\nan adjuvant to ethnology, I must venture to doubt, with Rudolphi,\nDesmoulins, Crawfurd, and others, its title to the leading position\nclaimed for it by the writers whom I have just quoted. On the\ncontrary, it seems to me obvious that, though, in the absence of any\nevidence to the contrary, unity of languages may afford a certain\npresumption in favour of the unity of stock of the peoples speaking\nthose languages, it cannot be held to prove that unity of stock,\nunless philologers are prepared to demonstrate, that no nation can\nlose its language and acquire that of a distinct nation, without a\nchange of blood corresponding with the change of language. Desmoulins\nlong ago put this argument exceedingly well:--\n\n    \"Let us imagine the recurrence of one of those slow, or\n    sudden, political revolutions, or say of those secular changes\n    which among different people and at different epochs have\n    annihilated historical monuments and even extinguished\n    tradition. In that case, the evidence, now so clear, that the\n    negroes of Hayti were slaves imported by a French colony, who,\n    by the very effect of the subordination involved in slavery,\n    lost their own diverse languages and adopted that of their\n    masters, would vanish. And metaphysical philosophers,\n    observing the identity of Haytian French with that spoken on\n    the shores of the Seine and the Loire, would argue that the\n    men of St. Domingo with woolly heads, black and oily skins,\n    small calves, and slightly bent knees, are of the same race,\n    descended from the same parental stock, as the Frenchmen with\n    silky brown, chestnut, or fair hair, and white skins. For they\n    would say, their languages are more similar than French is to\n    German or Spanish.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Desmoulins, \"Histoire Naturelle des Races Humaines,\" p.\n345. 1826.]\n\nIt must not be imagined that the case put by Desmoulins is a merely\nhypothetical one. Events precisely similar to the transport of a body\nof Africans to the West India Islands, indeed, cannot have happened\namong uncivilized races, but similar results have followed the\nimportation of bodies of conquerors among an enslaved people over and\nover again. There is hardly a country in Europe in which two or more\nnations speaking widely different tongues have not become intermixed;\nand there is hardly a language of Europe of which we have any right\nto think that its structure affords a just indication of the amount of\nthat intermixture.\n\nAs Dr. Latham has well said:--\n\n    \"It is certain that the language of England is of Anglo-Saxon\n    origin, and that the remains of the original Keltic are\n    unimportant. It is by no means so certain that the blood of\n    Englishmen is equally Germanic. A vast amount of Kelticism,\n    not found in our tongue, very probably exists in our\n    pedigrees. The ethnology of France is still more complicated.\n    Many writers make the Parisian a Roman on the strength of his\n    language; whilst others make him a Kelt on the strength of\n    certain moral characteristics, combined with the previous\n    Kelticism of the original Gauls. Spanish and Portuguese, as\n    languages, are derivations from the Latin; Spain and Portugal,\n    as countries, are Iberic, Latin, Gothic, and Arab, in\n    different proportions. Italian is modern Latin all the world\n    over; yet surely there must be much Keltic blood in Lombardy,\n    and much Etruscan intermixture in Tuscany.\n\n    \"In the ninth century every man between the Elbe and the\n    Niemen spoke some Slavonic dialect; they now nearly all speak\n    German. Surely the blood is less exclusively Gothic than the\n    speech.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Latham, \"Man and his Migrations,\" p. 171.]\n\nIn other words, what philologer, if he had nothing but the vocabulary\nand grammar of the French and English languages to guide him, would\ndream of the real causes of the unlikeness of a Norman to a Proven\u00e7al,\nof an Orcadian to a Cornishman? How readily might he be led to suppose\nthat the different climatal conditions to which these speakers of\none tongue have so long been exposed, have caused their physical\ndifferences; and how little would he suspect that these are due (as we\nhappen to know they are) to wide differences of blood.\n\nFew take duly into account the evidence which exists as to the\nease with which unlettered savages gain or lose a language. Captain\nErskine, in his interesting \"Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of\nthe Western Pacific,\" especially remarks upon the \"avidity with\nwhich the inhabitants of the polyglot islands of Melanesia, from New\nCaledonia to the Solomon Islands, adopt the improvements of a more\nperfect language than their own, which different causes and accidental\ncommunication still continue to bring to them;\" and he adds that\n\"among the Melanesian islands scarcely one was found by us which did\nnot possess, in some cases still imperfectly, the decimal system of\nnumeration in addition to their own, in which they reckon only to\nfive.\"\n\nYet how much philological reasoning in favour of the affinity\nor diversity of two distinct peoples has been based on the mere\ncomparison of numerals!\n\nBut the most instructive example of the fallacy which may attach to\nmerely philological reasonings, is that afforded by the Feejeans, who\nare, physically, so intimately connected with the adjacent Negritos of\nNew Caledonia, &c., that no one can doubt to what stock they belong,\nand who yet, in the form and substance of their language, are\nPolynesian. The case is as remarkable as if the Canary Islands should\nhave been found to be inhabited by negroes speaking Arabic, or some\nother clearly Semitic dialect, as their mother tongue. As it happens,\nthe physical peculiarities of the Feejeans are so striking, and\nthe conditions under which they live are so similar to those of the\nPolynesians, that no one has ventured to suggest that they are merely\nmodified Polynesians--a suggestion which could otherwise certainly\nhave been made. But if languages may be thus transferred from one\nstock to another, without any corresponding intermixture of blood,\nwhat ethnological value has philology?--what security does unity of\nlanguage afford us that the speakers of that language may not have\nsprung from two, or three, or a dozen, distinct sources?\n\nThus we come, at last, to the purely zoological method, from which\nit is not unnatural to expect more than from any other, seeing that,\nafter all, the problems of ethnology are simply those which are\npresented to the zoologist by every widely distributed animal he\nstudies. The father of modern zoology seems to have had no doubt upon\nthis point. At the twenty-eighth page of the standard twelfth edition\nof the \"Systema Naturae,\" in fact, we find:--\n\n\n\nI. PRIMATES.\n\n\n_Dentes primores incisores: superiores IV. paralleli, mammae\npectorales II._\n\n1. HOMO.        Nosce te ipsum.\nSapiens.        1. H. diurnus: _varians cultura, loco._\n_Ferus_.   Tetrapus, mutus, hirsutus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Americanus_ [Greek: a].  Rufus, cholericus, rectus--_Pilis_\n                               nigris, rectis, crassis--_Naribus_\n                               patulis--_Facie_ ephelitica:\n                               _Mento_ subimberbi.\n                               _Pertinax_, contentus, liber. _Pingit_\n                               se lineis daedaleis rubris.\n                               _Regitur_ Consuetudine.\n\n_Europaeus_ [Greek: b].   Albus sauguineus torosus. _Pilis_\n                               flavescentibus, prolixis.\n                               _Oculis_ caeruleis.\n                               _Levis_, argutus, inventor.\n                               _Tegitur_ Vestimentis arctis.\n                               _Regitur_ Ritibus.\n\n_Asiaticus_ [Greek: g].   Luridus, melancholicus, rigidus.\n                               _Pilis_ nigricantibus. _Oculis_\n                               fuscis.  _Severus_, fastuosus, avarus.\n                               _Tegitur_ Indumentis laxis.\n                               _Regitur_ Opinionibus.\n\n_Afer_ [Greek: d].        Niger, phlegmaticus, laxus. _Pilis_\n                               atris, contortuplicatis. _Cute_ holosericea.\n                               _Naso_ simo.  _Labiis_ tumidis.\n                               _Feminis_ sinus pudoris.\n                               _Mammae_ lactantes prolixae.\n                               _Vafer_, segnis, negligens. _Ungit_ se\n                               pingui. _Regitur_ Arbitrio.\n\n_Monstrosus_ [Greek: e].  Solo (a) et arte (b c) variat.:\n                            a. _Alpini_ parvi, agiles, timidi.\n                               _Patagonici_ magni, segnes.\n                            b. _Monorchides_ ut minus fertiles:\n                               Hottentotti.\n                               _Junceae_ puellae, abdomine attenuato:\n                               Europoeae.\n                            c. _Macrocephali_ capiti conico: Chinenses.\n                               _Plagiocephali_ capite antice compresso:\n                               Canadenses.\n\nTurn a few pages further on in the same volume, and there appears,\nwith a fine impartiality in the distribution of capitals and\nsub-divisional headings:--\n\nIII. FERAE.\n\n\n_Dentes primores superiores sex, acutiusculi. Canini solitarii._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n12. CANIS.           _Dentes primores_ superiores VI.: laterales\n                     longiores distantes: intermedii lobati.\n                     Inferiores VI.: laterales lobati.\n                     _Laniarii_ solitarii, incurvati.\n                     Molares VI. s. VII. (pluresve quam in reliquis).\n\n_familiaris_ [Greek: i].  C. cauda (sinistrorsum) recurvata....\n\n_domesticus_ [Greek: a].  auriculis erectis, cauda subtus lanata.\n\n_sagax_ [Greek: b].       auriculis pendulis, digito spurio ad\n                          tibias posticas.\n\n_grajus_ [Greek: g].      magnitudine lupi, trunco curvato, rostro\n                          attenuato, &c. &c.\n\nLinnaeus' definition of what he considers to be mere varieties of\nthe species Man are, it will be observed, as completely free from\nany allusion to linguistic peculiarities as those brief and pregnant\nsentences in which he sketches the characters of the varieties of\nthe species Dog. \"Pilis nigris, naribus patulis\" may be set against\n\"auriculis erectis, cauda subtus lanata;\" while the remarks on the\nmorals and manners of the human subject seem as if they were thrown in\nmerely by way of makeweight.\n\nBuffon, Blumenbach (the founder of ethnology as a special science),\nRudolphi, Bory de St. Vincent, Desmoulins, Cuvier, Retzius, indeed I\nmay say all the naturalists proper, have dealt with man from a no\nless completely zoological point of view; while, as might have been\nexpected, those who have been least naturalists, and most linguists,\nhave most neglected the zoological method, the neglect culminating in\nthose who have been altogether devoid of acquaintance with anatomy.\n\nPrichard's proposition, that language is more persistent than physical\ncharacters, is one which has never been proved, and indeed admits of\nno proof, seeing that the records of language do not extend so far\nas those of physical characters. But, until the superior tenacity\nof linguistic over physical peculiarities is shown, and until the\nabundant evidence which exists, that the language of a people may\nchange without corresponding physical change in that people, is shown\nto be valueless, it is plain that the zoological court of appeal\nis the highest for the ethnologist, and that no evidence can be set\nagainst that derived from physical characters.\n\nWhat, then, will a new survey of mankind from the Linnaean point of\nview teach us?\n\nThe great antipodal block of land we call Australia has, speaking\nroughly, the form of a vast quadrangle, 2,000 miles on the side, and\nextends from the hottest tropical, to the middle of the temperate,\nzone. Setting aside the foreign colonists introduced within the\nlast century, it is inhabited by people no less remarkable for the\nuniformity, than for the singularity, of their physical characters and\nsocial state. For the most part of fair stature, erect and well built,\nexcept for an unusual slenderness of the lower limbs, the AUSTRALIANS\nhave dark, usually chocolate-coloured skins; fine dark wavy hair; dark\neyes, overhung by beetle brows; coarse, projecting jaws; broad and\ndilated, but not especially flattened, noses; and lips which, though\nprominent, are eminently flexible.\n\nThe skulls of these people are always long and narrow, with a smaller\ndevelopment of the frontal sinuses than usually corresponds with such\nlargely developed brow ridges. An Australian skull of a round form,\nor one the transverse diameter of which exceeds eight-tenths of its\nlength, has never been seen. These people, in a word, are eminently\n\"dolichocephalic,\" or long-headed; but, with this one limitation,\ntheir crania present considerable variations, some being comparatively\nhigh and arched, while others are more remarkably depressed than\nalmost any other human skulls.\n\nThe female pelvis differs comparatively little from the European;\nbut in the pelves of male Australians which I have examined, the\nantero-posterior and transverse diameters approach equality more\nnearly than is the case in Europeans.\n\nNo Australian tribe has ever been known to cultivate the ground,\nto use metals, pottery, or any kind of textile fabric. They rarely\nconstruct huts. Their means of navigation are limited to rafts or\ncanoes, made of sheets of bark. Clothing, except skin cloaks for\nprotection from cold, is a superfluity with which they dispense; and\nthough they have some singular weapons, almost peculiar to themselves,\nthey are wholly unacquainted with bows and arrows.\n\nIt is but a step, as it were, across Bass's Straits to Tasmania.\nNeither climate nor the characteristic forms of vegetable or animal\nlife change largely on the south side of the Straits, but the early\nvoyagers found Man singularly different from him on the north side.\nThe skin of the Tasmanian was dark, though he lived between parallels\nof latitude corresponding with those of middle Europe in our own\nhemisphere; his jaws projected, his head was long and narrow; his\ncivilization was about on a footing with that of the Australian, if\nnot lower, for I cannot discover that the Tasmanian understood the\nuse of the throwing-stick. But he differed from the Australian in his\nwoolly, negro-like hair, whence the name of NEGRITO, which has been\napplied to him and his congeners.\n\nSuch Negritos--differing more or less from the Tasmanian, but agreeing\nwith him in dark skin and woolly hair--occupy New Caledonia, the New\nHebrides, the Louisiade Archipelago; and stretching to the Papuan\nIslands, and for a doubtful extent beyond them to the north and\nwest, form a sort of belt, or zone, of Negrito population, interposed\nbetween the Australians on the west and the inhabitants of the great\nmajority of the Pacific islands on the east.\n\nThe cranial characters of the Negritos vary considerably more than\nthose of their skin and hair, the most notable circumstance being\nthe strong Australian aspect which distinguishes many Negrito skulls,\nwhile others tend rather towards forms common in the Polynesian\nislands.\n\nIn civilization, New Caledonia exhibits an advance upon Tasmania, and,\nfarther north, there is a still greater improvement. But the bows\nand arrows, the perched houses, the outrigger canoes, the habits of\nbetel-chewing and of kawa-drinking, which abound more or less among\nthe northern Negritos, are probably to be regarded not as the products\nof an indigenous civilization, but merely as indications of the extent\nto which foreign influences have modified the primitive social state\nof these people.\n\nFrom Tasmania or New Caledonia, to New Zealand or Tongataboo, is again\nbut a brief voyage; but it brings about a still more notable change\nin the aspect of the indigenous population than that effected by the\npassage of Bass's Straits. Instead of being chocolate-coloured people,\nthe Maories and Tongans are light brown; instead of woolly, they have\nstraight, or wavy, black hair. And if from New Zealand, we travel\nsome 5,000 miles east to Easter Island; and from Easter Island, for as\ngreat a distance north-west, to the Sandwich Islands; and thence 7,000\nmiles, westward and southward, to Sumatra; and even across the Indian\nOcean, into the interior of Madagascar, we shall everywhere meet with\npeople whose hair is straight or wavy, and whose skins exhibit various\nshades of brown. These are the Polynesians, Micronesians, Indonesians,\nwhom Latham has grouped together under the common title of\nAMPHINESIANS.\n\nThe cranial characters of these people, as of the Negritos, are less\nconstant than those of their skin and hair. The Maori has a long\nskull; the Sandwich Islander a broad skull. Some, like these, have\nstrong brow ridges; others, like the Dayaks and many Polynesians, have\nhardly any nasal indentation.\n\nIt is only in the westernmost parts of their area that the Amphinesian\nnations know anything about bows and arrows as weapons, or are\nacquainted with the use of metals or with pottery. Everywhere they\ncultivate the ground, construct houses, and skilfully build and manage\noutrigger, or double, canoes; while, almost everywhere, they use some\nkind of fabric for clothing.\n\nBetween Easter Island, or the Sandwich Islands, and any part of the\nAmerican coast is a much wider interval than that between Tasmania and\nNew Zealand, but the ethnological interval between the American and\nthe Polynesian is less than that between either of the previously\nnamed stocks.\n\nThe typical AMERICAN has straight black hair and dark eyes, his skin\nexhibiting various shades of reddish or yellowish brown, sometimes\ninclining to olive. The face is broad and scantily bearded; the skull\nwide and high. Such people extend from Patagonia to Mexico, and much\nfarther north along the west coast. In the main a race of hunters,\nthey had nevertheless, at the time of the discovery of the Americas,\nattained a remarkable degree of civilization in some localities. They\nhad domesticated ruminants, and not only practised agriculture,\nbut had learned the value of irrigation. They manufactured textile\nfabrics, were masters of the potter's art, and knew how to erect\nmassive buildings of stone. They understood the working of the\nprecious, though not of the useful, metals; and had even attained to a\nrude kind of hieroglyphic, or picture, writing.\n\nThe Americans not only employ the bow and arrow, but, like some\nAmphinesians, the blow-pipe, as offensive weapons: but I am not aware\nthat the outrigger canoe has ever been observed among them.\n\nI have reason to suspect that some of the Fuegian tribes differ\ncranially from the typical Americans; and the Northern and Eastern\nAmerican tribes have longer skulls than their Southern compatriots.\nBut the ESQUIMAUX, who roam on the desolate and ice-bound coasts of\nArctic America, certainly present us with a new stock. The Esquimaux\n(among whom the Greenlanders are included), in fact, though they\nshare the straight black hair of the proper Americans, are a duller\ncomplexioned, shorter, and more squat people, and they have still\nmore prominent cheek-bones. But the circumstance which most completely\nseparates them from the typical Americans, is the form of their\nskulls, which instead of being broad, high, and truncated behind, are\neminently long, usually low, and prolonged backwards.\n\nThese Hyperborean people clothe themselves in skins, know nothing of\npottery, and hardly anything of metals. Dependent for existence upon\nthe produce of the chase, the seal and the whale are to them what\nthe cocoa-nut tree and the plantain are to the savages of more genial\nclimates. Not only are those animals meat and raiment, but they are\ncanoes, sledges, weapons, tools, windows, and fire; while they support\nthe dog, who is the indispensable ally and beast of burden of the\nEsquimaux.\n\nIt is admitted that the Tchuktchi, on the eastern side of Behring's\nStraits, are, in all essential respects, Esquimaux; and I do not know\nthat there is any satisfactory evidence to show that the Tunguses and\nSamoiedes do not essentially share the physical characters of the same\npeople. Southward, there are indications of Esquimaux characters among\nthe Japanese, and it is possible that their influence may be traced\nyet further.\n\nHowever this may be, Eastern Asia, from Mantchouria to Siam, Thibet,\nand Northern Hindostan, is continuously inhabited by men, usually of\nshort stature, with skins varying in colour from yellow to olive; with\nbroad cheek-bones and faces that, owing to the insignificance of the\nnose, are exceedingly flat; and with small, obliquely-set, black eyes\nand straight black hair, which sometimes attains a very great length\nupon the scalp, but is always scanty upon the face and body. The\nskull is never much elongated, and is, generally, remarkably broad\nand rounded, with hardly any nasal depression, and but slight, if any,\nprojection of the jaws.\n\nMany of these people, for whom the old name of MONGOLIANS may be\nretained, are nomades; others, as the Chinese, have attained a\nremarkable and apparently indigenous civilization, only surpassed by\nthat of Europe.\n\nAt the north-western extremity of Europe the Lapps repeat the\ncharacters of the Eastern Asiatics. Between these extreme points, the\nMongolian stock is not continuous, but is represented by a chain of\nmore or less isolated tribes, who pass under the name of Calmucks and\nTartars, and form Mongolian islands, as it were, in the midst of an\nocean of other people.\n\nThe waves of this ocean are the nations for whom, in order\nto avoid the endless confusion produced by our present\nhalf-physical, half-philological classification, I shall use a new\nname--XANTHOCHROI--indicating that they are \"yellow\" haired and \"pale\"\nin complexion. The Chinese historians of the Han dynasty, writing\nin the third century before our era, describe, with much minuteness,\ncertain numerous and powerful barbarians with \"yellow hair, green\neyes, and prominent noses,\" who, the black-haired, skew-eyed, and\nflat-nosed annalists remark in passing, are \"just like the apes from\nwhom they are descended.\" These people held, in force, the upper\nwaters of the Yenisei, and thence under various names stretched\nsouthward to Thibet and Kashgar. Fair-haired and blue-eyed northern\nenemies were no less known to the ancient Hindoos, to the Persians,\nand to the Egyptians, on the south of the great central Asiatic area;\nwhile the testimony of all European antiquity is to the effect that,\nbefore and since the period in question, there lay beyond the Danube,\nthe Rhine, and the Seine, a vast and dangerous yellow or red haired,\nfair-skinned, blue-eyed population. Whether the disturbers of the\nmarches of the Roman Empire were called Gauls or Germans, Goths,\nAlans, or Scythians, one thing seems certain, that until the invasion\nof the Huns, they were tall, fair, blue-eyed men.\n\nIf any one should think fit to assume that in the year 100 B.C.,\nthere was one continuous Xanthochroic population from the Rhine to the\nYenisei, and from the Ural mountains to the Hindoo Koosh, I know not\nthat any evidence exists by which that position could be upset, while\nthe existing state of things is rather in its favour than otherwise.\nFor the Scandinavians, wholly, the Germans to a great extent, the\nSlavonian and the Finnish tribes, some of the inhabitants of Greece,\nmany Turks, some Kirghis, and some Mantchous, the Ossetes in the\nCaucasus, the Siahposh, the Rohillas, are at the present day fair,\nyellow or red haired, and blue-eyed; and the interpolation of tribes\nof Mongolian hair and complexion, as far west as the Caspian Steppes\nand the Crimea, might justly be accounted for by those subsequent\nwestward irruptions of the Mongolian stock, of which history furnishes\nabundant testimony.\n\nThe furthermost limit of the Xanthochroi north-westward is Iceland\nand the British Isles; south-westward, they are traceable at intervals\nthrough the Berber country, and end in the Canary Islands.\n\nThe cranial characters of the Xanthochroi are not, at present,\nstrictly definable. The Scandinavians are certainly long-headed; but\nmany Germans, the Swiss so far as they are Germanized, the Slavonians,\nthe Fins, and the Turks, are short-headed. What were the cranial\ncharacters of the ancient \"U-suns\" and \"Ting-lings\" of the valley of\nthe Yenisei is unknown.\n\nWest of the area occupied by the chief mass of the Xanthochroi, and\nnorth of the Sahara, is a broad belt of land, shaped like a =Y=.\nBetween the forks of the =Y= lies the Mediterranean; the stem of it\nis Arabia. The stem is bathed by the Indian Ocean, the western ends of\nthe forks by the Atlantic. The people inhabiting the area thus roughly\nsketched have, like the Xanthochroi, prominent noses, pale skins and\nwavy hair, with abundant beards; but, unlike them, the hair is black\nor dark, and the eyes usually so. They may thence be called the\nMELANOCHROI. Such people are found in the British Islands, in Western\nand Southern Gaul, in Spain, in Italy south of the Po, in parts of\nGreece, in Syria and Arabia, stretching as far northward and eastward\nas the Caucasus and Persia. They are the chief inhabitants of Africa\nnorth of the Sahara, and, like the Xanthochroi, they end in the\nCanary Islands. They are known as Kelts, Iberians, Etruscans, Romans,\nPelasgians, Berbers, Semites. The majority of them are long-headed,\nand of smaller stature than the Xanthochroi.\n\nIt is needless to remark upon the civilization of these two great\nstocks. With them has originated everything that is highest in\nscience, in art, in law, in politics, and in mechanical inventions.\nIn their hands, at the present moment, lies the order of the social\nworld, and to them its progress is committed.\n\nSouth of the Atlas, and of the Great Desert, Middle Africa exhibits\na new type of humanity in the NEGRO, with his dark skin, woolly hair,\nprojecting jaws, and thick lips. As a rule, the skull of the Negro\nis remarkably long; it rarely approaches the broad type, and never\nexhibits the roundness of the Mongolian. A cultivator of the ground,\nand dwelling in villages; a maker of pottery, and a worker in the\nuseful as well as the ornamental metals; employing the bow and arrow\nas well as the spear, the typical negro stands high in point of\ncivilization above the Australian.\n\nResembling the Negroes in cranial characters, the BUSHMEN of South\nAfrica differ from them in their yellowish brown skins, their tufted\nhair, their remarkably small stature, and their tendency to fatty and\nother integumentary outgrowths; nor is the wonderful click with which\ntheir speech is interspersed to be overlooked in enumerating the\nphysical characteristics of this strange people.\n\nThe so-called \"Drawidian\" populations of Southern Hindostan lead us\nback, physically as well as geographically, towards the Australians;\nwhile the diminutive MINCOPIES of the Andaman Islands lie midway\nbetween the Negro and Negrito races, and, as Mr. Busk has pointed\nout, occasionally present the rare combination of Brachycephaly, or\nshort-headedness, with woolly hair.\n\nIn the preceding progress along the outskirts of the habitable world,\neleven readily distinguishable stocks, or persistent modifications, of\nmankind, have been recognized. I have purposely omitted such people as\nthe Abyssinians and the Hindoos, who there is every reason to believe\nresult from the intermixture of distinct stocks. Perhaps I ought, for\nlike reasons, to have ignored the Mincopies. But I do not pretend that\nmy enumeration is complete or, in any sense, perfect. It is enough for\nmy purpose if it be admitted (and I think it cannot be denied) that\nthose which I have mentioned exist, are well marked, and occupy the\ngreater part of the habitable globe.\n\nIn attempting to classify these persistent modifications after the\nmanner of naturalists, the first circumstance that attracts one's\nattention is the broad contrast between the people with straight and\nwavy hair, and those with crisp, woolly, or tufted hair. Bory de\nSt. Vincent, noting this fundamental distinction, divided mankind\naccordingly into the two primary groups of _Leiotrichi_ and\n_Ulotrichi_,--terms which are open to criticism, but which I adopt in\nthe accompanying table, because they have been used. It is better for\nscience to accept a faulty name which has the merit of existence, than\nto burthen it with a faultless newly invented one.\n\nUnder each of these divisions are two columns, one for the\nBrachycephali, or short heads, and one for the Dolichocephali[1], or\nlong heads. Again, each column is subdivided transversely into four\ncompartments, one for the \"leucous,\" people with fair complexions and\nyellow or red hair; one for the \"leucomelanous,\" with dark hair and\npale skins; one for the \"xanthomelanous,\" with black hair and yellow,\nbrown, or olive skins; and one for the \"melanous,\" with black hair and\ndark brown or blackish skins.\n\n[Footnote 1: Skulls, the transverse diameter of which is more than\neight-tenths the long diameter, are short; those which have the\ntransverse diameter less than eight-tenths the longitudinal, are\nlong.]\n\n             LEIOTRICHI.                       ULOTRICHI.\n   ______________________________     ____________________________\n  /                              \\   /                            \\\n    Dolichocephali. Brachycephali.   Dolichocephali. Brachycephali.\nLeucous.\n        .... Xanthochroi ....\nLeucomelanous.\n        .... Melanochroi ....\nXanthomelanous.\n  _Esquimaux_.    Mongolians.   _Bushmen_.\n         _Amphinesians_.\n          _Americans_.\nMelanous.\n  _Australians_.                 Negroes.            _Mincopies_(?)\n                                   _Negritos_\n\nNOTE: _The names of the stocks known only since the fifteenth century\nare put into italics. If the \"Skr\u00e4lings\" of the Norse discoverers of\nAmerica were Esquimaux, Europeans became acquainted with the latter\nsix or seven centuries earlier_.\n\nIt is curious to observe that almost all the woolly-headed people are\nalso long-headed; while among the straight-haired nations broad heads\npreponderate, and only two stocks, the Esquimaux and the Australians,\nare exclusively long-headed.\n\nOne of the acutest and most original of ethnologists, Desmoulins,\noriginated the idea, which has subsequently been fully developed by\nAgassiz, that the distribution of the persistent modifications of man\nis governed by the same laws as that of other animals, and that both\nfall into the same great distributional provinces. Thus, Australia;\nAmerica, south of Mexico; the Arctic regions; Europe, Syria,\nArabia, and North Africa, taken together, are each regions eminently\ncharacterized by the nature of their animal and vegetable populations,\nand each, as we have seen, has its peculiar and characteristic form of\nman. But it may be doubted whether the parallel thus drawn will hold\ngood strictly, and in all cases. The Tasmanian Fauna and Flora are\nessentially Australian, and the like is true to a less extent of many,\nif not of all, the Papuan islands; but the Negritos who inhabit these\nislands are strikingly different from the Australians. Again, the\ndifferences between the Mongolians and the Xanthochroi are out of all\nproportion greater than those between the Faunae and Florae of Central\nand Eastern Asia. But whatever the difficulties in the way of the\ndetailed application of this comparison of the distribution of men\nwith that of animals, it is well worthy of being borne in mind, and\ncarried as far as it will go.\n\nApart from all speculation, a very curious fact regarding the\ndistribution of the persistent modifications of mankind becomes\napparent on inspecting an Ethnological chart, projected in such\na manner that the Pacific Ocean occupies its centre. Such a chart\nexhibits an Australian area occupied by dark smooth-haired people,\nseparated by an incomplete inner zone of dark woolly-haired\nNegritos and Negroes, from an outer zone of comparatively pale and\nsmooth-haired men, occupying the Americas, and nearly all Asia and\nNorth Africa.\n\nSuch is a brief sketch of the characters and distribution of the\npersistent modifications, or stocks, of mankind at the present day.\nIf we seek for direct evidence of how long this state of things\nhas lasted, we shall find little enough, and that little far from\nsatisfactory. Of the eleven different stocks enumerated, seven have\nbeen known to us for less than 400 years; and of these seven not\none possessed a fragment of written history at the time it came into\ncontact with European civilization. The other four--the Negroes,\nMongolians, Xanthochroi, and Melanochroi--have always existed in some\nof the localities in which they are now found, nor do the negroes ever\nseem to have voluntarily travelled beyond the limits of their present\narea. But ancient history is in a great measure the record of the\nmutual encroachments of the other three stocks.\n\nOn the whole, however, it is wonderful how little change has been\neffected by these mutual invasions and intermixtures. As at the\npresent time, so at the dawn of history, the Melanochroi fringed\nthe Atlantic and the Mediterranean; the Xanthochroi occupied most\nof Central and Eastern Europe, and much of Western and Central Asia;\nwhile Mongolians held the extreme east of the Old World. So far as\nhistory teaches us, the populations of Europe, Asia, and Africa were,\ntwenty centuries ago, just what they are now, in their broad features\nand general distribution.\n\nThe evidence yielded by Archaeology is not very definite, but, so\nfar as it goes, it is to much the same effect. The mound builders of\nCentral America seem to have had the characteristic short and broad\nhead of the modern inhabitants of that continent. The tumuli and tombs\nof Ancient Scandinavia, of pre-Roman Britain, of Gaul, of Switzerland,\nreveal two types of skull--a broad and a long--of which, in\nScandinavia, the broad seems to have belonged to the older stock,\nwhile the reverse was probably the case in Britain, and certainly\nin Switzerland. It has been assumed that the broad-skulled people of\nancient Scandinavia were Lapps; but there is no proof of the fact,\nand they may have been, like the broad-skulled Swiss and Germans,\nXanthochroi. One of the greatest of ethnological difficulties is to\nknow where the modern Swedes, Norsemen, and Saxons got their long\nheads, as all their neighbours, Fins, Lapps, Slavonians, and\nSouth Germans, are broad-headed. Again, who were the small-handed,\nlong-headed people of the \"bronze epoch,\" and what has become of the\ninfusion of their blood among the Xanthochroi?\n\nAt present Palaeontology yields no safe data to the ethnologist. We\nknow absolutely nothing of the ethnological characters of the men of\nAbbeville and Hoxne; but must be content with the demonstration, in\nitself of immense value, that Man existed in Western Europe when its\nphysical condition was widely different from what it is now, and\nwhen animals existed, which, though they belong to what is, properly\nspeaking, the present order of things, have long been extinct. Beyond\nthe limits of a fraction of Europe, Palaeontology tells us nothing of\nman or of his works.\n\nTo sum up our knowledge of the ethnological past of man: so far as the\nlight is bright, it shows him substantially as he is now; and, when it\ngrows dim, it permits us to see no sign that he was other than he is\nnow.\n\nIt is a general belief that men of different stocks differ as much\nphysiologically as they do morphologically; but it is very hard\nto prove, in any particular case, how much of a supposed national\ncharacteristic is due to inherent physiological peculiarities, and\nhow much to the influence of circumstances. There is much evidence to\nshow, however, that some stocks enjoy a partial or complete immunity\nfrom diseases which destroy, or decimate, others. Thus there seems\ngood ground for the belief that Negroes are remarkably exempt from\nyellow fever; and that, among Europeans, the melanochrous people are\nless obnoxious to its ravages than the xanthochrous. But many writers,\nnot content with physiological differences of this kind, undertake to\nprove the existence of others of far greater moment; and, indeed, to\nshow that certain stocks of mankind exhibit, more or less distinctly,\nthe physiological characters of true species. Unions between these\nstocks, and still more between the half-breeds arising from their\nmixture, are affirmed to be either infertile, or less fertile than\nthose which take place between males and females of either stock under\nthe same circumstances. Some go so far as to assert that no mixed\nbreeds of mankind can maintain themselves without the assistance of\none or other of the parent stocks, and that, consequently, they must\ninevitably be obliterated in the long run.\n\nHere, again, it is exceedingly difficult to obtain trustworthy\nevidence, and to free the effects of the pure physiological experiment\nfrom adventitious influences. The only trial which, by a strange\nchance, was kept clear of all such influences--the only instance in\nwhich two distinct stocks of mankind were crossed, and their progeny\nintermarried without any admixture from without--is the famous case\nof the Pitcairn Islanders, who were the progeny of Bligh's English\nsailors by Tahitian women. The results of this experiment, as\neverybody knows, are dead against those who maintain the doctrine of\nhuman hybridity, seeing that the Pitcairn Islanders, even though they\nnecessarily contracted consanguineous marriages, throve and multiplied\nexceedingly.\n\nBut those who are disposed to believe in this doctrine should study\nthe evidence brought forward in its support by M. Broca, its latest\nand ablest advocate, and compare this evidence with that which the\nbotanists, as represented by a Gaertner, or by a Darwin, think it\nindispensable to obtain before they will admit the infertility of\ncrosses between two allied kinds of plants. They will then, I think,\nbe satisfied that the doctrine in question rests upon a very unsafe\nfoundation; that the facts adduced in its support are capable of many\nother interpretations; and, indeed, that from the very nature of\nthe case, demonstrative evidence one way or the other is almost\nunattainable. _A priori_, I should be disposed to expect a certain\namount of infertility between some of the extreme modifications of\nmankind; and still more between the offsprings of their intermixture.\n_A posteriori_, I cannot discover any satisfactory proof that such\ninfertility exists.\n\nFrom the facts of ethnology I now turn to the theories and\nspeculations of ethnologists, which have been devised to explain\nthese facts, and to furnish satisfactory answers to the inquiry--what\nconditions have determined the existence of the persistent\nmodifications of mankind, and have caused their distribution to be\nwhat it is?\n\nThese speculations may be grouped under three heads: firstly, the\nMonogenist hypotheses; secondly, those of the Polygenists; and\nthirdly, that which would result from a simple application of\nDarwinian principles to mankind.\n\nAccording to the Monogenists, all mankind have sprung from a single\npair, whose multitudinous progeny spread themselves over the world,\nsuch as it now is, and became modified into the forms we meet with in\nthe various regions of the earth, by the effect of the climatal and\nother conditions to which they were subjected.\n\nThe advocates of this hypothesis are divisible into several schools.\nThere are those who represent the most numerous, respectable,\nand would-be orthodox of the public, and are what may be called\n\"Adamites,\" pure and simple. They believe that Adam was made out of\nearth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago; that Eve was\nmodelled from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two\nhaving been reduced to the eight persons who were landed on the summit\nof Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the nations of the\nearth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present\nlocalities, and have become converted into Negroes, Australians,\nMongolians, &c., within that time. Five-sixths of the public are\ntaught this Adamitic Monogenism, as if it were an established truth,\nand believe it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man of\nscience, or duly instructed person, who does.\n\nA second school of monogenists, not worthy of much attention, attempts\nto hold a place midway between the Adamites and a third division, who\ntake up a purely scientific position, and require to be dealt with\naccordingly. This third division, in fact, numbers in its ranks\nLinnaeus, Buffon, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Prichard, and many distinguished\nliving ethnologists.\n\nThese \"Rational Monogenists,\" or, at any rate, the more modern among\nthem, hold, firstly, that the present condition of the earth has\nexisted for untold ages; secondly, that, at a remote period, beyond\nthe ken of Archbishop Usher, man was created, somewhere between the\nCaucasus and the Hindoo Koosh; thirdly, that he might have migrated\nthence to all parts of the inhabited world, seeing that none of them\nare unattainable from some other inhabited part, by men provided with\nonly such means of transport as savages are known to possess and\nmust have invented; fourthly, that the operation of the existing\ndiversities of climate and other conditions upon people so migrating,\nis sufficient to account for all the diversities of mankind.\n\nOf the truth of the first of these propositions no competent judge now\nentertains any doubt. The second is more open to discussion, for in\nthese latter days many question the special creation of man: and even\nif his special creation be granted, there is not a shadow of a reason\nwhy he should have been created in Asia rather than anywhere else.\nOf all the odd myths that have arisen in the scientific world, the\n\"Caucasian mystery,\" invented quite innocently by Blumenbach, is the\noddest. A Georgian woman's skull was the handsomest in his collection.\nHence it became his model exemplar of human skulls, from which all\nothers might be regarded as deviations; and out of this, by some\nstrange intellectual hocus-pocus, grew up the notion that the\nCaucasian man is the prototypic \"Adamic\" man, and his country the\nprimitive centre of our kind. Perhaps the most curious thing of all\nis, that the said Georgian skull, after all, is not a skull of average\nform, but distinctly belongs to the brachycephalic group.\n\nWith the third proposition I am quite disposed to agree, though\nit must be recollected that it is one thing to allow that a given\nmigration is possible, and another to admit there is good reason to\nbelieve it has really taken place.\n\nBut I can find no sufficient ground for accepting the fourth\nproposition; and I doubt if it would ever have obtained its general\ncurrency except for the circumstance that fair Europeans are very\nreadily tanned and embrowned by the sun. But I am not aware that there\nis a particle of proof that the cutaneous change thus effected can\nbecome hereditary, any more than that the enlarged livers, which\nplague our countrymen in India, can be transmitted;--while there is\nvery strong evidence to the contrary. Not only, in fact, are there\nsuch cases as those of the English families in Barbadoes, who have\nremained for six generations unaltered in complexion, but which are\nopen to the objection that they may have received infusions of\nfresh European blood; but there is the broad fact, that not a single\nindigenous Negro exists either in the great alluvial plains of\ntropical South America, or in the exposed islands of the Polynesian\nArchipelago, or among the populations of equatorial Borneo or Sumatra.\nNo satisfactory explanation of these obvious difficulties has been\noffered by the advocates of the direct influence of conditions. And as\nfor the more important modifications observed in the structure of the\nbrain, and in the form of the skull, no one has ever pretended to show\nin what way they can be effected directly by climate.\n\nIt is here, in fact, that the strength of the Polygenists, or those\nwho maintain that men primitively arose, not from one, but from many\nstocks, lies. Show us, they say to the Monogenists, a single case in\nwhich the characters of a human stock have been essentially modified\nwithout its being demonstrable, or, at least, highly probable, that\nthere has been intermixture of blood with some foreign stock. Bring\nforward any instance in which a part of the world, formerly inhabited\nby one stock, is now the dwelling-place of another, and we will prove\nthe change to be the result of migration, or of intermixture, and not\nof modification of character by climatic influences. Finally, prove\nto us that the evidence in favour of the specific distinctness of many\nanimals, admitted to be distinct species by all zoologists, is a whit\nbetter than that upon which we maintain the specific distinctness of\nmen.\n\nIf presenting unanswerable objections to your adversary were the same\nthing as proving your own case, the Polygenists would be in a fair way\ntowards victory; but, unfortunately, as I have already observed, they\nhave as yet completely failed to adduce satisfactory positive proof\nof the specific diversity of mankind. Like the Monogenists, the\nPolygenists are of several sects; some imagine that their assumed\nspecies of mankind were created where we find them--the African in\nAfrica, and the Australian in Australia, along with the other animals\nof their distributional province; others conceive that each species of\nman has resulted from the modification of some antecedent species of\nape--the American from the broad-nosed Simians of the New World, the\nAfrican from the Troglodytic stock, the Mongolian from the Orangs.\n\nThe first hypothesis is hardly likely to win much favour. The whole\ntendency of modern science is to thrust the origination of things\nfurther and further into the background; and the chief philosophical\nobjection to Adam being, not his oneness, but the hypothesis of his\nspecial creation; the multiplication of that objection tenfold is,\nwhatever it may look, an increase, instead of a diminution, of the\ndifficulties of the case. And, as to the second alternative, it may\nsafely be affirmed that, even if the differences between men are\nspecific, they are so small, that the assumption of more than one\nprimitive stock for all is altogether superfluous. Surely no one can\nnow be found to assert that any two stocks of mankind differ as much\nas a chimpanzee and an orang do; still less that they are as unlike as\neither of these is to any New World Simian!\n\nLastly, the granting of the Polygenist premises does not, in the\nslightest degree, necessitate the Polygenist conclusion. Admit that\nNegroes and Australians, Negritos and Mongols are distinct species,\nor distinct genera, if you will, and you may yet, with perfect\nconsistency, be the strictest of Monogenists, and even believe in Adam\nand Eve as the primaeval parents of all mankind.\n\nIt is to Mr. Darwin we owe this discovery: it is he who, coming\nforward in the guise of an eclectic philosopher, presents his doctrine\nas the key to ethnology, and as reconciling and combining all that is\ngood in the Monogenistic and Polygenistic schools.\n\nIt is true that Mr. Darwin has not, in so many words, applied his\nviews to ethnology; but even he who \"runs and reads\" the \"Origin of\nSpecies\" can hardly fail to do so; and, furthermore, Mr. Wallace and\nM. Pouchet have recently treated of ethnological questions from this\npoint of view. Let me, in conclusion, add my own contribution to the\nsame store.\n\nI assume Man to have arisen in the manner which I have discussed\nelsewhere, and probably, though by no means necessarily, in one\nlocality. Whether he arose singly, or a number of examples appeared\ncontemporaneously, is also an open question for the believer in the\nproduction of species by the gradual modification of pre-existing\nones. At what epoch of the world's history this took place, again, we\nhave no evidence whatever. It may have been in the older tertiary,\nor earlier, but what is most important to remember is, that the\ndiscoveries of late years have proved that man inhabited Western\nEurope, at any rate, before the occurrence of those great physical\nchanges which have given Europe its present aspect. And as the same\nevidence shows that man was the contemporary of animals which are now\nextinct, it is not too much to assume that his existence dates back\nat least as far as that of our present Fauna and Flora, or before the\nepoch of the drift.\n\nBut if this be true, it is somewhat startling to reflect upon the\nprodigious changes which have taken place in the physical geography of\nthis planet since man has been an occupant of it.\n\nDuring that period the greater part of the British islands, of Central\nEurope, of Northern Asia, have been submerged beneath the sea and\nraised up again. So has the great desert of Sahara, which occupies the\nmajor part of Northern Africa. The Caspian and the Aral seas have been\none, and their united waters have probably communicated with both the\nArctic and the Mediterranean oceans. The greater part of North America\nhas been under water, and has emerged. It is highly probable that\na large part of the Malayan Archipelago has sunk, and its primitive\ncontinuity with Asia has been destroyed. Over the great Polynesian\narea subsidence has taken place to the extent of many thousands of\nfeet--subsidence of so vast a character, in fact, that if a continent\nlike Asia had once occupied the area of the Pacific, the peaks of its\nmountains would now show not more numerous than the islands of the\nPolynesian Archipelago.\n\nWhat lands may have been thickly populated for untold ages, and\nsubsequently have disappeared and left no sign above the waters, it\nis of course impossible for us to say; but unless we are to make the\nwholly unjustifiable assumption that no dry land rose elsewhere when\nour present dry land sank, there must be half-a-dozen Atlantises\nbeneath the waves of the various oceans of the world. But if the\nregions which have undergone these slow and gradual, but immense\nalterations, were wholly or in part inhabited before the changes I\nhave indicated began--and it is more probable that they were, than\nthat they were not--what a wonderfully efficient \"Emigration Board\"\nmust have been at work all over the world long before canoes, or even\nrafts, were invented; and before men were impelled to wander by any\ndesire nobler or stronger than hunger. And as these rude and primitive\nfamilies were thrust, in the course of long series of generations,\nfrom land to land, impelled by encroachments of sea or of marsh, or\nby severity of summer heat or winter cold, to change their positions,\nwhat opportunities must have been offered for the play of natural\nselection, in preserving one family variation and destroying another!\n\nSuppose, for example, that some families of a horde which had reached\na land charged with the seeds of yellow fever, varied in the direction\nof woolliness of hair and darkness of skin. Then, if it be true that\nthese physical characters are accompanied by comparative or absolute\nexemptions from that scourge, the inevitable tendency would be to the\npreservation and multiplication of the darker and woollier families,\nand the elimination of the whiter and smoother-haired. In fact, by the\noperation of causes precisely similar to those which, in the famous\ninstance cited by Mr. Darwin, have given rise to a race of black pigs\nin the forests of Louisiana, a negro stock would eventually people the\nregion.\n\nAgain, how often, by such physical changes, must a stock have been\nisolated from all others for innumerable generations, and have found\nample time for the hereditary hardening of its special peculiarities\ninto the enduring characters of a persistent modification.\n\nNor, if it be true that the physiological difference of species may be\nproduced by variation and natural selection, as Mr. Darwin supposes,\nwould it be at all astonishing if, in some of these separated stocks,\nthe process of differentiation should have gone so far as to give\nrise to the phenomena of hybridity. In the face of the overwhelming\nevidence in favour of the unity of the origin of mankind afforded by\nanatomical considerations, satisfactory proof of the existence of any\ndegree of sterility in the unions of members of two of the \"persistent\nmodifications\" of mankind, might well be appealed to by Mr. Darwin\nas crucial evidence of the truth of his views regarding the origin of\nspecies in general.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nON SOME FIXED POINTS IN BRITISH ETHNOLOGY.\n\n\nIn view of the many discussions to which the complicated problems\noffered by the ethnology of the British Islands have given rise, it\nmay be useful to attempt to pick out, from amidst the confused masses\nof assertion and of inference, those propositions which appear to rest\nupon a secure foundation, and to state the evidence by which they are\nsupported. Such is the purpose of the present paper.\n\nSome of these well-based propositions relate to the physical\ncharacters of the people of Britain and their neighbours; while others\nconcern the languages which they spoke. I shall deal, in the first\nplace, with the physical questions.\n\nI. _Eighteen hundred years ago the population of Britain comprised\npeople of two types of complexion--the one fair, and the other dark.\nThe dark people resembled the Aquitani and the Iberians; the fair\npeople were like the Belgic Gauls._\n\nThe chief direct evidence of the truth of this proposition is the\nwell-known passage of Tacitus:--\n\n    \"Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae\n    an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus\n    corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: nam rutilae Caledoniam\n    habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem asseverant.\n    Silurum colorati vultus et torti plerumque crines, et posita\n    contra Hispaniam, Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes\n    occupasse, fidem faciunt. Proximi Gallis et similes sunt; seu\n    durante originis vi, seu procurrentibus in diversa terris,\n    positio coeli corporibus habitum dedit. In universum tamen\n    aestimanti, Gallos vicinum solum occupasse, credibile est;\n    eorum sacra deprehendas, superstitionum persuasione; sermo\n    haud multum diversus.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Taciti Agricola, c. 11.]\n\nThis passage, it will be observed, contains statements as to facts,\nand certain conclusions deduced from these facts. The matters of fact\nasserted are: firstly, that the inhabitants of Britain exhibit much\ndiversity in their physical characters; secondly, that the Caledonians\nare red-haired and large-limbed, like the Germans; thirdly, that\nthe Silures have curly hair and dark complexions, like the people of\nSpain; fourthly, that the British people nearest Gaul resemble the\n\"Galli.\"\n\nTacitus, therefore, states positively what the Caledonians and Silures\nwere like; but the interpretation of what he says about the other\nBritons must depend upon what we learn from other sources as to the\ncharacters of these \"Galli.\" Here the testimony of \"divus Julius\"\ncomes in with great force and appropriateness. Caesar writes:--\n\n    \"Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur, quos natos in\n    insula ipsi memoria proditum dicunt: marituma pars ab iis,\n    qui predae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant; qui\n    omnes fere iis nominibus civitatum appellantur quibus orti ex\n    civitatibus eo pervenerunt, et bello inlato ibi permanserunt\n    atque agros colere coeperunt.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: De Bello Gallico, v. 12.]\n\nFrom these passages it is obvious that in the opinion of Caesar\nand Tacitus, the southern Britons resembled the northern Gauls, and\nespecially the Belgae; and the evidence of Strabo is decisive as to\nthe characters in which the two people resembled one another: \"The men\n(of Britain) are taller than the Kelts, with hair less yellow; they\nare slighter in their persons.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"The Geography of Strabo.\" Translated by Hamilton and\nFalconer; v. 5.]\n\nThe evidence adduced appears to leave no reasonable ground for\ndoubting that, at the time of the Roman conquest, Britain contained\npeople of two types, the one dark and the other fair complexioned, and\nthat there was a certain difference between the latter in the north\nand in the south of Britain: the northern folk being, in the judgment\nof Tacitus, or, more properly, according to the information he had\nreceived from Agricola and others, more similar to the Germans than\nthe latter. As to the distribution of these stocks, all that is clear\nis, that the dark people were predominant in certain parts of the west\nof the southern half of Britain, while the fair stock appears to have\nfurnished the chief elements of the population elsewhere.\n\nNo ancient writer troubled himself with measuring skulls, and\ntherefore there is no direct evidence as to the cranial characters\nof the fair and the dark stocks. The indirect evidence is not very\nsatisfactory. The tumuli of Britain of pre-Roman date have yielded two\nextremely different forms of skull, the one broad and the other long;\nand the same variety has been observed in the skulls of the ancient\nGauls[1]. The suggestion is obvious that the one form of skull may\nhave been associated with the fair, and the other with the dark,\ncomplexion. But any conclusion of this kind is at once checked by the\nreflection that the extremes of long and short-headedness are to be\nmet with among the fair inhabitants of Germany and of Scandinavia\nat the present day--the south-western Germans and the Swiss being\nmarkedly broad-headed, while the Scandinavians are as predominantly\nlong-headed.\n\n[Footnote 1: See Dr. Thurnam \"On the Two principal Forms of Ancient\nBritish and Gaulish Skulls.\"]\n\nWhat the natives of Ireland were like at the time of the Roman\nconquest of Britain, and for centuries afterwards, we have no certain\nknowledge; but the earliest trustworthy records prove the existence,\nside by side with one another, of a fair and a dark stock, in Ireland\nas in Britain. The long form of skull is predominant among the\nancient, as among modern, Irish.\n\nII. _The people termed Gauls, and those called Germans, by the Romans,\ndid not differ in any important physical character._\n\nThe terms in which the ancient writers describe both Gauls and Germans\nare identical. They are always tall people, with massive limbs, fair\nskins, fierce blue eyes, and hair the colour of which ranges from\nred to yellow. Zeuss, the great authority on these matters, affirms\nbroadly that no distinction in bodily feature is to be found between\nthe Gauls, the Germans, and the Wends, so far as their characters are\nrecorded by the old historians; and he proves his case by citations\nfrom a cloud of witnesses.\n\nAn attempt has been made to show that the colour of the hair of the\nGauls must have differed very much from that which obtained among the\nGermans, on the strength of the story told by Suetonius (Caligula, 4),\nthat Caligula tried to pass off Gauls for Germans by picking out the\ntallest, and making them \"rutilare et summittere comam.\"\n\nThe Baron de Belloguet remarks upon this passage:--\n\n    \"It was in the very north of Gaul, and near the sea, that\n    Caligula got up this military comedy. And the fact proves\n    that the Belgae were already sensibly different from their\n    ancestors, whom Strabo had found almost identical with their\n    _brothers_ on the other side of the Rhine.\"\n\nBut the fact recorded by Suetonius, if fact it be, proves nothing;\nfor the Germans themselves were in the habit of reddening their hair.\nAmmianus Marcellinus[1] tells how, in the year 367 A.D., the Roman\ncommander, Jovinus, surprised a body of Alemanni near the town now\ncalled Charpeigne, in the valley of the Moselle; and how the Roman\nsoldiers, as, concealed by the thick wood, they stole upon their\nunsuspecting enemies, saw that some were bathing and others \"comas\nrutilantes ex more.\" More than two centuries earlier Pliny gives\nindirect evidence to the same effect when he says of soap:--\n\n[Footnote 1: Res Gestae, xxvii.]\n\n    \"Galliarum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis ... apud Germanos\n    majore in usu viris quam foeminis.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Historia Naturalis, xxviii. 51.]\n\nHere we have a writer who flourished only a short time after the date\nof the Caligula story, telling us that the Gauls invented soap for the\npurpose of doing that which, according to Suetonius, Caligula forced\nthem to do. And, further, the combined and independent testimony of\nPliny and Ammianus assures us that the Germans were as much in the\nhabit of reddening their hair as the Gauls. As to De Belloguet's\nsupposition that, even in Caligula's time, the Gauls had become darker\nthan their ancestors were, it is directly contradicted by Ammianus\nMarcellinus, who knew the Gauls well. \"Celsioris staturae et candidi\npoene Galli sunt onions, et rutili, luminumque torvitate terribiles,\"\nis his description; and it would fit the Gauls who sacked Rome.\n\nIII. _In none of the invasions of Britain which have taken place since\nthe Roman dominion, has any other type of man been introduced than one\nor other of the two which existed during that dominion_.\n\n\n\nThe North Germans, who effected what is commonly called the Saxon\nconquest of Britain, were, most assuredly, a fair, yellow, or\nred-haired, blue eyed, long-skulled people. So were the Danes and the\nNorsemen who followed them; though it is very possible that the active\nslave trade which went on, and the intercourse with Ireland, may have\nintroduced a certain admixture of the dark stock into both Denmark and\nNorway. The Norman conquest brought in new ethnological elements, the\nprecise value of which cannot be estimated with exactness; but as to\ntheir quality, there can be no question, inasmuch as even the wide\narea from which William drew his followers could yield him nothing but\nthe fair and the dark types of men, already present in Britain. But\nwhether the Norman settlers, on the whole, strengthened the fair or\nthe dark element, is a problem, the elements of the solution of which\nare not attainable.\n\nI am unable to discover any grounds for believing that a Lapp element\nhas ever entered into the population of these islands. So far as the\nphysical evidence goes, it is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis\nthat the only constituent stocks of that population, now, or at any\nother period about which we have evidence, are the dark whites, whom\nI have proposed to call \"_Melanochroi_\" and the fair whites, or\n\"_Xanthochroi._\"\n\nIV. _The Xanthochroi and the Melanochroi of Britain are, speaking\nbroadly, distributed, at present, as they were in the time of Tacitus;\nand their representatives on the continent of Europe have the same\ngeneral distribution as at the earliest period of which we have any\nrecord._\n\nAt the present day, and notwithstanding the extensive intermixture\neffected by the movements consequent on civilization and on political\nchanges, there is a predominance of dark men in the west, and of fair\nmen in the east and north, of Britain. At the present day, as from\nthe earliest times, the predominant constituents of the riverain\npopulation of the North Sea and the eastern half of the British\nChannel, are fair men. The fair stock continues in force through\nCentral Europe, until it is lost in Central Asia. Offshoots of this\nstock extend into Spain, Italy, and Northern India, and by way of\nSyria and North Africa, to the Canary Islands. They were known in\nvery early times to the Chinese, and in still earlier to the ancient\nEgyptians, as frontier tribes. The Thracians were notorious for their\nfair hair and blue eyes many centuries before our era.\n\nOn the other hand, the dark stock predominates in Southern and\nWestern France, in Spain, along the Ligurian shore, and in Western and\nSouthern Italy; in Greece, Asia, Syria, and North Africa; in Arabia,\nPersia, Afghanistan, and Hindostan, shading gradually, through all\nstages of darkening, into the type of the modern Egyptian, or of the\nwild Hill-man of the Dekkan. Nor is there any record of the existence\nof a different population in all these countries.\n\nThe extreme north of Europe, and the northern part of Western Asia,\nare at present occupied by a Mongoloid stock, and, in the absence of\nevidence to the contrary, may be assumed to have been so peopled from\na very remote epoch. But, as I have said, I can find no evidence that\nthis stock ever took part in peopling Britain. Of the three great\nstocks of mankind which extend from the western coast of the\ngreat Eurasiatic continent to its southern and eastern shores, the\nMongoloids occupy a vast triangle, the base of which is the whole of\nEastern Asia, while its apex lies in Lapland. The Melanochroi, on the\nother hand, may be represented as a broad band stretching from Ireland\nto Hindostan; while the Xanthochroic area lies between the two, thins\nout, so to speak, at either end, and mingles, at its margins, with\nboth its neighbours.\n\nSuch is a brief and summary statement of what I believe to be the\nchief facts relating to the physical ethnology of the people of\nBritain. The conclusions which I draw from these and other facts are\n(1) That the Melanochroi and the Xanthochroi are two separate races in\nthe biological sense of the word race; (2) That they have had the same\ngeneral distribution as at present from the earliest times of which\nany record exists on the continent of Europe; (3) That the population\nof the British Islands is derived from them, and from them only.\n\nThe people of Europe, however, owe their national names, not to\ntheir physical characteristics, but to their languages, or to their\npolitical relations; which, it is plain, need not have the slightest\nrelation to these characteristics.\n\nThus, it is quite certain that, in Caesar's time, Gaul was divided\npolitically into three nationalities--the Belgae, the Celtae, and\nthe Aquitani; and that the last were very widely different, both in\nlanguage and in physical characteristics, from the two former. The\nBelgae and the Celtae, on the other hand, differed comparatively\nlittle either in physique or in language. On the former point there is\nthe distinct testimony of Strabo; as to the latter, St. Jerome states\nthat the \"Galatians had almost the same language as the Treviri.\" Now,\nthe Galatians were emigrant Volcae Tectosages, and therefore Celtae;\nwhile the Treviri were Belgae.\n\nAt the present day, the physical characters of the people of\nBelgic Gaul remain distinct from those of the people of Aquitaine,\nnotwithstanding the immense changes which have taken place since\nCaesar's time; but Belgae, Celtae, and Aquitani (all but a mere\nfraction of the last two, represented by the Basques and the Britons)\nare fused into one nationality, \"le peuple Fran\u00e7ais.\" But they have\nadopted the language of one set of invaders, and the name of another;\ntheir original names and languages having almost disappeared.\nSuppose that the French language remained as the sole evidence of\nthe existence of the population of Gaul, would the keenest philologer\narrive at any other conclusion than that this population was\nessentially and fundamentally a \"Latin\" race, which had had some\ncommunication with Celts and Teutons? Would he so much as suspect the\nformer existence of the Aquitani?\n\nCommunity of language testifies to close contact between the people\nwho speak the language, but to nothing else; philology has absolutely\nnothing to do with ethnology, except so far as it suggests the\nexistence or the absence of such contact. The contrary assumption,\nthat language is a test of race, has introduced the utmost confusion\ninto ethnological speculation, and has nowhere worked greater\nscientific and practical mischief than in the ethnology of the British\nIslands.\n\nWhat is known, for certain, about the languages spoken in these\nislands and their affinities may, I believe, be summed up as\nfollows:--\n\nI. _At the time of the Roman conquest, one language, the Celtic, under\ntwo principal dialectical divisions, the Cymric and the Gaelic, was\nspoken throughout the British Islands. Cymric was spoken in Britain,\nGaelic in Ireland._\n\nIf a language allied to Basque had in earlier times been spoken in\nthe British Islands, there is no evidence that any Euskarian-speaking\npeople remained at the time of the Roman conquest. The dark and the\nfair population of Britain alike spoke Celtic tongues, and therefore\nthe name \"Celt\" is as applicable to the one as to the other.\n\nWhat was spoken in Ireland can only be surmised by reasoning from the\nknowledge of later times; but there seems to be no doubt that it was\nGaelic; and that the Gaelic dialect was introduced into the Western\nHighlands by Irish invaders.\n\nII. _The Belgae and the Celtae, with the offshoots of the latter in\nAsia Minor, spoke dialects of the Cymric division of Celtic_.\n\nThe evidence of this proposition lies in the statement of St. Jerome\nbefore cited; in the similarity of the names of places in Belgic Gaul\nand in Britain; and in the direct comparison of sundry ancient Gaulish\nand Belgic words which have been preserved, with the existing Cymric\ndialects, for which I must refer to the learned work of Brandes.\n\nFormerly, as at the present day, the Cymric dialects of Celtic were\nspoken by both the fair and the dark stocks.\n\nIII. _There is no record of Gaelic being spoken anywhere save in\nIreland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man_.\n\nThis appears to be the final result of the long discussions which have\ntaken place on this much-debated question. As is the case with the\nCymric dialects, Gaelic is now spoken by both dark and fair stocks.\n\nIV. _When the Teutonic languages first became known, they were spoken\nonly Xanthochroi, that is to say, by the Germans, the Scandinavians,\nand Goths. And they were imported by Xanthochroi into Gaul and into\nBritain._\n\nIn Gaul the imported Teutonic dialect has been completely overpowered\nby the more or less modified Latin, which it found already in\npossession; and what Teutonic blood there may be in modern Frenchmen\nis not adequately represented in their language. In Britain, on the\ncontrary, the Teutonic dialects have overpowered the pre-existing\nforms of speech, and the people are vastly less \"Teutonic\" than\ntheir language. Whatever may have been the extent to which the\nCeltic-speaking population of the eastern half of Britain was trodden\nout and supplanted by the Teutonic-speaking Saxons and Danes, it is\nquite certain that no considerable displacement of the Celtic-speaking\npeople occurred in Cornwall, Wales, or the Highlands of Scotland; and\nthat nothing approaching to the extinction of that people took place\nin Devonshire, Somerset, or the western moiety of Britain generally.\nNevertheless, the fundamentally Teutonic English language is now\nspoken throughout Britain, except by an insignificant fraction of the\npopulation in Wales and the Western Highlands. But it is obvious\nthat this fact affords not the slightest justification for the common\npractice of speaking of the present inhabitants of Britain as an\n\"Anglo-Saxon\" people. It is, in fact, just as absurd as the habit of\ntalking of the French people as a \"Latin\" race, because they speak a\nlanguage which is, in the main, derived from Latin. And the absurdity\nbecomes the more patent when those who have no hesitation in calling\na Devonshire man, or a Cornish man, an \"Anglo-Saxon,\" would think it\nridiculous to call a Tipperary man by the same title, though he and\nhis forefathers may have spoken English for as long a time as the\nCornish man.\n\nIreland, at the earliest period of which we have any knowledge,\ncontained like Britain, a dark and a fair stock, which, there is every\nreason to believe, were identical with the dark and the fair stocks\nof Britain. When the Irish first became known they spoke a Gaelic\ndialect, and though, for many centuries, Scandinavians made continual\nincursions upon, and settlements among them, the Teutonic languages\nmade no more way among the Irish than they did among the French. How\nmuch Scandinavian blood was introduced there is no evidence to show.\nBut after the conquest of Ireland by Henry II., the English people,\nconsisting in part of the descendants of Cymric speakers, and in part\nof the descendants of Teutonic speakers, made good their footing in\nthe eastern half of the island, as the Saxons and Danes made good\ntheirs in England; and did their best to complete the parallel by\nattempting the extirpation of the Gaelic-speaking Irish. And they\nsucceeded to a considerable extent; a large part of Eastern Ireland is\nnow peopled by men who are substantially English by descent, and the\nEnglish language has spread over the land far beyond the limits of\nEnglish blood.\n\nEthnologically, the Irish people were originally, like the people of\nBritain, a mixture of Melanochroi and Xanthochroi. They resembled the\nBritons in speaking a Celtic tongue; but it was a Gaelic and not a\nCymric form of the Celtic language. Ireland was untouched by the Roman\nconquest, nor do the Saxons seem to have had any influence upon\nher destinies, but the Danes and Norsemen poured in a contingent of\nTeutonism, which has been largely supplemented by English and Scotch\nefforts.\n\nWhat, then, is the value of the ethnological difference between the\nEnglishman of the western half of England and the Irishman of the\neastern half of Ireland? For what reason does the one deserve the\nname of a \"Celt,\" and not the other? And further, if we turn to\nthe inhabitants of the western half of Ireland, why should the term\n\"Celts\" be applied to them more than to the inhabitants of Cornwall?\nAnd if the name is applicable to the one as justly as to the other,\nwhy should not intelligence, perseverance, thrift, industry, sobriety,\nrespect for law, be admitted to be Celtic virtues? And why should we\nnot seek for the cause of their absence in something else than the\nidle pretext of \"Celtic blood?\"\n\nI have been unable to meet with any answers to these questions.\n\nV. _The Celtic and the Teutonic dialects are members of the same\ngreat Aryan family of languages; but there is evidence to show that a\nnon-Aryan language was at one time spoken over a large extent of the\narea occupied by Melanochroi in Europe_.\n\nThe non-Aryan language here referred to is the Euskarian, now spoken\nonly by the Basques, but which seems in earlier times to have been\nthe language of the Aquitanians and Spaniards, and may possibly have\nextended much further to the East. Whether it has any connection with\nthe Ligurian and Oscan dialects are questions upon which, of course,\nI do not presume to offer any opinion. But it is important to remark\nthat it is a language the area of which has gradually diminished\nwithout any corresponding extirpation of the people who primitively\nspoke it; so that the people of Spain and of Aquitaine at the present\nday must be largely \"Euskarian\" by descent in just the same sense as\nthe Cornish men are \"Celtic\" by descent.\n\nSuch seem to me to be the main facts respecting the ethnology of the\nBritish islands and of Western Europe, which may be said to be fairly\nestablished. The hypothesis by which I think (with De Belloguet and\nThurnam) the facts may best be explained is this: In very remote times\nWestern Europe and the British islands were inhabited by the dark\nstock, or the Melanochroi, alone, and these Melanochroi spoke dialects\nallied to the Euskarian. The Xanthochroi, spreading over the great\nEurasiatic plains westward, and speaking Aryan dialects, gradually\ninvaded the territories of the Melanochroi. The Xanthochroi, who\nthus came into contact with the Western Melanochroi, spoke a Celtic\nlanguage; and that Celtic language, whether Cymric or Gaelic, spread\nover the Melanochroi far beyond the limits of intermixture of blood,\nsupplanting Euskarian, just as English and French, have supplanted\nCeltic. Even as early as Caesar's time, I suppose that the Euskarian\nwas everywhere, except in Spain and in Aquitaine, replaced by Celtic,\nand thus the Celtic speakers were no longer of one ethnological stock,\nbut of two. Both in Western Europe and in England a third wave of\nlanguage--in the one case Latin, in the other Teutonic--has spread\nover the same area. In Western Europe, it has left a fragment of the\nprimary Euskarian in one corner of the country, and a fragment of the\nsecondary Celtic in another. In the British islands, only outlying\npools of the secondary linguistic wave remain in Wales, the Highlands,\nIreland, and the Isle of Man. If this hypothesis is a sound one, it\nfollows that the name of Celtic is not properly applicable to the\nMelanochroic or dark stock of Europe. They are merely, so to speak,\nsecondary Celts. The primary and aboriginal Celtic-speaking people are\nXanthochroi--the typical Gauls of the ancient writers, and the close\nallies by blood, customs, and language, of the Germans.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nPALAEONTOLOGY AND THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION.\n\n(THE ANNIVERSARY ADDRESS TO THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, FOR 1870.)\n\n\nIt is now eight years since, in the absence of the late Mr. Leonard\nHomer, who then presided over us, it fell to my lot, as one of the\nSecretaries of this Society, to draw up the customary Annual Address.\nI availed myself of the opportunity to endeavour to \"take stock\"\nof that portion of the science of biology which is commonly called\n\"palaeontology,\" as it then existed; and, discussing one after another\nthe doctrines held by palaeontologists, I put before you the results\nof my attempts to sift the well-established from the hypothetical or\nthe doubtful. Permit me briefly to recall to your minds what those\nresults were:--\n\n1. The living population of all parts of the earth's surface which\nhave yet been examined has undergone a succession of changes which,\nupon the whole, have been of a slow and gradual character.\n\n2. When the fossil remains which are the evidences of these successive\nchanges, as they have occurred in any two more or less distant parts\nof the surface of the earth, are compared, they exhibit a certain\nbroad and general parallelism. In other words, certain forms of life\nin one locality occur in the same general order of succession as, or\nare _homotaxial_ with, similar forms in the other locality.\n\n3. Homotaxis is not to be held identical with synchronism without\nindependent evidence. It is possible that similar, or even identical,\nfaunae and florae in two different localities may be of extremely\ndifferent ages, if the term \"age\" is used in its proper chronological\nsense. I stated that \"geographical provinces, or zones, may have been\nas distinctly marked in the Palaeozoic epoch as at present; and those\nseemingly sudden appearances of new genera and species, which we\nascribe to new creation, may be simple results of migration.\"\n\n4. The opinion that the oldest known fossils are the earliest forms of\nlife has no solid foundation.\n\n5. If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained facts, the total\namount of change in the forms of animal and vegetable life, since the\nexistence of such forms is recorded, is small. When compared with the\nlapse of time since the first appearance of these forms, the amount\nof change is wonderfully small. Moreover, in each great group of the\nanimal and vegetable kingdoms, there are certain forms which I termed\nPERSISTENT TYPES, which have remained, with but very little apparent\nchange, from their first appearance to the present time.\n\n6. In answer to the question \"What, then, does an impartial survey of\nthe positively ascertained truths of palaeontology testify in relation\nto the common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose\nthat modification to have taken place by a necessary progress from\nmore to less embryonic forms, from more to less generalized types,\nwithin, the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous\nrocks?\" I reply, \"It negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us\nno evidence of such modification, or demonstrates such modification as\nhas occurred to have been very slight; and, as to the nature of\nthat modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earlier\nmembers of any long-continued group were more generalized in structure\nthan the later ones.\"\n\nI think that I cannot employ my last opportunity of addressing you,\nofficially, more properly--I may say more dutifully--than in\nrevising these old judgments with such help as further knowledge and\nreflection, and an extreme desire to get at the truth, may afford me.\n\n1. With respect to the first proposition, I may remark that\nwhatever may be the case among the physical geologists, catastrophic\npalaeontologists are practically extinct. It is now no part of\nrecognized geological doctrine that the species of one formation all\ndied out and were replaced by a brand-new set in the next formation.\nOn the contrary, it is generally, if not universally, agreed that\nthe succession of life has been, the result of a slow and gradual\nreplacement of species by species; and that all appearances of\nabruptness of change are due to breaks in the series of deposits, or\nother changes in physical conditions. The continuity of living forms\nhas been unbroken from the earliest times to the present day.\n\n2, 3. The use of the word \"homotaxis\" instead of \"synchronism\" has\nnot, so far as I know, found much favour in the eyes of geologists.\nI hope, therefore, that it is a love for scientific caution, and not\nmere personal affection for a bantling of my own, which leads me still\nto think that the change of phrase is of importance, and that the\nsooner it is made, the sooner shall we get rid of a number of pitfalls\nwhich beset the reasoner upon the facts and theories of geology.\n\nOne of the latest pieces of foreign intelligence which has reached\nus is the information that the Austrian geologists have, at last,\nsuccumbed to the weighty evidence which M. Barrande has accumulated,\nand have admitted the doctrine of colonies. But the admission of the\ndoctrine of colonies implies the further admission that even identity\nof organic remains is no proof of the synchronism of the deposits\nwhich contain them.\n\n4. The discussions touching the _Eozoon_, which commenced in 1864,\nhave abundantly justified the fourth proposition. In 1862, the oldest\nrecord of life was in the Cambrian rocks; but if the _Eozoon_ be,\nas Principal Dawson and Dr. Carpenter have shown so much reason for\nbelieving, the remains of a living being, the discovery of its true\nnature carried life back to a period which, as Sir William Logan has\nobserved, is as remote from that during which the Cambrian rocks were\ndeposited, as the Cambrian epoch itself is from the tertiaries. In\nother words, the ascertained duration of life upon the globe was\nnearly doubled at a stroke.\n\n5. The significance of persistent types, and of the small amount of\nchange which has taken place even in those forms which can be shown to\nhave been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the longer\nI occupy myself with the biology of the past.\n\nConsider how long a time has elapsed since the Miocene epoch. Yet, at\nthat time, there is reason to believe that every important group in\nevery order of the _Mammalia_ was represented. Even the comparatively\nscanty Eocene fauna yields examples of the orders _Cheiroptera,\nInsectivora, Rodentia_, and _Perissodactyla_; of _Artiodactyla_\nunder both the Ruminant and the Porcine modifications; of _Carnivora,\nCetacea_, and _Marsupialia_.\n\nOr, if we go back to the older half of the Mesozoic epoch, how truly\nsurprising it is to find every order of the _Reptilia_, except\nthe _Ophidia_, represented; while some groups, such as the\n_Ornithoscelida_ and the _Pterosauria_, more specialized than any\nwhich now exist, abounded.\n\nThere is one division of the _Amphibia_ which offers especially\nimportant evidence upon this point, inasmuch as it bridges over the\ngap between the Mesozoic and the Palaeozoic formations (often supposed\nto be of such prodigious magnitude), extending, as it does, from the\nbottom of the Carboniferous series to the top of the Trias, if not\ninto the Lias. I refer to the Labyrinthodonts. As the address of 1862\nwas passing through the press, I was able to mention, in a note, the\ndiscovery of a large Labyrinthodont, with well-ossified vertebrae, in\nthe Edinburgh coal-field. Since that time eight or ten distinct genera\nof Labyrinthodonts have been discovered in the Carboniferous rocks\nof England, Scotland, and Ireland, not to mention the American forms\ndescribed by Principal Dawson and Professor Cope. So that, at the\npresent time, the Labyrinthodont Fauna of the Carboniferous rocks is\nmore extensive and diversified than that of the Trias, while its chief\ntypes, so far as osteology enables us to judge, are quite as highly\norganized. Thus it is certain that a comparatively highly organized\nvertebrate type, such as that of the Labyrinthodonts, is capable\nof persisting, with no considerable change, through the period\nrepresented by the vast deposits which constitute the Carboniferous,\nthe Permian, and the Triassic formations.\n\nThe very remarkable results which have been brought to light by the\nsounding and dredging operations, which have been carried on with\nsuch remarkable success by the expeditions sent out by our own, the\nAmerican, and the Swedish Governments, under the supervision of\nable naturalists, have a bearing in the same direction. These\ninvestigations have demonstrated the existence, at great depths in the\nocean, of living animals in some cases identical with, in others very\nsimilar to, those which are found fossilized in the white chalk. The\n_Globigerinae_, Cyatholiths, Coccospheres, Discoliths in the one are\nabsolutely identical with those in the other; there are identical, or\nclosely analogous, species of Sponges, Echinoderms, and Brachiopods.\nOff the coast of Portugal, there now lives a species of _Beryx_,\nwhich, doubtless, leaves its bones and scales here and there in the\nAtlantic ooze, as its predecessor left its spoils in the mud of the\nsea of the Cretaceous epoch.\n\nMany years ago[1] I ventured to speak of the Atlantic mud as \"modern\nchalk,\" and I know of no fact inconsistent with the view which\nProfessor Wyville Thomson has advocated, that the modern chalk is not\nonly the lineal descendant of the ancient chalk, but that it remains,\nso to speak, in the possession of the ancestral estate; and that from\nthe Cretaceous period (if not much earlier) to the present day, the\ndeep sea has covered a large part of what is now the area of the\nAtlantic. But if _Globigerinae_, and _Terebratula caput-serpentis_\nand _Beryx_, not to mention other forms of animals and of plants, thus\nbridge over the interval between the present and the Mesozoic periods,\nis it possible that the majority of other living things underwent a\n\"sea-change into something new and strange\" all at once?\n\n[Footnote 1: See an article in the _Saturday Review_, for 1858, on\n\"Chalk, Ancient and Modern.\"]\n\n6. Thus far I have endeavoured to expand and to enforce by fresh\narguments, but not to modify in any important respect, the ideas\nsubmitted to you on a former occasion. But when I come to the\npropositions touching progressive modification, it appears to me, with\nthe help of the new light which has broken from various quarters, that\nthere is much ground for softening the somewhat Brutus-like severity\nwith which, in 1862, I dealt with a doctrine, for the truth of which I\nshould have been glad enough to be able to find a good foundation.\nSo far, indeed, as the _Invertebrata_, and the lower _Vertebrata_ are\nconcerned, the facts and the conclusions which are to be drawn from\nthem appear to me to remain what they were. For anything that, as yet,\nappears to the contrary, the earliest known Marsupials may have been\nas highly organized as their living congeners; the Permian lizards\nshow no signs of inferiority to those of the present day; the\nLabyrinthodonts cannot be placed below the living Salamander and\nTriton; the Devonian Ganoids are closely related to _Polypterus_ and\nto _Lepidosiren_.\n\nBut when we turn to the higher _Vertebrata_, the results of recent\ninvestigations, however we may sift and criticise them, seem to me to\nleave a clear balance in favour of the doctrine of the evolution\nof living forms one from another. Nevertheless, in discussing this\nquestion, it is very necessary to discriminate carefully between the\ndifferent kinds of evidence from fossil remains which are brought\nforward in favour of evolution.\n\nEvery fossil which takes an intermediate place between forms of\nlife already known, may be said, so far as it is intermediate, to be\nevidence in favour of evolution, inasmuch as it shows a possible road\nby which evolution may have taken place. But the mere discovery of\nsuch a form does not, in itself, prove that evolution took place by\nand through it, nor does it constitute more than presumptive evidence\nin favour of evolution in general. Suppose A, B, C to be three\nforms, while B is intermediate in structure between A and C. Then the\ndoctrine of evolution offers four possible alternatives. A may have\nbecome C by way of B; or C may have become A by way of B; or A and\nC may be independent modifications of B; or A, B, and C may be\nindependent modifications of some unknown D. Take the case of the\nPigs, the _Anoplotheridae_, and the Ruminants. The _Anoplotheridae_\nare intermediate between the first and the last; but this does not\ntell us whether the Ruminants have come from the Pigs, or the Pigs\nfrom Ruminants, or both from _Anoplotheridae_, or whether Pigs,\nRuminants, and _Anoplotheridae_ alike may not have diverged from some\ncommon stock.\n\nBut if it can be shown that A, B, and C exhibit successive stages in\nthe degree of modification, or specialization, of the same type; and\nif, further, it can be proved that they occur in successively\nnewer deposits. A being in the oldest and C in the newest, then the\nintermediate character of B has quite another importance, and I should\naccept it, without hesitation, as a link in the genealogy of C. I\nshould consider the burden of proof to be thrown upon anyone who\ndenied C to have been derived from A by way of B, or in some closely\nanalogous fashion; for it is always probable that one may not hit upon\nthe exact line of filiation, and, in dealing with fossils, may mistake\nuncles and nephews for fathers and sons.\n\nI think it necessary to distinguish between the former and the latter\nclasses of intermediate forms, as _intercalary types_ and _linear\ntypes_. When I apply the former term, I merely mean to say that as\na matter of fact, the form B, so named, is intermediate between the\nothers, in the sense in which the _Anoplotherium_ is intermediate\nbetween the Pigs and the Ruminants--without either affirming, or\ndenying, any direct genetic relation between the three forms involved.\nWhen I apply the latter term, on the other hand, I mean to express the\nopinion that the forms A, B, and C constitute a line of descent, and\nthat B is thus part of the lineage of C.\n\nFrom the time when Cuvier's wonderful researches upon the extinct\nMammals of the Paris gypsum first made intercalary types known, and\ncaused them to be recognized as such, the number of such forms has\nsteadily increased among the higher _Mammalia_. Not only do we now\nknow numerous intercalary forms of _Ungulata_, but M. Gaudry's great\nmonograph upon the fossils of Pikermi (which strikes me as one of the\nmost perfect pieces of palaeontological work I have seen for a long\ntime) shows us, among the _Primates, Mesopithecus_ as an intercalary\nform between the _Semnopitheci_ and the _Macaci_; and among the\n_Carnivora, Hyaenictis_ and _Ictitherium_ as intercalary, or, perhaps,\nlinear types between the _Viverridae_ and the _Hyaenidae_.\n\nHardly any order of the higher _Mammalia_ stands so apparently\nseparate and isolated from the rest as that of the _Cetacea_; though\na careful consideration of the structure of the pinnipede _Carnivora_,\nor Seals, shows, in them, many an approximation towards the still more\ncompletely marine mammals. The extinct _Zeuglodon_, however, presents\nus with an intercalary form between the type of the Seals and that of\nthe Whales. The skull of this great Eocene sea-monster, in fact, shows\nby the narrow and prolonged interorbital region; the extensive union\nof the parietal bones in a sagittal suture; the well-developed nasal\nbones; the distinct and large incisors implanted in premaxillary\nbones, which take a full share in bounding the fore part of the gape;\nthe two-fanged molar teeth with triangular and serrated crowns,\nnot exceeding five on each side in each jaw; and the existence of a\ndeciduous dentition--its close relation with the Seals. While, on\nthe other hand, the produced rostral form of the snout, the\nlong symphysis, and the low coronary process of the mandible are\napproximations to the cetacean form of those parts.\n\nThe scapula resembles that of the cetacean _Hyperoodon_, but the\nsupra-spinous fossa is larger and more seal-like; as is the humerus,\nwhich differs from that of the _Cetacea_ in presenting true articular\nsurfaces for the free jointing of the bones of the fore-arm. In the\napparently complete absence of hinder limbs, and in the characters of\nthe vertebral column, the _Zeuglodon_ lies on the cetacean side of the\nboundary line; so that, upon the whole, the Zeuglodonts, transitional\nas they are, are conveniently retained in the cetacean order. And the\npublication, in 1864, of M. Van Beneden's memoir on the Miocene and\nPliocene _Squalodon_, furnished much better means than anatomists\npreviously possessed of fitting in another link of the chain which\nconnects the existing _Cetacea_ with _Zeuglodon_. The teeth are much\nmore numerous, although the molars exhibit the zeuglodont double fang;\nthe nasal bones are very short, and the upper surface of the rostrum\npresents the groove, filled up during life by the prolongation of the\nethmoidal cartilage, which is so characteristic of the majority of the\n_Cetacea_.\n\nIt appears to me that, just as among the existing _Carnivora_,\nthe walruses and the eared seals are intercalary forms between the\nfissipede Carnivora and the ordinary seals, so the Zeuglodonts are\nintercalary between the _Carnivora_, as a whole, and the _Cetacea_.\nWhether the Zeuglodonts are also linear types in their relation to\nthese two groups cannot be ascertained, until we have more definite\nknowledge than we possess at present, respecting the relations in time\nof the _Carnivora_ and _Cetacea_.\n\nThus far we have been concerned with the intercalary types which\noccupy the intervals between Families or Orders of the same class; but\nthe investigations which have been carried on by Professor Gegenbaur,\nProfessor Cope, and myself into the structure and relations of the\nextinct reptilian forms of the _Ornithoscelida_ (or _Dinosauria_ and\n_Compsognatha_) have brought to light the existence of intercalary\nforms between what have hitherto been always regarded as very distinct\nclasses of the vertebrate sub-kingdom, namely _Reptilia_ and _Aves_.\nWhatever inferences may, or may not, be drawn from the fact, it is now\nan established truth that, in many of these _Ornithoscelida_, the hind\nlimbs and the pelvis are much more similar to those of Birds than\nthey are to those of Reptiles, and that these Bird-reptiles, or\nReptile-birds, were more or less completely bipedal.\n\nWhen I addressed you in 1862, I should have been bold indeed had I\nsuggested that palaeontology would before long show us the possibility\nof a direct transition from the type of the lizard to that of the\nostrich. At the present moment we have, in the _Ornithoscelida_, the\nintercalary type, which proves that transition to be something more\nthan a possibility; but it is very doubtful whether any of the genera\nof _Ornithoscelida_ with which we are at present acquainted are the\nactual linear types by which the transition from the lizard to the\nbird was effected. These, very probably, are still hidden from us in\nthe older formations.\n\nLet us now endeavour to find some cases of true linear types, or forms\nwhich are intermediate between others because they stand in a direct\ngenetic relation to them. It is no easy matter to find clear and\nunmistakable evidence of filiation among fossil animals; for, in order\nthat such evidence should be quite satisfactory, it is necessary that\nwe should be acquainted with all the most important features of the\norganization of the animals which are supposed to be thus related, and\nnot merely with the fragments upon which the genera and species of the\npalaeontologist are so often based. M. Gaudry has arranged the species\nof _Hyaenidae, Proboscidea, Rhinocerotidae_, and _Equidae_ in their\norder of filiation from their earliest appearance in the Miocene epoch\nto the present time, and Professor R\u00fctimeyer has drawn up similar\nschemes for the Oxen and other _Ungulata_--with what, I am disposed\nto think, is a fair and probable approximation to the order of nature.\nBut, as no one is better aware than these two learned, acute, and\nphilosophical biologists, all such arrangements must be regarded as\nprovisional, except in those cases in which, by a fortunate accident,\nlarge series of remains are obtainable from a thick and wide-spread\nseries of deposits. It is easy to accumulate probabilities--hard\nto make out some particular case in such a way that it will stand\nrigorous criticism.\n\nAfter much search, however, I think that such a case is to be made out\nin favour of the pedigree of the Horses.\n\nThe genus _Equus_ is represented as far back as the latter part of the\nMiocene epoch; but in deposits belonging to the middle of that\nepoch its place is taken by two other genera, _Hipparion_ and\n_Anchitherium_[1]; and, in the lowest Miocene and upper Eocene, only\nthe last genus occurs. A species of _Anchitherium_ was referred by\nCuvier to the _Palaeotheria_ under the name of _P. aurelianense_. The\ngrinding-teeth are in fact very similar in shape and in pattern, and\nin the absence of any thick layer of cement, to those of some species\nof _Palaeotherium_, especially Cuvier's _Palaeotherium minus_, which\nhas been formed into a separate genus, _Plagiolophus_, by Pomel. But\nin the fact that there are only six full-sized grinders in the lower\njaw, the first premolar being very small; that the anterior grinders\nare as large as, or rather larger than, the posterior ones; that the\nsecond premolar has an anterior prolongation; and that the posterior\nmolar of the lower jaw has, as Cuvier pointed out, a posterior lobe of\nmuch smaller size and different form, the dentition of _Anchitherium_\ndeparts from the type of the _Palaeotherium_, and approaches that of\nthe Horse.\n\n[Footnote 1: Hermann von Meyer gave the name of _Anchitherium_ to _A.\nEzguerrae_; and in his paper on the subject he takes great pains\nto distinguish the latter as the type of a new genus, from Cuvier's\n_Palaeotherium d'Orl\u00e9ans._ But it is precisely the _Palaeotherium\nd'Orl\u00e9ans_ which is the type of Christol's genus _Hipparitherium_; and\nthus, though _Hipparitherium_ is of later date than _Anchitherium_,\nit seemed to me to have a sort of equitable right to recognition\nwhen this address was written. On the whole, however, it seems most\nconvenient to adopt _Anchitherium_.]\n\nAgain, the skeleton of _Anchitherium_ is extremely equine. M. Christol\ngoes so far as to say that the description of the bones of the\nhorse, or the ass, current in veterinary works, would fit those of\n_Anchitherium._ And, in a general way, this may be true enough; but\nthere are some most important differences, which, indeed, are justly\nindicated by the same careful observer. Thus the ulna is complete\nthroughout, and its shaft is not a mere rudiment, fused into one bone\nwith the radius. There are three toes, one large in the middle and one\nsmall on each side. The femur is quite like that of a horse, and has\nthe characteristic fossa above the external condyle. In the British\nMuseum there is a most instructive specimen of the leg-bones, showing\nthat the fibula was represented by the external malleolus and by a\nflat tongue of bone, which extends up from it on the outer side of the\ntibia, and is closely ankylosed with the latter bone.[1] The hind toes\nare three, like those of the fore leg; and the middle metatarsal bone\nis much less compressed from side to side than that of the horse.\n\n[Footnote 1: I am indebted to M. Gervais for a specimen which\nindicates that the fibula was complete, at any rate, in some cases;\nand for a very interesting ramus of a mandible, which shows that, as\nin the _Palaeotheria_, the hindermost milk-molar of the lower jaw\nwas devoid of the posterior lobe which exists in the hindermost true\nmolar.]\n\nIn the _Hipparion_ the teeth nearly resemble those of the Horses,\nthough the crowns of the grinders are not so long; like those of the\nHorses, they are abundantly coated with cement. The shaft of the\nulna is reduced to a mere style ankylosed throughout nearly its whole\nlength with the radius, and appearing to be little more than a ridge\non the surface of the latter bone until it is carefully examined. The\nfront toes are still three, but the outer ones are more slender than\nin _Anchitherium_, and their hoofs smaller in proportion to that of\nthe middle toe: they are, in fact, reduced to mere dew-claws, and do\nnot touch the ground. In the leg, the distal end of the fibula is so\ncompletely united with the tibia that it appears to be a mere process\nof the latter bone, as in the Horses.\n\nIn _Equus_, finally, the crowns of the grinding-teeth become longer,\nand their patterns are slightly modified; the middle of the shaft of\nthe ulna usually vanishes, and its proximal and distal ends ankylose\nwith the radius. The phalanges of the two outer toes in each foot\ndisappear, their metacarpal and metatarsal bones being left as the\n\"splints.\"\n\nThe _Hipparion_ has large depressions on the face in front of the\norbits, like those for the \"larmiers\" of many ruminants; but traces\nof these are to be seen in some of the fossil horses from the Sewalik\nHills; and, as Leidy's recent researches show, they are preserved in\n_Anchitherium_.\n\nWhen we consider these facts, and the further circumstance that\nthe Hipparions, the remains of which have been collected in immense\nnumbers, were subject, as M. Gaudry and others have pointed out, to\na great range of variation, it appears to me impossible to resist the\nconclusion that the types of the _Anchitherium_, of the _Hipparion_,\nand of the ancient Horses constitute the lineage of the modern Horses,\nthe _Hipparion_ being the intermediate stage between the other two,\nand answering; to B in my former illustration.\n\nThe process by which the _Anchitherium_ has been converted into\n_Equus_ is one of specialization, or of more and more complete\ndeviation from what might be called the average form of an ungulate\nmammal. In the Horses, the reduction of some parts of the limbs,\ntogether with the special modification of those which are left, is\ncarried to a greater extent than in any other hoofed mammals. The\nreduction is less and the specialization is less in the _Hipparion_,\nand still less in the _Anchitherium_; but yet, as compared with\nother mammals, the reduction and specialization of parts in the\n_Anchitherium_ remain great.\n\nIs it not probable then, that, just as in the Miocene epoch, we find\nan ancestral equine form less modified than _Equus_, so, if we go\nback to the Eocene epoch, we shall find some quadruped related to the\n_Anchitherium_, as _Hipparion_ is related to _Equus_, and consequently\ndeparting less from the average form?\n\nI think that this desideratum is very nearly, if not quite, supplied\nby _Plagiolophus_, remains of which occur abundantly in some parts\nof the Upper and Middle Eocene formations. The patterns of\nthe grinding-teeth of _Plagiolophus_ are similar to those of\n_Anchitherium_, and their crowns are as thinly covered with cement;\nbut the grinders diminish in size forwards, and the last lower molar\nhas a large hind lobe, convex outwards and concave inwards, as in\n_Palceotherium_. The ulna is complete and much larger than in any\nof the _Equidae_, while it is more slender than in most of the true\n_Palaeotheria_; it is fixedly united, but not ankylosed, with the\nradius. There are three toes in the fore limb, the outer ones being\nslender, but less attenuated than in the _Equidae_. The femur is more\nlike that of the _Palaeotheria_ than that of the horse, and has only\na small depression above its outer condyle in the place of the great\nfossa which is so obvious in the _Equidae_. The fibula is distinct,\nbut very slender, and its distal end is ankylosed with the tibia.\nThere are three toes on the hind foot having similar proportions to\nthose on the fore foot. The principal metacarpal and metatarsal bones\nare flatter than they are in any of the _Equidae_; and the metacarpal\nbones are longer than the metatarsals, as in the _Palaeotheria_.\n\nIn its general form, _Plagiolophus_ resembles a very small and slender\nhorse[1], and is totally unlike the reluctant, pig-like creature\ndepicted in Cuvier's restoration of his _Palaeotherium minus_ in the\n\"Os semens Fossils.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Such, at least, is the conclusion suggested by the\nproportions of the skeleton figured by Cuvier and De Blainville; but\nperhaps something between a Horse and an Agouti would be nearest the\nmark.]\n\nIt would be hazardous to say that _Plagiolophus_ is the exact radical\nform of the Equine quadrupeds; but I do not think there can be any\nreasonable doubt that the latter animals have resulted from the\nmodification of some quadruped similar to _Plagiolophus_.\n\nWe have thus arrived at the Middle Eocene formation, and yet\nhave traced back the Horses only to a three-toed stock; but these\nthree-toed forms, no less than the Equine quadrupeds themselves,\npresent rudiments of the two other toes which appertain to what I\nhave termed the \"average\" quadruped. If the expectation raised by\nthe splints of the Horses that, in some ancestor of the Horses, these\nsplints would be found to be complete digits, has been verified,\nwe are furnished with very strong reasons for looking for a no\nless complete verification of the expectation that the three-toed.\n_Plagiolophus_-like \"avus\" of the horse must have had a five-toed\n\"atavus\" at some earlier period.\n\nNo such five-toed \"atavus,\" however, has yet made its appearance among\nthe few middle and older Eocene _Mammalia_ which are known.\n\nAnother series of closely affiliated forms, though the evidence they\nafford is perhaps less complete than that of the Equine series,\nis presented to us by the _Dichobune_ of the Eocene epoch, the\n_Cainotherium_ of the Miocene, and the _Tragulidae_, or so-called\n\"Musk-deer,\" of the present day.\n\nThe _Tragulidae_ have no incisors in the upper jaw, and only six\ngrinding-teeth on each side of each jaw; while the canine is moved up\nto the outer incisor, and there is a diastema, in the lower jaw. There\nare four complete toes on the hind foot, but the middle metatarsals\nusually become, sooner or later, ankylosed into a cannon bone. The\nnavicular and the cuboid unite, and the distal end of the fibula is\nankylosed with the tibia.\n\nIn _Cainotherium_ and _Dichobune_ the upper incisors are fully\ndeveloped. There are seven grinders; the teeth form a continuous\nseries without a diastema. The metatarsals, the navicular and cuboid,\nand the distal end of the fibula, remain free. In the _Cainotherium_,\nalso, the second metacarpal is developed, but is much shorter than the\nthird, while the fifth is absent or rudimentary. In this respect it\nresembles _Anoplotherium secundarium_. This circumstance, and the\npeculiar pattern of the upper molars in _Cainotherium_, lead me\nto hesitate in considering it as the actual ancestor of the modern\n_Tragulidae_. If _Dichobune_ has a four-toed fore foot (though I am\ninclined to suspect that it resembles _Cainotherium_), it will be a\nbetter representative of the oldest forms of the Traguline series; but\n_Dichobune_ occurs in the Middle-Eocene, and is, in fact, the oldest\nknown artiodactyle mammal. Where, then, must we look for its five-toed\nancestor?\n\nIf we follow down other lines of recent and tertiary _Ungulata_, the\nsame question presents itself. The Pigs are traceable back through\nthe Miocene epoch to the Upper Eocene, where they appear in the\ntwo well-marked forms of _Hyopotamus_ and _Chaeropotamus_; but\n_Hyopotamus_ appears to have had only two toes.\n\nAgain, all the great groups of the Ruminants, the _Bovidae,\nAntilopidae, Camelopardalidae_, and _Cervidae_, are represented in\nthe Miocene epoch, and so are the Camels. The Upper Eocene\n_Anoplotherium_, which is intercalary between the Pigs and the\n_Tragulidae_, has only two or, at most, three toes. Among the scanty\nmammals of the Lower Eocene formation we have the perissodactyle\n_Ungulata_ represented by _Coryphodon, Hyra-cotherium_, and\n_Pliolophus_. Suppose for a moment, for the sake of following out\nthe argument, that _Pliolophus_ represents the primary stock of the\nPerissodactyles, and _Dichobune_ that of the Artiodactyles (though\nI am far from saying that such is the case), then we find, in the\nearliest fauna of the Eocene epoch to which our investigations carry\nus, the two divisions of the _Ungulata_ completely differentiated, and\nno trace of any common stock of both, or of five-toed predecessors to\neither. With the case of the Horses before us, justifying a belief in\nthe production of new animal forms by modification of old ones, I see\nno escape from the necessity of seeking for these ancestors of the\n_Ungulata_ beyond the limits of the Tertiary formations.\n\nI could as soon admit special creation, at once, as suppose that the\nPerissodactyles and Artiodactyles had no five-toed ancestors. And when\nwe consider how large a portion of the Tertiary period elapsed before\n_Anchitherium_ was converted into _Equus_, it is difficult to escape\nthe conclusion that a large proportion of time anterior to the\nTertiary period must have been expended in converting the common stock\nof the _Ungulata_ into Perissodactyles and Artiodactyles.\n\nThe same moral is inculcated by the study of every other order of\nTertiary monodelphous _Mammalia_. Each of these orders is represented\nin the Miocene epoch: the Eocene formation, as I have already said,\ncontains _Cheiroptera, Insectivora, Rodentia, Ungulata, Carnivora,_\nand _Cetacea_. But the _Cheiroptera_ are extreme modifications of the\n_Insectivora_, just as the _Cetacea_ are extreme modifications of\nthe Carnivorous type; and therefore it is to my mind incredible\nthat monodelphous _Insectivora_ and _Carnivora_ should not have been\nabundantly developed, along with _Ungulata_, in the Mesozoic epoch.\nBut if this be the case, how much further back must we go to find the\ncommon stock of the monodelphous _Mammalia_? As to the _Didelphia_,\nif we may trust the evidence which seems to be afforded by their\nvery scanty remains, a Hypsiprymnoid form existed at the epoch of the\nTrias, contemporaneously with a Carnivorous form. At the epoch of the\nTrias, therefore, the _Marsupialia_ must have, already existed long\nenough to have become differentiated into carnivorous and herbivorous\nforms. But the _Monotremata_ are lower forms than the _Didelphia,_\nwhich last are intercalary between the _Ornithodelphia_ and the\n_Monodelphia_. To what point of the Palaeozoic epoch, then, must we,\nupon any rational estimate, relegate the origin of the _Monotremata_?\n\nThe investigation of the occurrence of the classes and of the orders\nof the _Sauropsida_ in time points in exactly the same direction.\nIf, as there is great reason to believe, true Birds existed in the\nTriassic epoch, the ornithoscelidous forms by which Reptiles passed\ninto Birds must have preceded them. In fact there is, even at present,\nconsiderable ground for suspecting the existence of _Dinosauria_ in\nthe Permian formations; but, in that case, lizards must be of still\nearlier date. And if the very small differences which are observable\nbetween the _Crocodilia_ of the older Mesozoic formations and those of\nthe present day furnish any sort of approximation towards an estimate\nof the average rate of change among the _Sauropsida_, it is almost\nappalling to reflect how far back in Palaeozoic times we must go,\nbefore we can hope to arrive at that common stock from which the\n_Crocodilia, Lacertilia, Ornithoscelida_, and _Plesiosauria_, which\nhad attained so great a development in the Triassic epoch, must have\nbeen derived.\n\nThe _Amphibia_ and _Pisces_ tell the same story. There is not a\nsingle class of vertebrated animals which, when it first appears,\nis represented by analogues of the lowest known members of the same\nclass. Therefore, if there is any truth in the doctrine of evolution,\nevery class must be vastly older than the first record of its\nappearance upon the surface of the globe. But if considerations of\nthis kind compel us to place the origin of vertebrated animals at\na period sufficiently distant from the Upper Silurian, in which the\nfirst Elasmobranchs and Ganoids occur, to allow of the evolution of\nsuch fishes as these from a Vertebrate as simple as the _Amphioxus_,\nI can only repeat that it is appalling to speculate upon the extent to\nwhich that origin must have preceded the epoch of the first recorded\nappearance of vertebrate life.\n\nSuch is the further commentary which I have to offer upon the\nstatement of the chief results of palaeontology which I formerly\nventured to lay before you.\n\nBut the growth of knowledge in the interval makes me conscious of\nan omission of considerable moment in that statement, inasmuch as it\ncontains no reference to the bearings of palaeontology upon the theory\nof the distribution of life; nor takes note of the remarkable manner\nin which the facts of distribution, in present and past times, accord\nwith the doctrine of evolution, especially in regard to land animals.\n\nThat connection between palaeontology and geology and the present\ndistribution of terrestrial animals, which so strikingly impressed\nMr. Darwin, thirty years ago, as to lead him to speak of a \"law of\nsuccession of types,\" and of the wonderful relationship on the same\ncontinent between the dead and the living, has recently received much\nelucidation from the researches of Gaudry, of R\u00fctimeyer, of Leidy,\nand of Alphonse Milne-Edwards, taken in connection with the\nearlier labours of our lamented colleague Falconer; and it has been\ninstructively discussed in the thoughtful and ingenious work of Mr.\nAndrew Murray \"On the Geographical Distribution of Mammals.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: The paper \"On the Form and Distribution of the\nLand-tracts during the Secondary and Tertiary Periods respectively;\nand on the Effect upon Animal Life which great Changes in Geographical\nConfiguration have probably produced,\" by Mr. Searles V. Wood, jun.,\nwhich was published in the _Philosophical Magazine_, in 1862, was\nunknown to me when this Address was written. It is well worthy of the\nmost careful study.]\n\nI propose to lay before you, as briefly as I can, the ideas to which a\nlong consideration of the subject has given rise in my own mind.\n\nIf the doctrine of evolution is sound, one of its immediate\nconsequences clearly is, that the present distribution of life\nupon the globe is the product of two factors, the one being the\ndistribution which obtained in the immediately preceding epoch, and\nthe other the character and the extent of the changes which have taken\nplace in physical geography between the one epoch and the other; or,\nto put the matter in another way, the Fauna and Flora of any given\narea, in any given epoch, can consist only of such forms of life as\nare directly descended from those which constituted the Fauna and\nFlora of the same area in the immediately preceding epoch, unless the\nphysical geography (under which I include climatal conditions) of\nthe area has been so altered as to give rise to immigration of living\nforms from some other area.\n\nThe evolutionist, therefore, is bound to grapple with the following\nproblem whenever it is clearly put before him:--Here are the Faunae of\nthe same area during successive epochs. Show good cause for believing\neither that these Faunae have been derived from one another by gradual\nmodification, or that the Faunae have reached the area in question\nby migration from some area in which they have undergone their\ndevelopment.\n\nI propose to attempt to deal with this problem, so far as it is\nexemplified by the distribution of the terrestrial _Vertebrata_, and I\nshall endeavour to show you that it is capable of solution in a sense\nentirely favourable to the doctrine of evolution.\n\nI have elsewhere[1] stated at length the reasons which lead me to\nrecognize four primary distributional provinces for the terrestrial\n_Vertebrata_ in the present world, namely,--first, the _Novozelanian_,\nor New-Zealand province; secondly, the _Australian_ province,\nincluding Australia, Tasmania, and the Negrito Islands; thirdly,\n_Austro-Columbia_, or South America _plus_ North America as far as\nMexico; and fourthly, the rest of the world, or _Arctogaea_, in which\nprovince America north of Mexico constitutes one sub-province, Africa\nsouth of the Sahara a second, Hindostan a third, and the remainder of\nthe Old World, a fourth.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"On the Classification and Distribution of the\nAlectoromorphae;\" Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1868.]\n\nNow the truth which Mr. Darwin perceived and promulgated as \"the law\nof the succession of types\" is, that, in all these provinces, the\nanimals found in Pliocene or later deposits are closely affined to\nthose which now inhabit the same provinces; and that, conversely, the\nforms characteristic of other provinces are absent. North and South\nAmerica, perhaps, present one or two exceptions to the last rule, but\nthey are readily susceptible of explanation. Thus, in Australia, the\nlater Tertiary mammals are marsupials (possibly with exception of the\nDog and a Rodent or two, as at present). In Austro-Columbia the later\nTertiary fauna exhibits numerous and varied forms of Platyrrhine\nApes, Rodents, Cats, Dogs, Stags, _Edentata_, and Opossums; but, as\nat present, no Catarrhine Apes, no Lemurs, no _Insectivora_, Oxen,\nAntelopes, Rhinoceroses, nor _Didelphia_ other than Opossums. And in\nthe wide-spread Arctogaeal province, the Pliocene and later mammals\nbelong to the same groups as those which now exist in the province.\nThe law of succession of types, therefore, holds good for the present\nepoch as compared with its predecessor. Does it equally well apply to\nthe Pliocene fauna when we compare it with that of the Miocene epoch?\nBy great good fortune, an extensive mammalian fauna of the latter\nepoch has now become known, in four very distant portions of the\nArctogaeal province which do not differ greatly in latitude. Thus\nFalconer and Cautley have made known the fauna of the sub-Himalayas\nand the Perim Islands; Gaudry that of Attica; many observers that of\nCentral Europe and France; and Leidy that of Nebraska, on the eastern\nflank of the Rocky Mountains. The results are very striking. The total\nMiocene fauna comprises many genera, and species of Catarrhine Apes,\nof Bats, of _Insectivora_; of Arctogaeal types of _Rodentia_; of\n_Proboscidea_; of equine, rhinocerotic, and tapirine quadrupeds; of\ncameline, bovine, antilopine, cervine, and traguline Ruminants; of\nPigs and Hippopotamuses; of _Viverridae_ and _Hyaenidae_ among other\n_Carnivora_; with _Edentata_ allied to the Arctogaeal _Orycteropus_\nand _Manis_, and not to the Austro-Columbian Edentates. The only type\npresent in the Miocene, but absent in the existing, fauna of Eastern\nArctogaea, is that of the _Didelphidae_, which, however, remains in\nNorth America.\n\nBut it is very remarkable that while the Miocene fauna of the\nArctogaeal province, as a whole, is of the same character as the\nexisting fauna of the same province, as a whole, the component\nelements of the fauna were differently associated. In the Miocene\nepoch, North America possessed Elephants, Horses, Rhinoceroses, and\na great number and variety of Ruminants and Pigs, which are absent\nin the present indigenous fauna; Europe had its Apes, Elephants,\nRhinoceroses, Tapirs, Musk-deer, Giraffes, Hyaenas, great Cats,\nEdentates, and Opossum-like Marsupials, which have equally vanished\nfrom its present fauna; and in Northern India, the African types of\nHippopotamuses, Giraffes, and Elephants were mixed up with what\nare now the Asiatic types of the latter, and with Camels, and\nSemnopithecine and Pithecine Apes of no less distinctly Asiatic forms.\n\nIn fact the Miocene mammalian fauna of Europe and the Himalayan\nregions contains, associated together, the types which are at present\nseparately located in the South-African and Indian sub-provinces of\nArctogaea. Now there is every reason to believe, on other grounds,\nthat both Hindostan, south of the Ganges, and Africa, south of the\nSahara, were separated by a wide sea from Europe and North Asia during\nthe Middle and Upper Eocene epochs. Hence it becomes highly probable\nthat the well-known similarities, and no less remarkable differences,\nbetween the present Faunae of India and South Africa have arisen\nin some such fashion as the following. Some time during the Miocene\nepoch, possibly when the Himalayan chain was elevated, the bottom of\nthe nummulitic sea was upheaved and converted into dry land, in the\ndirection of a line extending from Abyssinia to the mouth of the\nGanges. By this means, the Dekhan on the one hand, and South Africa\non the other, became connected with the Miocene dry land and with one\nanother. The Miocene mammals spread gradually over this intermediate\ndry land; and if the condition of its eastern and western ends offered\nas wide contrasts as the valleys of the Ganges and Arabia do now, many\nforms which made their way into Africa must have been different from\nthose which reached the Dekhan, while others might pass into both\nthese sub-provinces.\n\nThat there was a continuity of dry land between Europe and North\nAmerica during the Miocene epoch, appears to me to be a necessary\nconsequence of the fact that many genera of terrestrial mammals, such\nas _Castor_, _Hystrix_, _Elephas_, _Mastodon_, _Equus_, _Hipparion_,\n_Anchitherium_, _Rhinoceros_, _Cervus_, _Amphicyon_, _Hyaenarctos_,\nand _Machairodus_, are common to the Miocene formations of the two\nareas, and have as yet been found (except perhaps _Anchitherium_) in\nno deposit of earlier age. Whether this connection took place by the\neast, or by the west, or by both sides of the Old World, there is at\npresent no certain evidence, and the question is immaterial to the\npresent argument; but, as there are good grounds for the belief that\nthe Australian province and the Indian and South-African sub-provinces\nwere separated by sea from the rest of Arctogaea before the Miocene\nepoch, so it has been rendered no less probable, by the investigations\nof Mr. Carrick Moore and Professor Duncan, that Austro-Columbia was\nseparated by sea from North America during a large part of the Miocene\nepoch.\n\nIt is unfortunate that we have no knowledge of the Miocene mammalian\nfauna of the Australian and Austro-Columbian provinces; but, seeing\nthat not a trace of a Platyrrhine Ape, of a Procyonine Carnivore, of a\ncharacteristically South-American Rodent, of a Sloth, an Armadillo,\nor an Ant-eater has yet been found in Miocene deposits of Arctogaea, I\ncannot doubt that they already existed in the Miocene Austro-Columbian\nprovince.\n\nNor is it less probable that the characteristic types of Australian\nMammalia were already developed in that region in Miocene times.\n\nBut Austro-Columbia presents difficulties from which Australia is\nfree; _Camelidae_ and _Tapiridae_ are now indigenous in South America\nas they are in Arctogaea; and, among the Pliocene Austro-Columbian\nmammals, the Austro-Columbian genera _Equus_, _Mastodon_, and\n_Machairodus_ are numbered. Are these Postmiocene immigrants, or\nPraemiocene natives?\n\nStill more perplexing are the strange and interesting forms _Toxodon_,\n_Macrauchenia_, _Typotherium_, and a new Anoplotherioid mammal\n(_Homalodotherium_) which Dr. Cunningham sent over to me some time ago\nfrom Patagonia. I confess I am strongly inclined to surmise that these\nlast, at any rate, are remnants of the population of Austro-Columbia\nbefore the Miocene epoch, and were not derived from Arctogaea by way\nof the north and east.\n\nThe fact that this immense fauna of Miocene Arctogaea is now fully\nand richly represented only in India and in South Africa, while it\nis shrunk and depauperized in North Asia, Europe, and North America,\nbecomes at once intelligible, if we suppose that India and South\nAfrica had but a scanty mammalian population before the Miocene\nimmigration, while the conditions were highly favourable to the new\ncomers. It is to be supposed that these new regions offered themselves\nto the Miocene Ungulates, as South America and Australia offered\nthemselves to the cattle, sheep, and horses of modern colonists. But,\nafter these great areas were thus peopled, came the Glacial epoch,\nduring which the excessive cold, to say nothing of depression and\nice-covering, must have almost depopulated all the northern parts of\nArctogaea, destroying all the higher mammalian forms, except those\nwhich, like the Elephant and Rhinoceros, could adjust their coats to\nthe altered conditions. Even these must have been driven away from the\ngreater part of the area; only those Miocene mammals which had passed\ninto Hindostan and into South Africa would escape decimation by such\nchanges in the physical geography of Arctogaea. And when the northern\nhemisphere passed into its present condition, these lost tribes of the\nMiocene Fauna were hemmed by the Himalayas, the Sahara, the Red Sea,\nand the Arabian deserts, within their present boundaries. Now, on the\nhypothesis of evolution, there is no sort of difficulty in admitting\nthat the differences between the Miocene forms of the mammalian\nFauna and those which exist at present are the results of gradual\nmodification; and, since such differences in distribution as obtain\nare readily explained by the changes which have taken place in the\nphysical geography of the world since the Miocene epoch, it is clear\nthat the result of the comparison of the Miocene and present Fauna is\ndistinctly in favour of evolution. Indeed I may go further. I may\nsay that the hypothesis of evolution explains the facts of Miocene,\nPliocene, and Recent distribution, and that no other supposition even\npretends to account for them. It is, indeed, a conceivable supposition\nthat every species of Rhinoceros and every species of Hyaena, in the\nlong succession of forms between the Miocene and the present species,\nwas separately constructed out of dust, or out of nothing, by\nsupernatural power; but until I receive distinct evidence of the fact,\nI refuse to run the risk of insulting any sane man by supposing that\nhe seriously holds such a notion.\n\nLet us now take a step further back in time, and inquire into the\nrelations between the Miocene Fauna and its predecessor of the Upper\nEocene formation.\n\nHere it is to be regretted that our materials for forming a judgment\nare nothing to be compared in point of extent or variety with those\nwhich are yielded by the Miocene strata. However, what we do know\nof this Upper Eocene Fauna of Europe gives sufficient positive\ninformation to enable us to draw some tolerably safe inferences. It\nhas yielded representatives of _Insectivora_, of _Cheiroptera_,\nof _Rodentia_, of _Carnivora_, of artiodactyle and perissodactyle\n_Ungulata_, and of opossum-like Marsupials. No Australian type of\nMarsupial has been discovered in the Upper Eocene strata, nor any\nEdentate mammal. The genera (except perhaps in the case of some of the\n_Insectivora_, _Cheiroptera_, and _Rodentia_) are different from those\nof the Miocene epoch, but present a remarkable general similarity to\nthe Miocene and recent genera. In several cases, as I have already\nshown, it has now been clearly made out that the relation between\nthe Eocene and Miocene forms is such that the Eocene form is the less\nspecialized; while its Miocene ally is more so, and the specialization\nreaches its maximum in the recent forms of the same type.\n\nSo far as the Upper Eocene and the Miocene Mammalian Faunae are\ncomparable, their relations are such as in no way to oppose the\nhypothesis that the older are the progenitors of the more recent\nforms, while, in some cases, they distinctly favour that hypothesis.\nThe period in time and the changes in physical geography represented\nby the nummulitic deposits are undoubtedly very great, while the\nremains of Middle Eocene and Older Eocene Mammals are comparatively\nfew. The general facies of the Middle Eocene Fauna, however, is quite\nthat of the Upper. The Older Eocene pre-nummulitic mammalian Fauna\ncontains Bats, two genera of _Carnivora_, three genera of _Ungulata_\n(probably all perissodactyle), and a didelphid Marsupial; all these\nforms, except perhaps the Bat and the Opossum, belong to genera\nwhich are not known to occur out of the Lower Eocene formation. The\n_Coryphodon_ appears to have been allied to the Miocene and later\nTapirs, while _Pliolophus_, in its skull and dentition, curiously\npartakes of both artiodactyle and perissodactyle characters; the third\ntrochanter upon its femur, and its three-toed hind foot, however,\nappear definitely to fix its position in the latter division.\n\nThere is nothing, then, in what is known of the older Eocene mammals\nof the Arctogaeal province to forbid the supposition that they stood\nin an ancestral relation to those of the Calcaire Grossier and the\nGypsum of the Paris basin, and that our present fauna, therefore, is\ndirectly derived from that which already existed in Arctogaea at the\ncommencement of the Tertiary period. But if we now cross the frontier\nbetween the Cainozoic and the Mesozoic faunae, as they are preserved\nwithin the Arctogaeal area, we meet with an astounding change, and\nwhat appears to be a complete and unmistakable break in the line of\nbiological continuity.\n\nAmong the twelve or fourteen species of _Mammalia_ which are said to\nhave been found in the Purbecks, not one is a member of the orders\n_Cheiroptera_, _Rodentia_, _Ungulata_, or _Carnivora_, which are so\nwell represented in the Tertiaries. No _Insectivora_ are certainly\nknown, nor any opossum-like Marsupials. Thus there is a vast negative\ndifference between the Cainozoic and the Mesozoic mammalian faunae\nof Europe. But there is a still more important positive difference,\ninasmuch as all these Mammalia appear to be Marsupials belonging to\nAustralian groups, and thus appertaining to a different distributional\nprovince from the Eocene and Miocene marsupials, which are\nAustro-Columbian. So far as the imperfect materials which exist enable\na judgment to be formed, the same law appears to have held good for\nall the earlier Mesozoic _Mammalia_. Of the Stonesfield slate mammals,\none, _Amphitherium_, has a definitely Australian character; one,\n_Phascolotherium_, may be either Dasyurid or Didelphine; of a third,\n_Stereognathus_, nothing can at present be said. The two mammals of\nthe Trias, also, appear to belong to Australian groups.\n\nEvery one is aware of the many curious points of resemblance between\nthe marine fauna of the European Mesozoic rocks and that which now\nexists in Australia. But if there was this Australian facies about\nboth the terrestrial and the marine faunae of Mesozoic Europe, and\nif there is this unaccountable and immense break between the fauna\nof Mesozoic and that of Tertiary Europe, is it not a very obvious\nsuggestion that, in the Mesozoic epoch, the Australian province\nincluded Europe, and that the Arctogaeal province was contained within\nother limits? The Arctogaeal province is at present enormous, while\nthe Australian is relatively small. Why should not these proportions\nhave been different during the Mesozoic epoch?\n\nThus I am led to think that by far the simplest and most rational\nmode of accounting for the great change which took place in the living\ninhabitants of the European area at the end of the Mesozoic epoch, is\nthe supposition that it arose from a vast alteration of the physical\ngeography of the globe; whereby an area long tenanted by Cainozoic\nforms was brought into such relations with the European area that\nmigration from the one to the other became possible, and took place on\na great scale.\n\nThis supposition relieves us, at once, from the difficulty in which we\nwere left, some time ago, by the arguments which I used to demonstrate\nthe necessity of the existence of all the great types of the Eocene\nepoch in some antecedent period.\n\nIt is this Mesozoic continent (which may well have lain in the\nneighbourhood of what are now the shores of the North Pacific Ocean)\nwhich I suppose to have been occupied by the Mesozoic _Monodelphia_;\nand it is in this region that I conceive they must have gone through\nthe long series of changes by which they were specialized into the\nforms which we refer to different orders. I think it very probable\nthat what is now South America may have received the characteristic\nelements of its mammalian fauna during the Mesozoic epoch; and there\ncan be little doubt that the general nature of the change which took\nplace at the end of the Mesozoic epoch in Europe was the upheaval of\nthe eastern and northern regions of the Mesozoic sea-bottom into a\nwestward extension of the Mesozoic continent, over which the mammalian\nfauna, by which it was already peopled, gradually spread. This\ninvasion of the land was prefaced by a previous invasion of the\nCretaceous sea by modern forms of mollusca and fish.\n\nIt is easy to imagine how an analogous change might come about in the\nexisting world. There is, at present, a great difference between the\nfauna of the Polynesian Islands and that of the west coast of America.\nThe animals which are leaving their spoils in the deposits now forming\nin these localities are widely different. Hence, if a gradual\nshifting of the deep sea, which at present bars migration between the\neasternmost of these islands and America, took place to the westward,\nwhile the American side of the sea-bottom was gradually upheaved,\nthe palaeontologist of the future would find, over the Pacific area,\nexactly such a change as I am supposing to have occurred in the\nNorth-Atlantic area at the close of the Mesozoic period. An Australian\nfauna would be found underlying an American fauna, and the transition\nfrom the one to the other would be as abrupt as that between the Chalk\nand lower Tertiaries; and as the drainage-area of the newly formed\nextension of the American continent gave rise to rivers and lakes, the\nmammals mired in their mud would differ from those of like deposits on\nthe Australian side, just as the Eocene mammals differ from those of\nthe Purbecks.\n\nHow do similar reasonings apply to the other great change of\nlife--that which took place at the end of the Palaeozoic period?\n\nIn the Triassic epoch, the distribution of the dry land and of\nterrestrial vertebrate life appears to have been, generally, similar\nto that which existed in the Mesozoic epoch; so that the Triassic\ncontinents and their faunae seem to be related to the Mesozoic lands\nand their faunae, just as those of the Miocene epoch are related to\nthose of the present day. In fact, as I have recently endeavoured\nto prove to the Society, there was an Arctogaeal continent and an\nArctogaeal province of distribution in Triassic times as there is now;\nand the _Sauropsida_ and _Marsupialia_ which constituted that\nfauna were, I doubt not, the progenitors of the _Sauropsida_ and\n_Marsupialia_ of the whole Mesozoic epoch.\n\nLooking at the present terrestrial fauna of Australia, it appears to\nme to be very probable that it is essentially a remnant of the\nfauna of the Triassic, or even of an earlier, age[1]; in which\ncase Australia must at that time have been in continuity with the\nArctogaeal continent.\n\n[Footnote 1: Since this Address was read, Mr. Krefft has sent us\nnews of the discovery in Australia of a fresh-water fish of strangely\nPalaeozoic aspect, and apparently a Ganoid intermediate between\n_Dipterus_ and _Lepidosiren_.]\n\nBut now comes the further inquiry. Where was the highly differentiated\nSauropsidan fauna of the Trias in Palaeozoic times? The supposition\nthat the Dinosaurian, Crocodilian, Dicynodontian, and Plesiosaurian\ntypes were suddenly created at the end of the Permian epoch may\nbe dismissed, without further consideration, as a monstrous and\nunwarranted assumption. The supposition that all these types were\nrapidly differentiated out of _Lacertilia_, in the time represented by\nthe passage from the Palaeozoic to the Mesozoic formation, appears to\nme to be hardly more credible, to say nothing of the indications of\nthe existence of Dinosaurian forms in the Permian rocks which have\nalready been obtained.\n\nFor my part, I entertain no sort of doubt that the Reptiles, Birds,\nand Mammals of the Trias are the direct descendants of Reptiles,\nBirds, and Mammals which existed in the latter part of the Palaeozoic\nepoch, but not in any area of the present dry land which has yet been\nexplored by the geologist.\n\nThis may seem a bold assumption, but it will not appear unwarrantable\nto those who reflect upon the very small extent of the earth's surface\nwhich has hitherto exhibited the remains of the great Mammalian fauna\nof the Eocene times. In this respect, the Permian land Vertebrate\nfauna appears to me to be related to the Triassic much as the Eocene\nis to the Miocene. Terrestrial reptiles have been found in Permian\nrocks only in three localities; in some spots of France, and recently\nof England, and over a more extensive area in Germany. Who can suppose\nthat the few fossils yet found in these regions give any sufficient\nrepresentation of the Permian fauna?\n\nIt may be said that the Carboniferous formations demonstrate the\nexistence of a vast extent of dry land in the present dry-land area,\nand that the supposed terrestrial Palaeozoic Vertebrate Fauna ought to\nhave left its remains in the Coal-measures, especially as there is now\nreason to believe that much of the coal was formed by the accumulation\nof spores and sporangia on dry land. But if we consider the matter\nmore closely, I think that this apparent objection loses its force. It\nis clear that, during the Carboniferous epoch, the vast area of land\nwhich is now covered by Coal-measures must have been undergoing a\ngradual depression. The dry land thus depressed must, therefore, have\nexisted, as such, before the Carboniferous epoch--in other words, in\nDevonian times--and its terrestrial population may never have been\nother than such as existed during the Devonian, or some previous\nepoch, although much higher forms may have been developed elsewhere.\n\nAgain, let me say that I am making no gratuitous assumption of\ninconceivable changes. It is clear that the enormous area of Polynesia\nis, on the whole, an area over which depression has taken place to\nan immense extent; consequently a great continent, or assemblage of\nsubcontinental masses of land, must have existed at some former time,\nand that at a recent period, geologically speaking, in the area of\nthe Pacific. But if that continent had contained Mammals, some of\nthem must have remained to tell the tale; and as it is well known that\nthese islands have no indigenous _Mammalia_, it is safe to assume that\nnone existed. Thus, midway between Australia and South America, each\nof which possesses an abundant and diversified mammalian fauna, a mass\nof land, which may have been as large as both put together, must have\nexisted without a mammalian inhabitant. Suppose that the shores of\nthis great land were fringed, as those of tropical Australia are now,\nwith belts of mangroves, which would extend landwards on the one\nside, and be buried beneath littoral deposits on the other side,\nas depression went on; and great beds of mangrove lignite might\naccumulate over the sinking land. Let upheaval of the whole now take\nplace, in such a manner as to bring the emerging land into continuity\nwith the South-American or Australian continent, and, in course of\ntime, it would be peopled by an extension of the fauna of one of these\ntwo regions--just as I imagine the European Permian dry land to have\nbeen peopled.\n\nI see nothing whatever against the supposition that distributional\nprovinces of terrestrial life existed in the Devonian epoch, inasmuch\nas M. Barrande has proved that they existed much earlier. I am aware\nof no reason for doubting that, as regards the grades of terrestrial\nlife contained in them, one of these may have been related to another\nas New Zealand is to Australia, or as Australia is to India, at the\npresent day. Analogy seems to me to be rather in favour of, than\nagainst, the supposition that while only Ganoid fishes inhabited the\nfresh waters of our Devonian land, _Amphibia_ and _Reptilia_, or even\nhigher forms, may have existed, though we have not yet found them. The\nearliest Carboniferous _Amphibia_ now known, such as _Anthracosaurus_,\nare so highly specialized that I can by no means conceive that they\nhave been developed out of piscine forms in the interval between the\nDevonian and the Carboniferous periods, considerable as that is. And I\ntake refuge in one of two alternatives: either they existed in our own\narea during the Devonian epoch and we have simply not yet found them;\nor they formed part of the population of some other distributional\nprovince of that day, and only entered our area by migration at the\nend of the Devonian epoch. Whether _Reptilia_ and _Mammalia_ existed\nalong with them is to me, at present, a perfectly open question, which\nis just as likely to receive an affirmative as a negative answer from\nfuture inquirers.\n\nLet me now gather together the threads of my argumentation into the\nform of a connected hypothetical view of the manner in which the\ndistribution of living and extinct animals has been brought about.\n\nI conceive that distinct provinces of the distribution of terrestrial\nlife have existed since the earliest period at which that life is\nrecorded, and possibly much earlier; and I suppose, with Mr. Darwin,\nthat the progress of modification of terrestrial forms is more rapid\nin areas of elevation than in areas of depression. I take it to be\ncertain that Labyrinthodont _Amphibia_ existed in the distributional\nprovince which included the dry land depressed during the\nCarboniferous epoch; and I conceive that, in some other distributional\nprovinces of that day, which remained in the condition of stationary\nor of increasing dry land, the various types of the terrestrial\n_Sauropsida_ and of the _Mammalia_ were gradually developing.\n\nThe Permian epoch marks the commencement of a new movement of upheaval\nin our area, which attained its maximum in the Triassic epoch, when\ndry land existed in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, as it\ndoes now. Into this great new continental area the Mammals, Birds, and\nReptiles developed during the Palaeozoic epoch spread, and formed the\ngreat Triassic Arctogaeal province. But, at the end of the Triassic\nperiod, the movement of depression recommenced in our area, though\nit was doubtless balanced by elevation elsewhere; modification and\ndevelopment, checked in the one province, went on in that \"elsewhere;\"\nand the chief forms of Mammals, Birds, and Reptiles, as we know them,\nwere evolved and peopled the Mesozoic continent. I conceive Australia\nto have become separated from the continent as early as the end of\nthe Triassic epoch, or not much later. The Mesozoic continent must, I\nconceive, have lain to the east, about the shores of the North Pacific\nand Indian Oceans; and I am inclined to believe that it continued\nalong the eastern side of the Pacific area to what is now the province\nof Austro-Columbia, the characteristic fauna of which is probably a\nremnant of the population of the latter part of this period.\n\nTowards the latter part of the Mesozoic period the movement of\nupheaval around the shores of the Atlantic once more recommenced,\nand was very probably accompanied by a depression around those of the\nPacific. The Vertebrate fauna elaborated in the Mesozoic continent\nmoved westward and took possession of the new lands, which gradually\nincreased in extent up to, and in some directions after, the Miocene\nepoch.\n\nIt is in favour of this hypothesis, I think, that it is consistent\nwith the persistence of a general uniformity in the positions of the\ngreat masses of land and water. From the Devonian period, or earlier,\nto the present day, the four great oceans, Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic,\nand Antarctic, may have occupied their present positions, and only\ntheir coasts and channels of communication have undergone an incessant\nalteration. And, finally, the hypothesis I have put before you\nrequires no supposition that the rate of change in organic life has\nbeen either greater or less in ancient times than it is now; nor\nany assumption, either physical or biological, which has not its\njustification in analogous phenomena of existing nature.\n\nI have now only to discharge the last duty of my office, which is\nto thank you, not only for the patient attention with which you have\nlistened to me so long to-day, but also for the uniform kindness with\nwhich, for the past two years, you have rendered my endeavours\nto perform the important, and often laborious, functions of your\nPresident a pleasure instead of a burden.\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\nMR. DARWIN'S CRITICS.[1]\n\n\nThe gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade\nfrom the date of the publication of the \"Origin of Species\"--and\nwhatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the\nmanner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that,\nin a dozen years, the \"Origin of Species\" has worked as complete\na revolution in biological science as the \"Principia\" did in\nastronomy--and it has done so, because, in the words of Helmholtz, it\ncontains \"an essentially new creative thought.\"[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: 1. \"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection.\"\nBy A.R. Wallace. 1870.--2. \"The Genesis of Species.\" By St. George\nMivart, F.R.S. Second Edition. 1871.--3. \"Darwin's Descent of Man.\"\n_Quarterly Review_, July 1871.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Helmholtz: \"Ueber das Ziel und die Fortschritte der\nNaturwissenschaft.\" Er\u00f6ffnungsrede f\u00fcr die Naturforscherversammlung zu\nInnsbruck. 1869.]\n\nAnd as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's\ncritics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which, at first,\ncharacterized a large proportion of the attacks with which he\nwas assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian\ncriticism. Instead of abusive nonsense, which merely discredited its\nwriters, we read essays, which are, at worst, more or less intelligent\nand appreciative; while, sometimes, like that which appeared in the\n_North British Review_ for 1867, they have a real and permanent value.\n\nThe several publications of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart contain\ndiscussions of some of Mr. Darwin's views, which are worthy of\nparticular attention, not only on account of the acknowledged\nscientific competence of these writers, but because they exhibit an\nattention to those philosophical questions which underlie all physical\nscience, which is as rare as it is needful. And the same may be said\nof an article in the _Quarterly Review_ for July 1871, the comparison\nof which with an article in the same Review for July 1860, is perhaps\nthe best evidence which can be brought forward of the change which has\ntaken place in public opinion on \"Darwinism.\"\n\nThe Quarterly Reviewer admits \"the certainty of the action of natural\nselection\" (p. 49); and further allows that there is an _\u00e0 priori_\nprobability in favour of the evolution of man from some lower animal\nform, if these lower animal forms themselves have arisen by evolution.\n\nMr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart go much further than this. They are as\nstout believers in evolution as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace\ndenies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that\nprocess of natural selection which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to have\nbeen sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while\nMr. Mivart, admitting that natural selection has been one of the\nconditions of the evolution of the animals below man, maintains that\nnatural selection must, even in their case, have been supplemented by\n\"some other cause\"--of the nature of which, unfortunately, he does\nnot give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is less of a Darwinian than Mr.\nWallace, for he has less faith in the power of natural selection. But\nhe is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace, because Mr. Wallace\nthinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent--a sort of\nsupernatural Sir John Sebright--to produce even the animal frame of\nman; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he comes to\nman's soul.\n\nThus there is a considerable divergence between Mr. Wallace and Mr.\nMivart. On the other hand, there are some curious similarities between\nMr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer, and these are sometimes so\nclose, that, if Mr. Mivart thought it worth while, I think he\nmight make out a good case of plagiarism against the Reviewer, who\nstudiously abstains from quoting him.\n\nBoth the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr. Darwin with being, \"like\nso many other physicists,\" entangled in a radically false metaphysical\nsystem, and with setting at nought the first principles of both\nphilosophy and religion. Both enlarge upon the necessity of a sound\nphilosophical basis, and both, I venture to add, make a conspicuous\nexhibition of its absence. The Quarterly Reviewer believes that man\n\"differs more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these from the\ndust of the earth on which they tread,\" and Mr. Mivart has expressed\nthe opinion that there is more difference between man and an ape than\nthere is between an ape and a piece of granite.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: See the _Tablet_ for March 11, 1871.]\n\nAnd even when Mr. Mivart (p. 86) trips in a matter of anatomy, and\ncreates a difficulty for Mr. Darwin out of a supposed close similarity\nbetween the eyes of fishes and cephalopods, which (as Gegenbaur and\nothers have clearly shown) does not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer\nadopts the argument without hesitation (p. 66).\n\nThere is another important point, however, in which it is hard to say\nwhether Mr. Mivart diverges from the Quarterly Reviewer or not.\n\nThe Reviewer declares that Mr. Darwin has, \"with needless opposition,\nset at nought the first principles of both philosophy and religion\"\n(p. 90).\n\nIt looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr. Darwin's views being\nfalse, the opposition to \"religion\" which flows from them must be\nneedless. But I suspect this is not the right view of the meaning of\nthe passage, as Mr. Mivart, from whom the Quarterly Reviewer plainly\ndraws so much inspiration, tells us that \"the consequences which have\nbeen drawn from evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to\nthe prejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are in fact\nillegitimate\" (p. 5).\n\nI may assume, then, that the Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit\nthat there is no necessary opposition between \"evolution, whether\nexclusively Darwinian or not,\" and religion. But then, what do they\nmean by this last much-abused term? On this point the Quarterly\nReviewer is silent. Mr. Mivart, on the contrary, is perfectly\nexplicit, and the whole tenor of his remarks leaves no doubt that by\n\"religion\" he means theology; and by theology, that particular variety\nof the great Proteus, which is expounded by the doctors of the Roman\nCatholic Church, and held by the members of that religious community\nto be the sole form of absolute truth and of saving faith.\n\nAccording to Mr. Mivart, the greatest and most orthodox authorities\nupon matters of Catholic doctrine agree in distinctly asserting\n\"derivative creation\" or evolution; \"and thus their teachings\nharmonize with all that modern science can possibly require\" (p. 305).\n\nI confess that this bold assertion interested me more than anything\nelse in Mr. Mivart's book. What little knowledge I possessed of\nCatholic doctrine, and of the influence exerted by Catholic authority\nin former times, had not led me to expect that modern science was\nlikely to find a warm welcome within the pale of the greatest and most\nconsistent of theological organizations.\n\nAnd my astonishment reached its climax when I found Mr. Mivart citing\nFather Suarez as his chief witness in favour of the scientific freedom\nenjoyed by Catholics--the popular repute of that learned theologian\nand subtle casuist not being such as to make his works a likely place\nof refuge for liberality of thought. But in these days, when Judas\nIscariot and Robespierre, Henry VIII. and Catiline, have all been\nshown to be men of admirable virtue, far in advance of their age,\nand consequently the victims of vulgar prejudice, it was obviously\npossible that Jesuit Suarez might be in like case. And, spurred by Mr.\nMivart's unhesitating declaration, I hastened to acquaint myself\nwith such of the works of the great Catholic divine as bore upon\nthe question, hoping, not merely to acquaint myself with the true\nteachings of the infallible Church, and free myself of an unjust\nprejudice; but, haply, to enable myself, at a pinch, to put some\nProtestant bibliolater to shame, by the bright example of Catholic\nfreedom from the trammels of verbal inspiration.\n\nI regret to say that my anticipations have been cruelly disappointed.\nBut the extent to which my hopes have been crushed can only be fully\nappreciated by citing, in the first place, those passages of Mr.\nMivart's work by which they were excited. In his introductory chapter\nI find the following passages:--\n\n\"The prevalence of this theory [of evolution] need alarm no one, for\nit is, without any doubt, perfectly consistent with the strictest and\nmost orthodox Christian[1] theology\" (p. 5).\n\n[Footnote 1: It should be observed that Mr. Mivart employs the term\n\"Christian\" as if it were the equivalent of \"Catholic.\"]\n\n\"Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they have not devoted\nmuch time to the study of Christian philosophy; but they have no right\nto assume or accept without careful examination, as an unquestioned\nfact, that in that philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between\nthe two ideas 'creation' and 'evolution,' as applied to organic forms.\n\n\"It is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that many\ndistinguished Christian thinkers have accepted, and do accept, both\nideas, i.e. both 'creation' and 'evolution.'\n\n\"As much as ten years ago an eminently Christian writer observed: 'The\ncreationist theory does not necessitate the perpetual search after\nmanifestations of miraculous power and perpetual \"catastrophes.\"\nCreation is not a miraculous interference with the laws of nature, but\nthe very institution of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary\nintervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion\nthey admitted, without difficulty, the most surprising origin of\nliving creatures, provided it took place by _law_. They held that\nwhen God said, \"Let the waters produce,\" \"Let the earth produce,\" He\nconferred forces on the elements of earth and water, which enabled\nthem naturally to produce the various species of organic beings. This\npower, they thought, remains attached to the elements throughout all\ntime.' The same writer quotes St. Augustin and St. Thomas Aquinas,\nto the effect that, 'in the institution of nature, we do not look for\nmiracles, but for the laws of nature,' And, again, St. Basil speaks\nof the continued operation of natural laws in the production of all\norganisms.\n\n\"So much for the writers of early and mediaeval times. As to the\npresent day, the author can confidently affirm that there are many\nas well versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department\nof natural knowledge, who would not be disturbed by the thorough\ndemonstration of his theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least\npainfully affected at witnessing the generation of animals of complex\norganization by the skilful artificial arrangement of natural forces,\nand the production, in the future, of a fish by means analogous to\nthose by which we now produce urea.\n\n\"And this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena,\nthough by no means actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided\nfor in the old philosophy centuries before Darwin, or even centuries\nbefore Bacon, and that their place in the system can be at once\nassigned them without even disturbing its order or marring its\nharmony.\n\n\"Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned,\nhowever much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern\nwriters. In proof of this, it may be observed that perhaps no\npost-mediaeval theologian has a wider reception amongst Christians\nthroughout the world than Suarez, who has a separate section[1] in\nopposition to those who maintain the distinct creation of the various\nkinds--or substantial forms--of organic life\" (pp. 19-21).\n\n[Footnote 1: Suarez; Metaphysica. Edition Viv\u00e9s. Paris, 1868, vol. i.\nDisput. xv. \u00a7 2.]\n\nStill more distinctly does Mr. Mivart express himself, in the same\nsense, in his last chapter, entitled \"Theology and Evolution\" (pp.\n302-5).\n\n\"It appears, then, that Christian thinkers are perfectly free to\naccept the general evolution theory. But are there any theological\nauthorities to justify this view of the matter?\n\n\"Now, considering how extremely recent are these biological\nspeculations, it might hardly be expected _\u00e0 priori_ that writers of\nearlier ages should have given expression to doctrines harmonizing\nin any degree with such very modern views; nevertheless, this is\ncertainly the case, and it would be easy to give numerous examples.\nIt will be better, however, to cite one or two authorities of weight.\nPerhaps no writer of the earlier Christian ages could be quoted whose\nauthority is more generally recognized than that of St. Augustin. The\nsame may be said of the mediaeval period for St. Thomas Aquinas: and\nsince the movement of Luther, Suarez may be taken as an authority,\nwidely venerated, and one whose orthodoxy has never been questioned.\n\n\"It must be borne in mind that for a considerable time even after\nthe last of these writers no one had disputed the generally received\nbelief as to the small age of the world, or at least of the kinds of\nanimals and plants inhabiting it. It becomes, therefore, much more\nstriking if views formed under such a condition of opinion are found\nto harmonize with modern ideas concerning 'Creation' and organic Life.\n\n\"Now St. Augustin insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely\nderivative sense in which God's creation of organic forms is to\nbe understood; that is, that God created them by conferring on the\nmaterial world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions.\"\n\nMr. Mivart then cites certain passages from St. Augustin, St. Thomas\nAquinas, and Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide, and finally adds:--\n\n    \"As to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv. sec.\n    2, No. 9, p. 508, t.i. edition Viv\u00e9s, Paris; also Nos. 13--15.\n    Many other references to the same effect could easily be\n    given, but these may suffice.\n\n    \"It is then evident that ancient and most venerable\n    theological authorities distinctly assert _derivative_\n    creation, and thus their teachings harmonize with all that\n    modern science can possibly require.\"\n\nIt will be observed that Mr. Mivart refers solely to Suarez's\nfifteenth Disputation, though he adds, \"Many other references to the\nsame effect could easily be given.\" I shall look anxiously for these\nreferences in the third edition of the \"Genesis of Species.\" For the\npresent, all I can say is, that I have sought in vain, either in\nthe fifteenth Disputation, or elsewhere, for any passage in Suarez's\nwritings which, in the slightest degree, bears out Mr. Mivart's views\nas to his opinions.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: The edition of Suarez's \"Disputationes\" from which the\nfollowing citations are given, is Birckmann's, in two volumes folio,\nand is dated 1630.]\n\nThe title of this fifteenth Disputation is \"De causa formali\nsubstantiali,\" and the second section of that Disputation (to which\nMr. Mivart refers) is headed, \"Quomodo possit forma substantialis\nfieri in materia et ex materia?\"\n\nThe problem which Suarez discusses in this place may be popularly\nstated thus: According to the scholastic philosophy every natural body\nhas two components--the one its \"matter\" (_materia prima_), the other\nits \"substantial form\" (_forma substantialis_). Of these the matter\nis everywhere the same, the matter of one body being indistinguishable\nfrom the matter of any other body. That which differentiates any one\nnatural body from all others is its substantial form, which inheres\nin the matter of that body, as the human soul inheres in the matter\nof the frame of man, and is the source of all the activities and other\nproperties of the body.\n\nThus, says Suarez, if water is heated, and the source of heat is then\nremoved, it cools again. The reason of this is that there is a certain\n\"_intimius principium_\" in the water, which brings it back to the\ncool condition when the external impediment to the existence of that\ncondition is removed. This _intimius principium_, is the \"substantial\nform\" of the water. And the substantial form of the water is not only\nthe cause (_radix_) of the coolness of the water, but also of its\nmoisture, of its density, and of all its other properties.\n\nIt will thus be seen that \"substantial forms\" play nearly the same\npart in the scholastic philosophy as \"forces\" do in modern science;\nthe general tendency of modern thought being to conceive all bodies as\nresolvable into material particles and forces, in virtue of which last\nthese particles assume those dispositions and exercise those powers\nwhich are characteristic of each particular kind of matter.\n\nBut the Schoolmen distinguished two kinds of substantial forms,\nthe one spiritual and the other material. The former division is\nrepresented by the human soul, the _anima rationalis_; and they affirm\nas a matter, not merely of reason, but of faith, that every human soul\nis created out of nothing, and by this act of creation is endowed with\nthe power of existing for all eternity, apart from the _materia\nprima_ of which the corporeal frame of man is composed. And the _anima\nrationalis_, once united with the _materia prima_ of the body,\nbecomes its substantial form, and is the source of all the powers and\nfaculties of man--of all the vital and sensitive phenomena which he\nexhibits--just as the substantial form of water is the source of all\nits qualities.\n\nThe \"material substantial forms\" are those which inform all other\nnatural bodies except that of man; and the object of Suarez in the\npresent Disputation, is to show that the axiom \"_ex nihilo nihil\nfit_,\" though not true of the substantial form of man, is true of the\nsubstantial forms of all other bodies, the endless mutations of which\nconstitute the ordinary course of nature. The origin of the difficulty\nwhich he discusses is easily comprehensible. Suppose a piece of bright\niron to be exposed to the air. The existence of the iron depends on\nthe presence within it of a substantial form, which is the cause of\nits properties, e.g. brightness, hardness, weight. But, by degrees,\nthe iron becomes converted into a mass of rust, which is dull, and\nsoft, and light, and, in all other respects, is quite different from\nthe iron. As, in the scholastic view, this difference is due to the\nrust being informed by a new substantial form, the grave problem\narises, how did this new substantial form come into being? Has it been\ncreated? or has it arisen by the power of natural causation? If the\nformer hypothesis is correct, then the axiom, \"_ex nihilo nihil fit_,\"\nis false, even in relation to the ordinary course of nature, seeing\nthat such mutations of matter as imply the continual origin of new\nsubstantial forms are occurring every moment. But the harmonization of\nAristotle with theology was as dear to the Schoolmen, as the smoothing\ndown the differences between Moses and science is to our Broad\nChurchmen, and they were proportionably unwilling to contradict one\nof Aristotle's fundamental propositions. Nor was their objection to\nflying in the face of the Stagirite likely to be lessened by the fact\nthat such flight landed them in flat Pantheism.\n\nSo Father Suarez fights stoutly for the second hypothesis; and I quote\nthe principal part of his argumentation as an exquisite specimen of\nthat speech which is a \"darkening of counsel.\"\n\n    \"13. Secundo de omnibus aliis formis substantialibus (sc.\n    materialibus) dicendum est non fieri proprie ex nihilo, sed\n    ex potentia praejacentis materiae educi: ideoque in effectione\n    harum formarum nil fieri contra illud axioma, _Ex nihila\n    nihil fit_, si recte intelligatur. Haec assertio sumitur ex\n    Aristotele 1. Physicorum per totum et libro 7. Metaphyss.\n    et ex aliis authoribus, quos statim referam. Et declaratur\n    breviter, nam fieri ex nihilo duo dicit, unum est fieri\n    absolute et simpliciter, aliud est quod talis effectio fit ex\n    nihilo. Primum propri\u00e8 dicitur de re subsistente, quia ejus\n    est fieri, cujus est esse: id autem proprie quod subsistit et\n    habet esse; nam quod alteri adjacet, potius est quo aliud est.\n    Ex hac ergo parte, formae substantiales materiales non fiunt\n    ex nihilo, quia proprie non fiunt. Atque hanc rationem reddit\n    Divus Thomas I parte, quaestione 45, articulo 8, et quaestione\n    90, articulo 2, et ex dicendis magis explicabitur. Sumendo\n    ergo ipsum _fieri_ in hac proprietate et rigore, sic fieri\n    ex nihilo est fieri secundum se totum, id est nulla sui parte\n    praesupposita, ex quo fiat. Et hac ratione res naturales\n    dum de novo fiunt, non fiunt ex nihilo, quia fiunt ex\n    praesupposita materia, ex qua componuntur, et ita non fiunt,\n    secundum se totae, sed secundum aliquid sui. Formae autem\n    harum rerum, quamvis revera totam suam entitatem de novo\n    accipiant, quam antea non habebant, quia vero ipsae non fiunt,\n    ut dictum est, ideo neque ex nihilo fiunt. Attamen, quia\n    latiori modo sumendo verbum illud _fieri_ negari non potest:\n    quia forma facta sit, eo modo quo nunc est, et antea non erat,\n    ut etiam probat ratio dubitandi posita in principio sectionis,\n    ideo addendum est, sumpto _fieri_ in hac amplitudine, fieri\n    ex nihilo non tamen negare habitudinem materialis causea\n    intrinsec\u00e8 componentis id quod fit, sed etiam habitudinem\n    causae materialis per se causantis et sustentantis formam quae\n    fit, seu confit. Diximus enim in superioribus materiam et esse\n    causam compositi et formae dependentis ab ilia: ut res ergo\n    dicatur ex nihilo fieri uterque modus causalitatis negari\n    debet; et eodem sensu accipiendum est illud axioma, ut\n    sit verum: _Ex nihilo nihil fit_, scilicet virtute agentis\n    naturalis et finiti nihil fieri, nisi ex praesupposito\n    subjecto per se concurrente, et ad compositum et ad formam,\n    si utrumque suo modo ab eodem agente fiat. Ex his ergo rect\u00e8\n    concluditur, formas substantiales materiales non fieri ex\n    nihilo, quia fiunt ex materia, quae in suo genere per se\n    concurrit, et influit ad esse, et fieri talium formarum;\n    quia, sicut esse non possunt nisi affixae materiae, a qua\n    sustententur in esse: ita nec fieri possunt, nisi earum\n    effectio et penetratio in eadem materia sustentetur. Et haec\n    est propria et per se differentia inter effectionem ex nihilo,\n    et ex aliquo, propter quam, ut infra ostendemus, prior modus\n    effciendi superat vim finitam naturaliam agentium, non vero\n    posterior.\n\n    \"14. Ex his etiam constat, proprie de his formis dici non\n    creari, sed educi de potentia materiae.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Suarez, _loc. cit_. Disput. xv. \u00a7 ii.]\n\nIf I may venture to interpret these hard sayings, Suarez conceives\nthat the evolution of substantial forms in the ordinary course of\nnature, is conditioned not only by the existence of the _materia\nprima_, but also by a certain \"concurrence and influence\" which\nthat _materia_ exerts; and every new substantial form being thus\nconditioned, and in part, at any rate, caused, by a pre-existing\nsomething, cannot be said to be created out of nothing.\n\nBut as the whole tenor of the context shows, Suarez applies this\nargumentation merely to the evolution of material substantial forms\nin the ordinary course of nature. How the substantial forms of animals\nand plants primarily originated, is a question to which, so far as\nI am able to discover, he does not so much as allude in his\n\"Metaphysical Disputations.\" Nor was there any necessity that he\nshould do so, inasmuch as he has devoted a separate treatise of\nconsiderable bulk to the discussion of all the problems which arise\nout of the account of the Creation which is given in the Book of\nGenesis. And it is a matter of wonderment to me that Mr. Mivart, who\nsomewhat sharply reproves \"Mr. Darwin and others\" for not acquainting\nthemselves with the true teachings of his Church, should allow\nhimself to be indebted to a heretic like myself for a knowledge of\nthe existence of that \"Tractatus de opere sex Dierum,\" I in which\nthe learned Father, of whom he justly speaks, as \"an authority widely\nvenerated, and whose orthodoxy has never been questioned,\" directly\nopposes all those opinions, for which Mr. Mivart claims the shelter of\nhis authority.\n\nIn the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first book of this treatise,\nSuarez inquires in what sense the word \"day,\" as employed in the first\nchapter of Genesis, is to be taken. He discusses the views of Philo\nand of Augustin on this question, and rejects them. He suggests that\nthe approval of their allegorizing interpretations by St. Thomas\nAquinas, merely arose out of St. Thomas's modesty, and his desire not\nto seem openly to controvert St. Augustin--\"voluisse Divus Thomas pro\nsua modestia subterfugere vim argumenti potius quam aperte Augustinum\ninconstantiae arguere.\"\n\nFinally, Suarez decides that the writer of Genesis meant that the\nterm \"day\" should be taken in its natural sense; and he winds up\nthe discussion with the very just and natural remark that \"it is\nnot probable that God, in inspiring Moses to write a history of the\nCreation which was to be believed by ordinary people, would have made\nhim use language, the true meaning of which it is hard to discover,\nand still harder to believe.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Tractatus de opere sex Dierum, seu de Universi\nCreatione, quatenus sex diebus perfecta esse, in libro Genesis cap. i.\nrefertur, et praesertim de productioue hominis in statu innocentiae.\"\nEd. Birckmann, 1622.]\n\nAnd in chapter xii. 3, Suarez further observes:--\n\n    \"Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis est\n    illa communis, quod verba Scripturae non sunt ad metaphoras\n    transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogit, vel ex ipsa scriptura\n    constet, et maxim\u00e8 in historica narratione et ad instructionem\n    fidei pertinente: sed haec ratio non minus cogit ad\n    intelligendum propri\u00e8 dierum numerum, quam diei qualitatem,\n    QUIA NON MINUS UNO MODO QUAM ALIO DESTRUITUR SINCERITAS,\n    IMO ET VERITAS HISTORIAE. Secundo hoc valde confirmant alia\n    Scripturae loca, in quibus hi sex dies tanquam veri, et inter\n    se distincti commemorantur, ut Exod. 20 dicitur, _Sex diebus\n    operabis et facies omnia opera tua, septimo autem die Sabbatum\n    Domini Dei tui est_. Et infra: _Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus\n    caelum et terram et mare et omnia quae in eis sunt_, et idem\n    repetitur in cap. 31. In quibus locis sermonis proprietas\n    colligi potest tum ex aequiparatione, nam cum dicitur: _sex\n    diebus operabis_, propriissim\u00e8 intelligitur: tum quia non est\n    verisimile, potuisse populum intelligere verba illa in alio\n    sensu, et \u00e8 contrario incredibile est, Deum in suis praeceptis\n    tradendis illis verbis ad populum fuisse loquutum, quibus\n    deciperetur, falsum sensum concipiendo, si Deus non per sex\n    veros dies opera sua fecisset.\"\n\nThese passages leave no doubt that this great doctor of the Catholic\nChurch, of unchallenged authority and unspotted orthodoxy, not only\ndeclares it to be Catholic doctrine that the work of creation took\nplace in the space of six natural days; but that he warmly repudiates,\nas inconsistent with our knowledge of the Divine attributes, the\nsupposition that the language which Catholic faith requires the\nbeliever to hold that God inspired, was used in any other sense than\nthat which He knew it would convey to the minds of those to whom it\nwas addressed.\n\nAnd I think that in this repudiation Father Suarez will have the\nsympathy of every man of common uprightness, to whom it is certainly\n\"incredible\" that the Almighty should have acted in a manner which He\nwould esteem dishonest and base in a man.\n\nBut the belief that the universe was created in six natural days is\nhopelessly inconsistent with the doctrine of evolution, in so far as\nit applies to the stars and planetary bodies; and it can be made to\nagree with a belief in the evolution of living beings only by the\nsupposition that the plants and animals, which are said to have been\ncreated on the third, fifth, and six days, were merely the primordial\nforms, or rudiments, out of which existing plants and animals have\nbeen evolved; so that, on these days, plants and animals were not\ncreated actually, but only potentially.\n\nThe latter view is that held by Mr. Mivart, who follows St. Augustin,\nand implies that he has the sanction of Suarez. But, in point of fact,\nthe latter great light of orthodoxy takes no small pains to give the\nmost explicit and direct contradiction to all such imaginations, as\nthe following passages prove. In the first place, as regards plants,\nSuarez discusses the problem:--\n\n    \"_Quomodo herba virens et caetera vegetabilia hoc [tertio] die\n    fuerint producta._[1]\n\n    [Footnote 1: \"Propter haec ergo sententia illa Augustini et\n    propter nimiam obscuritatem et subtilitatem ejus difficilis\n    creditu est: quia verisimile non est Deum inspirasse Moysi,\n    ut historiam de creatione mundi ad fidem totius populi adeo\n    necessariam per nomina dierum explicaret, quorum significatio\n    vix inveniri et difficillime ab aliquo credi posset.\" _(Loc.\n    cit._ Lib. I. cap. xi. 42.)]\n\n    \"Praecipua enim difficultas h\u00eec est, quam attingit Div. Thomas\n    I, par. qu. 69, art. 2, an haec productio plantarum hoc die\n    facta intelligenda sit de productione ipsarum in proprio esse\n    actuali et formali (ut sic rem explicerem) vel de productione\n    tantum in semine et in potentia. Nam Divus Augustinus libro\n    quinto Genes, ad liter, cap. 4 et 5 et libro 8, cap. 3,\n    posteriorem partem tradit, dicens, terram in hoc die accepisse\n    virtutem germinandi omnia vegetabilia quasi concepto omnium\n    illorum semine, non tamen statim vegetabilia omnia produxisse.\n    Quod primo suadet verbis illis capitis secundi. _In die quo\n    fecit Deus coelum et terram et omne virgultum agri priusquam,\n    germinaret_. Quomodo enim potuerunt virgulta fieri antequam\n    terra germinaret nisi quia causaliter prius et quasi in\n    radice, seu in semine facta sunt, et postea in actu producta?\n    Secundo confirmari potest, quia verbum illud _germinet terra_\n    optim\u00e8 exponitur potestativ\u00e8 ut sic dicam, id est, accipiat\n    terra vim germinandi. Sicut in eodem capite dicitur _crescite\n    et multiplicamini_. Tertio potest confirmari, quia actualis\n    productio vegetabilium non tarn ad opus creationis, quam ad\n    opus propagationis pertinet, quod postea factum est. Et hanc\n    sententiam sequitur Eucherius lib. 1, in Gen. cap. 11, et illi\n    faveat Glossa, interli. Hugo. et Lyran. dum verbum _germinet_\n    dicto modo exponunt. NIHILOMINUS CONTRARIA SENTENTIA TENENDA\n    EST: SCILICET, PRODUXISSE DEUM HOC DIE HERBAM, ARBORES, ET\n    ALIA VEGETABILIA ACTU IN PROPRIA SPECIE ET NATURA. Haec est\n    communis sententia Patrum.--Basil, homil. 5; Exaemer. Ambros.\n    lib. 3; Exaemer. cap. 8,11, et 16; Chrysost, homil. 5 in Gen.\n    Damascene, lib. 2 de Fid. cap. 10; Theodor. Cyrilli. Bedae,\n    Glossae ordinariae et aliorum in Gen. Et idem sentit Divus\n    Thomas, _supra_, solvens argumenta Augustini, quamvis propter\n    reverentiam ejus quasi problematic\u00e8 semper procedat. Denique\n    idem sentiunt omnes qui in his operibus veram successionem et\n    temporalem distinctionem agnoscant.\"\n\nSecondly, with respect to animals, Suarez is no less decided:--\n\n    _De animalium ratione carentium productione quinto et sexto\n    die facta._[1]\n\n    \"32. Primo ergo nobis certum sit haec animantia non in virtute\n    tantum aut in semine, sed actu, et in seipsis, facta fuisse\n    his diebus in quibus facta narrantur. Quanquam Augustinus\n    lib. 3, Gen. ad liter, cap. 5 in sua persistens sententia\n    contrarium sentire videatur.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: _Loc. cit._ Lib. II. cap. vii. et viii. 1, 32, 35.]\n\nBut Suarez proceeds to refute Augustin's opinions at great length, and\nhis final judgment may be gathered from the following passage:--\n\n    \"35. Tertio dicendum est, haec animalia omnia his diebus\n    producta esse, IN PERFECTO STATU, IN SINGULIS INDIVIDUIS, SEU\n    SPECIEBUS SUIS, JUXTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE NATURAM.... ITAQUE FUERUNT\n    OMNIA CREATA INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS MEMBRIS PERFECTA.\"\n\nAs regards the creation of animals and plants, therefore, it is clear\nthat Suarez, so far from \"distinctly asserting derivative creation,\"\ndenies it as distinctly and positively as he can; that he is at much\npains to refute St. Augustin's opinions; that he does not hesitate to\nregard the faint acquiescence of St. Thomas Aquinas in the views of\nhis brother saint as a kindly subterfuge on the part of Divus Thomas;\nand that he affirms his own view to be that which is supported by the\nauthority of the Fathers of the Church. So that, when Mr. Mivart tells\nus that Catholic theology is in harmony with all that modern science\ncan possibly require; that \"to the general theory of evolution, and\nto the special Darwinian form of it, no exception ... need be taken on\nthe ground of orthodoxy;\" and that \"law and regularity, not arbitrary\nintervention, was the Patristic ideal of creation,\" we have to choose\nbetween his dictum, as a theologian, and that of a great light of\nhis Church, whom he himself declares to be \"widely venerated as an\nauthority, and whose orthodoxy has never been questioned.\"\n\nBut Mr. Mivart does not hesitate to push his attempt to harmonize\nscience with Catholic orthodoxy to its utmost limit; and, while\nassuming that the soul of man \"arises from immediate and direct\ncreation,\" he supposes that his body was \"formed at first (as now\nin each separate individual) by derivative, or secondary creation,\nthrough natural laws\" (p. 331).\n\nThis means, I presume, that an animal, having the corporeal form and\nbodily powers of man, may have been developed out of some lower form\nof life by a process of evolution; and that, after this anthropoid\nanimal had existed for a longer or shorter time, God made a soul by\ndirect creation, and put it into the manlike body, which, heretofore,\nhad been devoid of that _anima rationalis_, which is supposed to be\nman's distinctive character.\n\nThis hypothesis is incapable of either proof or disproof, and\ntherefore may be true; but if Suarez is any authority, it is not\nCatholic doctrine. \"Nulla est in homine forma educta de potentia\nmateriae,\"[1] is a dictum which is absolutely inconsistent with the\ndoctrine of the natural evolution of any vital manifestation of the\nhuman body.\n\n[Footnote 1: Disput. xv. \u00a7 x. No. 27.]\n\nMoreover, if man existed as an animal before he was provided with a\nrational soul, he must, in accordance with the elementary requirements\nof the philosophy in which Mr. Mivart delights, have possessed a\ndistinct sensitive and vegetative soul, or souls. Hence, when the\n\"breath of life\" was breathed into the manlike animal's nostrils,\nhe must have already been a living and feeling creature. But Suarez\nparticularly discusses this point, and not only rejects Mr. Mivart's\nview, but adopts language of very theological strength regarding it.\n\n    \"Possent praeterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est\n    illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. _Formavit Deus\n    hominem ex limo terrae et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum\n    vitae et factus est homo in animam viventem_: ille enim\n    spiritus, quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER\n    EADEM FACTUS EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSEQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS.\n\n    \"Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generali quae est\n    Constantinopolitana IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. _Apparet\n    quosdam in tantum impietatis venisse ut homines duas animas\n    habere dogmatizent: talis igitur impietatis inventores et\n    similes sapientes, cum Vetus et Novum Testamentum_ _omnesque\n    Ecclesiae patres unam animam rationalem hominem habere\n    asseverent, Sancta et universalis Synodus anathematizat_.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Disput. xv. \"De causa formali substantiali,\" \u00a7 x. No.\n24.]\n\nMoreover, if the animal nature of man was the result of evolution, so\nmust that of woman have been. But the Catholic doctrine, according to\nSuarez, is that woman was, in the strictest and most literal sense of\nthe words, made out of the rib of man.\n\n    \"Nihilominus sententia Catholica est, verba illa Scripturae\n    esse ad literam intelligenda. AC PROINDE VERE, AC REALITER,\n    TULISSE DEUM COSTAM ADAE, ET, EX ILLA, CORPUS EVAE\n    FORMASSE.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Tractatus de Opere,\" Lib. III. \"De hominis creatione,\"\ncap. ii. No. 3.]\n\nNor is there any escape in the supposition that some woman existed\nbefore Eve, after the fashion of the Lilith of the rabbis;\nsince Suarez qualifies that notion, along with some other Judaic\nimaginations, as simply \"damnabilis.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Ibid. Lib. III. cap. iv. Nos. 8 and 9.]\n\nAfter the perusal of the \"Tractatus de Opere\" it is, in fact,\nimpossible to admit that Suarez held any opinion respecting the origin\nof species, except such as is consistent with the strictest and most\nliteral interpretation of the words of Genesis. For Suarez, it is\nCatholic doctrine, that the world was made in six natural days. On the\nfirst of these days the _materia prima_ was made out of nothing, to\nreceive afterwards those \"substantial forms\" which moulded it into\nthe universe of things; on the third day, the ancestors of all living\nplants suddenly came into being, full-grown, perfect, and possessed of\nall the properties which now distinguish them; while, on the fifth\nand sixth days, the ancestors of all existing animals were similarly\ncaused to exist in their complete and perfect state, by the infusion\nof their appropriate material substantial forms into the matter\nwhich had already been created. Finally on the sixth day, the _anima\nrationalis_--that rational and immortal substantial form which is\npeculiar to man--was created out of nothing, and \"breathed into\" a\nmass of matter which, till then, was mere dust of the earth, and so\nman arose. But the species man was represented by a solitary male\nindividual, until the Creator took out one of his ribs and fashioned\nit into a female.\n\nThis is the view of the \"Genesis of Species,\" held by Suarez to be the\nonly one consistent with Catholic faith: it is because he holds this\nview to be Catholic that he does not hesitate to declare St. Augustin\nunsound, and St. Thomas Aquinas guilty of weakness, when the one\nswerved from this view and the other tolerated the deviation. And,\nuntil responsible Catholic authority--say, for example, the Archbishop\nof Westminster--formally declares that Suarez was wrong, and that\nCatholic priests are free to teach their flocks that the world was\n_not_ made in six natural days, and that plants and animals were _not_\ncreated in their perfect and complete state, but have been evolved by\nnatural processes through long ages from certain germs in which they\nwere potentially contained, I, for one, shall feel bound to believe\nthat the doctrines of Suarez are the only ones which are sanctioned\nby Infallible Authority, as represented by the Holy Father and the\nCatholic Church.\n\nI need hardly add that they are as absolutely denied and repudiated by\nScientific Authority, as represented by Reason and Fact. The question\nwhether the earth and the immediate progenitors of its present living\npopulation were made in six natural days or not, is no longer one upon\nwhich two opinions can be held.\n\nThe fact that it did not so come into being stands upon as sound a\nbasis as any fact of history whatever. It is not true that existing\nplants and animals came into being within three days of the creation\nof the earth out of nothing, for it is certain that innumerable\ngenerations of other plants and animals lived upon the earth before\nits present population. And when, Sunday after Sunday, men who profess\nto be our instructors in righteousness read out the statement, \"In\nsix days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them\nis,\" in innumerable churches, they are either propagating what they\nmay easily know, and, therefore, are bound to know, to be falsities;\nor, if they use the words in some non-natural sense, they fall below\nthe moral standard of the much-abused Jesuit.\n\nThus far the contradiction between Catholic verity and Scientific\nverity is complete and absolute, quite independently of the truth or\nfalsehood of the doctrine of evolution. But, for those who hold the\ndoctrine of evolution, all the Catholic verities about the creation of\nliving beings must be no less false. For them, the assertion that\nthe progenitors of all existing plants were made on the third day, of\nanimals on the fifth and sixth days, in the forms they now present, is\nsimply false. Nor can they admit that man was made suddenly out of the\ndust of the earth; while it would be an insult to ask an evolutionist\nwhether he credits the preposterous fable respecting the fabrication\nof woman to which Suarez pins his faith. If Suarez has rightly stated\nCatholic doctrine, then is evolution utter heresy. And such I believe\nit to be. In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution,\nindeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it\noccupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that\nvigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and\nsocial life of mankind--the Catholic Church. No doubt, Mr. Mivart,\nlike other putters of new wine into old bottles, is actuated by\nmotives which are worthy of respect, and even of sympathy; but his\nattempt has met with the fate which the Scripture prophesies for all\nsuch.\n\nCatholic theology, like all theologies which are based upon the\nassumption of the truth of the account of the origin of things given\nin the Book of Genesis, being utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine\nof evolution, the student of science, who is satisfied that the\nevidence upon which the doctrine of evolution rests, is incomparably\nstronger and better than that upon which the supposed authority of\nthe Book of Genesis rests, will not trouble himself further with these\ntheologies, but will confine his attention to such arguments against\nthe view he holds as are based upon purely scientific data--and\nby scientific data I do not merely mean the truths of physical,\nmathematical, or logical science, but those of moral and metaphysical\nscience. For, by science, I understand all knowledge which rests upon\nevidence and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our\nassent to ordinary scientific propositions. And if any one is able to\nmake good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence\nand sound reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology will\ntake its place as a part of science.\n\nThe present antagonism between theology and science does not arise\nfrom any assumption by the men of science that all theology must\nnecessarily be excluded from science; but simply because they are\nunable to allow that reason and morality have two weights and two\nmeasures; and that the belief in a proposition, because authority\ntells you it is true, or because you wish to believe it, which is a\nhigh crime and misdemeanour when the subject matter of reasoning is\nof one kind, becomes under the _alias_ of \"faith\" the greatest of all\nvirtues, when the subject matter of reasoning is of another kind.\n\nThe Bishop of Brechin said well the other day:--\"Liberality in\nreligion--I do not mean tender and generous allowances for the\nmistakes of others--is only unfaithfulness to truth.\"[1] And, with\nthe same qualification, I venture to paraphrase the Bishop's dictum:\n\"Ecclesiasticism in science is only unfaithfulness to truth.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Charge at the Diocesan Synod of Brechin. _Scotsman_,\nSept. 14, 1871.]\n\nElijah's great question, \"Will you serve God or Baal? Choose ye,\" is\nuttered audibly enough in the ears of every one of us as we come to\nmanhood. Let every man who tries to answer it seriously, ask himself\nwhether he can be satisfied with the Baal of authority, and with all\nthe good things his worshippers are promised in this world and the\nnext. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse himself with\nsuch scientific implements as authority tells him are safe and will\nnot cut his fingers; but let him not imagine he is, or can be, both a\ntrue son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appears\nto him in its true colours, as mere private judgment _in excelsis_,\nand if he have the courage to stand alone, face to face with the abyss\nof the Eternal and Unknowable, let him be content, once for all, not\nonly to renounce the good things promised by \"Infallibility,\" but even\nto bear the bad things which it prophesies; content to follow reason\nand fact in singleness and honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead,\nin the sure faith that a hell of honest men will, to him, be more\nendurable than a paradise full of angelic shams.\n\nMr. Mivart asserts that \"without a belief in a personal God, there is\nno religion worthy of the name.\" This is a matter of opinion. But\nit may be asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the\nworship of a personal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must\nhave used language studiously calculated to deceive His creatures and\nworshippers, is \"no religion worthy of the name.\" \"Incredibile est,\nDeum illis verbis ad populum fuisse locutum quibus deciperetur,\" is a\nverdict in which, for once, Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy\nmoral sense of all mankind.\n\nHaving happily got quit of the theological aspect of evolution, the\nsupporter of that great truth who turns to the scientific objections\nwhich are brought against it by recent criticism, finds, to his\nrelief, that the work before him is greatly lightened by the\nspontaneous retreat of the enemy from nine-tenths of the territory\nwhich he occupied ten years ago. Even the Quarterly Reviewer not only\nabstains from venturing to deny that evolution has taken place, but he\nopenly admits that Mr. Darwin has forced on men's minds \"a recognition\nof the probability, if not more, of evolution, and of the certainty of\nthe action of natural selection\" (p. 49).\n\nI do not quite see, myself, how, if the action of natural selection is\n_certain_, the occurrence of evolution is only _probable_; inasmuch as\nthe development of a new species by natural selection is, so far as\nit goes, evolution. However, it is not worth while to quarrel with\nthe precise terms of a sentence which shows that the high watermark of\nintelligence among those most respectable of Britons, the readers of\nthe _Quarterly Review_, has now reached such a level that the next\ntide may lift them easily and pleasantly on the once-dreaded shore of\nevolution. Nor, having got there, do they seem likely to stop, until\nthey have reached the inmost heart of that great region, and accepted\nthe ape ancestry of, at any rate, the body of man. For the Reviewer\nadmits that Mr. Darwin can be said to have established:\n\n    \"That if the various kinds of lower animals have been evolved\n    one from the other by a process of natural generation or\n    evolution, then it becomes highly probable, _\u00e0 priori_, that\n    man's body has been similarly evolved; but this, in such a\n    case, becomes equally probable from the admitted fact that he\n    is an animal at all\" (p. 65).\n\nFrom the principles laid down in the last sentence, it would follow\nthat if man were constructed upon a plan as different from that of any\nother animal as that of a sea-urchin is from that of a whale, it\nwould be \"equally probable\" that he had been developed from some other\nanimal as it is now, when we know that for every bone, muscle, tooth,\nand even pattern of tooth, in man, there is a corresponding bone,\nmuscle, tooth, and pattern of tooth, in an ape. And this shows one\nof two things--either that the Quarterly Reviewer's notions of\nprobability are peculiar to himself; or, that he has such an\noverpowering faith in the truth of evolution, that no extent of\nstructural break between one animal and another is sufficient to\ndestroy his conviction that evolution has taken place.\n\nBut this by the way. The importance of the admission that there is\nnothing in man's physical structure to interfere with his having been\nevolved from an ape, is not lessened because it is grudgingly made and\ninconsistently qualified. And instead of jubilating over the extent of\nthe enemy's retreat, it will be more worth while to lay siege to his\nlast stronghold--the position that there is a distinction in kind\nbetween the mental faculties of man and those of brutes; and that, in\nconsequence of this distinction in kind, no gradual progress from\nthe mental faculties of the one to those of the other can have taken\nplace.\n\nThe Quarterly Reviewer entrenches himself within formidable-looking\npsychological outworks, and there is no getting at him without\nattacking them one by one.\n\nHe begins by laying down the following proposition: \"'Sensation' is\nnot 'thought,' and no amount of the former would constitute the most\nrudimentary condition of the latter, though sensations supply the\nconditions for the existence of 'thought' or 'knowledge'\" (p. 67).\n\nThis proposition is true, or not, according to the sense in which the\nword \"thought\" is employed. Thought is not uncommonly used in a sense\nco-extensive with consciousness, and, especially, with those states\nof consciousness we call memory. If I recall the impression made by a\ncolour or an odour, and distinctly remember blueness or muskiness, I\nmay say with perfect propriety that I \"think of\" blue or musk; and,\nso long as the thought lasts, it is simply a faint reproduction of the\nstate of consciousness to which I gave the name in question, when it\nfirst became known to me as a sensation.\n\nNow, if that faint reproduction of a sensation, which we call the\nmemory of it, is properly termed a thought, it seems to me to be\na somewhat forced, proceeding to draw a hard and fast line of\ndemarcation between thoughts and sensations. If sensations are\nnot rudimentary thoughts, it may be said that some thoughts are\nrudimentary sensations. No amount of sound constitutes an echo, but\nfor all that no one would pretend that an echo is something of totally\ndifferent nature from a sound. Again, nothing can be looser, or more\ninaccurate, than the assertion that \"sensations supply the conditions\nfor the existence of thought or knowledge.\" If this implies that\nsensations supply the conditions for the existence of our memory of\nsensations or of our thoughts about sensations, it is a truism which\nit is hardly worth while to state so solemnly. If it implies that\nsensations supply anything else, it is obviously erroneous. And if it\nmeans, as the context would seem to show it does, that sensations are\nthe subject-matter of all thought or knowledge, then it is no less\ncontrary to fact, inasmuch as our emotions, which constitute a\nlarge part of the subject-matter of thought or of knowledge, are not\nsensations.\n\nMore eccentric still is the Quarterly Reviewer's next piece of\npsychology.\n\n    \"Altogether, we may clearly distinguish at least six kinds of\n    action to which the nervous system ministers:--\n\n    \"I. That in which impressions received result in appropriate\n    movements without the intervention of sensation or thought, as\n    in the cases of injury above given.--This is the reflex action\n    of the nervous system.\n\n    \"II. That in which stimuli from without result in sensations\n    through the agency of which their due effects are wrought\n    out--Sensation.\n\n    \"III. That in which impressions received result in\n    sensations which give rise to the observation of sensible\n    objects.--Sensible perception.\n\n    \"IV. That in which sensations and perceptions continue to\n    coalesce, agglutinate, and combine in more or less complex\n    aggregations, according to the laws of the association of\n    sensible perceptions.--Association.\n\n    \"The above four groups contain only indeliberate operations,\n    consisting, as they do at the best, but of mere _presentative_\n    sensible ideas in no way implying any reflective or\n    _representative_ faculty. Such actions minister to and form\n    _Instinct_. Besides these, we may distinguish two other kinds\n    of mental action, namely:--\n\n    \"V. That in which sensations and sensible perceptions are\n    reflected on by thought, and recognized as our own, and\n    we ourselves recognized by ourselves as affected and\n    perceiving.--Self-consciousness.\n\n    \"VI. That in which we reflect upon our sensations or\n    perceptions, and ask what they are, and why they are.--Reason.\n\n    \"These two latter kinds of action are deliberate operations,\n    performed, as they are, by means of representative ideas\n    implying the use of a _reflective representative_ faculty.\n    Such actions distinguish the _intellect_ or rational faculty.\n    Now, we assert that possession in perfection of all the first\n    four _(presentative)_ kinds of action by no means implies\n    the possession of the last two _(representative)_ kinds.\n    All persons, we think, must admit the truth of the following\n    proposition:--\n\n    \"Two faculties are distinct, not in degree but _in kind_,\n    if we may possess the one in perfection without that fact\n    implying that we possess the other also. Still more will\n    this be the case if the two faculties tend to increase in\n    an inverse ratio. Yet this is the distinction between the\n    _instinctive_ and the _intellectual_ parts of man's nature.\n\n    \"As to animals, we fully admit that they may possess all the\n    first four groups of actions--that they may have, so to speak,\n    mental images of sensible objects combined in all degrees of\n    complexity, as governed by the laws of association. We deny to\n    them, on the other hand, the possession of the last two\n    kinds of mental action. We deny them, that is, the power of\n    reflecting on their own existence, or of inquiring into the\n    nature of objects and their causes. We deny that they know\n    that they know or know themselves in knowing. In other words,\n    we deny them _reason_. The possession of the presentative\n    faculty, as above explained, in no way implies that of the\n    reflective faculty; nor does any amount of direct operation\n    imply the power of asking the reflective question before\n    mentioned, as to 'what' and 'why.'\" _(Loc. cit_. pp. 67, 68.)\n\nSundry points are worthy of notice in this remarkable account of the\nintellectual powers. In the first place the Reviewer ignores emotion\nand volition, though they are no inconsiderable \"kinds of action to\nwhich the nervous system ministers,\" and memory has a place in his\nclassification only by implication. Secondly, we are told that the\nsecond \"kind of action to which the nervous system ministers\" is \"that\nin which stimuli from without result in sensations through the agency\nof which their due effects are wrought out.--Sensation.\" Does this\nreally mean that, in the writer's opinion, \"sensation\" is the \"agent\"\nby which the \"due effect\" of the stimulus, which gives rise to\nsensation, is \"wrought out\"? Suppose somebody runs a pin into me. The\n\"due effect\" of that particular stimulus will probably be threefold;\nnamely, a sensation of pain, a start, and an interjectional expletive.\nDoes the Quarterly Reviewer really think that the \"sensation\" is the\n\"agent\" by which the other two phenomena are wrought out?\n\nBut these matters are of little moment to anyone but the Reviewer\nand those persons who may incautiously take their physiology, or\npsychology, from him. The really interesting point is this, that when\nhe fully admits that animals \"may possess all the first four groups\nof actions,\" he grants all that is necessary for the purposes of\nthe evolutionist. For he hereby admits that in animals \"impressions\nreceived result in sensations which give rise to the observation\nof sensible objects,\" and that they have what he calls \"sensible\nperception.\" Nor was it possible to help the admission; for we have\nas much reason to ascribe to animals, as we have to attribute to our\nfellow-men, the power, not only of perceiving external objects as\nexternal, and thus practically recognizing the difference between the\nself and the not-self; but that of distinguishing between like\nand unlike, and between simultaneous and successive things. When a\ngamekeeper goes out coursing with a greyhound in leash, and a hare\ncrosses the field of vision, he becomes the subject of those states\nof consciousness we call visual sensation, and that is all he receives\nfrom without. Sensation, as such, tells him nothing whatever about\nthe cause of these states of consciousness; but the thinking faculty\ninstantly goes to work upon the raw material of sensation furnished to\nit through the eye, and gives rise to a train of thoughts. First comes\nthe thought that there is an object at a certain distance; then arises\nanother thought--the perception of the likeness between the states of\nconsciousness awakened by this object to those presented by memory,\nas, on some former occasion, called up by a hare; this is succeeded\nby another thought of the nature of an emotion--namely, the desire\nto possess the hare; then follows a longer or shorter train of other\nthoughts, which end in a volition and an act--the loosing of the\ngreyhound from the leash. These several thoughts are the concomitants\nof a process which goes on in the nervous system of the man. Unless\nthe nerve-elements of the retina, of the optic nerve, of the brain, of\nthe spinal chord, and of the nerves of the arms went through certain\nphysical changes in due order and correlation, the various states\nof consciousness which have been enumerated would not make their\nappearance. So that in this, as in all other intellectual operations,\nwe have to distinguish two sets of successive changes--one in the\nphysical basis of consciousness, and the other in consciousness\nitself; one set which may, and doubtless will, in course of time,\nbe followed through all their complexities by the anatomist and the\nphysicist, and one of which only the man himself can have immediate\nknowledge.\n\nAs it is very necessary to keep up a clear distinction between\nthese two processes, let the one be called _neurosis_, and the other\n_psychosis_. When the gamekeeper was first trained to his work, every\nstep in the process of neurosis was accompanied by a corresponding\nstep in that of psychosis, or nearly so. He was conscious of seeing\nsomething, conscious of making sure it was a hare, conscious of\ndesiring to catch it, and therefore to loose the greyhound at the\nright time, conscious of the acts by which he let the dog out of the\nleash. But with practice, though the various steps of the neurosis\nremain--for otherwise the impression on the retina would not result\nin the loosing of the dog--the great majority of the steps of the\npsychosis vanish, and the loosing of the dog follows unconsciously, or\nas we say, without thinking about it, upon the sight of the hare.\nNo one will deny that the series of acts which originally intervened\nbetween the sensation and the letting go of the dog were, in the\nstrictest sense, intellectual and rational operations. Do they cease\nto be so when the man ceases to be conscious of them? That depends\nupon what is the essence and what the accident of those operations,\nwhich, taken together, constitute ratiocination.\n\nNow ratiocination is resolvable into predication, and predication\nconsists in marking, in some way, the existence, the co-existence,\nthe succession, the likeness and unlikeness, of things or their ideas.\nWhatever does this, reasons; and if a machine produces the effects of\nreason, I see no more ground for denying to it the reasoning power,\nbecause it is unconscious, than I see for refusing to Mr. Babbage's\nengine the title of a calculating machine on the same grounds.\n\nThus it seems to me that a gamekeeper reasons, whether he is conscious\nor unconscious, whether his reasoning is carried on by neurosis alone,\nor whether it involves more or less psychosis. And if this is true\nof the gamekeeper, it is also true of the greyhound. The essential\nresemblances in all points of structure and function, so far as they\ncan be studied, between the nervous system of the man and that of the\ndog, leave no reasonable doubt that the processes which go on in the\none are just like those which take place in the other. In the dog,\nthere can be no doubt that the nervous matter which lies between\nthe retina and the muscles undergoes a series of changes, precisely\nanalogous to those which, in the man, give rise to sensation, a train\nof thought, and volition.\n\nWhether this neurosis is accompanied by such psychosis as ours, it is\nimpossible to say; but those who deny that the nervous changes, which,\nin the dog, correspond with those which underlie thought in a man, are\naccompanied by consciousness, are equally bound to maintain that those\nnervous changes in the dog, which correspond with those which underlie\nsensation in a man, are also unaccompanied by consciousness. In other\nwords, if there is no ground for believing that a dog thinks, neither\nis there any for believing that he feels.\n\nAs is well known, Descartes boldly faced this dilemma, and\nmaintained that all animals were mere machines and entirely devoid of\nconsciousness. But he did not deny, nor can anyone deny, that in this\ncase they are reasoning machines, capable of performing all those\noperations which are performed by the nervous system of man when he\nreasons. For even supposing that in man, and in man only, psychosis is\nsuperadded to neurosis--the neurosis which is common to both man\nand animal gives their reasoning processes a fundamental unity.\nBut Descartes's position is open to very serious objections, if the\nevidence that animals feel is insufficient to prove that they really\ndo so. What is the value of the evidence which leads one to believe\nthat one's fellow-man feels? The only evidence in this argument of\nanalogy, is the similarity of his structure and of his actions to\none's own. And if that is good enough to prove that one's fellow-man\nfeels, surely it is good enough to prove that an ape feels. For the\ndifferences of structure and function between men and apes are utterly\ninsufficient to warrant the assumption, that while men have those\nstates of consciousness we call sensations, apes have nothing of the\nkind. Moreover, we have as good evidence that apes are capable of\nemotion and volition as we have that men other than ourselves are. But\nif apes possess three out of the four kinds of states of consciousness\nwhich we discover in ourselves, what possible reason is there for\ndenying them the fourth? If they are capable of sensation, emotion,\nand volition, why are they to be denied thought (in the sense of\npredication)?\n\nNo answer has ever been given to these questions. And as the law of\ncontinuity is as much opposed, as is the common sense of mankind, to\nthe notion that all animals are unconscious machines, it may safely be\nassumed that no sufficient answer ever will be given to them.\n\nThere is every reason to believe that consciousness is a function\nof nervous matter, when, that nervous matter has attained a certain\ndegree of organization, just as we know the other \"actions to which\nthe nervous system ministers,\" such as reflex action and the like, to\nbe. As I have ventured to state my view of the matter elsewhere, \"our\nthoughts are the expression of molecular changes in that matter of\nlife which is the source of our other vital phenomena.\"\n\nMr. Wallace objects to this statement in the following terms:--\n\n    \"Not having been able to find any clue in Professor Huxley's\n    writings to the steps by which he passes from those vital\n    phenomena, which consist only, in their last analysis, of\n    movements by particles of matter, to those other phenomena\n    which we term thought, sensation, or consciousness; but,\n    knowing that so positive an expression of opinion from him\n    will have great weight with many persons, I shall endeavour\n    to show, with as much brevity as is compatible with clearness,\n    that this theory is not only incapable of proof, but is also,\n    as it appears to me, inconsistent with accurate conceptions of\n    molecular physics.\"\n\nWith all respect for Mr. Wallace, it appears to me that his remarks\nare entirely beside the question. I really know nothing whatever, and\nnever hope to know anything, of the steps by which the passage from\nmolecular movement to states of consciousness is effected; and I\nentirely agree with the sense of the passage which he quotes from\nProfessor Tyndall, apparently imagining that it is in opposition to\nthe view I hold.\n\nAll that I have to say is, that, in my belief, consciousness and\nmolecular action are capable of being expressed by one another, just\nas heat and mechanical action are capable of being expressed in terms\nof one another. Whether we shall ever be able to express consciousness\nin foot-pounds, or not, is more than I will venture to say; but\nthat there is evidence of the existence of some correlation between\nmechanical motion and consciousness, is as plain as anything can be.\nSuppose the poles of an electric battery to be connected by a platinum\nwire. A certain intensity of the current gives rise in the mind of a\nbystander to that state of consciousness we call a \"dull red light\"--a\nlittle greater intensity to another which we call a \"bright red\nlight;\" increase the intensity, and the light becomes white; and,\nfinally, it dazzles, and a new state of consciousness arises, which we\nterm pain. Given the same wire and the same nervous apparatus, and the\namount of electric force required to give rise to these several states\nof consciousness will be the same, however often the experiment\nis repeated. And as the electric force, the light-waves, and the\nnerve-vibrations caused by the impact of the light-waves on the\nretina, are all expressions of the molecular changes which are taking\nplace in the elements of the battery; so consciousness is, in the same\nsense, an expression of the molecular changes which take place in that\nnervous matter, which is the organ of consciousness.\n\nAnd, since this, and any number of similar examples that may be\nrequired, prove that one form of consciousness, at any rate, is, in\nthe strictest sense, the expression of molecular change, it really\nis not worth while to pursue the inquiry, whether a fact so easily\nestablished is consistent with any particular system of molecular\nphysics or not.\n\nMr. Wallace, in fact, appears to me to have mixed up two very distinct\npropositions: the one, the indisputable truth that consciousness is\ncorrelated with molecular changes in the organ of consciousness;\nthe other, that the nature of that correlation is known, or can be\nconceived, which is quite another matter. Mr. Wallace, presumably,\nbelieves in that correlation of phenomena which we call cause and\neffect as firmly as I do. But if he has ever been able to form the\nfaintest notion how a cause gives rise to its effect, all I can say is\nthat I envy him. Take the simplest case imaginable--suppose a ball in\nmotion to impinge upon another ball at rest. I know very well, as a\nmatter of fact, that the ball in motion will communicate some of its\nmotion to the ball at rest, and that the motion of the two balls after\ncollision is precisely correlated with the masses of both balls and\nthe amount of motion of the first. But how does this come about? In\nwhat manner can we conceive that the _vis viva_ of the first ball\npasses into the second? I confess I can no more form any conception\nof what happens in this case, than I can of what takes place when the\nmotion of particles of my nervous matter, caused by the impact of a\nsimilar ball, gives rise to the state of consciousness I call pain. In\nultimate analysis everything is incomprehensible, and the whole object\nof science is simply to reduce the fundamental incomprehensibilities\nto the smallest possible number.\n\nBut to return to the Quarterly Reviewer. He admits that animals\nhave \"mental images of sensible objects, combined in all degrees of\ncomplexity, as governed by the laws of association.\" Presumably, by\nthis confused and imperfect statement the Reviewer means to admit\nmore than the words imply. For mental images of sensible objects,\neven though \"combined in all degrees of complexity,\" are, and can be,\nnothing more than mental images of sensible objects. But judgments,\nemotions, and volitions cannot by any possibility be included under\nthe head of \"mental images of sensible objects.\"\n\nIf the greyhound had no better mental endowment than the Reviewer\nallows him, he might have the \"mental image\" of the \"sensible\nobject\"--the hare--and that might be combined with the mental images\nof other sensible objects, to any degree of complexity, but he would\nhave no power of judging it to be at a certain distance from him; no\npower of perceiving its similarity to his memory of a hare; and no\ndesire to get at it. Consequently he would stand stock still, and the\nnoble art of coursing would have no existence. On the other hand,\nas that art is largely practised, it follows that greyhounds alone\npossess a number of mental powers, the existence of which, in any\nanimal, is absolutely denied by the Quarterly Reviewer.\n\nFinally, what are the mental powers which he reserves as the especial\nprerogative of man? They are two. First, the recognition of \"ourselves\nby ourselves as affected and perceiving.--Self-consciousness.\"\n\nSecondly. \"The reflection upon our sensations and perceptions, and\nasking what they are and why they are.--Reason.\"\n\nTo the faculty defined in the last sentence, the Reviewer, without\nassigning the least ground for thus departing from both common usage\nand technical propriety, applies the name of reason. But if man is not\nto be considered a reasoning being, unless he asks what his sensations\nand perceptions are, and why they are, what is a Hottentot, or an\nAustralian black fellow; or what the \"swinked hedger\" of an ordinary\nagricultural district? Nay, what becomes of an average country squire\nor parson? How many of these worthy persons who, as their wont is,\nread the _Quarterly Review_, would do other than stand agape, if you\nasked them whether they had ever reflected what their sensations and\nperceptions are, and why they are?\n\nSo that if the Reviewer's new definition of reason be correct, the\nmajority of men, even among the most civilized nations, are devoid of\nthat supreme characteristic of manhood. And if it be as absurd as I\nbelieve it to be, then, as reason is certainly not self-consciousness,\nand as it, as certainly, is one of the \"actions to which the nervous\nsystem ministers,\" we must, if the Reviewer's classification is to be\nadopted, seek it among those four faculties which he allows animals\nto possess. And thus, for the second time, he really surrenders, while\nseeming to defend, his position.\n\nThe Quarterly Reviewer, as we have seen, lectures the evolutionists\nupon their want of knowledge of philosophy altogether. Mr. Mivart\nis not less pained at Mr. Darwin's ignorance of moral science. It is\ngrievous to him that Mr. Darwin (and _nous autres_) should not\nhave grasped the elementary distinction between material and formal\nmorality; and he lays down as an axiom, of which no tyro ought to be\nignorant, the position that \"acts, unaccompanied by mental acts\nof conscious will directed towards the fulfilment of duty,\" are\n\"absolutely destitute of the most incipient degree of real or formal\ngoodness.\"\n\nNow this may be Mr. Mivart's opinion, but it is a proposition which,\nreally, does not stand on the footing of an undisputed axiom. Mr. Mill\ndenies it in his work on Utilitarianism. The most influential writer\nof a totally opposed school, Mr. Carlyle, is never weary of denying\nit, and upholding the merit of that virtue which is unconscious; nay,\nit is, to my understanding, extremely hard to reconcile Mr. Mivart's\ndictum with that noble summary of the whole duty of man--\"Thou shalt\nlove the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and\nwith all thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\"\nAccording to Mr. Mivart's definition, the man who loves God and his\nneighbour, and, out of sheer love and affection for both, does all he\ncan to please them, is, nevertheless, destitute of a particle of real\ngoodness.\n\nAnd it further happens that Mr. Darwin, who is charged by Mr. Mivart\nwith being ignorant of the distinction between material and formal\ngoodness, discusses the very question at issue, in a passage which\nis well worth reading (vol. i.p. 87), and also comes to a conclusion\nopposed to Mr. Mivart's axiom. A proposition which has been so much\ndisputed and repudiated, should, under no circumstances, have been\nthus confidently assumed to be true. For myself, I utterly reject\nit, inasmuch as the logical consequence of the adoption of any such\nprinciple is the denial of all moral value to sympathy and affection.\nAccording to Mr. Mivart's axiom, the man who, seeing another\nstruggling in the water, leaps in at the risk of his own life to save\nhim, does that which is \"destitute of the most incipient degree of\nreal goodness,\" unless, as he strips off his coat, he says to himself,\n\"Now mind, I am going to do this because it is my duty and for no\nother reason;\" and the most beautiful character to which humanity\ncan attain, that of the man who does good without thinking about it,\nbecause he loves justice and mercy and is repelled by evil, has no\nclaim on our moral approbation. The denial that a man acts morally\nbecause he does not think whether he does so or not, may be put upon\nthe same footing as the denial of the title of an arithmetician to the\ncalculating boy, because he did not know how he worked his sums. If\nmankind ever generally accept and act upon Mr. Mivart's axiom, they\nwill simply become a set of most unendurable prigs; but they never\nhave accepted it, and I venture to hope that evolution has nothing so\nterrible in store for the human race.\n\nBut, if an action, the motive of which is nothing out affection or\nsympathy, may be deserving of moral approbation and really good, who\nthat has ever had a dog of his own will deny that animals are capable\nof such actions? Mr. Mivart indeed says:--\"It may be safely affirmed,\nhowever, that there is no trace in brutes of any actions simulating\nmorality which are not explicable by the fear of punishment, by the\nhope of pleasure, or by personal affection\" (p. 221). But it may\nbe affirmed, with equal truth, that there is no trace in men of any\nactions which are not traceable to the same motives. If a man does\nanything, he does it either because he fears to be punished if he\ndoes not do it, or because he hopes to obtain pleasure by doing it, or\nbecause he gratifies his affections[1] by doing it.\n\n[Footnote 1: In separating pleasure and the gratification of\naffection, I simply follow Mr. Mivart without admitting the justice of\nthe separation.]\n\nAssuming the position of the absolute moralists, let it be granted\nthat there is a perception of right and wrong innate in every man.\nThis means, simply, that when certain ideas are presented to his\nmind, the feeling of approbation arises; and when certain others, the\nfeeling of disapprobation. To do your duty is to earn the approbation\nof your conscience, or moral sense; to fail in your duty is to feel\nits disapprobation, as we all say. Now, is approbation a pleasure or\na pain? Surely a pleasure. And is disapprobation a pleasure or a pain?\nSurely a pain. Consequently all that is really meant by the absolute\nmoralists is that there is, in the very nature of man, something which\nenables him to be conscious of these particular pleasures and pains.\nAnd when they talk of immutable and eternal principles of morality,\nthe only intelligible sense which I can put upon the words, is that\nthe nature of man being what it is, he always has been, and always\nwill be, capable of feeling these particular pleasures and pains. _A\npriori_, I have nothing to say against this proposition. Admitting its\ntruth, I do not see how the moral faculty is on a different footing\nfrom any of the other faculties of man. If I choose to say that it is\nan immutable and eternal law of human nature that \"ginger is hot\nin the mouth,\" the assertion has as much foundation of truth as the\nother, though I think it would be expressed in needlessly pompous\nlanguage. I must confess that I have never been able to understand why\nthere should be such a bitter quarrel between the intuitionists and\nthe utilitarians. The intuitionist is, after all, only a utilitarian\nwho believes that a particular class of pleasures and pains has an\nespecial importance, by reason of its foundation in the nature of man,\nand its inseparable connection with his very existence as a thinking\nbeing. And as regards the motive of personal affection: Love, as\nSpinoza profoundly says, is the association of pleasure with that\nwhich is loved.[1] Or, to put it to the common sense of mankind,\nis the gratification of affection a pleasure or a pain? Surely a\npleasure. So that whether the motive which leads us to perform\nan action is the love of our neighbour, or the love of God, it is\nundeniable that pleasure enters into that motive.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Nempe, Amor nihil aliud est, quam Laetitia, concomitante\nidea causae externae.\"--_Ethices_ III. xiii.]\n\nThus much in reply to Mr. Mivart's arguments. I cannot but think\nthat it is to be regretted that he ekes them out by ascribing to the\ndoctrines of the philosophers with whom he does not agree, logical\nconsequences which have been over and over again proved not to flow\nfrom them: and when reason fails him, tries the effect of an injurious\nnickname. According to the views of Mr. Spencer, Mr. Mill, and Mr.\nDarwin, Mr. Mivart tells us, \"_virtue is a mere kind of retrieving;\"\n_ and, that we may not miss the point of the joke, he puts it in\nitalics. But what if it is? Does that make it less virtue? Suppose I\nsay that sculpture is a \"mere way\" of stone-cutting, and painting\na \"mere way\" of daubing canvas, and music a \"mere way\" of making a\nnoise, the statements are quite true; but they only show that I see no\nother method of depreciating some of the noblest aspects of humanity,\nthan that of using language in an inadequate and misleading sense\nabout them. And the peculiar in appropriateness of this particular\nnickname to the views in question, arises from the circumstance which\nMr. Mivart would doubtless have recollected, if his wish to ridicule\nhad not for the moment obscured his judgment--that whether the law\nof evolution applies to man or not, that of hereditary transmission\ncertainly does. Mr. Mivart will hardly deny that a man owes a large\nshare of the moral tendencies which he exhibits to his ancestors;\nand the man who inherits a desire to steal from a kleptomaniac, or a\ntendency to benevolence from a Howard, is, so far as he illustrates\nhereditary transmission, comparable to the dog who inherits the desire\nto fetch a duck out of the water from his retrieving sire. So that,\nevolution, or no evolution, moral qualities are comparable to a \"kind\nof retrieving;\" though the comparison, if meant for the purposes of\ncasting obloquy on evolution, does not say much for the fairness of\nthose who make it.\n\nThe Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart base their objections to the\nevolution of the mental faculties of man from those of some lower\nanimal form, upon what they maintain to be a difference in kind\nbetween the mental and moral faculties of men and brutes; and I\nhave endeavoured to show, by exposing the utter unsoundness of their\nphilosophical basis, that these objections are devoid of importance.\n\nThe objections which Mr. Wallace brings forward to the doctrine of\nthe evolution of the mental faculties of man from those of brutes\nby natural causes, are of a different order, and require separate\nconsideration.\n\nIf I understand him rightly, he by no means doubts that both the\nbodily and the mental faculties of man have been evolved from those of\nsome lower animal; but he is of opinion, that some agency beyond that\nwhich has been concerned in the evolution of ordinary animals, has\nbeen operative in the case of man. \"A superior intelligence has guided\nthe development of man in a definite direction and for a special\npurpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and\nvegetable forms.\"[1] I understand this to mean that, just as the\nrock-pigeon has been produced by natural causes, while the\nevolution of the tumbler from the blue rock has required the special\nintervention of the intelligence of man, so some anthropoid form may\nhave been evolved by variation and natural selection; but it could\nnever have given rise to man, unless some superior intelligence had\nplayed the part of the pigeon-fancier.\n\n[Footnote 1: The limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man _(loc.\ncit_. p. 359).]\n\nAccording to Mr. Wallace, \"whether we compare the savage with the\nhigher developments of man, or with the brutes around him, we are\nalike driven to the conclusion, that, in his large and well-developed\nbrain, he possesses an organ quite disproportioned to his\nrequirements\" (p. 343); and he asks, \"What is there in the life of the\nsavage but the satisfying of the cravings of appetite in the simplest\nand easiest way? What thoughts, idea, or actions are there that raise\nhim many grades above the elephant or the ape?\" (p. 342). I answer Mr.\nWallace by citing a remarkable passage which occurs in his instructive\npaper on \"Instinct in Man and Animals.\"\n\n    \"Savages make long journeys in many directions, and, their\n    whole faculties being directed to the subject, they gain a\n    wide and accurate knowledge of the topography, not only\n    of their own district, but of all the regions round about.\n    Everyone who has travelled in a new direction communicates his\n    knowledge to those who have travelled less, and descriptions\n    of routes and localities, and minute incidents of travel, form\n    one of the main staples of conversation around the evening\n    fire. Every wanderer or captive from another tribe adds to\n    the store of information, and, as the very existence of\n    individuals and of whole families and tribes depends upon\n    the completeness of this knowledge, all the acute perceptive\n    faculties of the adult savage are directed to acquiring and\n    perfecting it. The good hunter or warrior thus comes to know\n    the bearing of every hill and mountain range, the directions\n    and junctions of all the streams, the situation of each tract\n    characterized by peculiar vegetation, not only within the\n    area he has himself traversed, but perhaps for a hundred miles\n    around it. His acute observation enables him to detect the\n    slightest undulations of the surface, the various changes of\n    subsoil and alterations in the character of the vegetation\n    that would be quite imperceptible to a stranger. His eye is\n    always open to the direction in which he is going; the mossy\n    side of trees, the presence of certain plants under the shade\n    of rocks, the morning and evening flight of birds, are to\n    him indications of direction almost as sure as the sun in the\n    heavens\" (pp. 207-8).\n\nI have seen enough of savages to be able to declare that nothing can\nbe more admirable than this description of what a savage has to learn.\nBut it is incomplete. Add to all this the knowledge which a savage\nis obliged to gain of the properties of plants, of the characters and\nhabits of animals, and of the minute indications by which their course\nis discoverable: consider that even an Australian can make excellent\nbaskets and nets, and neatly fitted and beautifully balanced spears;\nthat he learns to use these so as to be able to transfix a quartern\nloaf at sixty yards; and that very often, as in the case of the\nAmerican Indians, the language of a savage exhibits complexities which\na well-trained European finds it difficult to master: consider that\nevery time a savage tracks his game, he employs a minuteness of\nobservation, and an accuracy of inductive and deductive reasoning\nwhich, applied to other matters, would assure some reputation to a man\nof science, and I think we need ask no further why he possesses such a\nfair supply of brains. In complexity and difficulty, I should say that\nthe intellectual labour of a \"good hunter or warrior\" considerably\nexceeds that of an ordinary Englishman. The Civil Service Examiners\nare held in great terror by young Englishmen; but even their ferocity\nnever tempted them to require a candidate to possess such a knowledge\nof a parish, as Mr. Wallace justly points out savages may possess of\nan area a hundred miles, or more, in diameter.\n\nBut suppose, for the sake of argument, that a savage has more brains\nthan seems proportioned to his wants, all that can be said is that\nthe objection to natural selection, if it be one, applies quite\nas strongly to the lower animals. The brain of a porpoise is quite\nwonderful for its mass, and for the development of the cerebral\nconvolutions. And yet since we have ceased to credit the story of\nArion, it is hard to believe that porpoises are much troubled with\nintellect: and still more difficult is it to imagine that their big\nbrains are only a preparation for the advent of some accomplished\ncetacean of the future. Surely, again, a wolf must have too much\nbrains, or else how is it that a dog, with only the same quantity and\nform of brain, is able to develop such singular intelligence? The wolf\nstands to the dog in the same relation as the savage to the man; and,\ntherefore, if Mr. Wallace's doctrine holds good, a higher power must\nhave superintended the breeding up of wolves from some inferior stock,\nin order to prepare them to become dogs.\n\nMr. Wallace further maintains that the origin of some of man's mental\nfaculties by the preservation of useful variations is not possible.\nSuch, for example, are \"the capacity to form ideal conceptions of\nspace and time, of eternity and infinity; the capacity for intense\nartistic feelings of pleasure in form, colour, and composition; and\nfor those abstract notions of form and number which render geometry\nand arithmetic possible.\" \"How,\" he asks, \"were all or any of these\nfaculties first developed, when they could have been of no possible\nuse to man in his early stages of barbarism?\"\n\nSurely the answer is not far to seek. The lowest savages are as\ndevoid of any such conceptions as the brutes themselves. What sort of\nconceptions of space and time, of form and number, can be possessed by\na savage who has not got so far as to be able to count beyond five or\nsix, who does not know how to draw a triangle or a circle, and has not\nthe remotest notion of separating the particular quality we call\nform, from the other qualities of bodies? None of these capacities\nare exhibited by men, unless they form part of a tolerably advanced\nsociety. And, in such a society, there are abundant conditions by\nwhich a selective influence is exerted in favour of those persons who\nexhibit an approximation towards the possession of these capacities.\n\nThe savage who can amuse his fellows by telling a good story over the\nnightly fire, is held by them in esteem and rewarded, in one way or\nanother, for so doing in other words, it is an advantage to him to\npossess this power. He who can carve a paddle, or the figure-head of\na canoe better, similarly profits beyond his duller neighbour. He\nwho counts a little better than others, gets most yams when barter\nis going on, and forms the shrewdest estimate of the numbers of an\nopposing tribe. The experience of daily life shows that the conditions\nof our present social existence exercise the most extraordinarily\npowerful selective influence in favour of novelists, artists, and\nstrong intellects of all kinds; and it seems unquestionable that\nall forms of social existence must have had the same tendency, if we\nconsider the indisputable facts that even animals possess the power of\ndistinguishing form and number, and that they are capable of deriving\npleasure from particular forms and sounds. If we admit, as Mr. Wallace\ndoes, that the lowest savages are not raised \"many grades above the\nelephant and the ape;\" and if we further admit, as I contend must be\nadmitted, that the conditions of social life tend, powerfully, to\ngive an advantage to those individuals who vary in the direction of\nintellectual or aesthetic excellence, what is there to interfere\nwith the belief that these higher faculties, like the rest, owe their\ndevelopment to natural selection?\n\nFinally, with respect to the development of the moral sense out of the\nsimple feelings of pleasure and pain, liking and disliking, with which\nthe lower animals are provided, I can find nothing in Mr. Wallace's\nreasonings which has not already been met by Mr. Mill, Mr. Spencer, or\nMr. Darwin.\n\nI do not propose to follow the Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart\nthrough the long string of objections in matters of detail which they\nbring against Mr. Darwin's views. Everyone who has considered\nthe matter carefully will be able to ferret out as many more\n\"difficulties;\" but he will also, I believe, fail as completely as\nthey appear to me to have done, in bringing forward any fact which is\nreally contradictory of Mr. Darwin's views. Occasionally, too, their\nobjections and criticisms are based upon errors of their own. As, for\nexample, when Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer insist upon the\nresemblances between the eyes of _Cephalopoda_ and _Vertebrata_,\nquite forgetting that there are striking and altogether fundamental\ndifferences between them; or when the Quarterly Reviewer corrects Mr.\nDarwin for saying that the gibbons, \"without having been taught,\ncan walk or run upright with tolerable quickness, though they move\nawkwardly, and much less securely than man.\" The Quarterly Reviewer\nsays, \"This is a little misleading, inasmuch as it is not stated that\nthis upright progression is effected by placing the enormously long\narms behind the head, or holding them out backwards as a balance in\nprogression.\"\n\nNow, before carping at a small statement like this, the Quarterly\nReviewer should have made sure that he was quite right. But he happens\nto be quite wrong. I suspect he got his notion of the manner in which\na gibbon walks from a citation in \"Man's Place in Nature.\" But at\nthat time I had not seen a gibbon walk. Since then I have, and I can\ntestify that nothing can be more precise than Mr. Darwin's statement.\nThe gibbon I saw walked without either putting his arms behind his\nhead or holding them out backwards. All he did was to touch the ground\nwith the outstretched fingers of his long arms now and then, just as\none sees a man who carries a stick, but does not need one, touch the\nground with it as he walks along.\n\nAgain, a large number of the objections brought forward by Mr. Mivart\nand the Quarterly Reviewer apply to evolution in general, quite as\nmuch as to the particular form of that doctrine advocated by Mr.\nDarwin; or, to their notions of Mr. Darwin's views and not to what\nthey really are. An excellent example of this class of difficulties\nis to be found in Mr. Mivart's chapter on \"Independent Similarities\nof Structure.\" Mr. Mivart says that these cannot be explained by\nan \"absolute and pure Darwinian,\" but \"that an innate power and\nevolutionary law, aided by the corrective action of natural selection,\nshould have furnished like needs with like aids, is not at all\nimprobable\" (p. 82).\n\nI do not exactly know what Mr. Mivart means by an \"absolute and\npure Darwinian;\" indeed Mr. Mivart makes that creature hold so many\nsingular opinions that I doubt if I can ever have seen one alive. But\nI find nothing in his statement of the view which he imagines to\nbe originated by himself, which is really inconsistent with what I\nunderstand to be Mr. Darwin's views.\n\nI apprehend that the foundation of the theory of natural selection is\nthe fact that living bodies tend incessantly to vary. This variation\nis neither indefinite, nor fortuitous, nor does it take place in all\ndirections, in the strict sense of these words.\n\nAccurately speaking, it is not indefinite, nor does it take place in\nall directions, because it is limited by the general characters of the\ntype to which the organism exhibiting the variation belongs. A whale\ndoes not tend to vary in the direction of producing feathers, nor a\nbird in the direction of developing whalebone. In popular language\nthere is no harm in saying that the waves which break upon the\nsea-shore are indefinite, fortuitous, and break in all directions.\nIn scientific language, on the contrary, such a statement would be\na gross error, inasmuch as every particle of foam is the result of\nperfectly definite forces, operating according to no less definite\nlaws. In like manner, every variation of a living form, however\nminute, however apparently accidental, is inconceivable except as the\nexpression of the operation of molecular forces or \"powers\" resident\nwithin the organism. And, as these forces certainly operate according\nto definite laws, their general result is, doubtless, in accordance\nwith some general law which subsumes them all. And there appears to\nbe no objection to call this an \"evolutionary law.\" But nobody is the\nwiser for doing so, or has thereby contributed, in the least degree,\nto the advance of the doctrine of evolution, the great need of which\nis a theory of variation.\n\nWhen Mr. Mivart tells us that his \"aim has been to support the\ndoctrine that these species have been evolved by ordinary _natural\nlaws_ (for the most part unknown), aided by the _subordinate_ action\nof 'natural selection'\" (pp. 332-3), he seems to be of opinion that\nhis enterprise has the merit of novelty. All I can say is that I have\nnever had the slightest notion that Mr. Darwin's aim is in any way\ndifferent from this. If I affirm that \"species have been evolved by\nvariation[1] (a natural process, the laws of which are for the most\npart unknown), aided by the subordinate action of natural selection,\"\nit seems to me that I enunciate a proposition which constitutes the\nvery pith and marrow of the first edition of the \"Origin of Species.\"\nAnd what the evolutionist stands in need of just now, is not an\niteration of the fundamental principle of Darwinism, but some light\nupon the questions, What are the limits of variation? and, If\na variety has arisen, can that variety be perpetuated, or even\nintensified, when selective conditions are indifferent, or perhaps\nunfavourable, to its existence? I cannot find that Mr. Darwin has ever\nbeen very dogmatic in answering these questions. Formerly, he seems\nto have inclined to reply to them in the negative, while now his\ninclination is the other way. Leaving aside those broad questions of\ntheology, philosophy, and ethics, by the discussion of which neither\nthe Quarterly Reviewer nor Mr. Mivart can be said to have damaged\nDarwinism--whatever else they have injured--this is what their\ncriticisms come to. They confound a struggle for some rifle-pits with\nan assault on the fortress.\n\n[Footnote 1: Including under this head hereditary transmission.]\n\nIn some respects, finally, I can only characterize the Quarterly\nReviewer's treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and unbecoming.\nLanguage of this strength requires justification, and on that ground I\nadd the remarks which follow.\n\nThe Quarterly Reviewer opens his essay by a careful enumeration of\nall those points upon which, during the course of thirteen years of\nincessant labour, Mr. Darwin has modified his opinions. It has often\nand justly been remarked, that what strikes a candid student of Mr.\nDarwin's works is not so much his industry, his knowledge, or even\nthe surprising fertility of his inventive genius; but that unswerving\ntruthfulness and honesty which never permit him to hide a weak place,\nor gloss over a difficulty, but lead him, on all occasions, to point\nout the weak places in his own armour, and even sometimes, it appears\nto me, to make admissions against himself which are quite unnecessary.\nA critic who desires to attack Mr. Darwin has only to read his works\nwith a desire to observe, not their merits, but their defects, and\nhe will find, ready to hand, more adverse suggestions than are likely\never to have suggested themselves to his own sharpness, without Mr.\nDarwin's self-denying aid.\n\nNow this quality of scientific candour is not so common that it needs\nto be discouraged; and it appears to me to deserve other treatment\nthan that adopted by the Quarterly Reviewer, who deals with Mr. Darwin\nas an Old Bailey barrister deals with a man against whom he wishes\nto obtain a conviction, _per fas aut nefas_, and opens his case by\nendeavouring to create a prejudice against the prisoner in the minds\nof the jury. In his eagerness to carry out this laudable design, the\nQuarterly Reviewer cannot even state the history of the doctrine\nof natural selection without an oblique and entirely unjustifiable\nattempt to depreciate Mr. Darwin. \"To Mr. Darwin,\" says he, \"and\n(through Mr. Wallace's reticence) to Mr. Darwin alone, is due the\ncredit of having first brought it prominently forward and demonstrated\nits truth.\" No one can less desire than I do, to throw a doubt upon\nMr. Wallace's originality, or to question his claim to the honour of\nbeing one of the originators of the doctrine of natural selection; but\nthe statement that Mr. Darwin has the sole credit of originating the\ndoctrine because of Mr. Wallace's reticence is simply ridiculous. The\nproof of this is, in the first place, afforded by Mr. Wallace himself,\nwhose noble freedom from petty jealousy in this matter, smaller folk\nwould do well to imitate; and who writes thus:--\"I have felt all my\nlife, and I still feel, the most sincere satisfaction that Mr. Darwin\nhad been at work long before me, and that it was not left for me to\nattempt to write the 'Origin of Species.' I have long since measured\nmy own strength, and know well that it would be quite unequal to that\ntask.\" So that if there was any reticence at all in the matter, it\nwas Mr. Darwin's reticence during the long twenty years of study which\nintervened between the conception and the publication of his theory,\nwhich gave Mr. Wallace the chance of being an independent discoverer\nof the importance of natural selection. And, finally, if it be\nrecollected that Mr. Darwin's and Mr. Wallace's essays were published\nsimultaneously in the _Journal of the Linnaean Society_ for 1858, it\nfollows that the Reviewer, while obliquely depreciating Mr. Darwin's\ndeserts, has in reality awarded to him a priority which, in legal\nstrictness, does not exist.\n\nMr. Mivart, whose opinions so often concur with those of the Quarterly\nReviewer, puts the case in a way, which I much regret to be obliged to\nsay, is, in my judgment, quite as incorrect; though the injustice may\nbe less glaring. He says that the theory of natural selection is,\nin general, exclusively associated with the name of Mr. Darwin, \"on\naccount of the noble self-abnegation of Mr. Wallace.\" As I have said,\nno one can honour Mr. Wallace more than I do, both for what he has\ndone and for what he has not done, in his relation to Mr. Darwin. And\nperhaps nothing is more creditable to him than his frank declaration\nthat he could not have written such a work as the \"Origin of Species.\"\nBut, by this declaration, the person most directly interested in the\nmatter repudiates, by anticipation, Mr. Mivart's suggestion that Mr.\nDarwin's eminence is more or less due to Mr. Wallace's modesty.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\nTHE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS.[1]\n\n\nConsidering that Germany now takes the lead of the world in scientific\ninvestigation, and particularly in biology, Mr. Darwin must be well\npleased at the rapid spread of his views among some of the ablest and\nmost laborious of German naturalists.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"The Natural History of Creation.\" By Dr. Ernst Haeckel\n(_Nat\u00fcrliche Sch\u00f6pfungs-Geschichte._--Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor\nan der Universit\u00e4t Jena.) Berlin, 1868.]\n\nAmong those, Professor Haeckel, of Jena, is the Coryphaeus. I know of\nno more solid and important contributions to biology in the past seven\nyears than Haeckel's work on the _Radiolaria_, and the researches of\nhis distinguished colleague Gegenbaur, in vertebrate anatomy; while\nin Haeckel's _Generelle Morphologie_ there is all the force,\nsuggestiveness, and, what I may term the systematizing power, of Oken,\nwithout his extravagance. The _Generelle Morphologie_ is, in fact, an\nattempt to put the doctrine of Evolution, so far as it applies to\nthe living world, into a logical form; and to work out its practical\napplications to their final results. The work before us, again, may\nbe said to be an exposition of the _Generelle Morphologie_ for an\neducated public, consisting, as it does, of the substance of a series\nof lectures delivered before a mixed audience at Jena, in the session\n1867-8.\n\n\"The Natural History of Creation,\"--or, as Professor Haeckel admits\nit would have been better to call his work, \"The History of the\nDevelopment or Evolution of Nature,\"--deals, in the first six\nlectures, with the general and historical aspects of the question,\nand contains a very interesting and lucid account of the views of\nLinnaeus, Cuvier, Agassiz, Goethe, Oken, Kant, Lamarck, Lyell, and\nDarwin, and of the historical filiation of these philosophers.\n\nThe next six lectures are occupied by a well-digested statement of Mr.\nDarwin's views. The thirteenth lecture discusses two topics which are\nnot touched by Mr. Darwin, namely, the origin of the present form of\nthe solar system, and that of living matter. Full justice is done to\nKant, as the originator of that \"cosmic gas theory,\" as the Germans\nsomewhat quaintly call it, which is commonly ascribed to Laplace. With\nrespect to spontaneous generation, while admitting that there is no\nexperimental evidence in its favour, Professor Haeckel denies the\npossibility of disproving it, and points out that the assumption that\nit has occurred is a necessary part of the doctrine of Evolution. The\nfourteenth lecture, on \"Sch\u00f6pfungs-Perioden und Sch\u00f6pfungs-Urkunden,\"\nanswers pretty much to the famous disquisition on the \"Imperfection of\nthe Geological Record\" in the _Origin of Species_.\n\nThe following five lectures contain the most original matter of any,\nbeing devoted to \"Phylogeny,\" or the working out of the details of the\nprocess of Evolution in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, so as\nto prove the line of descent of each group of living beings, and to\nfurnish it with its proper genealogical tree, or \"phylum.\"\n\nThe last lecture considers objections and sums up the evidence in\nfavour of biological Evolution.\n\nI shall best testify to my sense of the value of the work thus briefly\nanalysed if I now proceed to note down some of the more important\ncriticisms which have been suggested to me by its perusal.\n\nI. In more than one place, Professor Haeckel enlarges upon the service\nwhich the _Origin of Species_ has done, in favouring what he terms\nthe \"causal or mechanical\" view of living nature as opposed to the\n\"teleological or vitalistic\" view. And no doubt it is quite true that\nthe doctrine of Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all\nthe commoner and coarser forms of Teleology. But perhaps the most\nremarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin\nis the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation\nof the facts of both which his views offer.\n\nThe Teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man\nor one of the higher _Vertebrata_, was made with the precise structure\nwhich it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which\npossesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow.\nNevertheless it is necessary to remember that there is a wider\nTeleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is\nactually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution. That\nproposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the\nresult of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the\nforces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of\nthe universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that\nthe existing world lay, potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a\nsufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of\nthe molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of the\nFauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what\nwill happen to the vapour of the breath in a cold winter's day.\n\nConsider a kitchen clock, which ticks loudly, shows the hours,\nminutes, and seconds, strikes, cries \"cuckoo!\" and perhaps shows the\nphases of the moon. When the clock is wound up, all the phenomena\nwhich it exhibits are potentially contained in its mechanism, and a\nclever clockmaker could predict all it will do after an examination of\nits structure.\n\nIf the evolution theory is correct, the molecular structure of the\ncosmic gas stands in the same relation to the phenomena of the world\nas the structure of the clock to its phenomena.\n\nNow let us suppose a death-watch, living in the clock-case, to be a\nlearned and intelligent student of its works. He might say, \"I find\nhere nothing but matter and force and pure mechanism from beginning to\nend,\" and he would be quite right. But if he drew the conclusion that\nthe clock was not contrived for a purpose, he would be quite wrong.\nOn the other hand, imagine another death-watch of a different turn of\nmind. He, listening to the monotonous \"tick! tick!\" so exactly like\nhis own, might arrive at the conclusion that the clock was itself a\nmonstrous sort of death-watch, and that its final cause and purpose\nwas to tick. How easy to point to the clear relation of the whole\nmechanism to the pendulum, to the fact that the one thing the clock\ndid always and without intermission was to tick, and that all the rest\nof its phenomena were intermittent and subordinate to ticking! For\nall this, it is certain that kitchen clocks are not contrived for the\npurpose of making a ticking noise.\n\nThus the teleological theorist would be as wrong as the mechanical\ntheorist, among our death-watches; and, probably, the only death-watch\nwho would be right would be the one who should maintain that the\nsole thing death-watches could be sure about was the nature of the\nclock-works and the way they move; and that the purpose of the clock\nlay wholly beyond the purview of beetle faculties.\n\nSubstitute \"cosmic vapour\" for \"clock,\" and \"molecules\" for \"works,\"\nand the application of the argument is obvious. The teleological\nand the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually\nexclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator\nis, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement,\nof which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences; and\nthe more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,\nwho can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular\narrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe.\nOn the other hand, if the teleologist assert that this, that, or\nthe other result of the working of any part of the mechanism of the\nuniverse is its purpose and final cause, the mechanist can always\ninquire how he knows that it is more than an unessential incident--the\nmere ticking of the clock, which he mistakes for its function. And\nthere seems to be no reply to this inquiry, any more than to the\nfurther, not irrational, question, why trouble oneself about matters\nwhich are out of reach, when the working of the mechanism itself,\nwhich is of infinite practical importance, affords scope for all our\nenergies?\n\nProfessor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,\n\"Dysteleology,\" for the study of the \"purposelessnesses\" which are\nobservable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of\nrudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,\nthat it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut\ntwo ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do,\nthat useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral\nrudiments of toes, in the foot of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For,\neither these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which case,\nconsidering that the horse has existed in its present form since the\nPliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or they are of\nsome use to the animal, in which case they are of no use as arguments\nagainst Teleology. A similar, but still stronger, argument may be\nbased upon the existence of teats, and even functional mammary glands,\nin male mammals. Numerous cases of \"Gynaecomasty,\" or functionally\nactive breasts in men, are on record, though there is no mammalian\nspecies whatever in which the male normally suckles the young. Thus,\nthere can be little doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently\nuseless in the remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living\nmen, and yet it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable\nto the male organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its\ndysteleological value is gone.\n\nII. Professor Haeckel looks upon the causes which have led to the\npresent diversity of living nature as twofold. Living matter, he tells\nus, is urged by two impulses: a centripetal, which tends to preserve\nand transmit the specific form, and which he identifies with heredity;\nand a centrifugal, which results from the tendency of external\nconditions to modify the organism and effect its adaptation to\nthemselves. The internal impulse is conservative, and tends to the\npreservation of specific, or individual, form; the external impulse is\nmetamorphic, and tends to the modification of specific, or individual,\nform.\n\nIn developing his views upon this subject, Professor Haeckel\nintroduces qualifications which disarm some of the criticisms I should\nhave been disposed to offer; but I think that his method of stating\nthe case has the inconvenience of tending to leave out of sight\nthe important fact--which is a cardinal point in the Darwinian\nhypothesis--that the tendency to vary, in a given organism, may have\nnothing to do with the external conditions to which that individual\norganism is exposed, but may depend wholly upon internal conditions.\nNo one, I imagine, would dream of seeking in the direct influence of\nthe external conditions of his life for the cause of the development\nof the sixth finger and toe in the famous Maltese.\n\nI conceive that both hereditary transmission and adaptation need to be\nanalysed into their constituent conditions by the further application\nof the doctrine of the Struggle for Existence. It is a probable\nhypothesis, that what the world is to organisms in general, each\norganism is to the molecules of which it is composed. Multitudes of\nthese, having diverse tendencies, are competing with one another for\nopportunity to exist and multiply; and the organism, as a whole, is as\nmuch the product of the molecules which are victorious as the Fauna,\nor Flora, of a country is the product of the victorious organic beings\nin it.\n\nOn this hypothesis, hereditary transmission is the result of the\nvictory of particular molecules contained in the impregnated germ.\nAdaptation to conditions is the result of the favouring of the\nmultiplication of those molecules whose organizing tendencies are\nmost in harmony with such conditions. In this view of the matter,\nconditions are not actively productive, but are passively permissive;\nthey do not cause variation in any given direction, but they permit\nand favour a tendency in that direction which already exists.\n\nIt is true that, in the long run, the origin of the organic molecules\nthemselves, and of their tendencies, is to be sought in the external\nworld; but if we carry our inquiries as far back as this, the\ndistinction between internal and external impulses vanishes. On the\nother hand, if we confine ourselves to the consideration of a single\norganism, I think it must be admitted that the existence of an\ninternal metamorphic tendency must be as distinctly recognized as\nthat of an internal conservative tendency; and that the influence of\nconditions is mainly, if not wholly, the result of the extent to which\nthey favour the one, or the other, of these tendencies.\n\nIII. There is only one point upon which I fundamentally and entirely\ndisagree with Professor Haeckel, but that is the very important one\nof his conception of geological time, and of the meaning of the\nstratified rocks as records and indications of that time. Conceiving\nthat the stratified rocks of an epoch indicate a period of depression,\nand that the intervals between the epochs correspond with periods\nof elevation of which we have no record, he intercalates between the\ndifferent epochs, or periods, intervals which he terms \"Ante-periods.\"\nThus, instead of considering the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and\nEocene periods, as continuously successive, he interposes a\nperiod before each, as an \"Antetrias-zeit,\" \"Antejura-zeit,\"\n\"Antecreta-zeit,\" \"Antecocen-zeit,\" &c. And he conceives that the\nabrupt changes between the Faunae of the different formations are due\nto the lapse of time, of which we have no organic record, during their\n\"Ante-periods.\"\n\nThe frequent occurrence of strata containing assemblages of organic\nforms which are intermediate between those of adjacent formations, is,\nto my mind, fatal to this view. In the well-known St. Cassian beds,\nfor example, Palaeozoic and Mesozoic forms are commingled, and,\nbetween the Cretaceous and the Eocene formations, there are similar\ntransitional beds. On the other hand, in the middle of the Silurian\nseries, extensive unconformity of the strata indicates the lapse of\nvast intervals of time between the deposit of successive beds, without\nany corresponding change in the Fauna.\n\nProfessor Haeckel will, I fear, think me unreasonable, if I say that\nhe seems to be still overshadowed by geological superstitions; and\nthat he will have to believe in the completeness of the geological\nrecord far less than he does at present. He assumes, for example, that\nthere was no dry land, nor any terrestrial life, before the end of the\nSilurian epoch, simply because, up to the present time, no indications\nof fresh water, or terrestrial organisms, have been found in rocks of\nolder date. And, in speculating upon the origin of a given group, he\nrarely goes further back than the \"Ante-period,\" which precedes that\nin which the remains of animals belonging to that group are found.\nThus, as fossil remains of the majority of the groups of _Reptilia_\nare first found in the Trias, they are assumed to have originated in\nthe \"Antetriassic\" period, or between the Permian and Triassic epochs.\n\nI confess this is wholly incredible to me. The Permian and the\nTriassic deposits pass completely into one another; there is no sort\nof discontinuity answering to an unrecorded \"Antetrias;\" and, what\nis more, we have evidence of immensely extensive dry land during the\nformation of these deposits. We know that the dry land of the Trias\nabsolutely teemed with reptiles of all groups except Pterodactyles,\nSnakes, and perhaps Tortoises; there is every probability that true\nBirds existed, and _Mammalia_ certainly did. Of the inhabitants of the\nPermian dry land, on the contrary, all that have left a record are a\nfew lizards. Is it conceivable that these last should really\nrepresent the whole terrestrial population of that time, and that\nthe development of Mammals, of Birds, and of the highest forms of\nReptiles, should have been crowded into the time during which the\nPermian conditions quietly passed away, and the Triassic conditions\nbegan? Does not any such supposition become in the highest degree\nimprobable, when, in the terrestrial or fresh-water Labyrinthodonts,\nwhich lived on the land of the Carboniferous epoch, as well as on\nthat of the Trias, we have evidence that one form, of terrestrial life\npersisted, throughout all these ages, with no important modification?\nFor my part, having regard to the small amount of modification (except\nin the way of extinction) which the Crocodilian, Lacertilian, and\nChelonian _Reptilia_ have undergone, from the older Mesozoic times to\nthe present day, I cannot but put the existence of the common stock\nfrom which they sprang far back in the Palaeozoic epoch; and I should\napply a similar argumentation to all other groups of animals.\n\nIV. Professor Haeckel proposes a number of modifications in Taxonomy,\nall of which are well worthy of consideration. Thus he establishes a\nthird primary division of the living world, distinct from both\nanimals and plants, under the name of the _Protista_, to include the\n_Myxomycetes_, the _Diatomaceae_, and the _Labyrinthulae_, which are\ncommonly regarded as plants, with the _Noctilucae_, the _Flagellata_,\nthe _Rhizopoda_, the _Protoplasta_, and the _Monera_, which are most\ngenerally included within the animal world. A like attempt has been\nmade, by other writers, to escape the inconvenience of calling these\ndubious organisms by the name of plant or animal; but I confess,\nit appears to me, that the inconvenience which is eluded in one\ndirection, by this step, is met in two others. Professor Haeckel\nhimself doubts whether the _Fungi_ ought not to be removed into his\n_Protista_. If they are not, indeed, the _Myxomycetes_ render the\ndrawing of every line of demarcation between _Protista_ and Plants\nimpossible. But if they are, who is to define the _Fungi_ from the\n_Algae_? Yet the sea-weeds are surely, in every respect, plants.\nOn the other hand, Professor Haeckel puts the sponges among the\n_Coelenterata_ (or polypes and corals), with the double inconvenience,\nas it appears to me, of separating the sponges from their immediate\nkindred, the _Protoplasta_, and destroying the definition of the\n_Coelenterata_. So again, the _Infusoria_ possess all the characters\nof animality, but it can hardly be said that they are as clearly\nallied to the worms as they are to the _Noctilucae_.\n\nOn the whole, it appears to me to be most convenient to adhere to\nthe old plan of calling such of these low forms as are more animal in\nhabit, _Protozoa_, and such as are more vegetal, _Protophyta_.\n\nAnother considerable innovation is the proposition to divide the class\nPisces into the four groups of _Leptocardia, Cyclostomata, Pisces_,\nand _Dipneusta_. As regards the establishment of a separate class for\nthe Lancelet _(Amphioxus)_, I think there can be little doubt of the\npropriety of so doing, inasmuch as it is far more different from all\nother fishes than they are from one another. And there is much to\nbe said in favour of the same promotion of the _Cyclostomata_, or\nLampreys and Hags. But considering the close relation of the\nMudfish with the _Ganoidei_, and the wide differences between the\n_Elasmobranchii_ and the _Teleostei_, I greatly doubt the propriety of\nseparating the _Dipneusta_, as a class, from the other _Pisces_.\n\nProfessor Haeckel proposes to break up the vertebrate sub-kingdom,\nfirst, into the two provinces of _Leptocardia_ and _Pachycardia;\nAmphioxus_ being in the former, and all other vertebrates in the\nlatter division. The _Pachycardia_ are then divided into _Monorhina_,\nwhich contains the Cyclostome fishes, distinguished by their single\nnasal aperture; and _Amphirhina_, comprising the other _Vertebrata_,\nwhich have two nasal apertures. These are further subdivided into\n_Anamnia (Pisces, Dipneusta, Amphibia)_ and _Amniota (Reptilia, Aves,\nMammalia)_. This classification undoubtedly expresses many of the most\nimportant facts in vertebrate structure in a clear and compendious\nway; whether it is the best that can he adopted remains to be seen.\n\nWith much reason the Lemurs are removed altogether from the\n_Primates_, under the name of _Prosimiae_. But I am surprised to\nfind the _Sirenia_ left in one group with the _Cetacea_, and the\n_Plesiosauria_ with the _Ichthyosauria_; the ordinal distinctness of\nthese having, to my mind, been long since fully established.\n\nV. In Professor Haeckel's speculations on Phylogeny, or the genealogy\nof animal forms, there is much that is profoundly interesting, and\nhis suggestions are always supported by sound knowledge and great\ningenuity. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, one feels that\nhe has forced the mind into lines of thought in which it is more\nprofitable to go wrong than to stand still.\n\nTo put his views into a few words, he conceives that all forms of life\noriginally commenced as _Monera_, or simple particles of protoplasm;\nand that these _Monera_ originated from not-living matter. Some of the\n_Monera_ acquired tendencies towards the Protistic, others towards the\nVegetal, and others towards the Animal modes of life. The last became\nanimal _Monera_. Some of the animal _Monera_ acquired a nucleus, and\nbecame amoeba-like creatures; and, out of certain of these, ciliated\ninfusorium-like animals were developed. These became modified into two\nstirpes: A, that of the worms; and B, that of the sponges. The latter\nby progressive modification gave rise to all the _Coelenterata_; the\nformer to all other animals. But A soon broke up into two principal\nstirpes, of which one, _a_, became the root of the _Annelida,\nEchinodermata_, and _Arthropoda_, while the other, _b_, gave rise to\nthe _Polyzoa_ and _Ascidioida_, and produced the two remaining stirpes\nof the _Vertebrata_ and the _Mollusca_.\n\nPerhaps the most startling proposition of all those which Professor\nHaeckel puts before us is that which he bases upon Kowalewsky's\nresearches into the development of _Amphioxus_ and of the\n_Ascidioida_, that the origin of the _Vertebrata_ is to be sought\nin an Ascidioid form. Goodsir long ago insisted upon the resemblance\nbetween _Amphioxus_ and the Ascidians; but the notion of a genetic\nconnection between the two, and especially the identification of the\nnotochord of the _Vertebrate_ with the axis of the caudal appendage of\nthe larva of the Ascidian, is a novelty which, at first, takes one's\nbreath away. I must confess, however, that the more I have pondered\nover it, the more grounds appear in its favour, though I am not\nconvinced that there is any real parallelism between the mode\nof development of the ganglion of the _Ascidian_ and that of the\n_Vertebrate_ cerebro-spinal axis.\n\nThe hardly less startling hypothesis that the _Echinoderms_ are\ncoalesced worms, on the other hand, appears to be open to serious\nobjection. As a matter of anatomy, it does not seem to me to\ncorrespond with fact; for there is no worm with a calcareous skeleton,\nnor any which has a band-like ventral nerve, superficial to which lies\nan ambulacral vessel. And, as a question of development, the formation\nof the radiate _Echinoderm_ within its vermiform larva seems to me\nto be analogous to the formation of a radiate Medusa upon a Hydrozoic\nstock. But a Medusa is surely not the result of the coalescence of as\nmany organisms as it presents morphological segments.\n\nProfessor Haeckel adduces the fossil _Crossopodia_ and _Phyllodocites_\nas examples of the Annelidan forms, by the coalescence of which\nthe Echinoderms may have been produced; but, even supposing the\nresemblance of these worms to detached starfish arms to be perfect,\nit is possible that they may be the extreme term, and not the\ncommencement, of Echinoderm development. A pentacrinoid Echinoderm,\nwith a complete jointed stalk, is developed within the larva of\n_Antedon_. Is it not possible that the larva of _Crossopodia_ may have\ndeveloped a vermiform Echinoderm?\n\nWith respect to the Phylogeny of the _Arthropoda_, I find myself\ndisposed to take a somewhat different view from that of Professor\nHaeckel. He assumes that the primary stock of the whole group was\na crustacean, having that _Nauplius_ form in which Fritz M\u00fcller\nhas shown that so many _Crustacea_ commence their lives. All the\n_Entomostraca_ arose by the modification of some one or other of these\nNaupliform \"_Archicarida_.\" Other _Archicarida_ underwent a further\nmetamorphosis into a _Zoaea_-form. From some of these \"_Zoeopoda_\"\narose all the remaining Malacostracous _Crustacea_; while, from\nothers, was developed some form analogous to the existing _Galeodes_,\nout of which proceeded, by gradual differentiation, all the\n_Myriapoda, Arachnida,_ and _Insecta_.\n\nI should, be disposed to interpret the facts of the embryological\nhistory and of the anatomy of the _Arthropoda_ in a different manner.\nThe _Copepoda_, the _Ostracoda_, and the _Branchiopoda_ are\nthe _Crustacea_ which have departed least from the embryonic or\n_Nauplius_-forms; and, of these, I imagine that the _Copepoda_\nrepresent the hypothetical _Archicarida_ most closely. _Apus_ and\n_Sapphirina_ indicate the relations of these Archaeocarids with the\n_Trilobita_, and the _Eurypterida_ connect the _Trilobita_ and the\n_Copepoda_ with the _Xiphosura_. But the _Xiphosura_ have such close\nmorphological relations with the _Arachnida_, and especially with the\noldest known Arachnidan, _Scorpio_, that I cannot doubt the existence\nof a genetic connection between the two groups. On the other hand, the\n_Branchiopoda_ do, even at the present day, almost pass into the\ntrue _Podophthalmia_, by _Nebalia_. By the _Trilobita_, again, the\n_Archicarida_ are connected with such _Edriophthalmia_ as _Serolis_.\nThe _Stomapoda_ are extremely modified _Edriophthalmia_ of the\namphipod type. On the other side, the _Isopoda_ lead to the\n_Myriapoda_, and the latter to the _Insecta_. Thus the Arthropod\nphylum, which suggests itself to me, is that the branches of the\n_Podophthalmia_, of the _Insecta_ (with the _Myriapoda_), and of the\n_Arachnida_, spring separately and distinctly from the Archaeocarid\nroot--and that the _Zoaea_-forms occur only at the origin of the\nPodophthalmous branch.\n\nThe phylum of the _Vertebrata_ is the most interesting of all, and is\nadmirably discussed by Professor Haeckel. I can note only a few points\nwhich seem to me to be open to discussion. The _Monorhina_, having\nbeen developed out of the _Leptocardia_, gave rise, according to\nProfessor Haeckel, to a shark-like form, which was the common stock\nof all the _Amphirhina_. From this \"Protamphirhine\" were developed, in\ndivergent lines, the true Sharks, Rays, and _Chimaerae_; the Ganoids,\nand the _Dipneusta_. The _Teleostei_ are modified _Ganoidei_. The\n_Dipneusta_ gave rise to the _Amphibia_, which are the root of all\nother _Vertebrata_, inasmuch as out of them were developed the first\n_Vertebrata_ provided with an amnion, or the _Protamniota_. The\n_Protamniota_ split up into two stems, one that of the _Mammalia_, the\nother common to _Reptilia_ and _Aves_.\n\nThe only modification which it occurs to me to suggest in this\ngeneral view of the Phylogeny of the _Vertebrata_ is, that the\n\"Protamphirhine\" was possibly more ganoid than shark-like. So far as\nour present information goes the Ganoids are as old as the Sharks;\nand it is very interesting to observe that the remains of the oldest\nGanoids, _Cephalaspis_ and _Pteraspis_, have as yet displayed no trace\nof jaws. It is just possible that they may connect the _Monorhina_,\nwith the Sturgeons among the _Amphirhina_. On the other hand,\nthe Crossopterygian Ganoids exhibit the closest connection with\n_Lepidosiren_, and thereby with the _Amphibia_. It should not be\nforgotten that the development of the Lampreys exhibits curious points\nof resemblance with that of the _Amphibia_, which are absent in\nthe Sharks and Rays. Of the development of the _Ganoidei_ we have\nunfortunately no knowledge, but their brains and their reproductive\norgans are more amphibian than are those of the Sharks.\n\nOn the whole, I am disposed to think that the direct stem of ascent\nfrom the _Monorhina_ to the _Amphibia_ is formed by the Ganoids and\nthe Mudfishes; while the Osseous fishes and the Sharks are branches in\ndifferent directions from this stem.\n\nWhat the _Protamniota_ were like, I do not suppose any one is in a\nposition to say, but I cannot think that the thoroughly Lacertian\n_Protorosaurus_ had anything to do with them. The reptiles which are\nmost amphibian in their characters, and therefore, probably, most\nnearly approach the _Protamniota_, are the _Ichthyosauria_ and the\n_Chelonia_.\n\nThat the _Didelphia_ were developed out of some ornithodelphous form,\nas Professor Haeckel supposes, seems to be unquestionable; but the\nexisting Opossums and Kangaroos are certainly extremely modified and\nremote from their ancestors the \"_Prodidelphia_,\" of which we have\nnot, at present the slightest knowledge. The mode of origin of the\n_Monodelphia_ from these is a very difficult problem, for the most\npart left open by Professor Haeckel. He considers the _Prosimiae_, or\nLemurs, to be the common stock of the _Deciduata_, and the _Cetacea_\n(with which he includes the _Sirenia_) to be modified _Ungulata_. As\nregards the latter question, I have little doubt that the _Sirenia_\nconnect the _Ungulata_ with the _Proboscidea_; and none, that the\n_Cetacea_ are extremely modified _Carnivora_. The passage between the\nSeals and the _Cetacea_ by _Zeuglodon_ is complete. I also think\nthat there is much to be said for the opinion, that the _Insectivora_\nrepresent the common stock of the _Primates_ (which passed into\nthem by the _Prosimiae_), the _Cheiroptera_, the _Rodentia_, and the\n_Carnivora_. And I am greatly disposed to look for the common root\nof all the _Ungulata_, as well, in some ancient non-deciduate Mammals\nwhich were more like _Insectivora_ than anything else. On the other\nhand, the _Edentata_ appear to form a series by themselves.\n\nThe latter part of this notice of the _Nat\u00fcrliche\nSch\u00f6pfungs-Geschichte_, brings so strongly into prominence the points\nof difference between its able author and myself, that I do not like\nto conclude without reminding the reader of my entire concurrence with\nthe general tenor and spirit of the work, and of my high estimate of\nits value.\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\nBISHOP BERKELEY ON THE METAPHYSICS OF SENSATION.[1]\n\n\nProfessor Fraser has earned the thanks of all students of philosophy\nfor the conscientious labour which he has bestowed upon his new\nedition of the works of Berkeley; in which, for the first time, we\nfind collected together every thought which can be traced to the\nsubtle and penetrating mind of the famous Bishop of Cloyne; while the\n\"Life and Letters\" will rejoice those who care less for the idealist\nand the prophet of tar-water, than for the man who stands out as one\nof the noblest and purest figures of his time: that Berkeley from whom\nthe jealousy of Pope did not withhold a single one of all \"the virtues\nunder heaven;\" nor the cynicism of Swift, the dignity of \"one of the\nfirst men of the kingdom for learning and virtue;\" the man whom the\npious Atterbury could compare to nothing less than an angel; and whose\npersonal influence and eloquence filled the Scriblerus Club and the\nHouse of Commons with enthusiasm for the evangelization of the North\nAmerican Indians; and even led Sir Robert Walpole to assent to the\nappropriation of public money to a scheme which was neither business\nnor bribery.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"The Works of George Berkeley, D.D., formerly Bishop\nof Cloyne, including many of his Works hitherto unpublished, with\nPreface, Annotations, his Life and Letters, and an Account of his\nPhilosophy.\" By A.C. Fraser. Four vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.\n1871.]\n\n[Footnote 2: In justice to Sir Robert, however, it is proper to remark\nthat he declared afterwards, that he gave his assent to Berkeley's\nscheme for the Bermuda University only because he thought the House of\nCommons was sure to throw it out.]\n\nHardly any epoch in the intellectual history of England is more\nremarkable in itself, or possesses a greater interest for us in these\nlatter days, than that which coincides broadly with the conclusion of\nthe seventeenth and the opening of the eighteenth century.\n\nThe political fermentation of the preceding age was gradually working\nitself out; domestic peace gave men time to think; and the toleration\nwon by the party of which Locke was the spokesman, permitted a freedom\nof speech and of writing such as has rarely been exceeded in later\ntimes.\n\nFostered by these circumstances, the great faculty for physical and\nmetaphysical inquiry, with which the people of our race are naturally\nendowed, developed itself vigorously; and at least two of its products\nhave had a profound and a permanent influence upon the subsequent\ncourse of thought in the world. The one of these was English\nFreethinking; the other, the Theory of Gravitation.\n\nLooking back to the origin of the intellectual impulses of which these\nwere the results, we are led to Herbert, to Hobbes, to Bacon; and to\none who stands in advance of all these, as the most typical man of his\ntime--Descartes. It is the Cartesian doubt--the maxim that assent may\nproperly be given to no propositions but such as are perfectly\nclear and distinct--which, becoming incarnate, so to speak, in the\nEnglishmen, Anthony Collins, Toland, Tindal, Woolston, and in the\nwonderful Frenchman, Pierre Bayle, reached its final term in Hume.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, although the theory of Gravitation set\naside the Cartesian vortices--yet the spirit of the \"Principes de\nPhilosophie\" attained its apotheosis when Newton demonstrated all the\nhost of heaven to be but the elements of a vast mechanism, regulated\nby the same laws as those which govern the falling of a stone to the\nground. There is a passage in the preface to the first edition of the\n\"Principia\" which shows that Newton was penetrated, as completely\nas Descartes, with the belief that all the phenomena of nature are\nexpressible in terms of matter and motion.\n\n\"Would that the rest of the phenomena of nature could be deduced by\na like kind of reasoning from mechanical principles. For many\ncircumstances lead me to suspect that all these phenomena may depend\nupon certain forces, in virtue of which the particles of bodies, by\ncauses not yet known, are either mutually impelled against one another\nand cohere into regular figures, or repel and recede from one another;\nwhich forces being unknown, philosophers have as yet explored nature\nin vain. But I hope that, either by this method of philosophizing, or\nby some other and better, the principles here laid down may throw some\nlight upon the matter.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Utinam caetera naturae phaenomena ex principiis\nmechanicis, eodem argumentandi genere, derivare licet. Nam multa me\nmovent, ut nonnihil suspicer ca omnia ex viribus quibusdam pendere\nposse, quibus corporum particulae, per causas nondum cognitas, vel in\nse mutuo impelluntur et secundum figuras regulares cohaerent vel ab\ninvicem fugantur et reced ent: quibus viribus ignotis, Philosophi\nhactenus Naturam frustra tentarunt. Spero autem quod vel huic\nphilosophandi modo, vel veriori, alicui, principia hic posita lucem\naliquam praebebunt.\"--Preface to First Edition of _Principia_, May 8,\n1686.]\n\nBut the doctrine that all the phenomena of nature are resolvable into\nmechanism is what people have agreed to call \"materialism;\" and when\nLocke and Collins maintained that matter may possibly be able\nto think, and Newton himself could compare infinite space to the\nsensorium of the Deity, it was not wonderful that the English\nphilosophers should be attacked as they were by Leibnitz in the famous\nletter to the Princess of Wales, which gave rise to his correspondence\nwith Clarke.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Collection of Papers which passed between the late\nlearned Mr. Leibnitz and Dr. Clarke.\"--1717.]\n\n\"1. Natural religion itself seems to decay [in England] very much.\nMany will have human souls to be material; others make God Himself a\ncorporeal Being.\n\n\"2. Mr. Locke and his followers are uncertain, at least, whether the\nsoul be not material and naturally perishable.\n\n\"3. Sir Isaac Newton says that space is an organ which God makes use\nof to perceive things by. But if God stands in need of any organ to\nperceive things by, it will follow that they do not depend altogether\nupon Him, nor were produced by Him.\n\n\"4. Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion\nconcerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty\nwants to wind up His watch from time to time; otherwise it would cease\nto move.[1] He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a\nperpetual motion. Nay, the machine of God's making is so imperfect,\naccording to these gentlemen, that He is obliged to clean it now\nand then by an extraordinary concourse, and even to mend it as a\nclockmaker mends his work.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Goethe seems to have had this saying of Leibnitz in his\nmind when he wrote his famous lines--\n\n\"Was w\u00e4r' ein Gott der nur von aussen stiesse Im Kreis das All am\nFinger laufen liesse.\"]\n\nIt is beside the mark, at present, to inquire how far Leibnitz paints\na true picture, and how far he is guilty of a spiteful caricature of\nNewton's views in these passages; and whether the beliefs which Locke\nis known to have entertained are consistent with the conclusions which\nmay logically be drawn from some parts of his works. It is undeniable\nthat English philosophy in Leibnitz's time had the general character\nwhich he ascribes to it. The phenomena of nature were held to be\nresolvable into the attractions and the repulsions of particles\nof matter; all knowledge was attained through the senses; the mind\nantecedent to experience was a _tabula rasa_. In other words, at the\ncommencement of the eighteenth century, the character of speculative\nthought in England was essentially sceptical, critical, and\nmaterialistic. Why \"materialism\" should be more inconsistent with the\nexistence of a Deity, the freedom of the will, or the immortality\nof the soul, or with any actual or possible system of theology, than\n\"idealism,\" I must declare myself at a loss to divine. But in the\nyear 1700 all the world appears to have been agreed, Tertullian\nnotwithstanding, that materialism necessarily leads to very dreadful\nconsequences. And it was thought that it conduced to the interests of\nreligion and morality to attack the materialists with all the weapons\nthat came to hand. Perhaps the most interesting controversy which\narose out of these questions is the wonderful triangular duel between\nDodwell, Clarke, and Anthony Collins, concerning the materiality of\nthe soul, and--what all the disputants considered to be the necessary\nconsequence of its materiality--its natural mortality. I do not think\nthat anyone can read the letters which passed between Clarke and\nCollins, without admitting that Collins, who writes with wonderful\npower and closeness of reasoning, has by far the best of the argument,\nso far as the possible materiality of the soul goes; and that, in this\nbattle, the Goliath of Freethinking overcame the champion of what was\nconsidered Orthodoxy.\n\nBut in Dublin, all this while, there was a little David practising\nhis youthful strength upon the intellectual lions and bears of Trinity\nCollege. This was George Berkeley, who was destined to give the same\nkind of development to the idealistic side of Descartes' philosophy,\nthat the Freethinkers had given to its sceptical side, and the\nNewtonians to its mechanical side.\n\nBerkeley faced the problem boldly. He said to the materialists: \"You\ntell me that all the phenomena of nature are resolvable into matter\nand its affections. I assent to your statement, and now I put to you\nthe further question, 'What is matter?' In answering this question you\nshall be bound by your own conditions; and I demand, in the terms of\nthe Cartesian axiom, that in turn you give your assent only to such\nconclusions as are perfectly clear and obvious.\"\n\nIt is this great argument which is worked out in the \"Treatise\nconcerning the Principles of Human Knowledge,\" and in those \"Dialogues\nbetween Hylas and Philonous,\" which rank among the most exquisite\nexamples of English style, as well as among the subtlest of\nmetaphysical writings; and the final conclusion of which is summed\nup in a passage remarkable alike for literary beauty and for calm\naudacity of statement.\n\n    \"Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind that\n    a man need only open his eyes to see them. Such I take this\n    important one to be, viz., that all the choir of heaven and\n    furniture of the earth--in a word, all those bodies which\n    compose the mighty frame of the world--have not any substance\n    without a mind; that their being is to be perceived or known;\n    that consequently, so long as they are not actually perceived\n    by me, or do not exist in my mind or that of any other created\n    spirit, they must either have no existence at all or else\n    subsist in the mind of some eternal spirit; it being\n    perfectly unintelligible, and involving all the absurdity\n    of abstraction, to attribute to any single part of them an\n    existence independent of a spirit.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge,\"\nPart I. \u00a7 6.]\n\nDoubtless this passage sounds like the acme of metaphysical paradox,\nand we all know that \"coxcombs vanquished Berkeley with a grin;\" while\ncommon-sense folk refuted him by stamping on the ground, or some such\nother irrelevant proceeding. But the key to all philosophy lies in the\nclear apprehension of Berkeley's problem--which is neither more nor\nless than one of the shapes of the greatest of all questions, \"What\nare the limits of our faculties?\" And it is worth any amount of\ntrouble to comprehend the exact nature of the argument by which\nBerkeley arrived at his results, and to know by one's own knowledge\nthe great truth which he discovered--that the honest and rigorous\nfollowing up of the argument which leads us to materialism, inevitably\ncarries us beyond it.\n\nSuppose that I accidentally prick my finger with a pin. I immediately\nbecome aware of a condition of my consciousness--a feeling which I\nterm pain. I have no doubt whatever that the feeling is in myself\nalone; and if anyone were to say that the pain I feel is something\nwhich inheres in the needle, as one of the qualities of the\nsubstance of the needle, we should all laugh at the absurdity of the\nphraseology. In fact, it is utterly impossible to conceive pain except\nas a state of consciousness.\n\nHence, so far as pain is concerned, it is sufficiently obvious\nthat Berkeley's phraseology is strictly applicable to our power of\nconceiving its existence--\"its being is to be perceived or known,\" and\n\"so long as it is not actually perceived by me, or does not exist in\nmy mind, or that of any other created spirit, it must either have no\nexistence at all, or else subsist in the mind of some eternal spirit.\"\n\nSo much for pain. Now let us consider an ordinary sensation. Let the\npoint of the pin be gently rested upon the skin, and I become aware\nof a feeling or condition of consciousness quite different from the\nformer--the sensation of what I call \"touch.\" Nevertheless this touch\nis plainly just as much in myself as the pain was. I cannot for a\nmoment conceive this something which I call touch as existing apart\nfrom myself, or a being capable of the same feelings as myself. And\nthe same reasoning applies to all the other simple sensations. A\nmoment's reflection is sufficient to convince one that the smell, and\nthe taste, and the yellowness, of which we become aware when an\norange is smelt, tasted, and seen, are as completely states of our\nconsciousness as is the pain which arises if the orange happens to\nbe too sour. Nor is it less clear that every sound is a state of the\nconsciousness of him who hears it. If the universe contained only\nblind and deaf beings, it is impossible for us to imagine but that\ndarkness and silence should reign everywhere.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true, then, of all the simple sensations that,\nas Berkeley says, their \"_esse_ is _percipi_\"--their being is to be\n\"perceived or known.\" But that which perceives, or knows, is mind\nor spirit; and therefore that knowledge which the senses give us is,\nafter all, a knowledge of spiritual phenomena.\n\nAll this was explicitly or implicitly admitted, and, indeed, insisted\nupon, by Berkeley's contemporaries, and by no one more strongly than\nby Locke, who terms smells, tastes, colours, sounds, and the like,\n\"secondary qualities,\" and observes, with respect to these \"secondary\nqualities,\" that \"whatever reality we by mistake attribute to them\n[they] are in truth nothing in the objects themselves.\"\n\nAnd again: \"Flame is denominated hot and light; snow, white and cold;\nand manna, white and sweet, from the ideas they produce in us; which\nqualities are commonly thought to be the same in these bodies; that\nthose ideas are in us, the one the perfect resemblance of the other\nas they are in a mirror; and it would by most men be judged very\nextravagant if one should say otherwise. And yet he that will consider\nthat the same fire that at one distance produces in us the sensation\nof warmth, does at a nearer approach produce in us the far different\nsensation of pain, ought to bethink himself what reason he has to say\nthat his idea of warmth, which was produced in him by the fire,\nis actually in the fire; and his idea of pain which the same fire\nproduced in him in the same way, is not in the fire. Why are whiteness\nand coldness in snow, and pain not, when it produces the one and the\nother idea in us; and can do neither but by the bulk, figure, number,\nand motion of its solid parts?\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Locke, \"Human Understanding,\" Book II. chap. viii. \u00a7\u00a7 14,\n15.]\n\nThus far then materialists and idealists are agreed. Locke and\nBerkeley, and all logical thinkers who have succeeded them, are of\none mind about secondary qualities--their being is to be perceived or\nknown--their materiality is, in strictness, a spirituality.\n\nBut Locke draws a great distinction between the secondary qualities of\nmatter, and certain others which he terms \"primary qualities.\" These\nare extension, figure, solidity, motion and rest, and number; and he\nis as clear that these primary qualities exist independently of the\nmind, as he is that the secondary qualities have no such existence.\n\n    \"The particular bulk, number, figure, and motion of the parts\n    of fire and snow are really in them, whether anyone's senses\n    perceive them or not, and therefore they may be called real\n    qualities, because they really exist in those bodies; but\n    light, heat, whiteness, or coldness, are no more really in\n    them, than sickness, or pain, is in manna. Take away the\n    sensation of them; let not the eyes see light or colours, nor\n    the ears hear sounds; let the palate not taste, nor the nose\n    smell; and all colours, tastes, odours and sounds, as they are\n    such particular ideas, vanish and cease, and are reduced to\n    their causes, i.e. bulk, figure, and motion of parts.\n\n    \"18. A piece of manna of sensible bulk is able to produce in\n    us the idea of a round or square figure; and, by being removed\n    from one place to another, the idea of motion. This idea of\n    motion represents it as it really is in the manna moving; a\n    circle and square are the same, whether in idea or existence,\n    in the mind or in the manna; and thus both motion and figure\n    are really in the manna, whether we take notice of them or no:\n    this everybody is ready to agree to.\"\n\nSo far as primary qualities are concerned, then, Locke is as\nthoroughgoing a realist as St. Anselm. In Berkeley, on the other\nhand, we have as complete a representative of the nominalists and\nconceptualists--an intellectual descendant of Roscellinus and of\nAbelard. And by a curious irony of fate, it is the nominalist who is,\nthis time, the champion of orthodoxy, and the realist that of heresy.\n\nOnce more let us try to work out Berkeley's principles for ourselves,\nand inquire what foundation there is for the assertion that extension,\nform, solidity, and the other \"primary qualities,\" have an existence\napart from mind. And for this purpose let us recur to our experiment\nwith the pin.\n\nIt has been seen that when the finger is pricked with a pin, a state\nof consciousness arises which we call pain; and it is admitted that\nthis pain is not a something which inheres in the pin, but a something\nwhich exists only in the mind, and has no similitude elsewhere.\n\nBut a little attention will show that this state of consciousness is\naccompanied by another, which can by no effort be got rid of. I not\nonly have the feeling, but the feeling is localized. I am just as\ncertain that the pain is in my finger, as I am that I have it at all.\nNor will any effort of the imagination enable me to believe that the\npain is not in my finger.\n\nAnd yet nothing is more certain than that it is not, and cannot be, in\nthe spot in which I feel it, nor within a couple of feet of that spot.\nFor the skin of the finger is connected by a bundle of fine nervous\nfibres, which run up the whole length of the arm, with the spinal\nmarrow and brain, and we know that the feeling of pain caused by the\nprick of a pin is dependent on the integrity of those fibres. After\nthey have been cut through close to the spinal cord, no pain will be\nfelt, whatever injury is done to the finger; and if the ends which\nremain in connection with the cord be pricked, the pain which arises\nwill appear to have its seat in the finger just as distinctly as\nbefore. Nay, if the whole arm be cut off, the pain which arises from\npricking the nerve stump will appear to be seated in the fingers, just\nas if they were still connected with the body.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the localization of the\npain at the surface of the body is an act of the mind. It is an\n_extradition_ of that consciousness, which has its seat in the\nbrain, to a definite point of the body--which takes place without our\nvolition, and may give rise to ideas which are contrary to fact. We\nmight call this extradition of consciousness a reflex feeling, just\nas we speak of a movement which is excited apart from, or contrary to,\nour volition, as a reflex motion. Locality is no more in the pin than\npain is; of the former, as of the latter, it is true that \"its being\nis to be perceived,\" and that its existence apart from a thinking mind\nis not conceivable.\n\nThe foregoing reasoning will be in no way affected, if, instead of\npricking the finger, the point of the pin rests gently against it, so\nas to give rise merely to a tactile sensation. The tactile sensation\nis referred outwards to the point touched, and seems to exist there.\nBut it is certain that it is not and cannot be there really, because\nthe brain is the sole seat of consciousness; and, further, because\nevidence, as strong as that in favour of the sensation being in the\nfinger, can be brought forward in support of propositions which are\nmanifestly absurd.\n\nFor example, the hairs and nails are utterly devoid of sensibility,\nas everyone knows. Nevertheless, if the ends of the nails or hairs\nare touched, ever so lightly, we feel that they are touched, and the\nsensation seems to be situated in the nails or hairs. Nay more, if a\nwalking-stick a yard long is held firmly by the handle and the other\nend is touched, the tactile sensation, which is a state of our own\nconsciousness, is unhesitatingly referred to the end of the stick; and\nyet no one will say that it _is_ there.\n\nLet us now suppose that, instead of one pin's point resting against\nthe end of my finger, there are two. Each of these can be known to\nme, as we have seen, only as a state of a thinking mind, referred\noutwards, or localized. But the existence of these two states, somehow\nor other, generates in my mind a host of new ideas, which did not make\ntheir appearance when only one state was present.\n\nFor example, I get the ideas of co-existence, of number, of distance,\nand of relative place or direction. But all these ideas are ideas of\nrelations, and imply the existence of something which perceives those\nrelations. If a tactile sensation is a state of the mind, and if\nthe localization of that sensation is an act of the mind, how is it\nconceivable that a relation between two localized sensations should\nexist apart from the mind? It is, I confess, quite as easy for me to\nimagine that redness may exist apart from a visual sense, as it is to\nsuppose that co-existence, number, and distance can have any existence\napart from the mind of which they are ideas.\n\nThus it seems clear that the existence of some, at any rate, of\nLocke's primary qualities of matter, such as number and extension,\napart from mind, is as utterly unthinkable as the existence of colour\nand sound under like circumstances.\n\nWill the others--namely, figure, motion and rest, and\nsolidity--withstand a similar criticism? I think not. For all these,\nlike the foregoing, are perceptions by the mind of the relations\nof two or more sensations to one another. If distance and place are\ninconceivable, in the absence of the mind, of which they are ideas,\nthe independent existence of figure, which is the limitation of\ndistance, and of motion, which is change of place, must be equally\ninconceivable. Solidity requires more particular consideration, as it\nis a term applied to two very different things, the one of which is\nsolidity of form, or geometrical solidity; while the other is solidity\nof substance, or mechanical solidity.\n\nIf those motor nerves of a man by which volitions are converted into\nmotion were all paralysed, and if sensation remained only in the palm\nof his hand (which is a conceivable case), he would still be able to\nattain to clear notions of extension, figure, number, and motion, by\nattending to the states of consciousness which might be aroused by the\ncontact of bodies with the sensory surface of the palm. But it does\nnot appear that such a person could arrive at any conception of\ngeometrical solidity. For that which does not come in contact with the\nsensory surface is non-existent for the sense of touch; and a solid\nbody, impressed upon the palm of the hand, gives rise only to the\nnotion of the extension of that particular part of the solid which is\nin contact with the skin.\n\nNor is it possible that the idea of outness (in the sense of\ndiscontinuity with the sentient body) could be attained by such a\nperson; for, as we have seen, every tactile sensation is referred to\na point either of the natural sensory surface itself, or of some\nsolid in continuity with that surface. Hence it would appear that the\nconception of the difference between the Ego and the non-Ego could\nnot be attained by a man thus situated. His feelings would be his\nuniverse, and his tactile sensations his \"moenia mundi.\" Time would\nexist for him as for us, but space would have only two dimensions.\n\nBut now remove the paralysis from the motor apparatus, and give the\npalm of the hand of our imaginary man perfect freedom to move, so as\nto be able to glide in all directions over the bodies with which it is\nin contact. Then with the consciousness of that mobility, the notion\nof space of three dimensions--which is \"_Raum_\" or \"room\" to move with\nperfect freedom--is at once given. But the notion that the tactile\nsurface itself moves, cannot be given by touch alone, which is\ncompetent to testify only to the fact of change of place, not to its\ncause. The idea of the motion of the tactile surface could not, in\nfact, be attained, unless the idea of change of place were accompanied\nby some state of consciousness, which does not exist when the tactile\nsurface is immoveable. This state of consciousness is what is termed\nthe muscular sense, and its existence is very easily demonstrable.\n\nSuppose the back of my hand to rest upon a table, and a sovereign to\nrest upon the upturned palm, I at once acquire a notion of extension,\nand of the limit of that extension. The impression made by the\ncircular piece of gold is quite different from that which would be\nmade by a triangular, or a square, piece of the same size, and thereby\nI arrive at the notion of figure. Moreover, if the sovereign slides\nover the palm, I acquire a distinct conception of change of place\nor motion, and of the direction of that motion. For as the sovereign\nslides, it affects new nerve-endings, and gives rise to new states of\nconsciousness. Each of them is definitely and separately localized by\na reflex act of the mind, which, at the same time, becomes aware of\nthe difference between two successive localizations; and therefore of\nchange of place, which is motion.\n\nIf, while the sovereign lies on the hand, the latter being kept quite\nsteady, the fore-arm is gradually and slowly raised; the tactile\nsensations, with all their accompaniments, remain exactly as they\nwere. But, at the same time, something new is introduced; namely, the\nsense of effort. If I try to discover where this sense of effort seems\nto be, I find myself somewhat perplexed at first; but, if I hold the\nfore-arm in position long enough, I become aware of an obscure sense\nof fatigue, which is apparently seated either in the muscles of the\narm, or in the integument directly over them. The fatigue seems to be\nrelated to the sense of effort, in much the same way as the pain which\nsupervenes upon the original sense of contact, when a pin is slowly\npressed against the skin, is related to touch.\n\nA little attention will show that this sense of effort accompanies\nevery muscular contraction by which the limbs, or other parts of the\nbody, are moved. By its agency the fact of their movement is known;\nwhile the direction of the motion is given by the accompanying tactile\nsensations. And, in consequence of the incessant association of the\nmuscular and the tactile sensations, they become so fused together\nthat they are often confounded tinder the same name.\n\nIf freedom to move in all directions is the very essence of that\nconception of space of three dimensions which we obtain by the sense\nof touch; and if that freedom to move is really another name for the\nfeeling of unopposed effort, accompanied by that of change of place,\nit is surely impossible to conceive of such space as having existence\napart from that which is conscious of effort.\n\nBut it may be said that we derive our conception of space of three\ndimensions not only from touch, but from vision; that if we do not\nfeel things actually outside us, at any rate we see them. And it was\nexactly this difficulty which presented itself to Berkeley at the\noutset of his speculations. He met it, with characteristic boldness,\nby denying that we do see things outside us; and, with no less\ncharacteristic ingenuity, by devising that \"New Theory of Vision\"\nwhich has met with wider acceptance than any of his views, though it\nhas been the subject of continual controversies.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: I have not specifically alluded to the writings of\nBailey, Mill, Abbott, and others, on this vexed question, not because\nI have failed to study them carefully, but because this is not a\nconvenient occasion for controversial discussion. Those who are\nacquainted with the subject, however, will observe that the view I\nhave taken agrees substantially with that of Mr. Barley.]\n\nIn the \"Principles of Human Knowledge,\" Berkeley himself tells us how\nhe was led to those views which he published in the \"Essay towards the\nNew Theory of Vision.\"\n\n    \"It will be objected that we see things actually without, or\n    at a distance from us, and which consequently do not exist in\n    the mind; it being absurd that those things which are seen at\n    the distance of several miles, should be as near to us as our\n    own thoughts. In answer to this, I desire it may be considered\n    that in a dream we do oft perceive things as existing at a\n    great distance off, and yet, for all that, those things are\n    acknowledged to have their existence only in the mind.\n\n    \"But for the fuller clearing of this point, it may be worth\n    while to consider how it is that we perceive distance and\n    things placed at a distance by sight. For that we should in\n    truth see external space and bodies actually existing in it,\n    some nearer, others further off, seems to carry with it some\n    opposition to what hath been said of their existing nowhere\n    without the mind. The consideration of this difficulty it\n    was that gave birth to my 'Essay towards the New Theory of\n    Vision,' which was published not long since, wherein it is\n    shown that distance, or outness, is neither immediately of\n    itself perceived by sight, nor yet apprehended, or judged\n    of, by lines and angles or anything that hath any necessary\n    connection with it; but that it is only suggested to our\n    thoughts by certain visible ideas and sensations attending\n    vision, which, in their own nature, have no manner of\n    similitude or relation either with distance, or with things\n    placed at a distance; but by a connection taught us by\n    experience, they come to signify and suggest them to us, after\n    the same manner that words of any language suggest the ideas\n    they are made to stand for; insomuch that a man born blind and\n    afterwards made to see, would not, at first sight, think the\n    things he saw to be without his mind or at any distance from\n    him.\"\n\nThe key-note of the Essay to which Berkeley refers in this passage is\nto be found in an italicized paragraph of section 127:--\n\n    \"_The extensions; figures, and motions perceived by sight are\n    specifically distinct from the ideas of touch called by the\n    same names; nor is there any such thing as an idea, or kind of\n    idea, common to both senses_.\"\n\nIt will be observed that this proposition expressly declares that\nextension, figure, and motion, and consequently distance, are\nimmediately perceived by sight as well as by touch; but that visual\ndistance, extension, figure, and motion, are totally different in\nquality from the ideas of the same name obtained through the sense\nof touch. And other passages leave no doubt that such was Berkeley's\nmeaning. Thus in the 112th section of the same Essay, he carefully\ndefines the two kinds of distance, one visual, the other tangible:--\n\n    \"By the distance between any two points nothing more is meant\n    than the number of intermediate points. If the given points\n    are visible, the distance between them is marked out by the\n    number of interjacent visible points; if they are tangible,\n    the distance between, them is a line consisting of tangible\n    points.\"\n\nAgain, there are two sorts of magnitude or extension:--\n\n    \"It has been shown that there are two sorts of objects\n    apprehended by sight, each whereof has its distinct magnitude\n    or extension: the one properly tangible, _i.e._ to be\n    perceived and measured by touch, and not immediately falling\n    under the sense of seeing; the other properly and immediately\n    visible, by mediation of which the former is brought into\n    view.\"--\u00a7 55.\n\nBut how are we to reconcile these passages with others which will be\nperfectly familiar to every reader of the \"New Theory of Vision \"? As,\nfor example:--\n\n    \"It is, I think, agreed by all, that distance of itself, and\n    immediately, cannot be seen.\"--\u00a7 2.\n\n    \"Space or distance, we have shown, is no otherwise the object\n    of sight than of hearing.\"--\u00a7 130.\n\n    \"Distance is in its own nature imperceptible, and yet it is\n    perceived by sight. It remains, therefore, that it is\n    brought into view by means of some other idea, that is itself\n    immediately perceived in the act of vision.\"--\u00a7 11.\n\n    \"Distance or external space.\"--\u00a7 155.\n\nThe explanation is quite simple, and lies in the fact that Berkeley\nuses the word \"distance\" in three senses. Sometimes he employs it to\ndenote visible distance, and then he restricts it to distance in two\ndimensions, or simple extension. Sometimes he means tangible distance\nin two dimensions; but most commonly he intends to signify tangible\ndistance in the third dimension. And it is in this sense that he\nemploys \"distance\" as the equivalent of \"space.\" Distance in two\ndimensions is, for Berkeley, not space, but extension. By taking a\npencil and interpolating the words \"visible\" and \"tangible\" before\n\"distance\" wherever the context renders them necessary, Berkeley's\nstatements may be made perfectly consistent; though he has not always\nextricated himself from the entanglement caused by his own loose\nphraseology, which rises to a climax in the last ten sections of\nthe \"Theory of Vision,\" in which he endeavours to prove that a pure\nintelligence able to see, but devoid of the sense of touch, could have\nno idea of a plane figure. Thus he says in section 156:--\n\n    \"All that is properly perceived by the visual faculty amounts\n    to no more than colours with their variations and different\n    proportions of light and shade; but the perpetual mutability\n    and fleetingness of those immediate objects of sight\n    render them incapable of being managed after the manner of\n    geometrical figures, nor is it in any degree useful that they\n    should. It is true there be divers of them perceived at once,\n    and more of some and less of others; but accurately to compute\n    their magnitude, and assign precise determinate proportions\n    between things so variable and inconstant, if we suppose\n    it possible to be done, must yet be a very trifling and\n    insignificant labour.\"\n\nIf, by this, Berkeley means that by vision alone, a straight line\ncannot be distinguished from a curved one, a circle from a square,\na long line from a short one, a large angle from a small one, his\nposition is surely absurd in itself and contradictory to his own\npreviously cited admissions; if he only means, on the other hand, that\nhis pure spirit could not get very far on in his geometry, it may be\ntrue or not; but it is in contradiction with his previous assertion,\nthat such a pure spirit could never attain to know as much as the\nfirst elements of plane geometry.\n\nAnother source of confusion, which arises out of Berkeley's\ninsufficient exactness in the use of language, is to be found in what\nhe says about solidity, in discussing Molyneux's problem, whether a\nman born blind and having learned to distinguish between a cube and a\nsphere, could, on receiving his sight, tell the one from the other\nby vision. Berkeley agrees with Locke that he could not, and adds the\nfollowing reflection:--\n\n    \"Cube, sphere, table, are words he has known applied to things\n    perceivable by touch, but to things perfectly intangible\n    he never knew them applied. Those words in their wonted\n    application always marked out to his mind bodies or solid\n    things which were perceived by the resistance they gave. But\n    there is no solidity, no resistance or protrusion perceived by\n    sight.\"\n\nHere \"solidity\" means resistance to pressure, which is apprehended by\nthe muscular sense; but when in section 154 Berkeley says of his pure\nintelligence--\n\n    \"It is certain that the aforesaid intelligence could have no\n    idea of a solid or quantity of three dimensions, which follows\n    from its not having any idea of distance \"--\n\nhe refers to that notion of solidity which may be obtained by the\ntactile sense, without the addition of any notion of resistance in the\nsolid object; as, for example, when the finger passes lightly over the\nsurface of a billiard ball.\n\nYet another source of difficulty in clearly understanding Berkeley\narises out of his use of the word \"outness.\" In speaking of touch\nhe seems to employ it indifferently, both for the localization of\na tactile sensation in the sensory surface, which we really obtain\nthrough touch; and for the notion of corporeal separation, which is\nattained by the association of muscular and tactile sensations. In\nspeaking of sight, on the other hand, Berkeley employs \"outness\" to\ndenote corporeal separation.\n\nWhen due allowance is made for the occasional looseness and ambiguity\nof Berkeley's terminology, and the accessories are weeded out of the\nessential parts of his famous Essay, his views may, I believe, be\nfairly and accurately summed up in the following propositions:--\n\n1. The sense of touch gives rise to ideas of extension, figure,\nmagnitude, and motion.\n\n2. The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of \"outness,\" in the\nsense of localization.\n\n3. The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of resistance, and thence\nto that of solidity, in the sense of impenetrability.\n\n4. The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of \"outness,\" in the\nsense of distance in the third dimension, and thence to that of space,\nor geometrical solidity.\n\n5. The sense of sight gives rise to ideas of extension, of figure,\nmagnitude, and motion.\n\n6. The sense of sight does not give rise to the idea of \"outness,\"\nin the sense of distance in the third dimension, nor to that of\ngeometrical solidity, no visual idea appearing to be without the mind,\nor at any distance off (\u00a7\u00a7 43, 50).\n\n7. The sense of sight does not give rise to the idea of mechanical\nsolidity.\n\n8. There is no likeness whatever between the tactile ideas called\nextension, figure, magnitude, and motion, and the visual ideas which\ngo by the same names; nor are any ideas common to the two senses.\n\n9. When we think we see objects at a distance, what really happens\nis that the visual picture suggests that the object seen has tangible\ndistance; we confound the strong belief in the tangible distance of\nthe object with actual sight of its distance.\n\n10. Visual ideas, therefore, constitute a kind of language, by which\nwe are informed of the tactile ideas which will, or may, arise in us.\n\nTaking these propositions into consideration _seriatim_, it may be\nassumed that everyone will assent to the first and second; and that\nfor the third and fourth we have only to include the muscular sense\ntinder the name of sense of touch, as Berkeley did, in order to make\nit quite accurate. Nor is it intelligible to me that anyone should\nexplicitly deny the truth of the fifth proposition, though some\nof Berkeley's supporters, less careful than himself, have done so.\nIndeed, it must be confessed that it is only grudgingly, and as it\nwere against his will, that Berkeley admits that we obtain ideas of\nextension, figure, and magnitude by pure vision, and that he more than\nhalf retracts the admission; while he absolutely denies that sight\ngives us any notion of outness in either sense of the word, and even\ndeclares that \"no proper visual idea appears to be without the mind,\nor at any distance off.\" By \"proper visual ideas,\" Berkeley denotes\ncolours, and light, and shade; and, therefore, he affirms that colours\ndo not appear to be at any distance from us. I confess that this\nassertion appears to me to be utterly unaccountable. I have made\nendless experiments on this point, and by no effort of the imagination\ncan I persuade myself, when looking at a colour, that the colour is\nin my mind, and not at a \"distance off,\" though of course I know\nperfectly well, as a matter of reason, that colour is subjective. It\nis like looking at the sun setting, and trying to persuade oneself\nthat the earth appears to move and not the sun, a feat I have never\nbeen able to accomplish. Even when the eyes are shut, the darkness\nof which one is conscious, carries with it the notion of outness. One\nlooks, so to speak, into a dark space. Common language expresses the\ncommon experience of mankind in this matter. A man will say that a\nsmell is in his nose, a taste in his mouth, a singing in his ears, a\ncreeping or a warmth in his skin; but if he is jaundiced, he does not\nsay that he has yellow in his eyes, but that everything looks yellow;\nand if he is troubled with _muscae volitantes_, he says, not that he\nhas specks in his eyes, but that he sees specks dancing before his\neyes. In fact, it appears to me that it is the special peculiarity\nof visual sensations, that they invariably give rise to the idea of\nremoteness, and that Berkeley's dictum ought to be reversed. For I\nthink that anyone who interrogates his consciousness carefully will\nfind that \"every proper visual idea\" appears to be without the mind\nand at a distance off.\n\nNot only does every _visibile_ appear to be remote, but it has a\nposition in external space, just as a _tangibile_ appears to be\nsuperficial and to have a determinate position on the surface of\nthe body. Every _visibile_, in fact, appears (approximately) to be\nsituated upon a line drawn from it to the point of the retina on which\nits image falls. It is referred outwards, in the general direction of\nthe pencil of light by which it is rendered visible, just as, in the\nexperiment with the stick, the _tangibile_ is referred outwards to the\nend of the stick.\n\nIt is for this reason that an object, viewed with both eyes, is seen\nsingle and not double. Two distinct images are formed, but each image\nis referred to that point at which the two optic axes intersect;\nconsequently, the two images exactly cover one another, and appear as\ncompletely one as any other two exactly similar superimposed images\nwould be. And it is for the same reason, that, if the ball of the\neye is pressed upon at any point, a spot of light appears apparently\noutside the eye, and in a region exactly opposite to that in which the\npressure is made.\n\nBut while it seems to me that there is no reason to doubt that the\nextradition of sensation is more complete in the case of the eye than\nin that of the skin, and that corporeal distinctness, and hence space,\nare directly suggested by vision, it is another, and a much more\ndifficult question, whether the notion of geometrical solidity is\nattainable by pure vision; that is to say, by a single eye, all the\nparts of which are immoveable. However this may be, for an absolutely\nfixed eye, I conceive there can be no doubt in the case of an eye that\nis moveable and capable of adjustment. For, with the moveable eye,\nthe muscular sense comes into play in exactly the same way as with the\nmoveable hand; and the notion of change of place, _plus_ the sense of\neffort, gives rise to a conception of visual space, which runs exactly\nparallel with that of tangible space. When two moveable eyes are\npresent, the notion of space of three dimensions is obtained in the\nsame way as it is by the two hands, but with, much greater precision.\n\nAnd if, to take a case similar to one already assumed, we suppose a\nman deprived of every sense except vision, and of all motion except\nthat of his eyes, it surely cannot be doubted that he would have a\nperfect conception of space; and indeed a much more perfect conception\nthan he who possessed touch alone without vision. But of course our\ntouchless man would be devoid of any notion of resistance; and hence\nspace, for him, would be altogether geometrical and devoid of body.\n\nAnd here another curious consideration arises, what likeness, if\nany, would there be between the visual space of the one man, and the\ntangible space of the other?\n\nBerkeley, as we have seen (in the eighth proposition), declares that\nthere is no likeness between the ideas given by sight and those given\nby touch; and one cannot but agree with him, so long as the term ideas\nis restricted to mere sensations. Obviously, there is no more likeness\nbetween the feel of a surface and the colour of it, than there is\nbetween its colour and its smell. All simple sensations, derived\nfrom different senses, are incommensurable with one another, and only\ngradations of their own intensity are comparable. And thus so far as\nthe primary facts of sensation go, visual figure and tactile figure,\nvisual magnitude and tactile magnitude, visual motion and tactile\nmotion, are truly unlike, and have no common term. But when Berkeley\ngoes further than this, and declares that there are no \"ideas\" common\nto the \"ideas\" of touch and those of sight, it appears to me that he\nhas fallen into a great error, and one which is the chief source of\nhis paradoxes about geometry.\n\nBerkeley in fact employs the word \"idea\" in this instance to denote\ntwo totally different classes of feelings, or states of consciousness.\nFor these may be divided into two groups: the primary feelings,\nwhich exist in themselves and without relation to any other, such as\npleasure and pain, desire, and the simple sensations obtained through\nthe sensory organs; and the secondary feelings, which express those\nrelations of primary feelings which are perceived by the mind; and the\nexistence of which, therefore, implies the pre-existence of at least\ntwo of the primary feelings. Such are likeness and unlikeness in\nquality, quantity, or form; succession and contemporaneity; contiguity\nand distance; cause and effect; motion and rest.\n\nNow it is quite true that there is no likeness between the primary\nfeelings which are grouped under sight and touch; but it appears to me\nwholly untrue, and indeed absurd, to affirm that there is no likeness\nbetween the secondary feelings which express the relations of the\nprimary ones.\n\nThe relation of succession perceived between the visible taps of\na hammer, is, to my mind, exactly like the relation of succession\nbetween the tangible taps; the unlikeness between red and blue is a\nmental phenomenon of the same order as the unlikeness between rough\nand smooth. Two points visibly distant are so, because one or more\nunits of visible length _(minima visibilia_) are interposed between\nthem; and as two points tangibly distant are so, because one or more\nunits of tangible length _(minima tangibilia_) are interposed between\nthem, it is clear that the notion of interposition of units of\nsensibility, or _minima sensibilia_, is an idea common to the two. And\nwhether I see a point move across the field of vision towards another\npoint, or feel the like motion, the idea of the gradual diminution of\nthe number of sensible units between the two points appears to me to\nbe common to both kinds of motion.\n\nHence, I conceive, that though it be true that there is no likeness\nbetween the primary feelings given by sight and those given by touch,\nyet there is a complete likeness between the secondary feelings\naroused by each sense.\n\nIndeed, if it were not so, how could Logic, which deals with those\nforms of thought which are applicable to every kind of subject-matter,\nbe possible? How could numerical proportion be as true of _visibilia_,\nas of _tangibilia_, unless there were some ideas common to the two?\nAnd to come directly to the heart of the matter, is there any more\ndifference between the relations between tangible sensations which we\ncall place and direction, and those between visible sensations which\ngo by the same name, than there is between those relations of tangible\nand visible sensations which we call succession? And if there be\nnone, why is Geometry not just as much a matter of _visibilia_ as of\n_tangibilia_?\n\nMoreover, as a matter of fact, it is certain that the muscular sense\nis so closely connected with both the visual and the tactile senses,\nthat, by the ordinary laws of association, the ideas which it suggests\nmust needs be common to both.\n\nFrom what has been said it will follow that the ninth proposition\nfalls to the ground; and that vision, combined with the muscular\nsensations produced by the movement of the eyes, gives us as complete\na notion of corporeal separation and of distance in the third\ndimension of space, as touch, combined with the muscular sensations\nproduced by the movements of the hand, does. The tenth proposition\nseems to contain a perfectly true statement, but it is only half\nthe truth. It is no doubt true that our visual ideas are a kind of\nlanguage by which we are informed of the tactile ideas which may or\nwill arise in us; but this is true, more or less, of every sense in\nregard to every other. If I put my hand in my pocket, the tactile\nideas which I receive prophesy quite accurately what I shall\nsee--whether a bunch of keys or half-a-crown--when I pull it out\nagain; and the tactile ideas are, in this case, the language which\ninforms me of the visual ideas which will arise. So with the other\nsenses: olfactory ideas tell me I shall find the tactile and visual\nphenomena called violets, if I look for them; taste tells me that\nwhat I am tasting will, if I look at it, have the form of a clove; and\nhearing warns me of what I shall, or may, see and touch every minute\nof my life.\n\nBut while the \"New Theory of Vision\" cannot be considered to possess\nmuch value in relation to the immediate object its author had in view,\nit had a vastly important influence in directing attention to the real\ncomplexity of many of those phenomena of sensation, which appear at\nfirst to be simple. And even if Berkeley was, as I imagine he was,\nquite wrong in supposing that we do not see space, the contrary\ndoctrine makes quite as strongly for his general view, that space can\nbe conceived only as something thought by a mind.\n\nThe last of Locke's \"primary qualities\" which remain to be considered\nis mechanical solidity, or impenetrability. But our conception of this\nis derived from the sense of resistance to our own effort, or active\nforce, which we meet with in association with sundry tactile or visual\nphenomena; and, undoubtedly, active force is inconceivable except as a\nstate of consciousness. This may sound paradoxical; but let anyone try\nto realize what he means by the mutual attraction of two particles,\nand I think he will find, either, that he conceives them simply as\nmoving towards one another at a certain rate, in which case he only\npictures motion to himself, and leaves force aside; or, that he\nconceives each particle to be animated by something like his own\nvolition, and to be pulling as he would pull. And I suppose that this\ndifficulty of thinking of force except as something comparable to\nvolition, lies at the bottom of Leibnitz's doctrine of monads, to say\nnothing of Schopenhauer's \"Welt als Wille und Vorstellung;\" while the\nopposite difficulty of conceiving force to be anything like volition,\ndrives another school of thinkers into the denial of any connection,\nsave that of succession, between cause and effect.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo sum up. If the materialist affirms that the universe and all its\nphenomena are resolvable into matter and motion, Berkeley replies,\nTrue; but what you call matter and motion are known to us only as\nforms of consciousness; their being is to be conceived or known; and\nthe existence of a state of consciousness, apart from a thinking mind,\nis a contradiction in terms.\n\nI conceive that this reasoning is irrefragable. And therefore, if\nI were obliged to choose between absolute materialism and absolute\nidealism, I should feel compelled to accept the latter alternative.\nIndeed, upon this point Locke does, practically, go as far in the\ndirection of idealism, as Berkeley, when he admits that \"the simple\nideas we receive from sensation and reflection are the boundaries of\nour thoughts, beyond which the mind, whatever efforts it would make,\nis not able to advance one jot.\"--Book II. chap, xxiii. \u00a7 29.\n\nBut Locke adds, \"Nor can it make any discoveries when it would pry\ninto the nature and hidden causes of these ideas.\"\n\nNow, from this proposition, the thorough materialists dissent as much,\non the one hand, as Berkeley does, upon the other hand.\n\nThe thorough materialist asserts that there is a something which he\ncalls the \"substance\" of matter; that this something is the cause of\nall phenomena, whether material or mental; that it is self-existent\nand eternal, and so forth.\n\nBerkeley, on the contrary, asserts with equal confidence that there is\nno substance of matter, but only a substance of mind, which he terms\nspirit; that there are two kinds of spiritual substance, the one\neternal and uncreated, the substance of the Deity, the other created,\nand, once created, naturally eternal; that the universe, as known\nto created spirits, has no being in itself, but is the result of\nthe action of the substance of the Deity on the substance of those\nspirits.\n\nIn contradiction to which bold assertion, Locke affirms that we simply\nknow nothing about substance of any kind.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Berkeley virtually makes the same confession of\nignorance, when he admits that we can have no idea or notion of a\nspirit (\"Principles of Human Knowledge,\" \u00a7 138); and the way in which\nhe tries to escape the consequences of this admission, is a splendid\nexample of the floundering of a mired logician.]\n\n    \"So that if anyone will examine himself concerning his notion\n    of pure substance in general, he will find he has no other\n    idea of it at all, but only a supposition of he knows not\n    what support of such qualities, which are capable of producing\n    simple ideas in us, which qualities are commonly called\n    accidents.\n\n    \"If anyone should be asked, what is the subject wherein colour\n    or weight inheres? he would have nothing to say but the\n    solid extended parts; and if he were demanded what is it that\n    solidity and extension inhere in? he would not be in much\n    better case than the Indian before mentioned, who, urging that\n    the world was supported by a great elephant, was asked what\n    the elephant rested on? to which his answer was, a great\n    tortoise. But being again pressed to know what gave support\n    to the broad-backed tortoise I replied, something, he knew not\n    what. And thus here, as in all other cases when we use\n    words without having clear and distinct ideas, we talk like\n    children, who, being questioned what such a thing is, readily\n    give this satisfactory answer, that it is something; which in\n    truth signifies no more when so used, either by children or\n    men, but that they know not what, and that the thing they\n    pretend to talk and know of is what they have no distinct idea\n    of at all, and are, so, perfectly ignorant of it and in the\n    dark. The idea, then, we have, to which we give the general\n    name substance, being nothing but the supposed but unknown\n    support of those qualities we find existing, which we imagine\n    cannot exist _sine re substante_, without something to support\n    them, we call that support _substantia_, which, according to\n    the true import of the word, is, in plain English, standing\n    under or upholding.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Locke, \"Human Understanding,\" Book II. chap, xiii. \u00a7 2.]\n\nI cannot but believe that the judgment of Locke is that which\nPhilosophy will accept as her final decision.\n\nSuppose that a piano were conscious of sound, and of nothing else. It\nwould become acquainted with a system of nature entirely composed\nof sounds, and the laws of nature would be the laws of melody and of\nharmony. It might acquire endless ideas of likeness and unlikeness, of\nsuccession, of similarity and dissimilarity, but it could attain to no\nconception of space, of distance, or of resistance; or of figure, or\nof motion.\n\nThe piano might then reason thus: All my knowledge consists of sounds\nand the perception of the relations of sounds; now the being of sound\nis to be heard; and it is inconceivable that the existence of the\nsounds I know, should depend upon any other existence than that of the\nmind of a hearing being.\n\nThis would be quite as good reasoning as Berkeley's, and very sound\nand useful, so far as it defines the limits of the piano's faculties.\nBut for all that, pianos have an existence quite apart from sounds,\nand the auditory consciousness of our speculative piano would be\ndependent, in the first place, on the existence of a \"substance\" of\nbrass, wood, and iron, and, in the second, on that of a musician. But\nof neither of these conditions of the existence of his consciousness\nwould the phenomena of that consciousness afford him the slightest\nhint.\n\nSo that while it is the summit of human wisdom to learn the limit of\nour faculties, it may be wise to recollect that we have no more right\nto make denials, than to put forth affirmatives, about what lies\nbeyond that limit. Whether either mind, or matter, has a \"substance\"\nor not, is a problem which we are incompetent to discuss; and it is\njust as likely that the common notions upon the subject should be\ncorrect as any others. Indeed, Berkeley himself makes Philonous wind\nup his discussions with Hylas, in a couple of sentences which aptly\nexpress this conclusion:--\n\n    \"You see, Hylas, the water of yonder fountain, how it is\n    forced upwards in a round column to a certain height, at which\n    it breaks and falls back into the basin from whence it rose;\n    its ascent as well as its descent proceeding from the same\n    uniform law or principle of gravitation. Just so, the same\n    principles which, at first view, lead to scepticism, pursued\n    to a certain point, bring men back to common sense.\"\n\nTHE END.","title":"Critiques and Addresses","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":100931}