{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14834/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14834","id":"gutenberg_14834","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14834","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution"],"text":"Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustrations.\n      See 14834-h.htm or 14834-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/8/3/14834/14834-h/14834-h.htm)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/8/3/14834/14834-h.zip)\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WHENCE AND THE WHITHER OF MAN\n\nA Brief History of His Origin and Development through Conformity\nto Environment\n\nBeing the Morse Lectures of 1895\n\nby\n\nJOHN M. TYLER\nProfessor of Biology, Amherst College\n\nNew York\nCharles Scribner's Sons\n\n1896\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n          Morse Lectures\n\n    1893--THE PLACE OF CHRIST IN\n      MODERN THEOLOGY. By Rev. A.M.\n      Fairbairn, D.D. 8vo, $2.50\n\n    1894--THE RELIGIONS OF JAPAN. By Rev.\n      William Elliot Griffis, D.D.\n      12mo, $2.00.\n\n    1895--THE WHENCE AND THE WHITHER OF\n      MAN. By Professor John M. Tyler.\n      12mo, $1.75.\n\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE PROBLEM: THE MODE OF ITS SOLUTION\n\nThe question.--The two theories of man's origin.--The argument\npurely historical.--Means of tracing man's ancestry and\nhistory.--Classification.--Ontogenesis and Phylogenesis.\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nPROTOZOA TO WORMS: CELLS, TISSUES, AND ORGANS\n\nAmoeba: Its anatomy and physiology.--Development of the\ncell.--Hydra: The development of digestive and reproductive organs,\nand of tissues.--Forms intermediate between amoeba and hydra:\nMagosph\u00e6ra, volvox.--Embryonic development.--Turbellaria: Appearance\nof a body wall, of ganglion, and nerve-cords.\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nWORMS TO VERTEBRATES: SKELETON AND HEAD\n\nWorms and the development of organs.--Mollusks: The external\nprotective skeleton leads to degeneration or stagnation.--Annelids\nand arthropods: The external locomotive skeleton leads\nto temporary rapid advance, but fails of the goal.--Its\ndisadvantages.--Vertebrates: The internal locomotive skeleton leads\nto backbone and brain.--Reasons for their dominance.--The primitive\nvertebrate.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nVERTEBRATES: BACKBONE AND BRAIN\n\nThe advance of vertebrates from fish through amphibia and reptiles\nto mammals.--The development of skeleton, appendages, circulatory\nand respiratory systems, and brain.--Mammals: The oviparous\nmonotremata.--Marsupials.--Placental mammals.--Development of the\nplacenta.--Primates.--Arboreal life and the development of the\nhand.--Comparison of man with the highest apes.--Recapitulation of\nthe history of man's origin and development.--The sequence of\ndominant functions.\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE HISTORY OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS SEQUENCE OF FUNCTIONS\n\nMode of investigation.--Intellect.--Sense-perceptions.--Association.\n--Inference and understanding.--Rational intelligence.--Modes of mental\nor nervous action.--Reflex action, unconscious and comparatively\nmechanical.--Instinctive action: The actor is conscious, but guided\nby heredity.--Intelligent action.--The actor is conscious, guided by\nintelligence resulting from experience or observation.--The will\nstimulated by motives.--Appetites.--Fear and other prudential\nconsiderations.--Care for young and love of mates.--The dawn of\nunselfishness.--Motives furnished by the rational intelligence:\nTruth, right, duty.--Recapitulation: The will, stimulated by ever\nhigher motives, is finally to be dominated by unselfishness and love\nof truth and righteousness.--These rouse the only inappeasable\nhunger, and are capable of indefinite development.--Strength of\nthese motives.--Their complete dominance the goal of human\ndevelopment.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nNATURAL SELECTION AND ENVIRONMENT\n\nThe reversal of the sequence of functions leads to extermination,\ndegeneration, or, rarely, to stagnation.--Natural selection becomes\nmore unsparing as we go higher.--Extinction.--Severity of the\nstruggle for life.--Environment one.--But lower animals come into\nvital relation with but a small part of it.--It consists of a myriad\nof forces, which, as acting on a given form, may be considered as\none grand resultant.--Environment is thus a power making at first\nfor digestion and reproduction, then for muscular strength and\nactivity, then for shrewdness, finally for unselfishness and\nrighteousness.--An ultimate \"power, not ourselves, making for\nrighteousness,\" a personality.--Our knowledge of this personality\nmay be valid, even though very incomplete.--Religion.--Conformity to\nthe spiritual in or behind environment is likeness to God.--The\nconservative tendency in evolution.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nCONFORMITY TO ENVIRONMENT\n\nHuman environment.--The development of the family as the school of\nman's training.--The family as the school of unselfishness and\nobedience.--The family as the basis of social life.--Society as an\naid to conformity to environment by increasing intelligence and\ntraining conscience.--Mental and moral heredity.--Personal\nmagnetism.--Man's search for a king.--The essence of\nChristianity.--Conformity to environment gives future supremacy, but\noften at the cost of present hardship.--Conformity as obedience to\nthe laws of our being.--Environment best understood through the\nstudy of the human mind.--Productiveness and prospectiveness of\nvital capital.--Faith.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nMAN\n\nComposed of atoms and molecules, hence subject to chemical and\nphysical laws.--As a living being.--As an animal.--As a\nvertebrate.--As a mammal.--As a social being.--As a personal and\nmoral being.--The conflict between the higher and the lower in\nman.--As a religious being.--As hero.--He has not yet\nattained.--Future man.--He will utilize all his powers, duly\nsubordinating the lower to the higher.--The triumph of the common\npeople.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE\n\nSubject of the Bible.--_Man_: Body, intellect, heart.--_God_:\nLaw, sin, and penalty.--God manifested in Christ.--Salvation, the divine\nlife permeating man--Faith.--Prayer.--Hope.--The Church.--The\nbattle.--The victory.--The crown.\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nPRESENT ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION\n\nThe struggle for existence.--Natural selection.--Correlation of\norgans.--Fortuitous variation.--Origin of the fittest.--N\u00e4geli's\ntheory: Initial tendency supreme.--Weismann and the Neo-Darwinians:\nNatural selection omnipotent.--The Neo-Lamarckians.--Comparison of\nthe Neo-Darwinian and the Neo-Lamarckian views.--\"Individuality\" the\ncontrolling power throughout the life of the organism.--Transmission\nof special effects of use and disuse.--Summary.\n\n\nCHART SHOWING SEQUENCE OF ATTAINMENTS AND OF DOMINANT FUNCTIONS\n\n\nPHYLOGENETIC CHART OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nIn the year 1865 Professor Samuel Finley Breese Morse, to whom the\nworld is indebted for the application of the principles of\nelectro-magnetism to telegraphy, gave the sum of ten thousand\ndollars to Union Theological Seminary to found a lectureship in\nmemory of his father, the Rev. Jedediah Morse, D.D., theologian,\ngeographer, and gazetteer. The subject of the lectures was to have\nto do with \"The relations of the Bible to any of the sciences.\" The\nten chapters of this book correspond to ten lectures, eight of which\nwere delivered as Morse Lectures at Union Theological Seminary\nduring the early spring of 1895. The first nine chapters appear in\nform and substance as they were given in the lectures, except that\nChapters VI. and VII. were condensed in one lecture. Chapter X. is\nnew, and I have not hesitated to add a few paragraphs wherever the\nargument seemed especially to demand further evidence or\nillustration.\n\nOne of my friends, reading the title of these lectures, said: \"Of\nman's origin you know nothing, of his future you know less.\" I fear\nthat many share his opinion, although they might not express it so\nemphatically.\n\nIt would seem, therefore, to be in order to show that science is now\ncompetent to deal with this question; not that she can give a final\nand conclusive answer, but that we can reach results which are\nprobably in the main correct. We may grant very cheerfully that we\ncan attain no demonstration; the most that we can claim for our\nresults will be a high degree of probability. If our conclusions are\nvery probably correct, we shall do well to act according to them;\nfor all our actions in life are suited to meet the emergencies of a\nprobable but uncertain course of events.\n\nWe take for granted the probable truth of the theory of evolution as\nstated by Mr. Darwin, and that it applies to man as really as to any\nlower animal. At the same time it concerns our argument but little\nwhether natural selection is \"omnipotent\" or of only secondary\nimportance in evolution, as long as it is a real factor, or which\ntheory of heredity or variation is the more probable.\n\nIf man has been evolved from simple living substance protoplasm, by\na process of evolution, it will some day be possible to write a\nhistory of that process. But have we yet sufficient knowledge to\njustify such an attempt?\n\nBefore the history of any period can be written its events must have\nbeen accurately chronicled. Biological history can be written only\nwhen the successive stages of development and the attainments of\neach stage have been clearly perceived. In other words, the first\nprerequisite would seem to be a genealogical[A] tree of the animal\nkingdom. The means of tracing this genealogical tree are given in\nthe first chapter, and the results in the second, third, and fourth\nchapters of this book.\n\n  [Footnote A: See Phylogenetic Chart, p. 310.]\n\nNow, for some of the ancestral stages of man's development a very\nhigh degree of probability can be claimed. One of man's earliest\nancestors was almost certainly a unicellular animal. A little later\nhe very probably passed through a gastr\u00e6a stage. He traversed fish,\namphibian, and reptilian grades. The oviparous monotreme and the\nmarsupial almost certainly represent lower mammalian ancestral\nstages. But what kind of fish, what species of amphibian, what form\nof reptiles most closely resembles the old ancestor? How did each of\nthese ancestors look? I do not know. It looks as if our ancestral\ntree were entirely uncertain and we were left without any foundation\nfor history or argument.\n\nBut the history of the development of anatomical details, however\nimportant and desirable, is not the only history which can be\nwritten, nor is it essential. It would be interesting to know the\nsize of brain, girth of chest, average stature, and the features of\nthe ancient Greeks and Romans. But this is not the most important\npart of their history, nor is it essential. The great question is,\nWhat did they contribute to human progress?\n\nEven if we cannot accurately portray the anatomical details of a\nsingle ancestral stage, can we perhaps discover what function\ngoverned its life and was the aim of its existence? Did it live to\neat, or to move, or to think? If we cannot tell exactly how it\nlooked, can we tell what it lived for and what it contributed to the\nevolution of man?\n\nNow, the sequence of dominant functions or aims in life can be\ntraced with far more ease and safety, not to say certainty, than one\nof anatomical details. The latter characterize small groups, genera,\nfamilies, or classes; while the dominant function characterizes all\nanimals of a given grade, even those which through degeneration\nhave reverted to this grade.\n\nEven if I cannot trace the exact path which leads to the\nmountain-top, I may almost with certainty affirm that it leads from\nmeadow and pasture through forest to bare rock, and thence over snow\nand ice to the summit; for each of these forms a zone encircling the\nmountain. Very similarly I find that, whatever genealogical tree I\nadopt, one sequence in the dominance of functions characterizes them\nall; digestion is dominant before locomotion and locomotion before\nthought.\n\nAnd it is hardly less than a physiological necessity that it should\nbe so. The plant can and does exist, living almost purely for\ndigestion and reproduction, and the same is true of the lowest and\nmost primitive animals. A muscular system cannot develop and do its\nwork until some sort of a digestive system has arisen to furnish\nnutriment, any more than a steam-engine can run without fuel. And a\nbrain is of no use until muscle and sense-organs have appeared.\n\nThis sequence of dominant functions,[A] of physiological dynasties,\nwould seem therefore to be a fact. And our series of forms described\nin the second, third, and fourth chapters is merely a concrete\nillustration showing how this sequence may have been evolved. The\nsubstitution of other terms in the anatomical series there\ndescribed--amoeba, volvox, etc.--would not affect this result. By\na change in the form of our history we have eliminated to a large\nextent the sources of uncertainty and error. And the dominant\nfunction of a group throws no little light on the details of its\nanatomy.\n\n  [Footnote A: See condensed Chart of Development, etc., p. 309.]\n\nIf we can be satisfied that ever higher functions have risen to\ndominance in the successive stages of animal and human development,\nif we can further be convinced that the sequence is irreversible, we\nshall be convinced that future man will be more and more completely\ncontrolled by the very highest powers or aims to which this sequence\npoints. Otherwise we must disbelieve the continuity of history. But\nthe germs of the future are always concealed in the history of the\npresent. Hence--pardon the reiteration--if we can once trace this\nsequence of dominant functions, whose evolution has filled past\nages, we can safely foretell something at least of man's future\ndevelopment.\n\nThe argument and method is therefore purely historical. Here and\nthere we will try to find why and how things had to be so. But all\nsuch digressions are of small account compared with the fact that\nthings were or are thus and so. And a mistaken explanation will not\ninvalidate the facts of history.\n\nThe subject of our history is the development, not of a single human\nrace nor of the movements of a century, but the development of\nanimal life through ages. And even if our attempts to decipher a few\npages here and there in the volumes of this vast biological history\nare not as successful as we could hope, we must not allow ourselves\nto be discouraged from future efforts. Even if our translation is\nhere and there at fault, we must never forget the existence of the\nhistory. Some of the worst errors of biologists are due to their\nhaving forgotten that in the lower stages the germs of the higher\nmust be present, even though invisible to any microscope. Our study\nof the worm is inadequate and likely to mislead us, unless we\nremember that a worm was the ancestor of man. And a biologist who\ncan tell us nothing about man is neglecting his fairest field.\n\nConversely history and social science will rest on a firmer basis\nwhen their students recognize that many human laws and institutions\nare heirlooms, the attainments, or direct results of attainments, of\nanimals far below man. We are just beginning to recognize that the\nstudy of zo\u00f6logy is an essential prerequisite to, and firm\nfoundation for, that of history, social science, philosophy, and\ntheology, just as really as for medicine. An adequate knowledge of\nany history demands more than the study of its last page. The\nzo\u00f6logist has been remiss in not claiming his birthright, and in\nthis respect has sadly failed to follow the path pointed out by Mr.\nDarwin.\n\nFor pal\u00e6ontology, zo\u00f6logy, history, social and political science,\nand philosophy are really only parts of one great science, of\nbiology in the widest sense, in distinction from the narrower sense\nin which it is now used to include zo\u00f6logy and botany. They form an\norganic unity in which no one part can be adequately understood\nwithout reference to the others. You know nothing of even a\nconstellation, if you have studied only one of its stars. Much less\ncan the study of a single organ or function give an adequate idea of\nthe human body.\n\nOnly when we have attained a biological history can we have any\nsatisfactory conception of environment. As we look about us in the\nworld, environment often seems to us to be a chaos of forces aiding\nor destroying good and bad, fit and unfit, alike.\n\nBut our history of animal and human progress shows us successive\nstages, each a little higher than the preceding, and surviving, for\na time at least, because more completely conformed to environment.\nIf this be true, and it must be true unless our theory of evolution\nbe false, higher forms are more completely conformed to their\nenvironment than lower; and man has attained the most complete\nconformity of all. Our biological history is therefore a record of\nthe results of successive efforts, each attaining a little more\ncomplete conformity than the preceding. From such a history we ought\nto be able to draw certain valid deductions concerning the general\ncharacter and laws of our environment, to discover the direction in\nwhich its forces are urging us, and how man can more completely\nconform to it.\n\nIf man is a product of evolution, his mental and moral, just as\nreally as his physical, development must be the result of such a\nconformity. The study of environment from this standpoint should\nthrow some light on the validity of our moral and religious creeds\nand theories. It would seem, therefore, not only justifiable, but\nimperative to attempt such a study.\n\nOur argument is not directly concerned with modern theories of\nheredity, or variation, or with the \"omnipotence\" or secondary\nimportance of natural selection. And yet N\u00e4geli, and especially\nWeismann, have had so marked an influence on modern thought that we\ncannot afford to neglect their theories. We will briefly notice\nthese in the closing chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE PROBLEM: THE MODE OF ITS SOLUTION\n\n\nThe story of a human life can be told in very few words. A youth of\ngolden dreams and visions; a few years of struggle or of neglected\nopportunities; then retrospect and the end.\n\n        \"We come like water, and like wind we go.\"\n\nBut how few of the visions are realized. Faust sums up the whole of\nlife in the twice-repeated word _versagen_, renounce, and history\ntells a similar story. Terah died in Haran; Abraham obtained but a\ngrave in the land promised him and his children; Jacob, cheated in\nmarriage, bitterly disappointed in his children, died in exile,\nleaving his descendants to become slaves in the land of Egypt; and\nMoses, their heroic deliverer, died in the mountains of Moab in\nsight of the land which he was forbidden to enter. You may answer\nthat it is no injury that the promise is too large, the vision too\ngrand, to be fulfilled in the span of a single life, but must become\nthe heritage of a race. But what has been the history of Abraham's\ndescendants? A death-grapple for existence, captivity, and\ndispersion. Their national existence has long been lost.\n\nWas there ever a nation of grander promise than Greece or Rome? But\nGreece died of premature old age, and Rome of rottenness begotten\nof sin. But each of them, you will say, left a priceless heritage to\nthe immortal race. But if Greece and Rome and a host of older\nnations, of which History has often forgotten the very name, have\nfailed and died, can anything but ultimate failure await the race?\nIs human history to prove a story told by an idiot, or does it\n\"signify\" something? Is the great march of humanity, which Carlyle\nso vividly depicts, \"from the inane to the inane, or from God to\nGod?\"\n\nThis is the sphinx question put to every thinking man, and on his\nanswer hangs his life. For according to that answer, he will either\nflinch and turn back, or expend every drop of blood and grain of\npower in urging on the march.\n\nTo this question the Bible gives a clear and emphatic answer. \"God\ncreated man in his own image,\" and then, as if men might refuse to\nbelieve so astounding a statement, it is repeated, \"in the image of\nGod created he him.\" When, and by what mode or process, man was\ncreated we are not told. His origin is condensed almost into a line,\nhis present and future occupy all the rest of the book. Whence we\ncame is important only in so far as it teaches us humility and yet\nassures us that we may be Godlike because we are His handiwork and\nchildren, \"heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ of a heavenly\ninheritance.\"\n\nNow has Science any answer to this vital question? Perhaps. But this\nmuch is certain; it can foretell the future only from the past. Its\nanswer to the question _whither_ must be an inference from its\nknowledge as to _whence_ we have come. The Bible looks mainly at the\npresent and future; Science must at least begin with the study of\nthe past. The deciphering of man's past history is the great aim of\nBiology, and ultimately of all Science. For the question of Man's\npast is only a part of a greater question, the origin of all living\nspecies.\n\nWe may say broadly that concerning the origin of species two\ntheories, and only two, seem possible. The first theory is that\nevery species is the result of an act of immediate creation. And\nevery true species, however slightly it may differ from its nearest\nrelative, represents such a creative act, and once created is\npractically unchangeable. This is the theory of immutability of\nspecies. According to the second theory all higher, probably all\npresent existing, species are only mediately the result of a\ncreative act. The first living germ, whenever and however created,\nwas infused with power to give birth to higher species. Of these and\ntheir descendants some would continue to advance, others would\ndegenerate. Each theory demands equally for its ultimate explanation\na creative act; the second as much as, if not more than, the first.\nAccording to the first theory the creative power has been\ndistributed over a series of acts, according to the second theory it\nhas been concentrated in one primal creation. The second is the\ntheory of the mutability of species, or, in general, of evolution,\nbut not necessarily of Darwinism alone.\n\nThe first theory is considered by many the more attractive and\nhopeful. Now a theory need not be attractive, nor at first sight\nappear hopeful, provided only it is true. But let me call your\nattention to certain conclusions which, as it appears to me, are\nnecessarily involved in it. Its central thought is the practical\nimmutability of species. Each one of these lives its little span of\ntime, for species are usually comparatively short-lived, grows\npossibly a very little better or worse, and dies. Its progress has\nadded nothing to the total of life; its degeneration harmed no one,\nhardly even itself; it was doomed from the start. Progress there has\nbeen, in a sense. The Creator has placed ever higher forms on the\nglobe. But all the progress lies in the gaps and distances between\nsuccessive forms, not in any advance made, or victory won, by the\nspecies or individual. The most \"aspiring ape,\" if ever there was\nsuch a being, remains but an ape. He must comfort himself with the\nthought that, while he and his descendants can never gain an inch,\nthe gap between himself and the next higher form shall be far\ngreater than that between himself and the lowest monkey.\n\nAnd if this has been the history of thousands of other species, why\nshould it not be true of man also? Who can wonder that many who\naccept this theory doubt whether the world is growing any better, or\nwhether even man will ever be higher and better than he now is?\nWould it not be contrary to the whole course of past history, if you\ncan properly call such a record a history, if he could advance at\nall? Now I have no wish to misrepresent this or any honestly\naccepted theory, but it appears to me essentially hopeless, a record\nnot of the progress of life on the globe, but of a succession of\nstagnations, of deaths. I can never understand why some very good\nand intelligent people still think that the theory of the immediate\ncreation of each species does more honor to the Creator and his\ncreation than the theory of evolution. Evolution is a process, not\na force. The power of the Creator is equally demanded in both cases;\nonly it is differently distributed. And evolution is the very\nhighest proof of the wisdom and skill of the Creator. It elevates\nour views of the living beings, must it not give a higher conception\nof Him who formed them?\n\nThe plant in its first stages shows no trace of flowers, but of\nleaves only. Later a branch or twig, similar in structure to all the\nrest, shortens. The cells and tissues which in other twigs turn into\ngreen leaves here become the petals and other organs of the rose or\nviolet. Let us suppose for a moment that every rose and violet\nrequired a special act of immediate creation, would the springtime\nbe as wonderful as now? Would the rose or violet be any more\nbeautiful, or are they any less flowers because developed out of\nthat which might have remained a common branch? The plant at least\nis glorified by the power to give rise to such beauty. And is not\nthe creation of the seed of a violet or rose something infinitely\ngrander than the decking of a flowerless plant with newly created\nroses? The attainment of the highest and most diversified beauty and\nutility with the fewest and simplest means is always the sign of\nwhat we call in man \"creative\" genius. Is not the same true of God?\nI think you all feel the force of the argument here.\n\nThere were at one time no flowering plants. The time came at last\nfor their appearance. Which is the higher, grander mode of producing\nthem, immediate creation of every flowering species, or development\nof the flower out of the green leaves of some old club moss or\nsimilar form? The latter seems to me at least by far the higher\nmode. And to have created a ground-pine which could give rise to a\nrose seems far more difficult and greater than to have created both\nseparately. It requires more genius, so to speak. It gives us a far\nhigher opinion of the ground-pine; does it disgrace the rose? We can\nlook dispassionately at plants. The rose is still and always a rose,\nand the oak an oak, whatever its origin. And I believe that we shall\nall readily admit that evolution is here a theory which does the\nhighest honor to the wisdom and power of the Creator. What if the\nanimal kingdom is continually blossoming in ever higher forms? Does\nnot the same reasoning hold true, only with added force? I firmly\nbelieve that we should all unhesitatingly answer, yes, could we but\nbe assured that all men would everywhere and always believe that we,\nmen, were the results of an immediate creative act.\n\nBut why do we so strenuously object to the application to ourselves\nof the theory of evolution? One or two reasons are easily seen. We\nhave all of us a great deal of innate snobbery, we would rather have\nbeen born great than to have won greatness by the most heroic\nstruggle. But is man any less a man for having arisen from something\nlower, and being in a fair way to become something higher? Certainly\nnot, unless I am less a man for having once been a baby. It is only\nwhen I am unusually cross and irritable that I object to being\nreminded of my infancy. But a young child does not like to be\nreminded of it. He is afraid that some one will take him for a baby\nstill. And the snob is always desperately afraid that some one will\nfail to notice what a high-born gentleman he is.\n\nNow man can relapse into something lower than a brute; the only\ngenuine brute is a degenerate man. And we all recognize the strength\nof tendencies urging us downward. Is not this the often unrecognized\nkern of our eagerness for some mark or stamp that shall prove to all\nthat we are no apes, but men? It is not the pure gold that needs the\n\"guinea stamp.\" If we are men, and as we become men, we shall cease\nto fear the theory of evolution. Now this is not the only, or\nperhaps the greatest, objection which men feel or speak against the\ntheory. But I must believe that it has more weight with us than we\nare willing to admit.\n\nBut some say that the theory of immediate creation and immutability\nof species is the more natural and has always been accepted, while\nthe theory of evolution is new and very likely to be as short-lived\nas many another theory which has for a time fascinated men only to\nbe forgotten or ridiculed.\n\nBut the idea of evolution is as old as Hindu philosophy. The old\nIonic natural philosophers were all evolutionists. So Aristophanes,\nquoting from these or Hesiod concerning the origin of things, says:\n\"Chaos was and Night, and Erebus black, and wide Tartarus. No earth,\nnor air nor sky was yet; when, in the vast bosom of Erebus (or\nchaotic darkness) winged Night brought forth first of all the egg,\nfrom which in after revolving periods sprang Eros (Love) the much\ndesired, glittering with golden wings; and Eros again, in union with\nChaos, produced the brood of the human race.\" Here the formative\nprocess is a birth, not a creation; it is evolution pure and simple.\n\"According to the ancient view,\" says Professor Lewis, \"the present\nworld was a growth; it was born, it came from something antecedent,\nnot merely as a cause but as its seed, embryo or principium.\nPlato's world was a 'zoon,' a living thing, a natural production.\"\n\nFurthermore, to the ancient writers of the Bible the idea of origin\nby birth from some antecedent form--and this is the essential idea\nof evolution--was perfectly natural. They speak of the \"generations\nof the heavens and the earth\" as of the \"generations\" of the\npatriarchs. The first book of the Bible is still called Genesis, the\nbook of births. The writer of the ninetieth Psalm says, \"Before the\nmountains were born, or ever thou hadst brought to birth the earth\nand the world.\" And what satisfactory meaning can you give to the\nwords, \"Let the earth bring forth,\" and \"the earth brought forth,\"\nin immediate proximity to the words, \"and God made,\" unless while\nthe ultimate source was God's creative power, the immediate process\nof formation was one of evolution.\n\nThe Bible is big and broad enough to include both ideas, the human\nmind is prone to overestimate the one or the other. Traces, at\nleast, of a similar mode of thought persisted by the Greek Fathers\nof the Church, and disappeared, if ever, with the predominance of\nLatin theology. To the oriental the idea of evolution is natural.\nThe earth is to him no inert, resistant clod; she brings forth of\nherself.\n\nBut our ancestors lived on a barren soil beneath a forbidding sky.\nThey were frozen in winter and parched in summer. Nature was to them\nno kind foster-mother, but a cruel stepmother, training them by\nstern discipline to battle with her and the world. They peopled the\nearth with gnomes and cobolds and giants, and their nymphs were the\nValkyre. Their God was Thor, of the thunderbolt and hammer, and who\nyet lived in continual dread of the hostile powers of Nature. A\nNorse prophet or prophetess standing beside Elijah at Horeb would\nhave bowed down before the earthquake or the fire; the oriental\nwaited for the \"still small voice.\" And we are heirs to a Latin\ntheology grafted on to the Thor-worship of our pagan ancestors. The\nidea of a Nature producing beneficently and kindly at the word of a\nloving God is foreign to all our inherited modes of thought. And our\nviews of the heart of Nature are about as correct as those of our\nancestors were of God. A little more of oriental tendencies of\nthought would harm neither our theology nor our life.\n\nWhat, then, is the biblical idea of Nature? God speaks to the earth,\nin the first chapter of Genesis, and the earth responds by \"giving\nbirth\" to mountains and living beings. It is evidently no mere\nlifeless, inert clod, but pulsating with life and responsive to the\ndivine commands. While yet a chaos it had been brooded over by the\nDivine Spirit. It is like the great \"wheels within wheels,\" with\nrings full of eyes round about, which Ezekiel saw in his vision by\nthe river Chebar. \"When the living creatures went, the wheels went\nby them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the\nearth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever the spirit was to\ngo, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were\nlifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creatures\n(or of life) was in the wheels.\" And above the living creatures was\nthe firmament and the throne of God. So Nature may be material, but\nit is material interpenetrated by the divine; if you call it a\nfabric, the woof may be material but the warp is God. This view\ncontains all the truth of materialism and pantheism, and vastly\nmore than they, and it avoids their errors and omissions.\n\nTo the old metaphysical hypothesis of evolution Mr. Darwin gave a\nscientific basis. It had always been admitted that species were\ncapable of slight variation and that this divergence might become\nhereditary and thus perhaps give rise to a variety of the parent\nspecies. But it was denied that the variation could go on increasing\nindefinitely, it seemed soon to reach a limit and stop. Early in the\npresent century Lamarck had attempted to prove that by the use and\ndisuse of organs through a series of generations a great divergence\nmight arise resulting in new species. But the theory was crude,\ncapable at best of but limited application, and fell before the\narguments and authority of Cuvier. The times were not ripe for such\na theory. Some fifty years later, Mr. Darwin called attention to the\nstruggle for existence as a means of aggregating these slight\nmodifications in a divergence sufficient to produce new species,\ngenera, or families. His argument may be very briefly stated as\nfollows:\n\n1. There is in Nature a law of heredity; like begets like.\n\n2. The offspring is never exactly like the parent; and the members\nof the second generation differ more or less from one another. This\nis especially noticeable in domesticated plants and animals, but no\nless true of wild forms. If the parent is not exactly like the other\nmembers of the species, some of its descendants will inherit its\npeculiarities enhanced, others diminished.\n\n3. Every species tends to increase in geometrical progression. But\nmost species actually increase in number very slowly, if at all. Now\nand then some insect or weed escapes from its enemies, comes under\nfavorable food conditions, and multiplies with such rapidity that it\nthreatens to ravage the country. But as it multiplies it furnishes\nan abundance of food for the enemies which devour it, or of food and\nplace for the parasites in and upon it; and they increase with at\nleast equal rapidity. Hence while the vanguard increases\nprodigiously in numbers, because it has outrun these enemies, the\nrear is continually slaughtered. And thus these plagues seem in\nsuccessive generations to march across the continent.\n\nAnd yet even they give but a faint idea of the reproductive powers\nof plants and animals. The female fish produces often many\nthousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of eggs. Insects\ngenerally from a hundred to a thousand. Even birds, slowly as they\nincrease, produce in a lifetime probably at least from twelve to\ntwenty eggs. Now let us suppose that all these eggs developed, and\nall the birds lived out their normal period of life, and reproduced\nat the same rate. After not many centuries there would not be\nstanding room on the globe for the descendants of a single pair.\n\nAgain, of the one hundred eggs of an insect let us suppose that only\nsixty develop into the first larval, caterpillar, stage. Of these\nsixty, the number of members of the species remaining constant, only\ntwo will survive. The other fifty-eight die--of starvation,\nparasites, or other enemies, or from inclement weather. Now which\ntwo of all shall survive? Those naturally best able to escape their\nenemies or to resist unfavorable influences; in a word, those best\nsuited to their conditions, or, to use Mr. Darwin's words,\n\"conformed to their environment.\"\n\nNow if any individual has varied so as to possess some peculiarity\nwhich enables it even in slight degree to better escape its enemies\nor to resist unfavorable conditions, those of its descendants who\ninherit most markedly this peculiar quality or variation will be the\nmost likely to escape, those without it to perish. If a form varies\nunfavorably, becomes for instance more conspicuous to its enemies,\nit will almost certainly perish. Thus favorable variations tend to\nincrease and become more marked from generation to generation.\n\nNow it has always been known that breeders could produce a race of\nmarkedly peculiar form or characteristics by selecting the\nindividuals possessing this quality in the highest degree and\nbreeding only from these. The breeder depends upon heredity,\nvariation, and his selection of the individuals from which to breed.\nSimilarly in nature new species have arisen through heredity,\nvariation, and a selection according to the laws of nature of those\nvarying in conformity with their environment. And this Mr. Darwin\ncalled natural, in contrast with the breeder's artificial,\n\"selection,\" arising from the \"struggle for existence,\" and\nresulting in what Mr. Spencer has called the \"survival of the\nfittest.\"\n\nLet us take a single illustration. Many of the species of beetles on\noceanic islands have very rudimentary wings, or none at all, and yet\ntheir nearest relatives are winged forms on some neighboring\ncontinent. Mr. Darwin would explain the origin of these evidently\ndistinct wingless species as follows: They are descended from winged\nancestors blown or otherwise transported thither from the\nneighboring continent. But beetles are slow and clumsy fliers, and\non these wind-swept islands those which flew most would be blown out\nto sea and drowned. Those which flew the least, and these would\ninclude the individuals with more poorly developed wings, would\nsurvive. There would thus be a survival in every generation of a\nlarger proportion of those having the poorest wings, and destruction\nof those whose wings were strong, or whose habits most active. We\nhave here a natural selection which must in time produce a species\nwith rudimentary or aborted wings, just as surely as a human\nbreeder, by artificial selection can produce such an animal as a pug\nor a poodle. These, like sin, are a human device; nature should not\nbe held responsible for them.\n\nBut you may urge that the variation which would take place in a\nsingle generation would be, as a rule, too slight to be of any\npractical value to the animal, and could not be fostered by natural\nselection until greatly enhanced by some other means. Let us think a\nmoment. If ten ordinary men run in a foot-race, the two foremost may\nlead by several feet. But if the number of runners be continually\nincreased the finish will be ever closer until finally but an atom\nmore wind or muscle or pluck would make all the difference between\nwinning and losing the prize.\n\nSimilarly the million or more young of any species of insect in a\ngiven area may be said to run a race of which the prize is life, and\nthe losing of which means literally death. The competition is\ninconceivably severe. How indefinitely slight will be the difference\nbetween the poorest of the 2,000 or 20,000 survivors and the best\nof the more than 900,000 which perish. The very slightest favorable\nvariation may make all the difference between life and sure death.\nAnd yet these indefinitely slight variations continued and\naggregated through ages would foot up an immense total divergence.\nThe chalk cliffs of England have been built up of microscopic\nshells.\n\nI have tried to give you very briefly a sketch of the essential\npoints of Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution. But you should all read\nthat marvel of patience, industry, clear insight, close reasoning,\nand grand honesty, the \"Origin of Species.\" I have no time to give\nthe arguments in its favor or to attempt to meet the objections\nwhich may arise in your minds. I ask you to believe only this much;\nthat the theory is accepted with practical unanimity by scientific\nmen because it, and it alone, furnishes an explanation for the facts\nwhich they discover in their daily work. And this is the strongest\nproof of the truth of any accepted theory.\n\nInasmuch as it is accepted by all scientists and largely by the\npublic, it is certainly worth your while to know whether it has any\nbearing on the great moral and religious questions which you are\nconsidering. And in these lectures I shall take for granted, what\nsome scientists still doubt, that man also is a product of\nevolution. For the weight of evidence in favor of this view is\nconstantly increasing, and seems already to strongly preponderate.\nAlso I wish in these lectures to grant all that the most ardent\nevolutionist can possibly claim. Not that I would lower man's\nposition, but I have a continually increasing respect for the\nso-called \"lower animals.\"\n\nNow if the theory of evolution be true, and really only on this\ncondition, life has had a history; and human history began ages\nbefore man's actual appearance on the globe, just as American\nhistory began to be fashioned by Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans\nbefore they set foot even in England. We study history mainly to\ndeduce its laws; and that knowing them we may from the past forecast\nthe future, prepare for its emergencies, and avoid or wisely meet,\nits dangers. And we rely on these laws of history because they are\nthe embodiment of ages of human experience.\n\nWhatever be our system of philosophy we all practically rely on past\nexperience and observation. Fire burns and water drowns. This we\nknow, and this knowledge governs our daily lives, whatever be our\ntheories, or even our ignorance, of the laws of heat and\nrespiration. Now human history is the embodiment of the experience\nof the race; and we study it in the full confidence that, if we can\ndeduce its laws, we can rely on racial experience certainly as\nsafely as on that of the individual. Furthermore, if we can discover\ncertain great movements or currents of human action or progress\nmoving steadily on through past centuries, we have full confidence\nthat these movements will continue in the future. The study of\nhistory should make us seers.\n\nBut the line of human progress is like a mountain road, veering and\ntwisting, and often appearing to turn back upon itself, and having\nmany by-roads, which lead us astray. If we know but a few miles of\nit we cannot tell whether it leads north or south or due west. But\nif from any mountain-top we can gain a clear bird's-eye view of its\nwhole course, we easily distinguish the main road, its turns become\nquite insignificant, we see that it leads as directly as any\nengineering skill could locate it through the mountains to the\nfertile plains and rich harvests beyond.\n\nNow our knowledge of the history of man covers so brief a period\nthat we can scarcely more than hazard a guess as to the trend of\nhuman progress. Many of the most promising social movements are like\nby-roads which, at first less steep and difficult, end sooner or\nlater against impassable obstacles. And even if there be a main line\nof march, advance seems to alternate with retreat, progress with\nretrogression. To illustrate further, the great waves rush onward\nonly to fall back again, and we can hardly tell whether the tide is\nflowing or ebbing.\n\nYet already certain tendencies appear fairly clear. Governments tend\nto become democratic, if we define democracy as \"any form of\ngovernment in which the will of the people finds sovereign\nexpression.\" The tendency of society seems to be toward furnishing\nall its members equality of opportunity to make the most of their\nnatural endowments. But if we are convinced that these statements\nexpress even vaguely the tendency of human development in all its\npast history, we are confident that these tendencies will continue\nin the future for a period somewhat proportional to their time of\ngrowth in the past. If we are wise, we try to make our own lives and\nactions, and those of our fellows, conform to and advance them.\nOtherwise our lives will be thrown away.\n\nBut if the theory of evolution be true, human history is only the\nlast page of the one history of all life. If we are to gain any\nadequate, true, extensive view of human progress, we must read more\nthan this. We must take into account the history of man when he was\nnot yet man. And if we believe in the future continuance of\ntendencies of a few centuries' growth, we shall rest assured of the\npermanence of tendencies which have grown and strengthened through\nthe ages.\n\nOur confidence in the results of historical study is therefore\nproportioned to the extent and thoroughness of the experience which\nthey record, and to the time during which these laws can be proven\nto have held good. If I can make it even fairly probable that these\nlaws, on obedience to which human progress and success seem to\ndepend, are merely quoted from a grander code applicable to all life\nin all times, your confidence in them will be even greater. I trust\nI can prove to you that the animal kingdom has not drifted aimlessly\nat the mercy of every wind and tide and current of circumstance. I\nhope to show that along one line it has from the beginning through\nthe ages held a steady course straight onward, and that deviation\nfrom this course has always led to failure or degeneration. From so\nvast a history we may hope to deduce some of the great laws of true\nsuccess in life. Furthermore, if along this central line, at the\nhead of which man stands, there always has been progress, we cannot\ndoubt that future progress will be as certain, and perhaps far more\nrapid. In all the struggle of life we shall have the sure hope of\nsuccess and victory; if not for ourselves still for those who shall\ncome after us. \"We are saved by hope.\" And we may be confident that\nthis hope will never make us ashamed.\n\nFinally, even from our present knowledge of the past progress of\nlife we shall hope to catch hints at least that man's only path to\nhis destined goal is the straight and narrow road pointed out in the\nBible. If in this we are even fairly successful we shall find a\nrelation and bond between the Bible and Science worthy of all\nconsideration. And this is the only agreement which can ever satisfy\nus.\n\nIf I wished to bring before you a view of the development of man, I\nshould best choose individuals or families from various periods of\nhuman history from the earliest times down to the present. I should\ntry to tell you how they looked and lived. But if anyone should\nattempt to condense into three lectures such a history of even one\nline of the human race, you would probably think him insane. Even if\nhe succeeded in giving a fairly clear view of the different stages,\nthe successive stages would be so remote from one another, such vast\nchanges would necessarily remain unnoticed or unexplained that you\nwould hardly believe that they could have any genetic relation or\nbelong to one developmental series.\n\nBut the history which I must attempt to condense for you is measured\nby ages, and the successive terms of the series will be indefinitely\nmore remote from each other than the life and thoughts of Lincoln or\nWashington from those of our most primitive Aryan ancestor or of the\nrudest savage of the Stone Age. The series must appear exceedingly\ndisconnected. Systems of organs will apparently spring suddenly into\nexistence, and we shall have no time to trace their origin or\nearlier development. Even if we had an abundance of time many gaps\nwould still remain; for the forms, which according to our theory\nmust have occupied their place, have long since disappeared and\nleft no trace nor sign. We have generally no conception at all of\nthe amount of extermination and degeneration which have taken place\nin past ages.\n\nI grant frankly that I do not believe that the forms which I have\nselected represent exactly the ancestors of man. They have all been\nmore or less modified. I claim only that in the balance and relative\ndevelopment of their organic systems--muscular, digestive, nervous,\netc.--they give us a very fair idea of what our ancestor at each\nstage must have been. But it is on this balance and relative\ndevelopment of the different systems, that is, whether an animal is\nmore reproductive, digestive, or nervous, that my argument will in\nthe main be based.\n\nBut if the older ancestors have so generally disappeared, and their\nsurviving relatives have been so greatly modified, how can we make\neven a shrewd guess at the ancestry of higher forms? The genealogy\nof the animal kingdom has been really the study of centuries,\nalthough the earlier zo\u00f6logists did not know that this was to be the\nresult of their labors. The first work of the naturalist was\nnecessarily to classify the plants and animals which he found, and\ncatalogue and tabulate them so that they might be easily recognized,\nand that later discovered forms might readily find a place in the\nsystem. Hypotheses and theories were looked upon with suspicion.\n\"Even Linn\u00e6us,\" says Romanes, \"was express in his limitations of\ntrue scientific work in natural history to the collecting and\narranging of species of plants and animals.\" The question, \"What is\nit?\" came first; then, \"How did it come to be what it is?\" We are\njust awakening to the question, \"Why this progressive system of\nforms, and what does it all mean?\"\n\nLet us experiment a little in forming our own classification of a\nfew vertebrates. We see a bat flying through the air. We mistake it\nfor a bird. But a glance at it shows that it is a mammal. It is\ncovered with hair. It has fore and hind legs. Its wings are\nmembranes stretched between the fingers and along the sides of the\nbody. It has teeth. It suckles its young. In all these respects it\ndiffers from birds. It differs from mammals only in its wings. But\nwe remember that flying squirrels have a membrane stretching along\nthe sides of the body and serving as a parachute, though not as\nwings. We naturally consider the wings as a sort of after-thought\nsuperinduced on the mammalian structure. We do not hesitate to call\nit a mammal.\n\nThe whale makes us more trouble; it certainly looks remarkably like\na fish. But the fin of its tail is horizontal, not vertical. Its\nfront flippers differ altogether from the corresponding fins of\nfish; their bones are the same as those occurring in the forelegs of\nmammals, only shorter and more crowded together. Later we find that\nit has lungs, and a heart with four chambers instead of only two, as\nin fish. The vertebr\u00e6 of its backbone are not biconcave, but flat in\nfront and behind. And, finally, we discover that it suckles its\nyoung. It, too, is in all its deep-seated characteristics a mammal.\nIt is fish-like only in characteristics which it might easily have\nacquired in adaptation to its aquatic life. And there are other\naquatic mammals, like the seals, in which these characteristics are\nmuch less marked. Their adaptation has evidently not gone so far.\n\nNow the first attempts resulted in artificial classifications, much\nlike our grouping of bats with birds and whales with fish. All\nanimals, like coral animals and starfishes, whose similar parts were\narranged in lines radiating from a centre, were united as radiates,\nhowever much they might differ in internal structure and grade of\norganization. But this radiate structure proved again to be largely\na matter of adaptation.\n\nPractically all animals having a heavy calcareous shell were grouped\nwith the snails and oysters as mollusks. But the barnacle did not\nfit well with other mollusks. Its shell was entirely different. It\nhad several pairs of legs; and no mollusk has legs. The barnacle is\nevidently a sessile crab or better crustacean. Its molluscan\ncharacteristics were only skin-deep, evidently an adaptation to a\nmode of life like that of mollusks. The old artificial systems were\nbased too much on merely external characteristics, the results of\nadaptation. When the internal anatomy had been thoroughly studied\ntheir groups had to be rearranged.\n\nReptiles and amphibia were at first united in one class because of\ntheir resemblance in external form. Our common salamanders look so\nmuch like lizards that they generally pass by this name. But the\nyoung salamander, like all amphibia, breathes by gills, its skeleton\ndiffers greatly from, and is far weaker than, that of the lizard,\nand there are important differences in the circulatory and other\nsystems. Moreover, practically all amphibia differ from all reptiles\nin these respects. Evidently the fact that the alligator and many\nsnakes and turtles (of which neither the young nor the embryos ever\nbreathe by gills) live almost entirely in the water, is no better\nreason for classifying these with amphibia than to call a whale a\nfish, and not a mammal, because of its form and aquatic life.\n\nWhen the comparative anatomy of fish, amphibia, and reptiles had\nbeen carefully studied it was evident that the amphibia stood far\nnearer the fish in general structure, while the higher reptiles\nclosely approached birds. Then it was noticed that our common fish\nformed a fairly well-defined group, but that the ganoids, including\nthe sturgeons, gar-pikes, and some others, had at least traces of\namphibian characteristics. Such generalized forms, with the\ncharacteristics of the class less sharply marked, were usually by\ncommon consent placed at the bottom of the class. And this suited\nwell their general structure, while in particular characteristics\nthey were often more highly organized than higher groups of the same\nclass.\n\nThe pal\u00e6ontologist found that the oldest fossil forms belonged to\nthese generalized groups, and that more highly specialized\nforms--that is, those in which the special class distinctions were\nmore sharply and universally marked--were of later geological\norigin. Thus the oldest fish were most like our present ganoids and\nsharks, though differing much from both. Our common teleost fish,\nlike perch and cod, appeared much later. The oldest bird, the\narch\u00e6opteryx, had a long tail like that of a lizard, and teeth; and\nthus stood in many respects almost midway between birds and\nreptiles. And most of the earliest forms were \"comprehensive,\"\nuniting the characteristics of two or more later groups. Thus as the\nclassification became more natural, based on a careful comparison of\nthe whole anatomy of the animals, its order was found to coincide in\ngeneral with that of geological succession.\n\nThen the zo\u00f6logist began to ask and investigate how the animal grew\nin the egg and attained its definite form. And this study of\nembryology brought to light many new and interesting facts. Agassiz\nespecially emphasized and maintained the universality of the fact\nthat there was a remarkable parallelism between embryos of later\nforms and adults of old or fossil groups. The embryos of higher\nforms, he said, pass through and beyond certain stages of structure,\nwhich are permanent in lower and older members of the same group.\n\nYou remember that the fin on the tail of a fish is as a rule\nbilobed. Now the backbone of a perch or cod ends at a point in the\nend of the tail opposite the angle between the two lobes, without\nextending out into either of them. In the shark it extends almost to\nthe end of the upper lobe. Now we have seen that sharks and ganoids\nare older than cod. In the embryo of the cod or perch the backbone\nhas, at an early stage, the same position as in the shark or ganoid;\nonly at a later stage does it attain its definite position.\n\nSo Agassiz says the young lepidosteus (a ganoid fish), long after it\nis hatched, exhibits in the form of its tail characters thus far\nknown only among the fossil fishes of the Devonian period. The\nembryology of turtles throws light upon the fossil chelonians. It is\nalready known that the embryonic changes of frogs and toads coincide\nwith what is known of their succession in past ages. The\ncharacteristics of extinct genera of mammals exhibit everywhere\nindications that their living representatives in early life resemble\nthem more than they do their own parents. A minute comparison of a\nyoung elephant with any mastodon will show this most fully, not only\nin the peculiarities of their teeth, but even in the proportion of\ntheir limbs, their toes, etc. It may therefore be considered as\na general fact that the phases of development of all living\nanimals correspond to the order of succession of their extinct\nrepresentatives in past geological times. The above statements are\nquoted almost word for word from Professor Agassiz's \"Essay on\nClassification.\" The larv\u00e6 of barnacles and other more degraded\nparasitic crustacea are almost exactly like those of Crustacea in\ngeneral. The embryos of birds have a long tail containing almost or\nquite as many vertebr\u00e6 as that of arch\u00e6opteryx. But most of these\nnever reach their full development but are absorbed into the pelvis,\nor into the \"ploughshare\" bone supporting the tail feathers. Thus\nolder forms may be said to have retained throughout life a condition\nonly embryonic in their higher relatives. And the natural\nclassification gave the order not only of geological succession but\nalso of stages of embryonic development. Thus the system of\nclassification improved continually, although more and more\nintermediate forms, like arch\u00e6opteryx, were discovered, and certain\naberrant groups could find no permanent resting-place.\n\nBut why should the generalized comprehensive forms stand at the\nbottom rather than the top of the systematic arrangement of their\nclasses? Why should the system of classification coincide with the\norder of geologic occurrence, and this with the series of embryonic\nstages? Above all, why should the embryos of bird and perch form\ntheir tails by such a roundabout method? Why should the embryo of\nthe bird have the tail of a lizard? No one could give any\nsatisfactory explanation, although the facts were undoubted.\n\nMr. Darwin's theory was the one impulse needed to crystallize these\ndisconnected facts into one comprehensible whole. The connecting\nlink was everywhere common descent, difference was due to the\ncontinual variation and divergence of their ancestors. The\nclassification, which all were seeking, was really the ancestral\ntree of the animal kingdom. Forms more generalized should be placed\nlower down on the ancestral tree, and must have had an earlier\ngeological occurrence because they represented more nearly the\nancestors of the higher. But this explains also the facts of\nembryonic development.\n\nAccording to Mr. Darwin's theory all the species of higher animals\nhave developed from unicellular ancestors. It had long been known\nthat all higher forms start in life as single cells, egg and\nspermatozoon. And these, fused in the process of fertilization, form\nstill a single cell. And when this single cell proceeds through\nsuccessive embryonic stages to develop into an adult individual it\nnaturally, through force of hereditary habit, so to speak, treads\nthe same path which its ancestors followed from the unicellular\ncondition to their present point of development. Thus higher forms\nshould be expected to show traces of their early ancestry in their\nembryonic life. Older and lower adult forms should represent\npersistent embryonic stages of higher. It could not well be\notherwise.\n\nBut the path which the embryo has to follow from the egg to the\nadult form is continually lengthening as life advances ever higher.\nFrom egg to sponge is, comparatively speaking, but a step; it is a\nlong march from the egg to the earthworm; and the vertebrate embryo\nmakes a vast journey. But embryonic life is and must remain short.\nHence in higher forms the ancestral stages will often be slurred\nover and very incompletely represented. And the embryo may, and\noften does, shorten the path by \"short-cuts\" impossible to its\noriginal ancestor. Still it will in general hold true, and may be\nrecognized as a law of vast importance, that any individual during\nhis embryonic life repeats very briefly the different stages through\nwhich his ancestors have passed in their development since the\nbeginning of life. Or, briefly stated, ontogenesis, or the embryonic\ndevelopment of the individual, is a brief recapitulation of\nphylogenesis, or the ancestral development of the phylum or group.\n\nThe illustration and proof of this law is the work of the\nembryologist. We have time to draw only one or two illustrations\nfrom the embryonic development of birds. We have already seen that\nthe embryonic bird has the long tail of his reptilian ancestor. In\nearly embryonic life it has gill-slits leading from the pharynx to\nthe outside of the neck like those through which the water passes in\nthe respiration of fish. The Eustachian tube and the canal of the\nexternal ear of man, separated only by the \"drum,\" are nothing but\nsuch an old persistent gill-slit. No gills ever develop in these,\nbut the great arteries run to them, and indeed to all parts of the\nembryo, on almost precisely the same general plan as in the adult\nfish. Only later is the definite avian circulation gradually\nacquired.\n\nThis law is even more strikingly illustrated in the embryonic\ndevelopment of the vertebral column and skull, if we had time to\ntrace their development. And the development of the excretory system\npoints to an ancestor far more primitive than even the fish. Our\nembryonic development is one of the very strongest evidences of our\nlowly origin.\n\nThus we have three sources of information for the study of animal\ngenealogy. First, the comparative anatomy of all the different\ngroups of animals; second, their comparative embryology; and third,\ntheir pal\u00e6ontological history. Each source has its difficulties or\ndefects. But taken all together they give us a genealogical tree\nwhich is in the main points correct, though here and there very\ndefective and doubtful in detail. The points in which we are left\nmost in doubt in regard to each ancestor are its modes of life and\nlocomotion, and body form. But these may temporarily vary\nconsiderably without affecting to any great extent the general plan\nof structure and the line of development of the most important\ndeep-seated organs.\n\nI have chosen a line composed of forms taken from the comparative\nanatomical series. All such present existing forms have probably\nbeen modified during the lapse of ages. But I shall try to tell you\nwhen they have diverged noticeably from the structure of the\nprimitive ancestor of the corresponding stage. It is much safer for\nus to study concrete, actual forms than imaginary ones, however real\nmay have been the former existence of the latter. And, after all,\ntheir lateral divergence is of small account compared with the great\nupward and onward march of life, to the right and left of which they\nhave remained stationary or retrograded somewhat, like the tribes\nwhich remained on the other side of Jordan and never entered the\nPromised Land.\n\nTo recapitulate: Our question is the Whence and the Whither of man.\nTo this question the Bible gives a clear and definite answer. Can\nScience also give an answer, and is this in the main in accord with\nthe answer of Scripture? Science can answer the question only by the\nhistorical method of tracing the history of life in the past and\nobserving the goal toward which it tends. If the evolution theory be\ntrue, the record of human achievement and progress forms only one\nshort chapter in the history of the ages. If from the records of\nman's little span of life on the globe we can deduce laws of history\non whose truth we can rely, with how much greater confidence and\ncertainty may we rely on laws which have governed all life since its\nearliest appearance?--always provided that such can be found.\n\nOur first effort must therefore be to trace the great line of\ndevelopment through a few of its most characteristic stages from the\nsimplest living beings up to man. This will be our work in the three\nsucceeding lectures. And to these I must ask you to bring a large\nstore of patience. Anatomical details are at best dry and\nuninteresting. But these dry facts of anatomy form the foundation on\nwhich all our arguments and hopes must rest.\n\nBut if you will think long and carefully even of anatomical facts,\nyou will see in and behind them something more and grander than\nthey. You will catch glimpses of the divinity of Nature. Most of us\ntravel threescore years and ten stone-blind in a world of marvellous\nbeauty. Why does the artist see so much more in every fence-corner\nand on every hill-side than we, set face to face with the grandest\nlandscapes? Primarily, I believe, because he is sympathetic, and\nlooks on Nature as a comrade as near and dear as any human sister\nand companion. As Professor Huxley has said, \"they get on rarely\ntogether.\" She speaks to the artist; to us she is dumb, and ought to\nbe, for we are boorishly careless of her and her teachings.\n\nNature, to be known, must be loved. And though you have all the\nknowledge of a von Humboldt, and do not love her, you will never\nunderstand her or her teachings. You will go through life with her,\nand yet parted from her as by an adamantine wall.\n\nI do not suppose that the author of the book of Job had ever studied\ngeology, or mineralogy, or biology, but read him, and see whether\nthis old prince of scientific heroes had loved, and understood, and\ncaught the spirit of Nature. And what a grand, free spirit it was,\nand what a giant it made of him. I do not believe that Paul ever had\na special course of anatomy or botany. But if he had not pondered\nlong and lovingly on the structure of his body, and the germination\nof the seed, he never could have written the twelfth and fifteenth\nchapters of the first letter to the Corinthians. And time fails to\nspeak of David and all the writers of the Psalms, and of those\nheroic souls misnamed the \"Minor\" Prophets.\n\nStudy the teachings of our Lord. How he must have considered the\nlilies of the field, and that such a tiny seed as that of the\nmustard could have produced so great an herb, and noticed and\nthought on the thorns and the tares and the wheat, and watched the\nsparrows, and pondered and wondered how the birds were fed. All his\nteaching was drawn from Nature. And all the study in the world could\nnever have taught him what he knew, if it had not been a loving and\nappreciative study.\n\nThere is one strange and interesting passage in John's Gospel, xv.\n1: \"I am the true vine.\" My father used to tell us that the Greek\nword [Greek: al\u00eathin\u00ea], rendered true, is usually employed of the\ngenuine in distinction from the counterfeit, the reality in\ndistinction from the shadow and image. Is not this perhaps the clew\nto our Lord's use of natural imagery? Nature was always the\npresentation to his senses of the divine thought and purpose. He\nstudied the words of the ancient Scripture, he found the same words\nand teachings clearly and concretely embodied in the processes of\nNature. The interpretation of the Parable of the Sower was no mere\nplay of fancy to him; it was the genuine and fundamental truth,\ndeeper and more real than the existence of the sower, the soil, and\nthe seed. The spiritual truth was the substance; the tangible soil\nand seed really only the shadow. And thus all Nature was to him\ndivine.\n\nWe all of us need to offer the prayer of the blind man, \"Lord, that\nour eyes may be opened.\" Let us learn, too, from the old heathen\ngiant, Ant\u00e6us, who, after every defeat and fall, rose strengthened\nand vivified from contact with his mother Earth. You will experience\nin life many a desperate struggle, many a hard fall. There is at\nsuch times nothing in the world so strengthening, healing, and\nlife-giving as the thoughts and encouragements which Nature pours\ninto the hearts and minds of her loving disciples. She will set you\non your feet again, infused with new life, filled with an\nunconquerable spirit, with unfaltering courage, and an iron will to\nfight once more and win. In every battle her inspiring words will\nring in your ears, and she will never fail you. We may not see her\ndeepest realities, her rarest treasures of thought and wisdom; but\nif we will listen lovingly for her voice, we may be assured that she\nwill speak to us many a word of cheer and encouragement, of warning\nand exhortation. For, to paraphrase the language of the nineteenth\nPsalm, \"She has no speech nor language, her voice is not heard. But\nher rule is gone out throughout all the earth, and her words to the\nend of the world.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nPROTOZOA TO WORMS: CELLS, TISSUES, AND ORGANS\n\n\nThe first and lowest form in our ancestral series is the amoeba, a\nlittle fresh-water animal from 1/500 to 1/1000 of an inch in\ndiameter. Under the microscope it looks like a little drop of\nmucilage. This semifluid, mucilaginous substance is the Protoplasm.\nIts outer portion is clear and transparent, its inner more granular.\nIn the inner portion is a little spheroidal body, the nucleus. This\nis certainly of great importance in the life of the animal; but just\nwhat it does, or what is its relation to the surrounding protoplasm\nwe do not yet know. There is also a little cavity around which the\nprotoplasm has drawn back, and on which it will soon close in again,\nso that it pulsates like a heart. It is continually taking in water\nfrom the body, or the outside, and driving it out again, and thus\naids in respiration and excretion. The animal has no organs in the\nproper sense of the word, and yet it has the rudiments of all the\nfunctions which we possess.\n\nA little projection of the outer, clearer layer of protoplasm, a\npseudopodium, appears; into this the whole animal may flow and thus\nadvance a step, or the projection may be withdrawn. And this power\nof change of form is a lower grade of the contractility of our\nmuscular cells. Prick it with a needle and it contracts. It\nrecognizes its food even at a microscopic distance; it appears\ntherefore to feel and perceive. Perhaps we might say that it has a\nmind and will of its own. It is safer to say that it is irritable,\nthat is, it reacts to stimuli too feeble to be regarded as the cause\nof its reaction. It engulfs microscopic plants, and digests them in\nthe internal protoplasm by the aid of an acid secretion. It breathes\noxygen, and excretes carbonic acid and urea, through its whole body\nsurface. Its mode of gaining the energy which it manifests is\ntherefore apparently like our own, by combustion of food material.\n\n  [Illustration: 1. AMOEBA PROTEUS. HERTWIG, FROM LEIDY.\n  _ek_, ectosarc; _en_, endosarc; _N_, food particles;\n  _n_, nucleus; _cv_, contractile vesicle.]\n\nIt grows and reaches a certain size, then constricts itself in the\nmiddle and divides into two. The old amoeba has divided into two\nyoung ones, and there is no parent left to die, and death, except by\nviolence, does not occur. But this absence of death in other rather\ndistant relatives of the amoeba, and probably in the amoeba\nitself, holds true only provided that, after a series of\nself-divisions, reproduction takes place after another mode. Two\nrather small and weak individuals fuse together in one animal of\nrenewed vigor, which soon divides into two larger and stronger\ndescendants. We have here evidently a process corresponding to the\nfertilization of the egg in higher animals; yet there is no egg,\nspermatozoon, or sex.\n\nIt is a little mass of protoplasm containing a nucleus, and\ncorresponds, therefore, to one of the cells, most closely to the\negg-cell or spermatozoon of higher animals. If every living being is\ndescended from a single cell, the fertilized egg, it is not hard to\nbelieve that all higher animals are descended from an ancestor\nhaving the general structure or lack of structure of the amoeba.\n\nBut is the amoeba really structureless? Probably it has an\nexceedingly complex structure, but our microscopes and technique are\nstill too imperfect to show more than traces of it. Says Hertwig:\n\"Protoplasm is not a single chemical substance, however complicated,\nbut a mixture of many substances, which we must picture to ourselves\nas finest particles united in a wonderfully complicated structure.\"\nTruly protoplasm is, to borrow Mephistopheles' expression concerning\nblood, a \"quite peculiar juice.\" And the complexity of the nucleus\nis far more evident than that of the protoplasm. Is protoplasm\nitself the result of a long development? If so, out of what and how\ndid it develop? We cannot even guess. But the beginning of life may,\napparently must, have been indefinitely farther back than the\nsimplest now existing form. The study of the amoeba cannot fail to\nraise a host of questions in the mind of any thoughtful man.\n\nAs we have here the animal reduced, so to speak, to lowest terms, it\nmay be well to examine a little more closely into its physiology and\ncompare it briefly with our own.\n\nThe amoeba eats food as we do, but the food is digested directly\nin the internal protoplasm instead of in a stomach; and once\ndigested it diffuses to all parts of the cell; here it is built up\ninto compounds of a more complex structure, and forms an integral\npart of the animal body. The dead food particle has been transformed\ninto living protoplasm, the continually repeated miracle of life.\nBut it does not remain long in this condition. In contact with the\noxygen from the air it is soon oxidized, burned up to furnish the\nenergy necessary for the motion and irritability of the body. We are\nall of us low-temperature engines. The digestive function exists in\nall animals merely to bring the food into a soluble, diffusible\nform, so that it can pass to all parts of the body and be used for\nfuel or growth. In our body a circulatory system is necessary to\ncarry food and oxygen to the cells and to remove their waste. For\nmost of our cells lie at a distance from the stomach, lungs, and\nkidney. But in a small animal the circulatory system is often\nunnecessary and fails. Breathing and excretion take place through\nthe whole surface of the body. The body of the frog is devoid of\nscales, so that the blood is separated from the surrounding water\nonly by a thin membrane, and it breathes and excretes to a certain\nextent in the same way.\n\nBut another factor has to be considered. If we double each dimension\nof our amoeba, we shall increase its surface four times, its mass\neight-fold. Now the power of absorbing oxygen and excreting waste is\nevidently proportional to the excretory and respiratory surface, and\nmuch the same is true of digestion. But the amount of oxygen\nrequired, and of waste to be removed is proportional to the mass;\nfor every particle of protoplasm requires food and oxygen, and\nproduces waste. The particles of protoplasm in our new, larger\namoeba can therefore receive only half as much oxygen as before,\nand rid themselves of their waste only half as fast. There is\ndanger of what in our bodies would be called suffocation and\nblood-poisoning. The amoeba having attained a certain size meets\nthis emergency by dividing into two small individuals, the division\nis a physical adaptation. But the many-celled animal cannot do this;\nit must keep its cells together. It gains the additional surface by\nfolding and plaiting. And the complicated internal structure of\nhigher animals is in its last analysis such a folding and plaiting\nin order to maintain the proper ratio between the exposed surface of\nthe cells and their mass. And each cell in our bodies lives in one\nsense its own individual life, only bathed in the lymph and\nreceiving from it its food and oxygen instead of taking it from the\nwater.\n\nBut in another sense the cells of our body live an entirely\ndifferent life, for they form a community. Division of labor has\ntaken place between them, they are interdependent, correlated with\none another, subject therefore to the laws of the whole community or\norganism. There are many respects in which it is impossible to\ncompare Robinson Crusoe with a workman in a huge watch factory; yet\nthey are both men.\n\nBoth the amoeba and we live in the closest relation to our\nenvironment, and conformity to it is evidently necessary: life has\nbeen defined as the adjustment of internal relations to external\nconditions. We continually take food, use it for energy and growth,\nand return the simpler waste compounds. We are all of us, as\nProfessor Huxley has said, \"whirlpools on the surface of Nature;\"\nwhen the whirl of exchange of particles ceases we die. We have seen\nthat the fusion of two amoeb\u00e6 results in a new rejuvenated\nindividual. Why is a mixture of two protoplasms better than one? We\ncan frame hypotheses; we know nothing about it. What of the mind of\nthe amoeba? A host of questions throng upon us and we can answer\nno one of them. All the great questions concerning life confront us\nhere in the lowest term of the animal series, and appear as\ninsoluble as in the highest.\n\nOur second ancestral form is also a fresh-water animal, the hydra.\nThis is a little, vase-shaped animal, which usually lives attached\nto grass-stems or sticks, but has the power to free itself and hang\non the surface of the water or to slowly creep on the bottom. The\nmouth is at the top of the vase, and the simple, undivided cavity\nwithin the vase is the digestive cavity. Around the mouth is a ring\nof from four to ten hollow tentacles, whose cavities communicate\nfreely underneath with the digestive cavity. Not only is food taken\nin at the mouth, but indigestible material is thrown out here. The\nanimal may thus be compared to a nearly cylindrical sack with a\ncircle of tubes attached to it above. The body consists of two\nlayers of cells, the ectoderm on the outside and the entoderm lining\nthe digestive cavity. Between these two is a structureless, elastic\nmembrane, which tends to keep the body moderately expanded.\n\nThe food is captured by the tentacles; but digestion takes place\nonly partially in the digestive cavity, for each surrounding cell\nengulfs small particles of food and digests them within itself. The\nentodermal cells behave in this respect much like a colony of\namoeb\u00e6. The cells of both layers have at their bases long muscular\nfibrils, those of the ectodermal cells running longitudinally, those\nof the entoderm transversely. The animal can thus contract its body\nin both directions, or, if the body contain water and the transverse\nmuscles are contracted, the pressure of the water lengthens the body\nand tends to extend the tentacles.\n\nOn the outside of the elastic membrane, just beneath the ectoderm,\nis a plexus or cobweb of nervous cells and fibrils. As in every\nnervous system, three elements are here to be found. 1. An afferent\nor sensory nerve-fibril, which under adequate stimulus is set in\nvibration by some cell of the epidermis or ectoderm, which is\ntherefore called a sensory cell. 2. A central or ganglion\ncell, which receives the sensory impulse, translates it into\nconsciousness, and is the seat of whatever powers of perception,\nthought, or will the animal possesses. This also gives rise to the\nefferent or motor impulses, which are conveyed by (3) a motor fibril\nto the corresponding muscle, exciting its contraction. But there are\nalso nerve-fibrils connecting the different ganglion cells, so that\nthey may act in unison. In the higher animals we shall find these\ncentral or ganglion cells condensed in one or a few masses or\nganglia. But here they are scattered over the whole surface of the\nelastic supporting membrane.\n\nThe reproductive organs for the production of eggs and spermatozoa\nform little protuberances on the outside of the body below the\ntentacles. But hydra reproduces mostly by budding; new individuals\ngrowing out of the side of the old one, like branches from the trunk\nof a tree, but afterward breaking free and leading an independent\nlife. There are special forms of cells besides those described;\nnettle cells for capturing food, interstitial cells, etc., but these\ndo not concern us.\n\nThe distance from the single-celled amoeba to hydra is vast,\nprobably really greater than that between any other successive terms\nof our series. It may therefore be useful to consider one or two\nintermediate forms and the parallel embryonic stages of higher\nanimals, and to see how the higher many-celled animal originates\nfrom the unicellular stage.\n\nThe amoeba is an illustration of a great kingdom of similar,\npractically unicellular forms, which have played no unimportant part\nin the geological history of the globe. These are the protozoa. They\ninclude, first of all, the foraminifera, which usually have shells\ncomposed of carbonate of lime. These shells, settling to the bottom\nof the ocean, have accumulated in vast beds, and when compacted and\nraised above the surface, form chalk, limestone, or marble,\naccording to the degree and mode of their hardening.\n\nThe protozoa include also the flagellata, a great, very poorly\ndefined mass of forms occupying the boundary between the plant and\nanimal kingdoms. They are usually unicellular, and their protoplasm\nis surrounded by a thin, structureless membrane. This prevents their\nputting out pseudopodia as organs of motion. Instead of these they\nhave at one end of the ovoid or pear-shaped body a long,\nwhiplash-like process or thread, a flagellum, and by swinging this\nthey propel themselves through the water. These flagellata seem to\nhave a rather marked tendency to form colonies. The first individual\ngives rise to others by division. But the division is not complete;\nthe new individuals remain connected by the undivided rear end of\nthe body. And such a colony may come to contain a large number of\nindividuals.\n\n  [Illustration: 2. MAGOSPH\u00c6RA PLANULA. LANG, FROM HAECKEL.]\n\nSuch a colony is represented by magosph\u00e6ra. This is a microscopic\nglobular form, discovered by Professor Haeckel on the coast of\nNorway. It consists of a large number of conical or pear-shaped\nindividual cells, whose apices are turned toward the centre of the\nsphere. The cells are cemented together by a mucilaginous substance.\nAround their exposed larger ends, which form the surface of the\nsphere, are rows of flagella, by whose united action the colony\nrolls through the water. After a time each individual absorbs its\nflagella, the colony is broken up, the different individuals settle\nto the bottom, and each gives rise by division to a new colony. This\ngroup of cells may be considered as a colony or as an individual.\nEach term is defensible.\n\nVolvox is also a spheroidal organism, composed often of a very large\nnumber of flagellated cells. But it differs from magosph\u00e6ra in\ncertain important respects. In the first place its cells have\nchlorophyl, the green coloring matter of plants. It lives therefore\non unorganized fluid nourishment, carbon dioxide, nitrates, etc. It\nis a plant. But certain characteristics render it probable that it\nonce lived on solid food and was therefore an animal. For where\nalmost the sole difference between plants and animals is in the\nfluid or solid character of their food, a change from the one form\ninto the other is not as difficult or improbable as one might\nnaturally think. And plants and animals are here so near together,\nand travelling by roads so nearly parallel, that, even if volvox\nnever was an animal, it might still serve very well to illustrate a\nstage through which animals must have passed.\n\nThe cells of volvox do not form a solid mass, but have arranged\nthemselves in a single layer on the outer surface of the sphere. For\na time, under favorable circumstances, volvox reproduces very much\nlike magosph\u00e6ra, and each cell can give rise to a new, many-celled\nindividual. But after a time, especially under unfavorable\ncircumstances, a new mode of reproduction appears. Certain cells\nwithdraw from the outer layer into the interior of the colony. Here\nthey are nourished by the other cells and develop into true\nreproductive elements, eggs and spermatozoa. Fertilization, that is,\nthe union of egg and spermatozoon, or mainly of their nuclei, takes\nplace; and the fertilized egg develops into a new organism. But the\nother cells, which have been all the time nourishing these, seem now\nto lack nutriment, strength, or vitality to give rise to a new\ncolony. They die.\n\nWe find thus in volvox division of labor and corresponding\ndifference of structure or differentiation; certain cells retain the\npower of fusing with other corresponding cells, and thus of\nrejuvenescence and of giving rise to a new organism. And these\ncells, forming a series through all generations, are evidently\nimmortal like the protozoa. Natural death cannot touch them. These\nare the reproductive cells. The other cells nourish and transport\nthem and carry on the work of excretion and respiration. These\nlatter correspond practically to our whole body. We call them\nsomatic cells. In volvox they are entirely subservient to, and exist\nfor, the reproductive cells, and die when they have completed their\nservice of these. The body is here only a vehicle for ova.\nFurthermore, in volvox there has arisen such an interdependence of\ncells that we can no longer speak of it as a colony. The colony has\nbecome an individual by division of labor and the resulting\ndifferentiation in structure.\n\nBut hydra gives us but a poor idea of the coelenterata, to which\nkingdom it belongs. The higher coelenterata have nearly or quite\nall the tissues of higher animals--muscular, connective, glandular,\netc. And by tissues we mean groups of cells modified in form and\nstructure for the performance of a special work or function. The\nprotozoa developed the cell for all time to come, the coelenterata\ndeveloped the tissues which still compose our bodies. But they had\nthem mainly in a diffuse form. A sort of digestive and reproductive\nsystem they did possess. But the work of arranging these tissues and\ncondensing them into compact organs was to be done by the next\nhigher group, the worms.\n\nLet us now take a glance at certain stages of embryonic development\nwhich correspond to these earliest ancestral forms. We should expect\nsome such correspondence from the fact already stated that the\nembryonic development of the individual is a brief recapitulation of\nthe ancestral development of the species or larger group. The egg of\nthe lowest vertebrate, amphioxus, shows these changes in a simple\nand apparently primitive form.\n\n  [Illustration: 3. IMMATURE EGG-SHELL FROM OVARY OF ECHINODERM.\n  HATSCHEK, FROM HERTWIG.]\n\nThe fertilized egg of any animal consists of a single cell, a little\nmass of protoplasm containing a nucleus and surrounded by a\nstructureless membrane. The egg is globular. The nucleus undergoes\ncertain very peculiar, still but little understood, changes and\ndivides into two. The protoplasm also soon divides into two masses\nclustering each around its own nucleus. The plane of division will\nbe marked around the outside by a circular furrow, but the cells\nwill still remain united by a large part of the membrane which\nbounds their adjacent, newly formed, internal faces.\n\nLet us suppose that the egg lay so that the first plane of division\nwas vertical and extending north and south. Each cell or half of the\negg will divide into two precisely as before. The new plane of\ndivision will be vertical, but extending east and west. Each plane\npasses through the centre of the egg, and the four cells are of the\nsame form and size, like much-rounded quarters of an orange. The\nthird plane will lie horizontal or equatorial, and will divide each\nof these quarters into an upper and lower octant. The cells keep on\ndividing rapidly, the eight form sixteen, then thirty-two, etc. The\nsharp angle by which the cells met at the centre has become rounded\noff, and has left a little space, the segmentation cavity, filled\nwith fluid in the middle of the embryo. The cells continue to press\nor be crowded away from the centre and form a layer one cell deep on\nthe surface of the sphere.\n\nThis embryo, resembling a hollow rubber ball filled with fluid, is\ncalled a blastosphere. It corresponds in structure with the fully\ndeveloped volvox, except, of course, in lacking reproductive cells.\n\n  [Illustration: 4. GASTRULA. HATSCHEK, FROM HERTWIG.\n  Outer layer is the ectoderm; inner layer, the entoderm; internal\n  cavity, the archenteron; mouth of cavity, blastopore.]\n\nIf the rubber ball has a hole in it so that I can squeeze out the\nwater, I can thrust the one-half into the other, and change the ball\ninto a double-walled cup. A similar change takes place in the\nembryo. The cells of the lower half of the blastosphere are slightly\nlarger than those of the upper half. This lower hemisphere flattens\nand then thrusts itself, or is invaginated, into the upper\nhemisphere of smaller cells and forms its lining. This cup-shaped\nembryo is called the gastrula. The cup deepens somewhat and becomes\novoid. Take a boiled egg, make a hole in the smaller end and remove\nthe yolk, and you have a passable model of a gastrula. The shell\ncorresponds to the ectoderm or outer layer of smaller cells; the\nlayer of \"white\" represents the entoderm or lining of larger cells.\nThe space occupied by the yolk corresponds to the archenteron or\nprimitive digestive cavity; and the opening at the end to the\nprimitive mouth or blastopore. Ectoderm and entoderm unite around\nthe mouth. Both the blastosphere and gastrula often swim freely by\nflagella.\n\nYou can hardly have failed to notice how closely the gastrula\ncorresponds to a hydra, and many facts lead us to believe that the\nstill earlier ancestor of the hydra was free swimming, and that the\ntentacles are a later development correlated with its adult sessile\nlife. Yet we must not forget that the hydra is even now not quite\nsessile, it moves somewhat. And our ancestor was almost certainly a\nfree swimming gastr\u00e6a, or hypothetical form corresponding in form\nand structure to the gastrula. The ancestor of man never settled\ndown lazily into a sessile life.\n\nBut how is an adult worm or vertebrate formed out of such a\ngastrula? To answer this would require a course of lectures on\nembryology. But certain changes interest us. Between the ectoderm\nand entoderm of the gastrula, in the space occupied by the\nsupporting membrane of hydra, a new layer of cells, the mesoderm,\nappears. This has been produced by the rapid growth and reproduction\nof certain cells of the entoderm which have migrated, so to speak,\ninto this new position. In higher forms it becomes of continually\ngreater importance, until finally nearly all the organs of the body\ndevelop from it. In our bodies only the lining of the mid-intestine\nand of its glands has arisen from the entoderm. And only the\nepidermis, or outer layer of our skin, and the nervous system and\nparts of our sense-organs have arisen from the ectoderm. But our\nmid-intestine is still the greatly elongated archenteron of the\ngastrula.\n\nWe may therefore compare the hydra or gastrula to a little portion\nof the lining of the human mid-intestine covered with a little flake\nof epidermis. This much the hydra has attained. But our bones and\nmuscles and blood-vessels all come from the mesoderm by folding,\nplaiting, and channelling, and division of labor resulting in\ndifferentiation of structure. Of all true mesodermal structures the\nhydra has actually none, but in the ectodermal and entodermal cells\nhe has the potentiality of them all. We must now try to discover how\nthese potentialities became actualities in higher forms.\n\nThe third stage in our ancestral series is the turbellarian. This is\na little, flat, oval worm, varying greatly in size in different\nspecies, and found both in fresh and salt water. Some would deny\nthat this worm belonged in our series at all. But, while doubtless\nconsiderably modified, it has still retained many characteristics\nalmost certainly possessed by our primitive bilateral ancestor. The\ndifferent parts of hydra were arranged like those of most flowers,\naround one main vertical axis; it was thus radiate in structure,\nhaving neither front nor rear, right nor left side. But our little\nturbellaria, while still without a head, has one end which goes\nfirst and can be called the front end. The upper or dorsal surface\nis usually more colored with pigment cells than the lower or ventral\nsurface, on which is the mouth. It has also a right and left side.\nIt is thus bilateral.\n\nThe gastr\u00e6a swam by cilia, little eyelash-like processes which urge\nthe animal forward like a myriad of microscopic oars. In our bodies\nthey are sometimes used to keep up a current, _e.g._, to remove\nforeign particles from the lungs. The turbellaria is still covered\nwith cilia, probably an inheritance from the gastr\u00e6a; for, while in\nsmaller forms they may still be the principal means of locomotion,\nin larger ones the muscles are beginning to assume this function and\nthe animal moves by writhing. The bilateral symmetry has arisen in\nconnection with this mode of locomotion and is thus a mark of\nimportant progress.\n\nIn the turbellaria we find for the first time a true body-wall\ndistinct from underlying organs. The outer layer of this is a\nciliated epithelium or layer of cells. Under this an elastic\nmembrane may occur. Then come true body muscles, running\ntransversely, longitudinally and dorso-ventrally. Between the\nexternal transverse and the internal longitudinal layers we often\nfind two muscular layers whose fibres run diagonally. The body is\nwell provided with muscles, but their arrangement is still far from\neconomical or effective.\n\nWithin the body-wall is the parenchym. This is a spongy mass of\nconnectile tissue in which the other organs are embedded. The mouth\nlies in the middle, or near the front of the ventral surface. The\nintestine varies in form, but is provided with its own layers of\nlongitudinal and transverse muscles, and usually has paired pouches\nextending out from it into the body parenchym. These seem to\ndistribute the dissolved nutriment; hence the whole cavity is still\noften called a gastro-vascular cavity as serving both digestion and\ncirculation. There is no anal opening, but indigestible material is\nstill cast out through the mouth.\n\nThe animal can gain sufficient oxygen to supply its muscles and\nnerves, which are the principal seats of combustion, through the\nexternal surface. It has, therefore, no special respiratory organs.\nBut the waste matter of the muscles cannot escape so easily, for\nthese are becoming deeper seated. Hence we find an excretory system\nconsisting of two tubes with many branches in the parenchym, and\ndischarging at the rear end of the body. This again is a sign that\nthe muscles are becoming more important, for the excretory system is\nneeded mainly to remove their waste. These tubes maybe only greatly\nenlarged glands of the skin.\n\n  [Illustration: 5. TURBELLARIAN. LANG.\n  _va_ and _ha_, front and rear branches of gastro-vascular cavity;\n  _ph_, pharynx. The dark oval with fine branches represents the\n  nervous system.]\n\nThe nervous system consists of a plexus of fibres and cells, the\ncells originating impulses and the fibres conveying them. But this\nmuch was present in hydra also. Here the front end of the body goes\nforemost and is continually coming in contact with new conditions.\nHere the lookout for food and danger must be kept. Hence, as a\nresult of constant exercise, or selection, or both, the\nnerve-plexus has thickened at this point into a little compact mass\nof cells and fibres called a ganglion. And because this ganglion\nthroughout higher forms usually lies over the oesophagus, it is\ncalled the supra-oesophogeal ganglion. This is the first faint and\ndim prophecy of a brain, and it sends its nerves to the front end of\nthe body. But there run from it to the rear end of the body four to\neight nerve-cords, consisting of bundles of nerve-threads like our\nnerves, but overlaid with a coating of ganglion cells capable of\noriginating impulses. These cords are, therefore, like the plexus\nfrom which they have condensed, both nerves and centres;\ndifferentiation has not gone so far as at the front of the body.\nSense organs are still very rudimentary. Special cells of the skin\nhave been modified into neuro-epithelial cells, having sensory hairs\nprotruding from them and nerve-fibrils running from their bases.\n\n  [Illustration: 6. CROSS-SECTION OF TURBELLARIAN. HATSCHEK, FROM\n  JIJIMA.\n  _e_, external skin; _rm_, lateral muscles; _la_ and _li_,\n  longitudinal muscles; _mdv_, dorso-ventral muscles; _pa_,\n  parenchyma; _h_, testicle; _ov_, oviduct; _dt_, yolk-gland; _n_,\n  ventral nerve; _i_, gastro-vascular cavity.]\n\nIn a very few turbellaria we find otolith vesicles. These are\nlittle sacks in the skin, lined with neuro-epithelial cells and\nhaving in the middle a little concretion of carbonate of lime hung\non rather a stiffer hair, like a clapper in a bell. Such organs\nserve in higher animals as organs of hearing, for the sensory hairs\nare set in vibration by the sound-waves. It is quite as probable\nthat they here serve as organs for feeling the slightest vibrations\nin the surrounding water, and thus giving warning of approaching\nfood or danger. The animal has also eyes, and these may be very\nnumerous. They are not able to form images of external objects, but\nonly of perceiving light and the direction of its source. A little\ngroup of these eyes lies directly over the brain, near the front end\nof the body; the others are distributed around the front or nearly\nthe whole margin of the body.\n\nThe turbellaria, doubtless, have the sense of smell, although we can\ndiscover no special olfactory organ. This sense would seem to be as\nold as protoplasm itself.\n\nThis distribution of the eyes around a large portion of the margin,\nand certain other characteristics of the adult structure and of the\nembryonic development, are very interesting, as giving hints of the\ndevelopment of the turbellaria from some radiate ancestor. The mouth\nis in a most unfavorable position, in or near the middle of the\nbody, rarely at the front end, as the animal has to swim over its\nfood before it can grasp it. The animal only slowly rids itself of\nold disadvantageous form and structure and adapts itself completely\nto a higher mode of life.\n\nBy far the most highly developed system in the body is the\nreproductive. It is doubtful whether any animal, except, perhaps,\nthe mollusk, has as complicated and highly developed reproductive\norgans. By markedly higher forms they certainly grow simpler.\n\nAnd here we must notice certain general considerations. We found\nthat reproduction in the amoeba could be defined as growth beyond\nthe limit normal to the individual. This form of growth benefits\nespecially the species. The needs and expenses of the individual\nwill therefore first be met and then the balance be devoted to\nreproduction. Now the income of the animal is proportional to its\nsurface, its expense to its mass, and activity. And the ratio of\nsurface to mass is most favorable in the smallest animals.[A] Hence,\nsmaller animals, as a rule, increase faster than larger ones; and\nthis is only one illustration of the fact that great size in an\nanimal is anything but an unmixed advantage to its possessor. But\nmuscles and nerves are the most expensive systems; here most of the\nfood is burned up. Hence energetic animals have a small balance\nremaining. Now the turbellarian is small and sluggish, with a fair\ndigestive system. With a great amount of nutriment at its disposal\nthe reproductive system came rapidly to a high development, and\nrelatively to other organs stands higher than it almost ever will\nagain.\n\n  [Footnote A: Cf. p. 35.]\n\nIt is only fair to state that good authorities hold that so\nprimitive an animal could not originally have had so highly\ndeveloped a system, and that this characteristic must be acquired,\nnot ancestral.\n\nThat certain portions of it may be later developments may be not\nonly possible but probable. But anyone who has carefully studied the\ndifferent groups of worms, will, I think, readily grant that in the\nstage of these flat worms reproduction was the dominant function,\nwhich had most nearly attained its possible height of development.\nFrom this time on the muscular and nervous systems were to claim an\never-increasing share of the nutriment, and the balance for\nreproduction is to grow smaller.\n\nAt the close of this lecture I wish to describe very briefly a\nhypothetical form. It no longer exists; perhaps it never did. But\nmany facts of embryology and comparative anatomy point to such a\nform as a very possible ancestor of all forms higher than flat\nworms, viz., mollusks, arthropods, and vertebrates.\n\nIt was probably rather long and cylindrical, resembling a small\nand short earthworm in shape. The skin may have been much like\nthat of turbellaria. Within this the muscles run in only\ntwo-directions--longitudinally and transversely. Between these and\nthe intestine is a cavity--the perivisceral cavity--like that of our\nown bodies, but filled with a nutritive fluid like our lymph. This\ncavity seems to have developed by the expansion and cutting off of\nthe paired lateral outgrowths of the digestive system of some old\nflat worm. But other modes of development are quite possible. The\nintestine has now an anal opening at or near the rear end of the\nbody. The food moves only from front to rear, and reaches each part\nalways in a certain condition. Digestion proper and absorption have\nbeen distributed to different cells, and the work is better done.\nThree portions can be readily distinguished: fore-intestine with the\nmouth, mid-intestine, as the seat of digestion and absorption, and\nhind-intestine, or rectum, with the anal opening. The front and\nhind-intestine are lined with infolded outer skin.\n\nThe nervous system consists of a supra-oesophageal ganglion with\nfour posterior nerve-cords--one dorsal, two lateral, and one (or\nperhaps two) ventral. There were probably also remains of the old\nplexus, but this is fast disappearing. The excretory system consists\nof a pair of tubes discharging through the sides of the body-wall,\nand having each a ciliated, funnel-shaped opening in the\nperivisceral cavity. These have received the name of nephridia.\nThrough these also the eggs and spermatozoa are discharged. The\nreproductive organs are modified patches of the peritoneum, or\nlining of the perivisceral cavity.\n\nThe number of muscles or muscular layers has been reduced in this\nanimal. But such a reduction in the number of like parts in any\nanimal is a sign of progress. And the longitudinal muscles have\nincreased in size and strength, and the animal moves by writhing.\nSuch a worm has the general plan of the body of the higher forms\nfairly well, though rudely, sketched. Many improvements will come,\nand details be added. But the rudiments of the trunk of even our own\nbodies are already visible. Head, in any proper sense of the term,\nand skeleton are still lacking; they remain to be developed.\n\nAnd yet, taking the most hopeful view possible concerning the animal\nkingdom, its prospects of attaining anything very lofty seem at this\npoint poor. Its highest representative is a headless trunk, without\nskeleton or legs. It has no brain in any proper sense of the word,\nits sense-organs are feeble; it moves by writhing. Its life is\ndevoted to digestion and reproduction. Whatever higher organs it has\nare subsidiary to these lower functions. And yet it has taken ages\non ages to develop this much. If _this_ is the highest visible\nresult of ages on ages of development, what hope is there for the\nfuture? Can such a thing be the ancestor of a thinking, moral,\nreligious person, like man? \"That is not first which is spiritual,\nbut that which is natural (animal, sensuous); and afterward that\nwhich is spiritual.\" First, in order of time, must come the body,\nand then the mind and spirit shall be enthroned in it. The little\nknot of nervous material which forms the supra-oesophageal\nganglion is so small that it might easily escape our notice; but it\nis the promise of an infinite future. The atom of nervous power\nshall increase until it subdues and dominates the whole mass.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nWORMS TO VERTEBRATES: SKELETON AND HEAD\n\n\nIn tracing the genealogy of any American family it is often\ndifficult or impossible to say whether a certain branch is descended\nfrom John Oldworthy or his cousin or second cousin. In the latter\ncases to find the common ancestor we must go back to the grandfather\nor great-grandfather. The same difficulty, but greatly enhanced,\nmeets us when we try to make a genealogical tree of the animal\nkingdom. Thus it seems altogether probable that all higher forms are\ndescended from an ancestor of the same general structure and grade\nof organization as the turbellaria, although probably free swimming,\nand hence with somewhat different form and development, especially\nof the muscular system. It seems to me altogether probable that all,\nexcept possibly Mollusca, are descended from a common ancestor\nclosely resembling the schematic worm last described. Some would,\nhowever, maintain that they diverged rather earlier than even the\nturbellaria; others after the schematic worm, if such ever existed.\nAs far as our argument is concerned it makes little difference which\nof these views we adopt.\n\nFrom our turbellaria, or possibly from some even more primitive\nancestor, many lines diverged. And this was to be expected. The\ncoelenterata, as we saw in hydra, had developed rude digestive and\nreproductive systems. The higher groups of this kingdom had\ndeveloped all, or nearly all, the tissues used in building the\nbodies of higher animals--muscular, reproductive, connectile,\nglandular, nervous, etc. But these are mostly very diffuse. The\nmuscular fibrils of a jelly-fish are mostly isolated or parallel in\nbands, rarely in compact well-defined bundles. The tissues have\ngenerally not yet been moulded into compact masses of definite form.\nThere are as yet very few structures to which we can give the name\nof organs. To form organs and group them in a body of compact\ndefinite form was the work pre-eminently of worms. The material for\nthe building was ready, but the architecture of the bilateral animal\nwas not even sketched. And different worms were their own\narchitects, untrammelled by convention or heredity, hence they built\nvery different, sometimes almost fantastic, structures.\n\nWe must remember, too, the great age of this group. They are present\nin highly modified forms in the very oldest pal\u00e6ozoic strata, and\nprobably therefore came into existence as the first traces of\ncontinental areas were beginning to rise above the primeval ocean.\nThey are literally \"older than the hills.\" They were exposed to a\nhost of rapidly changing conditions, very different in different\nareas. This prepares us for the fact that the worms represent a\nstage in animal life corresponding fairly well to the Tower of Babel\nin biblical history. The animal kingdom seems almost to explode into\na host of fragments. Our genealogical tree fairly bristles with\nbranches, but the branches do not seem to form any regular whorls or\nspirals. Few of them have developed into more than feeble growths.\nThey now contain generally but few species. Many of them are\nlargely or entirely parasitic, and in connection with this mode of\nlife have undergone modifications and degeneration which make it\nexceedingly difficult to decipher their descent or relationships.\n\nFour of these branches have reached great prominence in numbers and\nimportance. One or two others were formerly equally numerous and\nhave since become almost extinct; so the brachiopoda, which have\nbeen almost entirely replaced by mollusks. The same may very\npossibly be true of others. For of the amount of extinction of\nlarger groups we have generally but an exceedingly faint conception.\nIndeed in this respect the worms have been well compared to the\nrelics which fill the shelves of one of our grandmother's\nchina-closets.\n\nThe four great branches are the echinoderms, mollusks, articulates,\nand vertebrates. The echinoderms, including starfishes, sea-urchins,\nand others straggled early from the great army. We know as yet\nalmost nothing of their history; when deciphered it will be as\nstrange as any romance. The vertebrates are of course the most\nimportant line, as including the ancestors of man. But we must take\na little glance at mollusks, including our clams, snails, and\ncuttle-fishes; and at the articulates, including annelids and\nculminating in insects. The molluscan and articulate lines, though\ndivergent, are of great importance to us as throwing a certain\namount of light on vertebrate development; and still more as showing\nhow a certain line of development may seem, and at first really be,\nadvantageous, and still lead to degeneration, or at best to but\npartial success.\n\nWhen we compare the forms which represent fairly well the direction\nof development of these three lines, a snail or a clam with an\ninsect and a fish, we find clearly, I think, that the fundamental\nanatomical difference lies in the skeleton; and that this resulted\nfrom, and almost irrevocably fixed, certain habits of life.\n\nWe may picture to ourselves the primitive ancestor of mollusks as a\nworm having the short and broad form of the turbellaria, but much\nthicker or deeper vertically. A fuller description can be found in\nthe \"Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica,\" Art., Mollusca. It was hemi-ovoid in\nform. It had apparently the perivisceral cavity and nephridia of the\nschematic worm, and a circulatory system. In this latter respect it\nstood higher than any form which we have yet studied. Its nervous\nsystem also was rather more advanced. It had apparently already\ntaken to a creeping mode of life and the muscles of its ventral\nsurface were strongly developed, while its exposed and far less\nmuscular dorsal surface was protected by a cap-like shell covering\nthe most important internal organs. But the integument of the whole\ndorsal surface was, as is not uncommon in invertebrates, hardening\nby the deposition of carbonate of lime in the integument. And this\nin time increased to such an extent as to replace the primitive,\nprobably horny, shell.\n\nInto the anatomy of this animal or of its descendants we have no\ntime to enter, for here we must be very brief. We have already\nnoticed that the most important viscera were lodged safely under the\nshell. And as these increased in size or were crowded upward by the\nmuscles of the creeping disk, their portion of the body grew upward\nin the form of a \"visceral hump.\" Apparently the animal could not\nincrease much in length and retain the advantage of the protection\nof the shell; and the shell was the dominating structure. It had\nentered upon a defensive campaign. Motion, slow at the outset,\nbecame more difficult, and the protection of the shell therefore all\nthe more necessary. The shell increased in size and weight and\nmotion became almost impossible. The snail represents the average\nresult of the experiment. It can crawl, but that is about all; it is\nneither swift nor energetic. Even the earthworm can outcrawl it. It\nhas feelers and eyes, and is thus better provided with sense-organs\nthan almost any worm. It has a supra-oesophageal ganglion of fair\nsize.\n\nThe clams and oysters show even more clearly what we might call the\nlogical results of molluscan structure. They increased the shell\nuntil it formed two heavy \"valves\" hanging down on each side of the\nbody and completely enclosing it. They became almost sessile, living\ngenerally buried in the mud and gaining their food, consisting\nmostly of minute particles of organic matter, by means of currents\ncreated by cilia covering the large curtain-like gills. Their\nmuscular system disappeared except in the ploughshare-shaped \"foot\"\nused mostly for burrowing, and in the muscles for closing the shell.\nThat portion of the body which corresponds to the head of the snail\npractically aborted with nearly all the sense-organs. The nervous\nsystem degenerated and became reduced to a rudiment. They had given\nup locomotion, had withdrawn, so to speak, from the world; all the\nsense they needed was just enough to distinguish the particles of\nfood as they swept past the mouth in the current of water. They have\nan abundance of food, and \"wax fat.\" The clam is so completely\nprotected by his shell and the mud that he has little to fear from\nenemies. They have increased and multiplied and filled the mud.\n\"Requiescat in pace.\"\n\nBut zo\u00f6logy has its tragedies as well as human history. Let us turn\nto the development of a third molluscan line terminating in the\ncuttle-fishes. The ancestors of these cephalopods, although still\npossessed of a shell and a high visceral hump, regained the swimming\nlife. First, apparently, by means of fins, and then by a simple but\nvery effective use of a current of water, they acquired an often\nrapid locomotion. The highest forms gave up the purely defensive\ncampaign, developed a powerful beak, led a life like that of the old\nNorse pirates, and were for a time the rulers and terrors of the\nsea. With their more rapid locomotion the supra-oesophageal\nganglion reached a higher degree of development, and it was served\nby sense-organs of great efficiency. They reduced the external\nshell, and succeeded, in the highest forms, of almost ridding\nthemselves of this burden and encumbrance. Traces of it remain in\nthe squids, but transformed into an internal quill-like, supporting,\nnot defensive, skeleton. They have retraced the downward steps of\ntheir ancestors as far as they could. And the high development of\ntheir supra-oesophageal ganglion and sense-organs, and their\npowerful jaws and arms, or tentacles, show to what good purpose they\nhave struggled. But the struggle was in vain, as far as the\nsupremacy of the animal kingdom was concerned. Their ancestors had\ntaken a course which rendered it impossible for their descendants to\nreach the goal. Their progress became ever slower. They were\nentirely and hopelessly beaten by the vertebrates. They struggled\nhard, but too late.\n\nThe history of mollusks is full of interest. They show clearly how\nintimately nervous development is connected with the use of the\nlocomotive organs. The snail crept, and slightly increased its\nnervous system and sense-organs. The clam almost lost them in\nconnection with its stationary life. The cephalopods were\nexceedingly active, developed, therefore, keen sense-organs and a\nvery large and complicated supra-oesophagal ganglion, which we\nmight almost call a brain.\n\nThe articulate series consists of two groups of animals. The higher\ngroup includes the crabs, spiders, thousand-legs, and finally the\ninsects, and forms the kingdom of arthropoda. The lower members are\nstill usually reckoned as worms, and are included under the\nannelids. Of these our common earthworm is a good example, and near\nthem belong the leeches. But the marine annelids, of which nereis,\nor a clam-worm, is a good example, are more typical. They are often\nquite large, a foot or even more in length. They are composed of\nmany, often several hundred, rings or segments. Between these the\nbody-wall is thin, so that the segments move easily upon each other,\nand thus the animal can creep or writhe.\n\nThese segments are very much alike except the first two and the\nlast. If we examine one from the middle of the body we shall find\nits structure very much like that of our schematic worm. Outside we\nfind a very thin, horny cuticle, secreted by the layer of cells just\nbeneath it, the hypodermis. Beneath the skin we find a thin layer of\ntransverse muscles, and then four heavy bands of longitudinal\nmuscles. These latter have been grouped in the four quadrants, a\nmuch more effective arrangement than the cylindrical layer of the\nschematic worm. Furthermore, the animal has on each segment a pair\nof fin-like projections, stiffened with bristles, the parapodia.\nThese are moved by special muscles and form effective organs of\ncreeping.\n\n  [Illustration: 7. EUNICE LIMOSA (ANNELID). LANG, FROM EHLERS.\n  Front and hind end seen from dorsal surface.\n  _fa, fp, fc_, feelers; _a_, eye; _k_, gill;\n  _p_, parapodia; _ac_, anal cirri.]\n\nWithin the muscles is the perivisceral cavity, and in its central\naxis the intestine, segmented like the body-wall. The reproductive\norgans are formed from patches of the lining of the perivisceral\ncavity, and the reproductive elements, when fully developed, fall\ninto the perivisceral fluid and are carried out by nephridia, just\nsuch as we found in the schematic worm. Beside the perivisceral\ncavity and its fluid there is a special circulatory system. This\nconsists mainly of one long tube above the intestine and a second\nbelow, with often several smaller parallel tubes. Transverse\nvessels run from these to all parts of the body. The dorsal tube\npulsates and thus acts as a heart. The surface of the body no longer\nsuffices to gather oxygen, hence we find special feathery gills on\nthe parapodia. But these gills are merely expanded portions of the\nbody wall, arranged so as to offer the greatest possible amount of\nsurface where the capillaries of the blood system can be almost\nimmediately in contact with the surrounding water.\n\n  [Illustration: 8. CROSS-SECTION OF BODY SEGMENT OF ANNELID. LANG.\n  _dp_ and _vp_, dorsal and ventral halves of parapodia; _b_ and _ac_,\n  bristles; _k_, gill; _dc_ and _vc_, feelers; _rm_, lateral muscles;\n  _lm_, longitudinal muscles; _vd_, dorsal blood-vessel; _vo_, ventral\n  blood-vessel; _bm_, ventral ganglion; _ov_, ovary; _tr_, opening of\n  nephridium in the perivisceral cavity; _np_, tubular portion of\n  nephridium. The circles containing dots represent eggs floating in\n  the perivisceral fluid.]\n\nThe nervous system consists of a large supra-oesophageal ganglion\nin the first segment; then of a chain of ganglia, one to each\nsegment, on the ventral side of the body. With one ganglion in each\nsegment there is far more controlling, perceptive, ganglionic\nmaterial than in lower worms. Furthermore the supra-oesophageal\nganglion is relieved of a large part of the direct control of the\nmuscles of each segment, and is becoming more a centre of control\nand perception for the body as a whole. It is more like our brain,\ncommander-in-chief, the other ganglia constituting its staff. The\nsense-organs have improved greatly. There are tentacles and otolith\nvesicles as very delicate organs of feeling, or possibly of hearing\nalso.\n\nBut the annelids were probably the first animals to develop an eye\ncapable of forming an image of external objects. The importance of\nthis organ in the pursuit of food or the escape from enemies can\nscarcely be over-estimated. The lining of the mouth and pharynx can\nbe protruded as a proboscis, and drawn back by powerful muscles, and\nis armed with two or more horny claws. Eyes and claws gave them a\ngreat advantage over their not quite blind but really visionless and\ncomparatively defenceless neighbors, and they must have wrought\nterrible extinction of lower and older forms. But while we cannot\nover-estimate the importance of these eyes, we can easily exaggerate\ntheir perfectness. They were of short range, fitted for seeing\nobjects only a few inches distant, and the image was very imperfect\nin detail. But the plan or fundamental scheme of these eyes is\ncorrect and capable of indefinitely greater development than the\norgans of touch or smell, perhaps greater even than the otolith\nvesicle.\n\nAnd the reflex influence of the eye on the brain was the greatest\nadvantage of all. Hitherto with feeble muscles and sense-organs it\nhas hardly paid the animal to devote more material to building a\nlarger brain. It was better to build more muscle. But now with\nstronger muscles at its command, and better sense-organs to report\nto it, every grain of added brain material is beginning to be worth\nten devoted to muscle. The muscular system will still continue to\ndevelop, but the brain has begun an almost endless march of\nprogress. The eye becomes of continually increasing advantage and\nimportance because it has a capable brain to use it; and brain is a\nmore and more profitable investment, because it is served by an\never-improving eye.\n\n  [Illustration: 9. MYRMELEO FORMICARIUS. ANT-LION. HERTWIG, FROM\n  SCHMARDA.\n  1, adult; 2, larva; 3, cocoon.]\n\nThe annelid had hit upon a most advantageous line of development,\nwhich led ultimately to the insect. The study of the insect will\nshow us clearly the advantages and defects of the annelid plan.\nFirst of all, the insect, like the mollusk, has an external\nskeleton. But the skeleton of the mollusk was purely protective, a\nhindrance to locomotion. That of the insect is still somewhat\nprotective, but is mainly, almost purely, locomotive. It is never\nallowed to become so heavy as to interfere with locomotion. In the\nsecond place, the insect has three body regions, having each its own\nspecial functions or work. And one of these is a head. The annelid\nhad two anterior segments differing from those of the rest of the\nbody; these may, perhaps, be considered as the foreshadowings of a\nstructure not yet realized; they can only by courtesy be called a\nhead. Thirdly, the insect has legs. The annelid had fin-like\nparapodia, approaching the legs of insects about as closely as the\nfins of a fish approach the legs of a mammal. The reproductive and\ndigestive systems, while somewhat improved, are not very markedly\nhigher than those of annelids. The excretory system has more work to\nperform and reaches a rather higher development.\n\nBut in these organs there is no great or striking change; the time\nfor marked and rapid development of the digestive and reproductive\nsystems has gone by. Material can be more profitably invested in\nbrain or muscle. Air is carried to all parts of the body by a\nspecial system of air-sacks and tubes. This is a very advantageous\nstructure for small animals with an external skeleton. In very large\nanimals, or where the skeleton is internal, it would hardly be\npracticable; the risk of compression of the tubes at some point, and\nof thus cutting off the air-supply of some portion of the body,\nwould be altogether too great.\n\nThe circulatory system is very poor. It consists practically only of\na heart, which drives the blood in an irregular circulation between\nthe other organs of the body much as with a syringe you might keep\nup a system of currents in a bowl of water. But the rapidity of the\nflow of the blood in our bodies is mainly to furnish a supply of\noxygen to the organs. A tea-spoonful of blood can carry a fair\namount of dissolved solid nutriment like sugar, it can carry at each\nround but a very little gas like oxygen. Hence the blood must make\nits rounds rapidly, carrying but a little oxygen at each circuit.\nBut in the insect the blood conveys only the dissolved solid\nnutriment, the food; hence a comparatively irregular circulation\nanswers all purposes.\n\nThe skeleton is a thickening of the horny cuticle of the annelid on\nthe surface of each segment. The horny cylinder surrounding each\nsegment is composed of several pieces, and on the abdomen these are\nunited by flexible, infolded membranes. This allows the increase in\nthe size of the segment corresponding to the varying size of the\ndigestive and reproductive systems. In this part of the body the\nskeletal ring of each segment is joined to that of the segments\nbefore and behind it in the same manner. But in other parts of the\nbody we shall find the skeletal pieces of each segment and the rings\nof successive segments fused in one plate of mail. The legs are the\nparapodia of annelids carried to a vastly higher development. They\nare slender and jointed, and yet often very powerful. A large\nportion of the muscular system of the body is attached to these\nappendages.\n\nBut the insect has also jaws. The annelid had teeth or claws\nattached to the proboscis. But true jaws are something quite\ndifferent. They always develop by modifying some other organ. In the\ninsect they are modified legs. This is shown first by their\nembryonic development. But the king- or horseshoe-crab has still no\ntrue jaws, but uses the upper joints of its legs for chewing. There\nare primitively three pairs of jaws of various forms for the\ndifferent kinds of food of different species or higher groups. But\nsome of them may disappear and the others be greatly modified into\nawls for piercing, or a tube for sucking honey. Into the wonderful\ntransformations of these modified legs we cannot enter.\n\nThe muscles are no longer arranged to form a sack as in annelids.\nTransverse muscles, running parallel to the unyielding plates of\nchitin or horn could accomplish nothing. They have largely\ndisappeared. The work of locomotion has been transferred from the\ntrunk to the legs.\n\nThe abdomen of the insect is as clearly composed of distinct\nsegments as the body of the annelid. Of these there are perhaps\ntypically eleven. The thorax is composed of three segments, distinct\nin the lowest forms, fused in the highest. This fusion of segments\nin the thorax of the highest forms furnishes a very firm framework\nfor the attachment of wings and muscles. These wings are a new\ndevelopment, and how they arose is still a question. But they give\nthe insect the capability of exceedingly rapid locomotion.\n\nThe three pairs of jaws, modified legs, in the rear half of the head\nshow that this portion is composed of three segments. For only one\npair of legs is ever developed on a single segment. Embryology has\nshown that the portion of the head in front of the mouth is also\ncomposed of three segments. Possibly between the pr\u00e6- and post-oral\nportions still another segment should be included, making a total of\nseven in the head. The head has thus been formed by drawing forward\nsegments from the trunk, and fusing them successively with the first\nor primitive head segment. This is difficult to conceive of in the\nfully developed insect, where the boundary between head and thorax\nis very sharp. But the ancestors of insects looked more like\nthousand-legs or centipedes, and here head and thorax are much less\ndistinct. But in the annelid the mouth is on the second segment;\nhere it is on the fourth. It has evidently travelled backward. That\nthe mouth of an animal can migrate seems at first impossible, but if\nwe had time to examine the embryology of annelids and insects, it\nwould no longer appear inconceivable or improbable. And its backward\nmigration brought it among the legs which were grasping and chewing\nthe food. And in vertebrates the mouth has changed its position,\nthough not in exactly the same way. Our present mouth is probably\nnot at all the mouth of the primitive ancestor of vertebrates. Thus\nin the insect three segments have fused around the mouth, and three,\npossibly four, in front of it. This makes a head worthy of the name.\nThe ganglia of the three post-oral segments, which bear the jaws,\nhave fused in one compound ganglion innervating the mouth and jaws.\nThose of the three pr\u00e6-oral segments have fused to form a brain.\nEyes are well developed, giving images sometimes accurate in detail,\nsometimes very rude. Ears are not uncommon. The sense of smell is\noften keen.\n\nPerhaps the greatest advance of the insect is its adaptation to land\nlife. This gives it a larger supply of oxygen than any aquatic\nanimal could ever obtain. This itself stimulates every function, and\nall the work of the body goes on more energetically. Then the heat\nproduced is conducted off far less rapidly than in aquatic forms.\nWater is a good conductor of heat, and nearly all aquatic animals\nare cold-blooded. The few which are warm-blooded are protected by a\nthick layer of non-conducting fat. In all land animals, even when\ncold-blooded, the work of the different systems is aided by the\nlonger retention of the heat in the body.\n\nLet us recapitulate. The schematic worm had a body composed of two\nconcentric tubes. The outer was composed of the muscles of the body\ncovered by the protective integument. The inner tube was the\nalimentary canal with its special muscles. Between these two was the\nperivisceral cavity, filled with nutritive fluid, lymph, and\nfurnishing a safe lodging-place for the more delicate viscera. It\nrepresented fairly the trunk of higher animals.\n\nThe annelid added segmentation, and thus greater freedom of motion\nby the parapodia. But the segments were still practically alike. In\nthe insect division of labor took place, that is, each group of\nsegments was allotted its own special work; and these groups of\nsegments were modified in structure to best suit the performance of\nthis part of the work of the body. The abdomen was least modified\nand its eleven segments were devoted to digestion, reproduction, and\nexcretion--the old vegetative functions. Three segments were united\nin the thorax; all their energy was turned to locomotion, and the\ninsect became thus an exceedingly active, swift animal. The third\nbody-region, the head, includes six segments, of which three\nsurrounded the mouth and furnished the jaws, while two more were\ncrowded or drawn forward in order that their ganglia might be added\nto the old supraoesophageal ganglion and form a brain. It is\ninteresting to note that a form, peripatus, still exists which\nstands almost midway between annelids and insects and has only four\nsegments in the head. The formation of the head was thus a gradual\nprocess, one segment being added after another.\n\nIn the turbellaria the dominant functions were digestion and\nreproduction, and their organs composed almost the whole body. Here\nonly eleven segments at most are devoted to these functions, and\nnine in head and thorax to locomotion and brain. Head and thorax\nhave increased steadily in importance, while the abdomen has\ndecreased as steadily in number of segments. And the brain is\nincreasing thus rapidly because there are now muscles and\nsense-organs of sufficient power to make such a brain of value. And\nthis brain perceives not only objects and qualities, but invisible\nrelations between these, and this is an advance amounting to a\nrevolution. It remembers, and uses its recollections. It is capable\nof learning a little by experience and observation. The A, B, C of\nthinking was probably learned long before the insect's time, and the\nbee shows a fair amount of intelligence.\n\nThe line of development which the insect followed was comparatively\neasy and its course probably rapid. Certain crustacea, aquatic\narthropoda, are among the oldest fossils, and it is possible that\ninsects lived on the land before the first fish swam in the sea.\nThey had fine structure and powers; and yet during the later\ngeologic periods they have scarcely advanced a step, and are now\napparently at a standstill. They ran splendidly for a time, and then\nfell out of the race. What hindered and stopped them?\n\nOne vital defect in their whole plan of organization is evident. The\nexternal skeleton is admirably suited to animals of small size, but\nonly to these. In larger animals living on land it would have to be\nmade so heavy as to be unwieldy and no longer economical. Their mode\nof breathing also is fitted only for animals of small size having\nan external skeleton. Whatever may be our explanation the fact\nremains that insects are always small. This is in itself a\ndisadvantage. Very small animals cannot keep up a constant high\ntemperature unless the surrounding air is warm, for their radiating\nsurface is too large in comparison with their heat-producing mass.\nAt the first approach of even cool weather they become chilled and\nsluggish, and must hibernate or die. They are conformed to but a\nlimited range of environment in temperature.\n\nBut small size is, as a rule, accompanied by an even greater\ndisadvantage. It seems to be almost always correlated with short\nlife. Why this is so, or how, we do not know. There are exceptions;\na crow lives as long as a man; or would, if allowed to. But, as a\nrule, the length of an animal's days is roughly proportional to the\nsize of its body. And the insect is, as a rule, very short-lived. It\nlives for a few days or weeks, or even months, but rarely outlasts\nthe year. It has time to learn but little by experience. The same\nexperience must be passed, the same emergency arise and be met, over\nand over again during the lifetime of the same individual if the\nanimal is to learn thereby. And intelligence is based upon\nexperience. Hence insects can and do possess but a low grade of\nintelligence. But instinct is in many cases habit fixed by heredity\nand improved by selection. The rapid recurrence of successive\ngenerations was exceedingly favorable to the development of\ninstincts, but very unfavorable to intelligence. Insects are\ninstinctive, the highest vertebrates intelligent. The future can\nnever belong to a tiny animal governed by instincts. Mollusks and\ninsects have both failed to reach the goal; another plan of\nstructure than theirs must be sought if the animal kingdom is to\nhave a future.\n\nThe future belonged to the vertebrate. To begin with less\ncharacteristic organs the digestive system is much like that of the\nannelid or schematic worm, but with greatly increased glandular and\nabsorptive surfaces. The present mouth of nearly all vertebrates is\nprobably not primitive. It is almost certainly one of the gill-slits\nof some old ancestor of fish, such as now are used to discharge the\nwater which is used for respiration. The jaws are modified branchial\narches or the cartilaginous or bony rods which in our present fish\nsupport the fringe of gills. These have formed a pair of exceedingly\neffective and powerful jaws. The reproductive system holds still to\nthe old type and shows little if any improvement. The excretory\norgans, kidneys, are composed primitively of nephridial tubes like\nthose of the schematic worm or annelid, but immensely increased in\nnumber, modified, and improved in certain very important\nparticulars. The muscles in simplest forms are composed of heavy\nlongitudinal bands, especially developed toward the dorsal surface\nof the body to the right and left of the axial skeleton. Locomotion\nwas produced by lashing the tail right and left, as still in fish.\nThere is improvement in all these organs, except perhaps the\nreproductive, but nothing very new or striking. The great\nimprovement from this time on was not to be sought in the vegetative\norgans, or even directly to any great extent in muscles.\n\nThe new and characteristic organ was not the vertebral column, or\nseries of vertebr\u00e6, or backbone, from which the kingdom has derived\nits name. This was a later production. The primitive skeleton was\nthe notochord, still appearing in the embryos of all vertebrates and\npersisting throughout life in fish. This is an elastic rod of\ncartilage, lying just beneath the spinal marrow or nerve-cord, which\nruns backward from the brain. The nerve-centres are therefore here\nall dorsal, and the notochord or skeleton lies between these and the\ndigestive or alimentary canal. The skeleton of the clam or snail is\npurely protective and a hindrance to locomotion. That of the insect\nis almost purely locomotive, but external, that of the vertebrate\npurely locomotive and internal. It does not lie outside even of the\nnervous system, although this system especially required, and was\nworthy of, protection. It does not protect even the brain; the skull\nof vertebrates is an after-thought. It is almost the deepest seated\nof all organs. But lying in the central axis of the body it\nfurnishes the very best possible attachment for muscles. Around this\nprimitive notochord was a layer of connectile tissue which later\ngave rise to the vertebr\u00e6 forming our backbone.\n\n  [Illustration: 10. CROSS-SECTION OF AXIAL SKELETON OF PETROMYZON.\n  HERTWIG, FROM HIEDERSHEIM.\n  _SS_, skeletogenous layer; _Ob_, _Ub_, dorsal and ventral processes\n  of _SS_; _C_, notochord; _Cs_, sheath of notochord; _Ee_, elastic\n  external layer of sheath; _F_, fatty tissue; _M_, spinal marrow;\n  _P_, sheath of _M_.]\n\nThe nervous system on the dorsal surface of the notochord consists\nof the brain in the head and the spinal marrow running down the\nback. The brain of all except the very lowest vertebrates consists\nof four portions: 1. The cerebrum, or cerebral lobes, or simply\n\"forebrain,\" the seat of consciousness, thought, and will, and from\nwhich no nerves proceed. Whether the primitive vertebrate had any\ncerebrum is still uncertain. 2. The mid-brain, which sends nerves to\nthe eyes, and in this respect reminds us of the brain of insects.\nIts anterior portion appears from embryology to be very primitive.\n3. The small brain, or cerebellum, which in all higher forms is the\ncentre for co-ordination of the motions of the body. 4. The medulla,\nwhich controls especially the internal organs. The spinal marrow, or\nthat portion of the nervous system which lies outside of the head,\nis at the same time a great nerve-trunk and a centre for reflex\naction of the muscles of the body. But the development of these\ndistinct portions and the division of labor between them must have\nbeen a long and gradual process.\n\nWe have every reason to believe that here, as in insects, the head\nhas been formed by annexation of segments from the rump and the\nfusion of their nervous matter with that of the brain. But here,\ninstead of only three segments, from nine to fourteen have been\nfused in the head to furnish the material for the brain. Notochord\nand backbone may be the most striking and apparent characteristic of\nvertebrates, but their predominant characteristic is brain. On this\nsystem they lavished material, giving it from three to four times as\nmuch as any lower or earlier group had done. They very early set\napart the cerebral lobes to be the commander-in-chief and centre of\ncontrol for all other nerve-centres. To this all report, and from it\nall directly or indirectly receive orders. It can say to every\nother organ in the body, \"Starve that I may live.\" It is the seat of\nthought and will. The other portions of the brain report to it what\nthey have gathered of vision or sound; it explains the vision or\nsong or parable. It is relieved as far as possible from all lower\nand routine work that it may think and remember and govern. The\nvertebrate built for mind, not neglecting the body.\n\nEvery trait of vertebrates is a promise of a great future. Its\ninternal skeleton gives it the possibility of large size. This gave\nit in time the victory in the struggle with its competitors, as to\nwhether it should eat or be eaten. It is vigorous and powerful, for\nall its organs are at the best. It gives the possibility of later,\non land, becoming warm-blooded, _i.e._, of maintaining a constant\nhigh temperature. It is thus resistant to climate and hardship. In\ntime its descendants will face the arctic winter as well as the heat\nof the tropics.\n\nBut it has started on the road which leads to mind. The greater size\nis correlated with longer life. The lessons of experience come to it\nover and over again, and it can and must learn them. It is the\nintelligent, remembering, thinking type. The insect had begun to\npeer into the world of invisible and intangible relations, the\nvertebrate will some day see them. This much is prophecied in his\nvery structure. He must be heir to an indefinite future.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou have probably noticed that the vertebrate differs greatly from\nall his predecessors. The gulf between him and them is indeed wide\nand deep. His origin and ancestry are yet far from certain. But an\nattempt to decipher his past history, though it may lead to no sure\nconclusions, will yet be of use to us. Practically all aquatic\nvertebrates lead a swimming life, neither sessile nor creeping. The\nembryonic development of our appendages leads to the same\nconclusion. We must never forget that the embryonic development of\nthe individual recapitulates briefly the history of the development\nof the race. Now the legs and arms, or fore- and hind-legs, of\nhigher vertebrates and the corresponding paired fins of fish develop\nin the embryo as portions of a long ridge extending from front to\nrear of the side of the body.\n\nThis justifies the inference that the primitive vertebrate ancestor\nhad a pair of long fins running along the sides of the body, but\nbending slightly downward toward the rear so as to meet one another\nand continue as a single caudal fin behind the anal opening. Such\nfins, like the feathers of an arrow, could be useful only to keep\nthe animal \"on an even keel\" as it was forced through the water by\nthe lateral sweeps of the tail. They would have been useless for\ncreeping.\n\nBut there is another piece of evidence that he was a free swimming\nform. All vertebrates breathe by gills or lungs, and these are\nmodified portions of the digestive system, of the walls of the\noesophagus, from which even the lung is an embryonic outgrowth.\nNow practically all invertebrates breathe through modified portions\nof the integument or outer surface of the body, and their gills are\nmerely expansions of this. In the annelid they are projections of\nthe parapodia, in the mollusk expansions of the skin, where the foot\nor creeping sole joins the body. Why did the vertebrate take a new\nand strange, and, at first sight, disadvantageous mode of\nbreathing? There must have been some good reason for this. The most\nnatural explanation would seem to be that he had no projections on\nhis outer surface which could develop into gills, and farther, that\nhe could not afford to have any. Now projections on the lower\nportion of the sides of the body would be an advantage in creeping,\nbut a hindrance in any such mode of swimming as we have described,\nor indeed in any mode of writhing through the water.\n\nFurthermore, if he lived, not a creeping life on the bottom, but\nswimming in the water above, he would have to live almost entirely\non microscopic animals and embryos; and these would be most easily\ncaptured by a current of water brought in at the mouth. The whole\nbranchial apparatus in its simplest forms would seem to be an\napparatus for sifting out the microscopic particles of food and only\nlater a purely respiratory apparatus. Moreover, we have seen that\nthe parapodia of annelids naturally point to the development of an\nexternal skeleton, for their muscles are already a part of the\nexternal body-wall and attached to the already existing horny\ncuticle. The logical goal of their development was the insect.\n\nNow I do not wish to conceal from you that many good zo\u00f6logists\nbelieve that the vertebrate is descended from annelids; but for this\nand other reasons such a descent appears to me very improbable. It\nwould seem far more natural to derive the vertebrate from some free\nswimming form like the schematic worm, whose largest nerve-cord lay\non the dorsal surface because its branches ran to heavy muscles much\nused in swimming. Later the other nerve-cords degenerated, for such\na degeneration of nerve-cords is not at all impossible or\nimprobable. \"No thoroughfare\" is often written across paths\npreviously followed by blood or nervous impulses, when other paths\nhave been found more economical or effective.\n\nBut where did the notochord come from? I do not know. It always\nforms in the embryo out of the entoderm or layer which becomes the\nlining of the intestine. Now this is a very peculiar origin for\ncartilage, and the notochord is a very strange cartilage even if we\nhave not made a mistake in calling it cartilage at all. My best\nguess would be that it is simply a thickened portion of the upper\nmedian surface of the intestine to keep the \"balls\" of digesting\nnutriment or other hard particles in the intestine from \"grinding\"\nagainst the nerve-cord as they are crowded along in the process of\ndigestion. Once started its elasticity would be a great aid in\nswimming.\n\nProfessor Brooks has called attention to the fact that the higher a\ngroup stands in development, the longer its ancestors have\nmaintained a swimming life. Thus we have noticed that the sponges\nwere the first to settle; then a little later the mass of the\ncoelenterates followed their example. But the etenophora, the\nnearest relatives of bilateral animals, have remained free swimming.\nThen the flat worms and mollusks took to a creeping mode of life,\nwhile the annelids and vertebrates still swam. Then the annelids\nsettled to the bottom and crept, and all their descendants remained\ncreeping forms. The vertebrates alone remained swimming, and\nprobably neither they nor their descendants ever crept until they\nemerged on the land, or as amphibia were preparing for land\nlife. If this be true, it is a fact worthy of our most careful\nconsideration. The swimming life would appear to be neither as easy\nnor as economical as the creeping. It is certainly hard to believe\nthat food would not have been obtained with less effort and in\ngreater abundance at the bottom than in the water above. The\nswimming life gave rise to higher and stronger forms; but did its\nmaintenance give immediate advantage in the struggle for existence?\nThis is an exceedingly interesting and important question, and\ndemands most careful consideration. But we shall be better prepared\nto answer it in a future lecture.\n\nThe period of development of mollusks, articulates, and vertebrates,\nis really one. They developed to a certain extent contemporaneously.\nThe development of vertebrates was slow, and they were the last to\nappear on the stage of geological history.\n\nYou must all have noticed that development, during this period,\ntakes on a much more hopeful form than during that described in the\nlast chapter. Then digestion and reproduction were dominant. Now\nmuscle is of the greatest importance. If this fails of development,\nas in mollusks, the group is doomed to degeneration or at best\nstagnation. But we have seen the dawn of a still higher function. In\ninsects and vertebrates the brain is becoming of importance, and\nabsorbing more and more material. This is the promise of something\nvastly higher and better. Better sense-organs are appearing, fitted\nto aid in a wider perception of more distant objects. The vertebrate\nhas discovered the right path; though a long journey still lies\nbefore it. The night is far spent, the day is at hand.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nVERTEBRATES: BACKBONE AND BRAIN\n\n\nIn tracing man's ancestry from fish upward we ought properly to\ndescribe three or four fish, an amphibian, a reptile, and then take\nup the series of mammalian ancestors. But we have not sufficient\ntime for so extended a study, and a simpler method may answer our\npurpose fairly well. Let us fix our attention on the few organs\nwhich still show the capacity of marked development, and follow each\none of these rapidly in its upward course.\n\nWe must remember that there are changes in the vegetative organs.\nThe digestive and excretory systems improve. But this improvement is\nnot for the sake of these vegetative functions. Brain and muscle\ndemand vastly more fuel, and produce vastly more waste which must be\nremoved. At almost the close of the series the reproductive system\nundergoes a modification which is almost revolutionary in its\nresults. But we shall find that this modification is necessitated by\nthe smaller amount of material which can be spared for this\nfunction; not by its increasing importance, still less its dominance\nfor its own worth. The vertebrate is like an old Roman; everything\nis subordinated to mental and physical power. He is the world\nconqueror.\n\nThe important changes from fish upward affect the following organs:\n1. The skeleton. A light, solid framework must be developed for the\nbody. 2. The appendages start as fins, and end as the legs and arms\nof man. 3. The circulatory and respiratory systems developed so as\nto carry with the utmost rapidity and certainty fuel and oxygen to\nthe muscular and nervous high-pressure engines. Or, to change the\nfigure, they are the roads along which supplies and munitions can be\ncarried to the army suddenly mobilized at any point on the frontier.\n4. Above all, the brain, especially the cerebrum, the crown and goal\nof vertebrate structure. The improvement is now practically\naltogether in the animal organs of locomotion and thought. Still,\namong these animal organs, the lower systems will lead in point of\ntime. The brain must to a certain extent wait for the skeleton.\n\n1. The skeleton. The axial skeleton consists, in the lowest fish, of\nthe notochord, a cylindrical unsegmented rod of cartilage running\nnearly the length of the body. This is surrounded by a sheath of\nconnective tissue, at first merely membranous, later becoming\ncartilaginous or gristly. Pieces of cartilage extend upward over the\nspinal marrow, and downward around the great aortic artery, forming\nthe neural and h\u00e6mal arches. These unite with the masses of\ncartilage surrounding the notochord to form cartilaginous vertebr\u00e6,\nwhich may be stiffened by an infiltration of carbonate of lime. The\nvertebral column of sharks has reached this stage. Then the\ncartilaginous vertebr\u00e6 ossify and form a true backbone. I have\ndescribed the process as if it were very simple. But only the\nstudent of comparative osteology can have any conception of the\nnumber of experiments which were tried in different groups before\nthe definite mode of forming a bony vertebra was attained. At the\nsame time the skull was developing in a somewhat similar manner. But\nthe skull is far more complex in origin and undergoes far more\nnumerous and important changes than the simpler vertebral column.\nInto its history we have no time to enter.\n\nAnd what shall we say of bone itself as a mere material or tissue,\nwith its admirable lightness, compactness, and flawlessness. And\nevery bone in our body is a triumph of engineering architecture. No\nengineer could better recognize the direction of strain and stress,\nand arrange his rods and columns, arches and buttresses, to suitably\nmeet them, than these problems are solved in the long bone of our\nthigh. And they must be lengthened while the child is leaping upon\nthem. An engineer is justly proud if he can rebuild or lengthen a\nbridge without delaying the passage of a single train. But what\nwould he say if you asked him to rebuild a locomotive, while it was\nrunning even twenty miles an hour? And yet a similar problem had to\nbe solved in our bodies.\n\nBut the vertebral column is not perfected by fish. The vertebr\u00e6 with\nfew exceptions are hollow in front and behind, biconcave; and\nbetween each two vertebr\u00e6 there is a large cavity still occupied by\nthe notochord. Thus these vertebr\u00e6 join one another by their edges,\nlike two shallow wine-glasses placed rim to rim. Only gradually is\nthe notochord crowded out so that the vertebr\u00e6 join by their whole\nadjacent surfaces. Even in highest forms, for the sake of mobility,\nthey are united by washer-like disks of cartilage. Biconcave\nvertebr\u00e6 persisted through the oldest amphibia, reptiles, and\nbirds. But finally a firm backbone and skull were attained.\n\n2. The appendages. Of these we can say but little. The fish has\noar-like fins, attached to the body by a joint, but themselves\nunjointed. By the amphibia legs, with the same regions as our own\nand with five toes, have already appeared. The development of the\nleg out of the fin is one of the most difficult and least understood\nproblems of vertebrate comparative anatomy. The legs are at first\nweak and scarcely capable of supporting the body. Only gradually do\nthey strengthen into the fore- and hind-legs of mammals, or into the\nlegs and wings of birds and old flying reptiles.\n\n3. Changes in the circulatory and respiratory systems. The fish\nlives altogether in the water and breathes by gills, but the dipnoi\namong fishes breathes by lungs as well as gills. As long as\nrespiration takes place by gills alone, the circulation is simple;\nthe blood flows from the heart to the gills, and thence directly all\nover the body; the oxygenated blood from the gills does not return\ndirectly to the heart. But the blood from the lungs does return to\nthe heart; and there at first mixes in the ventricle with the impure\nblood which has returned from the rest of the body. Gradually a\npartition arises in the ventricle, dividing it into a right and left\nhalf. Thus the two circulations of the venous blood to the lungs,\nand of the oxygenated blood over the body, are more and more\nseparated until, in higher reptiles, they become entirely distinct.\n\nAs the animal came on land and breathed the air, more completely\noxygenated blood was carried to the organs, and their activity was\ngreatly heightened. As more and more heat was produced by the\ncombustion in muscular and nervous tissues, and less was lost by\nconduction, the temperature of the body rose, and in birds and\nmammals becomes constant several degrees above the highest summer\ntemperature of the surrounding air.\n\nThe changes in the brain affect mainly the large and small brain.\nThe cerebellum increases with the greater locomotive powers of the\nanimal. But its development is evidently limited. The large brain,\nor cerebrum, is in fish hardly as heavy as the mid-brain; in\namphibia the reverse is true. In higher recent reptiles the cerebrum\nwould somewhat outweigh all the other portions of the brain put\ntogether. In mammals it extends upward and backward, has already in\nlower forms overspread the mid-brain, and is beginning to cover the\nsmall brain. But this was not so in the earliest mammals. Here the\ncerebrum was small, more like that of reptiles. But during the\ntertiary period the large brain began to increase with marvellous\nrapidity. It was very late in arriving at the period of rapid\ndevelopment, but it kept on after all the other organs of the body\nhad settled down into comparative rest, perhaps retrogression.\n\nWe have given thus a rapid sketch in outline of the changes in the\nmost characteristic systems between fish and mammals. Some of the\nchanges which took place in mammals were along the same lines, but\none at least is so new and unexpected that this highest class\ndemands more careful and detailed examination.\n\nThe mammal is a vertebrate. Hence all its organs are at their best.\nBut mammals stand, all things considered, at the head of\nvertebrates. The skeleton is firm and compact. The muscles are\nbeautifully moulded and fitted to the skeleton so as to produce the\ngreatest effect with the least mass and weight of tissue. The\nsense-organs are keen, and the eye and ear especially delicate, and\nfitted for perception at long range. Yet in all these respects they\nare surpassed by birds. As a mere anatomical machine the bird always\nseems to me superior to the mammal. It is not easy to see why it\nfailed, as it has, to reach the goal of possibility of indefinite\ndevelopment and dominance in the animal world. Why he stopped short\nof the higher brain development I cannot tell. The fact remains that\nthe mammal is pre-eminent in brain power, and that this gave him the\nsupremacy.\n\nBut mammals came very late to the throne, and the probability of\ntheir ever gaining it must for ages have appeared very doubtful.\nThey seem to have been a fairly old group with a very slow early\ndevelopment. Reptiles especially, and even birds, were far more\nprecocious than these slower and weaker forms which crept along the\nearth. But reptiles and birds, like many other precocious children,\nsoon reached the limit of their development. They had muscle, the\nmammal brain and nerve; the mammal had the staying power and the\nfuture. Bitter and discouraging must have been the struggle of these\nfeeble early mammals with their larger, swifter, and more powerful,\nreptilian relatives. And yet, perhaps, by this very struggle the\nmammal was trained to shrewdness and endurance.\n\nThe primitive mammals laid eggs like reptiles or birds. Only two\ngenera, echidna and platypus, survive to bear witness of these old\noviparous groups, and these only in New Zealand. These retain\nseveral old reptilian characteristics. Their lower position is shown\nalso by the fact that the temperature of their bodies is, at least,\nten degrees Fahrenheit below that of higher mammals. One of these\ncarries the egg in a pouch on the ventral surface; the other, living\nlargely in water, deposits its eggs in a nest in a burrow in the\nside of the bank of the stream.\n\nAfter these came the marsupials. In these the eggs develop in a sort\nof uterus; but there is no placenta, in the sense of an organic\nconnection between the embryo and the uterus of the mother. The\nyoung are at birth exceedingly small and feeble. The adult giant\nKangaroo weighs over one hundred pounds; the young are at birth not\nas large as your thumb. They are placed by the mother in a marsupial\npouch on her ventral surface, and here nourished till able to care\nfor themselves.\n\nPardon a moment's digression. The marsupials, except the opossum,\nare confined to Australia, and the oviparous mammals, or monotremes,\nto New Zealand. Formerly the marsupials, at least, ranged all over\nEurope and Asia, for we have indisputable evidence in their fossil\nremains. But they have survived only in this isolated area, and here\napparently only because their isolation preserved them from the\ncompetition with higher forms. If the Australian continent had not\nbeen thus early cut off from all the rest of the world, the only\ntrace of both these lower groups would have been the opossum in\nAmerica and certain peculiarities in the development of the egg in\nhigher mammals. This shows us how much weight should be assigned to\nthe formerly popular argument of the \"missing links.\" The wonder is\nnot that so many links are missing, but that any of these primitive\nforms have come down to us. For we see here another proof of the\nfearful extermination of lower forms during the progress of life on\nthe globe. It seems as if the intermediate forms were less common\namong these most recent animals than among the older types. This may\nnot be true, for it is not easy to compare the gap between two\nmammals with that between two worms or insects, and mistakes are\nvery easily made. But it seems as if extermination had done its work\nmore ruthlessly among these highest forms than among their humbler\nand lower ancestors. I would not lay much weight on such an opinion;\nbut, if true, it has a meaning and is worthy of study.\n\nIn higher, true, placental mammals the period of pregnancy is much\nlonger, and the young are born in a far higher stage of development,\nor rather, growth. The stage of growth at which the young are born\ndiffers markedly in different groups. A new-born kitten is a much\nfeebler, less developed being than a new-born calf. An embryonic\nappendage, the allantois, used in reptiles and birds for\nrespiration, has here been turned to another purpose. It lays itself\nagainst the walls of the uterus, uterine projections interlock with\nthose which it puts forth, and the blood of the mother circulates\nthrough a host of capillaries separated from those of the blood\nsystem of the embryo only by the thinnest membrane. This is the\nplacenta, developed, in part from the allantois of the embryo, in\npart from the uterus of the mother. It is not a new organ, but an\nold one turned to better and fuller use. In these closely\nassociated systems of blood-vessels, nutriment and oxygen diffuse\nfrom the blood of the mother into that of the embryo, and thus rapid\ngrowth is assured. The importance and far-reaching effect of this\nnew modification in the old reproductive system cannot be\nover-estimated. The internal intra-uterine development of the young,\nand the mammalian habit of suckling them, far more than any other\nfactors, have made man what he is. Some explanation must be sought\nfor such a fact.\n\nWe have already seen that any animal devotes to reproduction the\nbalance between income and expenditure of nutriment. Now, the\ndigestive system is here well developed, and the income is large.\nBut we have already noticed that, as animals grow larger, the ratio\nbetween the digestive surface and the mass to be supported grows\ncontinually smaller. On account of size alone the mammal has but a\nsmall balance. But the amount of expenditure is proportional to the\nmass and activity of the muscular and nervous systems. And the\nmammal is, and from the beginning had to be, an exceedingly active,\nenergetic, and nervous animal. The income has increased, but the\nexpenses have far outrun the increase. The mammal can devote but\nlittle to reproduction.\n\nMoreover, it requires a large amount of material to form a mammalian\negg, such as that of the monotreme. It requires indefinitely more\nnutriment to build a mammal than a worm, for the former is not only\nlarger and more perfect at birth; it is also vastly more\ncomplicated. The embryonic journey has, so to speak, lengthened out\nimmensely. One monotreme egg represents more economy and saving than\na thousand eggs of a worm. Moreover, where the individuals are\nlonger lived and the generations follow one another at longer\nintervals, the number of favorable variations and the possibility of\nconformity to environment through these is greatly lessened. In such\na group it is of the utmost importance that every egg should\ndevelop; the destruction of a single one is a real and important\nloss to the species. It is not enough to produce such an egg; it\nmust be most scrupulously guarded. Even the egg of the platypus is\ndeposited in a nest in a hole in the bank, and the female Echidna\ncarries the egg in a marsupial pouch until it develops.\n\nNotice further that among certain species of fish, amphibia, and\nreptiles, the females carry the eggs in the body until the embryos\nor young are fairly developed. Viviparous forms are unknown by\nbirds, probably because this mode of development is incompatible\nwith flight, their dominant characteristic. Putting these facts\ntogether, what more probable than that certain primitive egg-laying\nmammals should have carried the eggs as long as possible in the\nuterus. The embryo under these conditions would be better nourished\nby a secretion of the uterine glands than by a very large amount of\nyolk. The yolk would diminish and the egg decrease in size, and thus\nthe marsupial mode of development would have resulted. And, given\nthe marsupial mode of development and an embryo possessing an\nallantois, it is almost a physiological necessity that in some forms\nat least a placenta should develop. That the placenta has resulted\nfrom some such process of evolution is proven by its different\nstages of development in different orders of mammals. And even the\nfeeblest attachment of the allantois of the embryo to the wall of\nthe uterus would be of the greatest advantage to the species.\n\nThis is not the whole explanation; other factors still undiscovered\nwere undoubtedly concerned. But even this shows us that the internal\ndevelopment of the young and the habit of suckling them was a\nlogical result of mammalian structure and position. The grand\nresults of this change we shall trace farther on.\n\nThe changes from the lower true mammals to the apes are of great\ninterest, but we can notice only one or two of the more important.\nThe prosimii, or \"half apes,\" including the lemurs, are nearly all\narboreal forms. Perhaps they were driven to this life by their more\npowerful competitors. The arboreal life developed the fingers and\ntoes, and most of these end, not with a claw, but with a nail. The\nlittle group has much diversity of structure, and at present finds\nits home mainly in Madagascar; though in earlier times apparently\noccurring all over the globe. The brain is more highly developed\nthan in the average mammal, but far inferior to that of the apes.\nThey have a fairly opposable thumb.\n\nThe highest mammals are the primates. Their characteristics are the\nfollowing: Fingers and toes all armed with nails, the eyes\ncomparatively near together and fully enclosed in a bony case. The\ncerebrum with well-developed furrows covers the other portions of\nthe brain. There is but one pair of milk-glands, and these on the\nbreast. The differences between hand and foot become most strongly\nmarked by the \"anthropoid\" apes. These have become accustomed to an\nupright gait in their climbing; hence the feet are used for\nsupporting the body and the hands for grasping. Both thumb and\ngreat toe are opposable; but the foot is a true foot, and the hand a\ntrue hand, in anatomical structure. The face, hands, and feet have\nmainly lost the covering of hair. They have no tail, or rather its\nrudiments are concealed beneath the skin. These include the gibbon,\nthe orang, the gorilla, and the chimpanzee.\n\nWe can sum up the few attainments of mammals in a line. The lower\nforms attained the placental mode of embryonic development; the\nhigher attained upright gait, hands and feet, and a great increase\nof brain. Anatomically considered these were but trifles, but the\naddition of these trifles revolutionized life on the globe. The\nprincipal anatomical differences between man and the anthropoid ape\nare the following: Man is a strictly erect animal. The foot of the\nape is less fitted for walking on the ground, where he usually \"goes\non all fours.\" The skull is almost balanced on the condyles by which\nit articulates with the neck, and has but slight tendency to tip\nforward. The facial portion, nose and jaws, is less developed and\nretracted beneath the larger cranium or brain-case. This has greatly\nchanged the appearance of the head. Protruding jaws and chin, even\nwhen combined with large cranium and brain, always give man the\nappearance of brutality and low intelligence.\n\nThe pelvis is broad and comparatively shallow. The legs, especially\nthe thighs, are long. The foot is long and strong, and rests its\nlower surface, not merely the outer margin as in apes, on the\nground. The elastic arch of the instep must be excepted in the above\ndescription, and adds lightness and swiftness to his otherwise slow\ngait. The great toe is short and generally not opposable. The\nmuscles of the leg are heavy and the knee-joint has a very broad\narticulating surface. But the great result of man's erect posture is\nthat the hand is set free from the work of locomotion, and has\nbecome a delicate tactile and tool-using organ. The importance of\nthis change we cannot over-estimate. The hand was the servant of the\nbrain for trying all experiments. Had not our arboreal ancestors\ndeveloped the hand for us we could never have invented tools nor\nused them if invented. And its reflex influence in developing the\nbrain has been enormous. The arm is shorter and the hand smaller.\nThe brain is absolutely and relatively large, and its surface\ngreatly convoluted. This gives place for a large amount of \"gray\nmatter,\" whose functions are perception, thought, and will. For this\ngray matter forms a layer on the outside of the brain.\n\nThus, even anatomically, man differs from the anthropoid apes. His\nwhole structure is moulded to and by the higher mental powers, so\nthat he is the \"Anthropos\" of the old Greek philosophers, the being\nwho \"turns his face upward.\" Yet in all these anatomical respects\nsome of the apes differ less from him than from the lower apes or\n\"half apes.\" And every one of these can easily be explained as the\nresult of progressive development and modification. Whoever will\ndeny the possibility or probability of man's development from some\nlower form must argue on psychological, not on anatomical, grounds;\nand it grows clearer every day that even the former but poorly\njustify such a denial.\n\nBut it is interesting to note that no one ape most closely\napproaches man in all anatomical respects. Thus among the\nanthropoids the orang is perhaps most similar to man in cerebral\nstructure, the chimpanzee in form of skull, the gorilla in feet and\nhands. No evolutionist would claim that any existing ape represents\nthe ancestor of man. The anthropoids represent very probably the\nculmination of at least three distinct lines of development. But we\nmust remember that in early tertiary times apes occurred all over\nEurope, and probably Asia, many degrees farther north than now. In\nthose days, as later, the fauna and flora of northern climates were\nsuperior in vigor and height of development to that of Africa or\nAustralia. It is thus, to say the least, not at all improbable that\nthere existed in those times apes considerably, if not far, superior\nto any surviving forms. Whether the pal\u00e6ontologist will find for us\nremains of such anthropoids is still to be seen.\n\nBut you will naturally ask, \"Is there not, after all, a vast\ndifference between the brain of man and that of the ape?\" Let us\nexamine this question as fully as our very brief time will allow.\nConsiderable emphasis used to be laid on the facial angle between a\nline drawn parallel to the base of the skull and one obliquely\nvertical touching the teeth and most prominent portion of the\nforehead. Now this angle is in man very large--from seventy-five to\neighty-five degrees, or even more, and rarely falling below\nsixty-five degrees. But this angle depends largely on the protrusion\nof the jaws, and varies greatly in species of animals showing much\nthe same grade of intelligence. In some not especially intelligent\nSouth American monkeys the facial angle amounts to about sixty-five\ndegrees. In this respect the skull of a chimpanzee reminds us of a\nhuman skull of small cranial capacity and large jaws, in which the\ncranium has been pressed back and the jaws crowded forward and\nslightly upward.\n\nThe weight of the brain in proportion to that of the body has been\nconsidered as of great importance, and within certain limits this is\nundoubtedly correct. Thus, according to Leuret, the weight of the\nbrain is to that of the whole body: In fish, 1:5,668; in reptiles,\n1:1,320; in birds, 1:212; in mammals, 1:186. These figures give the\naverages of large numbers of observations and have a certain\namount of value. But within the same class the ratio varies\nextraordinarily. Thus the weight of the brain is to that of the\nwhole body: In the elephant, 1:500; in the largest dogs, 1:305; in\nthe cat, 1:156; in the rat, 1:76; in the chimpanzee, 1:50; in man,\n1:36; in the field-mouse, 1:31; in the goldfinch, 1:24.\n\nFrom this series it is evident that the relative weight of the brain\nis no index of the intelligence of the animal. Indeed if the brain\nwere purely an organ of mind, there is no reason that it should be\nany larger in an elephant than in a mouse, provided they had the\nsame mental capacity. As animals grow larger the weight of the\nbrain, relatively to that of the body, decreases, and considering\nthe size of man it is remarkable that it should form so large a\nfraction of his weight. Still the fraction in the chimpanzee is not\nso much smaller. It is still possible that this fraction is above\nthe normal for the chimpanzee, for some of the observations may have\nbeen taken on animals which had died of consumption or some other\nwasting disease. I have not been able to find whether this\npossibility of error has been scrupulously avoided.\n\nA fair idea of the size of the brain may be obtained by measuring\nthe cranial capacity. This varies in man from almost one-hundred\ncubic inches to less than seventy. In the gorilla its average is\nperhaps thirty, in the orang and chimpanzee rather less, about\ntwenty-eight. This is certainly a vast difference, especially when\nwe remember that the gorilla far exceeds man in weight.\n\nLe Bon tells us that of a series of skulls forty-five per cent, of\nthe Australian had a cranial capacity of 1,200 to 1,300 c.c., while\n46.7 per cent. of modern Parisian skulls showed a capacity of\nbetween 1,500 and 1,600 c.c. The skull of the gorilla contains about\nfive hundred and seventy cubic centimetres. Broca found that the\ncranial capacity of 115 Parisian skulls, of probably the higher\nclasses from the twelfth century, averaged about 1,426 cubic\ncentimetres, while ninety of those of the poorer classes of the\nnineteenth century averaged about 1,484. His observations seemed to\nprove that there has been a steady increase in Parisian cranial\ncapacity from the twelfth to the nineteenth century.\n\nTurning to the actual weight of the brain, that of Cuvier weighed\n64.5 ounces, and a few cases of weights exceeding 65 ounces have\nbeen recorded. The lowest limit of weight in a normal human brain\nhas not yet been accurately determined. From 34 to 31 ounces have\nbeen assigned by different writers. The brain of a Bush woman was\ncomputed by Marshall at 31.5 ounces, and weights of even 31 ounces\nhave been recorded without any note to show that the possessors were\nespecially lacking in intelligence. As Professor Huxley says in his\n\"Man's Place in Nature,\" a little book which I cannot too highly\nrecommend to you all, \"It may be doubted whether a healthy human\nadult brain ever weighed less than 31 or 32 ounces, or that the\nheaviest gorilla brain has ever exceeded 20 ounces. The difference\nin weight of brain between the highest and the lowest men is far\ngreater, both relatively and absolutely, than that between the\nlowest man and the highest ape. The latter, as has been seen, is\nrepresented by 12 ounces of cerebral substance absolutely, or by\n32:20 relatively. But as the largest recorded human brain weighed\nbetween 65 and 66 ounces, the former difference is represented by 33\nounces absolutely, or by 65:32 relatively.\"\n\nBut there is another characteristic of the brain which seems to bear\na close relation to the degree of intelligence. The surface of the\nhuman brain is not smooth but covered with convolutions, with\nalternating grooves or sulci, which vastly increase its surface and\nthus make room for more gray matter. Says Gratiolett: \"On comparing\na series of human and simian brains we are immediately struck with\nthe analogy exhibited in the cerebral forms in all these creatures.\nThere is a cerebral form peculiar to man and the apes; and so in the\ncerebral convolutions, wherever they appear, there is a general\nunity of arrangement, a plan, the type of which is common to all\nthese creatures.\" Professor Huxley says: \"It is most remarkable\nthat, as soon as all the principal sulci appear, the pattern\naccording to which they are arranged is identical with the\ncorresponding sulci in man. The surface of the brain of the monkey\nexhibits a sort of skeleton map of man's, and in the man-like apes\nthe details become more and more filled in, until it is only in\nminor characters that the chimpanzee's or orang's brain can be\nstructurally distinguished from man's.\"\n\nThe facts of anatomy, at least, are all against us. Struggle as we\nmay, be as snobbish as we will, we cannot shake off these poor\nrelations of ours. Our adult anatomy at once betrays our ancestry,\nif we attempt to deny it. Read the first chapter of that remarkable\nbook by Professor Drummond on the \"Ascent of Man,\" the chapter on\nthe ascent of the body, and the second chapter on the scaffolding\nleft in the body. The tips of our ears and our rudimentary ear\nmuscles, the hair on hand and arm, and the little plica semilunaris,\nor rudimentary third eyelid in the inner angle of our eyes, the\nvermiform appendage of the intestine, the coracoid process on our\nshoulder-blades, the atlas vertebra of our necks--to say nothing of\nthe coccyx at the other end of the backbone--many malformations, and\na host of minor characteristics all refute our denial.\n\nIf we appeal from adult anatomy to embryology the case becomes all\nthe worse for us. Our ear is lodged in the gill-slit of a fish, our\njaws are branchial arches, our hyoid bone the rudiment of this\nsystem of bones supporting the gills. Our circulation begins as a\nveritable fish circulation; our earliest skeleton is a notochord;\nMeckel's cartilage, from which our lower jaw and the bones of our\nmiddle ear develop, is a whole genealogical tree of disagreeable\nancestors. Our glandula thyreoidea has, according to good\nauthorities, an origin so slimy that it should never be mentioned in\npolite society. The origin of our kidneys appears decidedly vermian.\nTime fails me to read merely the name of the witnesses which could\nbe summoned from our own bodies to witness against us.\n\nEven if the testimony of some of these witnesses is not as strong\nas many think, and we have misunderstood several of them, they are\ntoo numerous and their stories hang too well together not to impress\nan intelligent and impartial jury. But what if it is all true? What\nif, as some think, our millionth cousin, the tiger or cat, is\nanatomically a better mammal than I? His teeth and claws and\nmagnificent muscles are of small value compared with man's mental\npower.\n\nWhat a comedy that man should work so hard to prove that his chief\nglory is his opposable thumb, or a few ounces of brain matter! Man's\nglory is his mind and will, his reason and moral powers, his vision\nof, and communion with, God. And supposing it be true, as I believe\nit is true, that the animal has the germ of these also, does that\ncloud my mind or obscure my vision or weaken my action? It bids me\nonly strive the harder to be worthy of the noble ancestors who have\nraised me to my higher level and on whose buried shoulders I stand.\nWhatever may have been our origin, whoever our ancestors, we are\nmen. Then let us play the man. If we will but play our part as well\nas our old ancestors played theirs, if we will but walk and act\naccording to our light one-half as heroically and well as they\ngroped in the darkness, we need not worry about the future. That\nwill be assured.\n\nSays Professor Huxley: \"Man now stands as on a mountain-top far\nabove the level of his humble fellows, and transfigured from his\ngrosser nature by reflecting here and there a ray from the infinite\nsource of truth. And thoughtful man, once escaped from the blinding\ninfluences of traditional prejudice, will find in the lowly stock\nwhence man has sprung the best evidence of the splendor of his\ncapacities, and will discern in his long progress through the past a\nreasonable ground of faith in his attainment of a nobler future.\"\n\nWe have sketched hastily and in rude outline the anatomical\nstructure of the successive stages of man's ancestry; let us now, in\na very brief recapitulation, condense this chronicle into a\nhistorical record of progress.\n\nWe began with the amoeba. This could not have been the beginning.\nIn all its structure it tells us of something earlier and far\nsimpler, but what this earlier ancestor was we do not know. Rather\nmore highly organized relatives of the amoeba, the flagellata,\nhave produced a membrane, and swim by means of vibratile,\nwhiplash-like flagella. We must emphasize that these little animals\ncorrespond in all essential respects to the cells of our bodies;\nthey are unicellular animals. And the cell once developed remains\nessentially the same structure, modified only in details, throughout\nhigher animals. And these unicellular animals have the rudiments of\nall our functions. Their protoplasm and functions seem to differ\nfrom those of higher animals only in degree, not in kind. And the\nmore we consider both these facts the more remarkable and suggestive\ndo they become.\n\nCells with membranes can unite in colonies capable of division of\nlabor and differentiation. And magosph\u00e6ra is just such a little\nspheroidal colony. But the cells are still all alike, each one\nperforms all functions equally well. But in volvox division of labor\nand differentiation of structure have taken place. Certain cells\nhave become purely reproductive, while the rest gather nutriment for\nthese, but are at the same time sensitive and locomotive, excretory\nand respiratory. The first function to have cells specially devoted\nto it is the reproductive; this is a function absolutely necessary\nfor the maintenance of the species. For the nutritive cells die when\nthey have brought the reproductive cells to their full development.\nThese few nutritive cells represent the body of all higher animals\nin contrast with the reproductive elements. And with the development\nof a body, death, as a normal process, enters the world. The\ndominant function is here evidently the reproductive, and the whole\nbody is subservient to this.\n\nIn hydra the union and differentiation of cells is carried further.\nBut the cells are still much alike and only slowly lose their own\nindividuality in that of the whole animal. This is shown in the fact\nthat each entodermal cell digests its own particles of food,\nalthough the nutriment once digested diffuses to all parts of the\nbody. Also almost any part of the animal containing both ectoderm\nand entoderm can be cut off and will develop into a new animal.\n\nBut beside the reproductive cells and tissues hydra has developed a\nvery simple digestive system, in which the newly caught food at\nleast macerates and begins to be dissolved. This is the second\nessential function. The animal can, and the plant as a rule does,\nexist with only the lowest rudiments of anything like nervous or\nmuscular power; but no species can exist without good powers of\ndigestion and reproduction. These essential organs must first\ndevelop and the higher must wait. And the inner, digestive, layer of\ncells persists in our bodies as the lining of the mid-intestine. We\ncompared hydra therefore to a little patch of the lining of our\nintestine covered with a flake of epidermis; only these layers in\nhydra possess powers lost to the corresponding cells of our bodies\nin the process of differentiation. Notice, please, that when cell or\norgan has once been developed it persists, as a rule, modified, but\nnot lost. Nature's experiments are not in vain; her progress is very\nslow but sure. But hydra has also the promise of better things,\ntraces of muscular and nervous tissue. There are still no compact\nmuscles, like our own, much less ganglion or brain or nerve-centre\nof individuality. The tissues are diffuse, but they are the\nmaterials out of which the organs of higher animals will\ncrystallize, so to speak. Notice also that these higher muscles and\nnerves are here entirely subservient to, and exist for, digestion\nand reproduction.\n\nIn the turbellaria the reproductive system has reached a very high\ngrade of development. It is a complex and beautifully constructed\norgan. The digestive system has also vastly improved; it has its own\nmuscular layers, and often some means of grasping food. But it is\nslower in reaching its full development than the reproductive\nsystem. But all the muscles are no longer attached to the stomach;\nthey are beginning to assert their independence, and, in a rude way,\nto build a body-wall. But they are in many layers, and run in almost\nall directions. Some of these layers will disappear, but the most\nimportant ones, consisting of longitudinal and transverse fibres,\nwill persist in higher forms. Locomotion by means of these muscles\nis slowly coming into prominence. They are no longer merely slaves\nof digestion.\n\nBut a muscular fibril contracts only under the stimulus of a nervous\nimpulse. More nerve-cells are necessary to control these more\nnumerous muscular fibrils. The animal now moves with one end\nforemost, and that end first comes in contact with food, hindrances,\nor injurious surroundings. Here the sensory cells of feeling and\ntheir nerve fibrils multiply. Remember that these neuro-epithelial\nsensory cells are suited to respond not merely to pressure, but to a\nvariety of the stimuli, chemical, molecular, and of vibration, which\nexcite our organs of smell, taste, and hearing. Such organs and the\ndirective eyes appear mainly at this anterior end. But a ganglion\ncell sends an impulse to a muscle because it has received one along\na sensory nerve from one or more of these sensory cells. Hence the\nganglion cells will increase in number. The old cobweb-like plexus\ncondenses into a little knot, the supra-oesophageal ganglion. This\nganglion cannot do much, if any, thinking; it is rather a steering\norgan to control the muscles and guide the animal. It is the servant\nof the locomotive system. Yet it is the beginning of the brain of\nhigher animals, and probably still persists as an infinitesimal\nportion of our human brain. And all this is the prophecy of a head\nsoon to be developed. An excretory system has appeared to carry off\nthe waste of the muscles and nerves.\n\nIn the schematic worm and annelid the reproductive system is\nsimpler, though perhaps equally effective. It takes the excess of\nnutriment of the body. The muscular system has taken the form of a\nsack composed of longitudinal and transverse fibres. The\nperivisceral cavity, formed perhaps by cutting off and enlarging the\nlateral pouches of the turbellarian digestive system, serves as a\nvery simple but serviceable circulatory system. But in the annelid\nand all higher forms a special system of tubes has developed to\ncarry the nutriment, and usually oxygen also, needed to keep up the\ncombustion required to furnish the energy in these active organs.\nThe digestive system has attained its definite form with the\nappearance of an anal opening and the accompanying division of labor\nand differentiation into fore-, mid-, and hind-intestine.\n\nThe digestive and reproductive systems have thus nearly attained\ntheir final form. From the higher worms upward the digestive system\nwill improve greatly. Its lining will fold and flex and vastly\nincrease the digestive and absorptive surfaces. The layer of cells\nwhich now secrete the digestive fluids will in part be replaced by\nmassive glands. Far better means of grasping food than the horny\nteeth of annelids will yet appear. But all these changes are\ninconsiderable compared with the vast advance made by the muscular\nand nervous systems. Reproduction and digestion are losing their\nsupremacy in the animal body. Their advance and improvement will\nrequire but little further attention.\n\nIn the annelid especially, and to some extent in the schematic worm,\nthe supra-oesophageal ganglion is relieved in part of the direct\ncontrol of the muscular fibrils and has become an organ of\nperception and the seat of government of lower nervous centres. In\nall higher forms it innervates directly only the principal\nsense-organs of the head. And at this stage the light-perceiving\ndirective eye has developed into a form-perceiving, eidoscopic\norgan. The eye was short of range and its images were perhaps rude\nand imperfect, but it was a visual eye and had vast possibilities.\nThe animal is taking cognizance of ever more subtle elements in its\nenvironment. Perhaps it is not too much to say that the eidoscopic\neye first awakened the slumbering animal mind, for its reflex effect\nupon the supra-oesophageal ganglion cannot be over-estimated. The\nanimal will very soon begin to think.\n\nBetween the turbellarian and the annelid many aberrant lines\ndiverged. Some of these attained a comparatively high level and then\nseemed to meet insuperable obstacles, while others came to an end or\nturned downward very early. Three of these demanded attention, those\nleading to mollusks, insects, and vertebrates. And it is interesting\nto notice that the fundamental difference between these three lines\nwas the skeleton, or perhaps we ought to say it was the habit of\nlife which led to the development of such a skeleton.\n\nThe mollusk took to a sluggish, creeping mode of life, under an\nexternal purely protective skeleton; the insect to a creeping mode\nof life, with an external but almost purely locomotive skeleton; the\nvertebrate kept on swimming and developed an internal locomotive\nskeleton. And it must already have become clear to you that the\ndestiny of these different lines was fixed not so much directly by\nthe skeleton itself as by its reflex effect in moulding the\nmuscular, and ultimately the nervous, system.\n\nThe insects formed their skeleton by thickening the horny cuticle of\nthe annelid. They transformed the annelid parapodia into legs and\ndeveloped wings. They attained life in the air. They devoted the\nmuscles of the body largely to the extremities and gained swift\nlocomotion. They have a fair circulatory and an excellent\nrespiratory system. Best of all, they developed a head and a brain\nby fusing the three anterior ganglia of the body. The insect could\nand does think. Such a structure ought to lead to great and high\nresults. But actually their possibilities were very limited. They\nhave not progressed markedly during the last geological period.\nTheir external skeleton was easily attained and brought speedy\nadvantages, which for a time placed them far above all competitors.\nBut it limited their size and length of life and opportunities, and\nfinally their intelligence. They remained largely the slaves of\ninstinct. They followed an attractive and exceedingly promising\npath, but it led to the bottom of a cliff, not to the summit.\n\nThe mollusks, clams, and snails took an easier, down-hill road. They\nformed a shell, and it developed large enough to cover them. It\nhampered and almost destroyed locomotion and reduced nerve to a\nminimum. But nerves are nothing but a nuisance anyhow. And why\nshould they move? Food was plenty down in the mud, and if danger\nthreatened, they withdrew into the shell. They stayed down in the\nmud and let the world go its way. If grievously afflicted by a\nparasite they produced a pearl--to save themselves from further\ndiscomfort. They developed just enough muscle and nervous system to\nclose the shell or drag it a little way; that was all. Digestion and\nreproduction retained the supremacy. They were fruitful and\nmultiplied, and produced hosts of other clams and snails. The\npresent was enough for them and they had that.\n\nFor if the winner in the struggle for existence is the one who gains\nthe most food, the most entire protection against discomfort, danger\nfrom enemies or unfavorable surroundings, and the most fruitful and\nrapid reproduction--and these are all good--then the clam is the\nhighest product of evolution. It never has been surpassed--I venture\nto say it never can be--except possibly by the tape-worms. I can\nnever help thinking with what contempt these primitive oysters, if\nthey had had brains enough, would have looked down upon the toiling,\nstruggling, discontented, fighting, aspiring primitive vertebrates.\nHow they would have wondered why God allowed such disagreeable,\ndisturbing, unconventional creatures to exist, and thanked him that\nhe had made the world for them, and heaven too, if there be such a\nplace for mollusks. Their road led to the Slough of Contentment.\n\nBut even in molluscan history there was a tragic chapter. The squids\nand cuttle-fishes regained the swimming life, and in their latest\nforms gave up the protective shell. But its former presence had so\nmodified their structure that any great advance was impossible. It\nwas too late. The sins of the fathers were visited upon the children\nin the thousandth generation.\n\nThe vertebrate developed an internal skeleton. This was necessarily\na slow growth, and the type came late to supremacy. The longitudinal\nmuscles are arranged in heavy bands on each side of the back, and\nthe animal swims rapidly. The sense-organs are keen. The brain\ncontains the ganglia of several or many segments and is highly\ndifferentiated. It has a special centre of perception, thought, and\nwill; it is an organ of mind. The vertebrate has the physical and\nmental advantages of large size.\n\nFirst the definite form and mode of developing a vertebra is\nattained. Then the vertebral column is perfected. The fins are\nmodified into legs. The lungs increase in size and the heart becomes\ndouble. The animal emerges on land; and, with a better supply of\noxygen and less loss of heat, all the functions are performed with\nthe highest possible efficiency. First, apparently, amphibia, then\nreptiles, and finally mammals of enormous size and strength\nappeared. It looked as if the earth were to be an arena where\ngigantic beasts fought a never-ending battle of brute force. But\nthese great brutes reproduced slowly, had therefore little power of\nadaptation, were fitted to special conditions, and when the\nconditions changed they disappeared. The bird tried once more the\nexperiment of developing the locomotive powers to the highest\npossible extent. It became a flying machine, and every organ was\nmoulded to suit this life. Every ounce of spare weight was thrown\naside, the muscles were wonderfully arranged and of the highest\npossible efficiency. The body temperature is higher than that of\nmammals. The whole organization is a physiological high-pressure\nengine. The sense-organs are perhaps the finest and keenest in the\nwhole animal kingdom. The brain is inferior only to that of mammals.\nThe experiment could not have been tried under more favorable\nconditions; it was not a failure, it certainly was not a success\nwhen compared with that of mammals.\n\nThe possibilities of every system except one had been practically\nexhausted. Only brain development remained as the last hope of\nsuccess. Here was an untried line, and the mammals followed it.\nDuring the short tertiary period the brain in many of their genera\nseems to have increased tenfold. By the arboreal life of the highest\nforms the hand is developed as the instrument of the thinking brain.\nThe battle is beginning to become one of wits, and the crown will\nsoon pass from the strongest to the shrewdest. Mind, not muscle,\nmuch less digestion or reproduction, is the goal of the animal\nkingdom. And we shall see later that the mammalian mode of\nreproduction and of care of the young led to an almost purely mental\nand moral advance. For these could have but one logical outcome,\nfamily life. And the family is the foundation of society. And family\nand social life have been the school in which man has been compelled\nto learn the moral lessons, the application of which has made him\nwhat he is.\n\nYou must all, I think, have noticed that the different systems of\norgans succeed one another in a certain definite order; and that\neach stage from the lowest to the highest is characterized by the\npredominance of a certain function or group of functions. This\nsequence of functions is not a deduction but a fact. Place side by\nside all possible genealogical trees of the animal kingdom, whether\nfounded on comparative anatomy, embryology, pal\u00e6ontology, or all\ncombined. They will all disclose this sequence of functions arranged\nin the same order. Let me call your attention to the fact that this\norder is not due to chance, but rests upon a physiological basis. We\nmight almost claim that if the evolution of man from the single cell\nbe granted, no other order of their occurrence is possible.\n\nThe protozoa are mostly, though not purely, nutritive and\nreproductive. These functions are essential to the existence of the\nspecies. Naturally in the early protozoan colonies, and in forms\nlike hydra, these functions predominated. But mere digestive tissue\nis not enough for digestion. Muscles are needed to draw the food to\nthe mouth, to keep the digestive sack in contact with it, and for\nother purposes. A little higher they are used to enable the animal\nto go in search of its food. They are still, however, more or less\nentirely subservient to digestion. But in the highest worms we are\nbeginning to see signs that muscles are predominating in the body;\nand we feel that, while mutually helpful, the digestive system\nexists for the muscles, and these latter are becoming the aim of\ndevelopment. From worms upward there is a marked advance in physical\nactivity and strength. The muscles thicken and are arranged in\nheavier bands. Skeleton and locomotive appendages and jaws follow in\ninsects and vertebrates. The direct battle of animal against animal,\nand of strength opposed to strength or activity, becomes ever\nsharper. The strongest and most active are selected and survive.\n\nAnd yet this is not the whole truth. Some power of perception is\npossessed by every animal. But until muscles had developed the\nnervous system could be of but little practical value. Knowledge of\neven a great emergency is of little use, if I can do nothing about\nit. But when the muscles appeared, nerves and ganglion cells were\nnecessary to stimulate and control them. And this highest system\nholds for a long time a position subordinate to that of the lower\nmuscular organ. Its development seems at first sight extraordinarily\nslow. Only in insects and vertebrates has it become a centre of\ninstinct and thought. Through the sense-organs it is gaining an ever\nclearer, deeper, and wider knowledge of its environment. First it is\naffected only by the lower stimuli of touch, taste, and smell. Then\nwith the development of ear and eye it takes cognizance of ever\nsubtler forces and movements. Memory comes into activity very early.\nThe animal begins to learn by experience. The brain is becoming not\nmerely a steering but a thinking organ. More and more nervous\nmaterial is crowded into it and detailed for its work. Wits and\nshrewdness are beginning to count for something in the battle. Not\nonly the animal with the strongest muscles, but the one with the\nbest brain survives. And thus at last the brain began to develop\nwith a rapidity as remarkable as its long delay. Thus each higher\nfunction is called into activity by the next lower, serves this at\nfirst, and only later attains its supremacy.\n\nAnd yet the advance of the different functions is not altogether\nsuccessive. Muscle and nerve do not wait for digestion and\nreproduction to show signs of halting before they begin to advance.\nThey all advance at once. But the progress of reproduction and\ndigestion is most rapid at first, and it appears as if they would\noutrun the others. But in the ascending series the others follow\nafter, and soon overtake and pass by them. And these lower\nfunctions, when out-marched, do not lag behind, but keep in touch\nwith the others, forming the rear-guard and supply-train of the\narmy. And notice that each organ holds the predominance about as\nlong as it shows the power of rapid improvement. The length of its\nreign is pretty closely proportional to its capacity of development.\nThe digestive system reaches that limit early, the muscular system\nis capable of indefinitely higher complexity, as we see in our hand.\nBut the muscular system has nearly or quite reached its limit. The\nbody had seen its day of dominance before man arrived on the globe.\n\nBut where is the limit to man's mental or moral powers? Every\nupward step in knowledge, wisdom, and righteousness only opens our\neyes to greater heights, before unperceived and still to be\nattained. These capacities, even to our dim vision, are evidently\ncapable of an indefinite, perhaps infinite, development. What, as\nyet only partially developed, faculty remains to supersede them? As\nbeing capable of an endless development and without a rival, may we\nnot, _must_ we not, consider them as ends in themselves? They are\nevidently what we are here for. Everything points to a spiritual end\nin animal evolution. The line of development is from the\npredominantly material to the predominance of the non-material. Not\nthat the material is to be crowded out. It is to reach its highest\ndevelopment in the service of the mind. The body must be sustained\nand perfected, but it is not the end. The goal is mind, the body is\nof subordinate importance.\n\nBut if this is true, we must study carefully the development of mind\nin the animal. The question presses upon us; if there is a sequence\nof physical functions in animal development, is there not perhaps\nalso a sequence in the development of the mental faculties? What is\nthe crowning faculty of the human mind and how is its fuller\ndevelopment to be attained? Let us pass therefore to the question of\nmind in the animal kingdom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE HISTORY OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS SEQUENCE OF FUNCTIONS\n\n\nWe have sketched hastily the development of the human body. This\nportion of our history is marked by the successive dominance of\nhigher and higher functions. It is a history treating of successive\neras. There is first the period of the dominance of reproduction and\ndigestion, purely vegetative functions, characteristics of the plant\njust as truly as of the animal. This period extends from the\nbeginning of life up to the time when the annelid was the highest\nliving form yet developed. But in insects and lower vertebrates\nanother system has risen to dominance. This is muscle. The\nvertebrate no longer devotes all, or the larger part, of its income\nto digestion and reproduction. If it did, it would degenerate or\ndisappear. The stomach and intestine are improved, but only that\nthey may furnish more abundant nutriment for building and supporting\nmore powerful muscles better arranged. The history of vertebrates is\na record of the struggle for supremacy between successive groups of\ncontinually greater and better applied muscular power. Here strength\nand activity seem to be the goal of animal development, and the\nprize falls to the strongest or most agile. The earth is peopled by\nhuge reptiles, or mammals of enormous strength, and by birds of\nexceeding swiftness. This portion of our history covers the era of\nmuscular activity.\n\nBut these huge brutes are mostly doomed to extinction, and the bird\nfails of supremacy in the animal kingdom. \"The race is not to the\nswift, nor the battle to the strong.\" All the time another system\nhas been slowly developing. The complicated nervous system has\nrequired ages for its construction and arrangement. Only in the\nhighest mammals does the brain assert its right to supremacy. But\nonce established on its throne the brain reigns supreme; its right\nis challenged by no other organ. The possibilities of all the other\norgans, _as supreme rulers_, have been exhausted. Each one has been\nthoroughly tested, and its inadequacy proven beyond doubt by actual\nexperiment. These formerly supreme lower organs must serve the\nhigher. The age of man's existence on the globe is, and must remain,\nthe era of mind. For the mind alone has an inexhaustible store of\npossibilities.\n\nThe development of all these systems is simultaneous. From the very\nbeginning all the functions have been represented, all the systems\nhave been gradually advancing. Hydra has a nervous system just as\nreally as man. It has no brain, but it has the potentiality and\npromise of one, and is taking the necessary steps toward its\nattainment. But while the development of all is simultaneous, their\nculmination and supremacy is successive, first stomach and muscle,\nthen brain and mind. That was not first which is spiritual, but that\nwhich is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. But now\nthat the mind has once become supreme, man must live and work\nchiefly for its higher development. Thus alone is progress possible.\n\nBut the word mind calls up before us a long list of powers. And the\nquestions arise, Is one mode and line of mental action just as much\nthe goal of man's development as another? Is man to cultivate the\nappetite for food and sense gratification just as much as the hunger\nfor righteousness? Or is appetite in the mind like digestion in the\nbody, a function, necessary indeed and once dominant, but no longer\nfitted for supreme control? Is there in the development of the\nmental powers or functions just as really a sequence of dominance as\nin that of the bodily functions? Are there older and lower powers\nand modes of action, which, though once supreme, must now be rigidly\nkept down in their proper lower place? Are there lower motives, for\nwhich the very laws of evolution forbid us to live, just as truly as\nthey forbid a man's living for stomach or brute strength instead of\nbrain and mind? Are these lower powers merely the foundation\non which the higher motives and powers are to rise in their\ntranscendent glory? This is the question which we now must face,\nand it is of vital importance.\n\nWe have come to one of the most important and difficult subjects of\nzo\u00f6logy. Let us distinctly recognize that it is not our task to\nexplain the origin of mind, or even of a single mental faculty. I\nshall take for granted what many of you will not admit, that the\ngerms of all man's highest mental powers are present undeveloped in\nthe mind, if you will call it so, of the amoeba. The limits of\nthis course of lectures have required us to choose between\nalternatives, either to attempt to prove the truth of the theory of\nevolution, or taking this for granted, to attempt to find its\nbearings on our moral and religious beliefs. I have chosen the\nlatter course, and here, as elsewhere, will abide by it. I should\nnot have followed such a course if I did not thoroughly believe that\nman also, in mind as well as body, is the product of evolution. But\nthis is no reason for your accepting these views. You are asked only\nto judge impartially of the tendencies of the theory. We take for\ngranted, I repeat, that all man's mental faculties are germinally,\npotentially, present in protoplasm; we seek the history of their\ndevelopment.\n\nWe must remember, further, that the science of animal or comparative\npsychology is yet in its infancy. Even reliable facts are only\nslowly being sifted and recorded in sufficient numbers to make\ndeductions at all safe. And even of these facts different writers\ngive very different explanations. As Mr. Romanes has well said, \"All\nour knowledge of mental faculties, other than our own, really\nconsists of an inferential interpretation of bodily activities--this\ninterpretation being founded on our subjective knowledge of our own\nmental activities. By inference we project, as it were, the human\npattern of our own mental chromograph on what is to us the otherwise\nblank screen of another mind.\" The value and clearness of our\ninferences will be proportional to the similarity of the animal to\nourselves. Thus we can educate many of our higher mammals by a\nsystem of rewards and punishments, and we seem therefore to have\ngood reason to believe that fear and joy, anger and desire, certain\npowers of perception and inference, are in their minds similar to\nour own. But fear in a fish is certainly a much dimmer apprehension\nof danger than in us, even if it deserves the name of apprehension.\nAnd the mental state which we call \"alarm\" in a fly or any lower\nanimal is very difficult to clearly imagine or at all express in\nterms of our own mind.\n\nSome investigators have made the mistake of projecting into the\nanimal mind all our emotions and complicated trains of thought. Thus\nSchwammerdam apparently credits the snail with remorse for the\ncommission of excesses. Others go to the other extreme and make\nanimals hardly more than mindless automata. We are warned,\ntherefore, by our very mode of study, to be cautious, not too\nabsolutely sure of our results, nor indignant at others who may take\na very different view. And yet by moving cautiously and accepting\nonly what seems fairly clear and evident we may arrive at very\nvaluable and tolerably sure results.\n\nThe human mind, and the animal mind apparently, manifests itself in\nthree states or functions. These are intelligence, the realm of\nknowledge; susceptibility, the realm or state of feelings or\nemotions; will, the power or state of choice. Let us trace first the\ndevelopment of intelligence or the intellect in the animal. Let us\ntry to discover what kinds of knowledge are successively attained\nand the mode and sequence of their attainment. Hydra appears to be\nconscious of its food. It recognizes it partially by touch, perhaps\nalso by feeling the waves caused by its approach. It seems also to\nrecognize food at a little distance by a power comparable to our\nsense of smell. Stronger impacts cause it to contract. It neither\nsees nor hears; it probably does little or no thinking. Its\nknowledge is therefore limited to the recognition of objects either\nin contact with, or but slightly removed from, itself. And its\nrecognition of the objects is very dim and incomplete, obtained\nthrough the sense of touch and smell.\n\nA little higher in the animal world a rude ear has developed, first\nas a very delicate organ for feeling the waves caused by approaching\nfood or enemies; only later as an organ of hearing. Meanwhile the\neye has been developing, to perceive the subtle ether vibrations.\nThe eye of the turbellaria distinguishes only light from darkness,\nthat of the annelid is a true visual organ. Now the brain can begin\nto perceive the shape of objects at a little distance. Touch and\nsmell, hearing, sight; such is sequence of sense perceptions. The\nsense-organs respond to continually more delicate and subtle\nimpacts, and cover an ever-widening range of more and more distant\nobjects. Up to this point intelligence has hardly included more than\nsense-perceptions.\n\nBut these sense-perceptions have been all the time spurring the mind\nto begin a higher work. At first it is conscious merely of objects,\nand its main effort is to gain a clearer and clearer perception of\nthese.\n\nNow it is led to undertake, so to speak, the work of a sense-organ\nof a higher grade. It begins to directly see invisible relations\njust as truly as through the eye it has perceived light. First\nperhaps it perceives that certain perceptions and experiences,\nagreeable or disagreeable, occur in a certain sequence. It begins to\nassociate these. It learns thus to recognize the premonitory\nsymptoms of nature's favor or disfavor, and thus gains food or\navoids dangers. The bee learns to associate accessible nectar with a\ncertain spot on the flower marked by bright dots or lines,\n\"honey-guides,\" and the chimpanzee that when a hen cackles there is\nan egg in the nest. But association is only the first lesson;\ninference and understanding follow.\n\nThe child at kindergarten receives a few blocks. It admires and\nplays with them. Then it is taught to notice their form. After a\ntime it arranges them in groups and learns the first elements of\nnumber. But when it has advanced to higher mathematics, the blocks,\nor figures on the blackboard, become only symbols or means of\nillustrating the great theorems and propositions of that science.\nThus the animal has begun in the kindergarten way to dimly perceive\nthat there are real, though intangible and invisible, relations\nbetween objects. But what is all human science but the clearer\nvision, and farther search into, and tracing of these same\nrelations? And what is all advance of knowledge but a perception of\never subtler relations? What is even the knowledge of right but the\nperception of the subtlest and deepest and widest relations of man\nto his environment? The animal seems to be steadily advancing along\nthe path toward the perception of abstract truth, though man alone\nreally attains it.\n\nAnd the higher power of association and inference which we call\nunderstanding, aided by memory, results in the power of learning by\nexperience, so characteristic of higher vertebrates. The hunted bird\nor mammal very quickly becomes wary. A new trap catches more than a\nbetter old one until the animals have learned to understand it, and\nyoung animals are trapped more easily than old. Cases showing the\nlimitations of mammalian intelligence are interesting in this\nconnection. A cat which wished to look out and find the cause of a\nnoise outside, when all the windows were closed by wooden blinds,\njumped upon a stand and looked into a mirror. Her inference as to\nthe general use of glass was correct; all its uses had not yet come\nwithin the range of her experience. A monkey used to stop a hole in\nthe side of a cage with straw. The keeper, to tease him, used to\npull this out. But one day the monkey tugged at a nail in the side\nof his cage until he had pulled it out, and thrust it into the hole.\nBut when it was pushed back he fell into a rage. His inference that\nthe nail-head could not be pulled through was entirely correct; he\nhad failed to foresee that it could be pushed back. Many such\ninstances have probably come within the range of your observation,\nif you have noticed them. But many of the facts which Mr. Romanes\ngives us concerning the intelligence of monkeys, apes, and baboons\nwould not disgrace the intelligence of children or men.\n\nMr. Romanes relates the following account of a little capuchin\nmonkey from Brazil:\n\n   \"To-day he obtained possession of a hearth-brush, one of the kind\n   which has the handle screwed into the brush. He soon found the\n   way to unscrew the handle, and having done that he immediately\n   began to try to find out the way to screw it in again. This he in\n   time accomplished. At first he put the wrong end of the handle\n   into the hole, but turned it round and round the right way for\n   screwing. Finding it did not hold he turned the other end of the\n   handle and carefully stuck it into the hole, and began again to\n   turn it the right way. It was of course a difficult feat for him\n   to perform, for he required both his hands in order to screw it\n   in, and the long bristles of the brush prevented it from\n   remaining steady or with the right side up. He held the brush\n   with his hind hand, but even so it was very difficult for him to\n   get the first turn of the screw to fit into the thread; he worked\n   at it, however, with the most unwearying perseverance until he\n   got the first turn of the screw to catch, and he then quickly\n   turned it round and round until it was screwed up to the end. The\n   most remarkable thing was, that however often he was disappointed\n   in the beginning, he never was induced to try turning the handle\n   the wrong way; he always screwed it from right to left. As soon\n   as he had accomplished his wish he unscrewed it again, and then\n   screwed it in again the second time rather more easily than the\n   first, and so on many times. When he had become by practice\n   tolerably perfect in screwing and unscrewing, he gave it up and\n   took to some other amusement. One remarkable thing is that he\n   should take so much trouble to do that which is no material\n   benefit to him. The desire to accomplish a chosen task seems a\n   sufficient inducement to lead him to take any amount of trouble.\n   This seems a very human feeling, such as is not shown, I believe,\n   by any other animal. It is not the desire of praise, as he never\n   notices people looking on; it is simply the desire to achieve an\n   object for the sake of achieving an object, and he never rests\n   nor allows his attention to be distracted until it is done....\n\n   \"As my sister once observed while we were watching him conducting\n   some of his researches, in oblivion to his food and all his other\n   surroundings--'When a monkey behaves like this it is no wonder\n   that man is a scientific animal!'\"[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Romanes: Animal Intelligence, pp. 490, 498.]\n\nIn the highest mammals we find also different degrees of attention\nand concentration of thought and observation. This difference can\neasily be noticed in young hunting dogs. A trainer of monkeys said\nthat he could easily select those which could most easily be taught,\nby noticing in the first lesson whether he could easily gain and\nhold their attention. This was easy with some, while others were\ndiverted by every passing fly; and the latter, like heedless\nstudents, made but slow progress.\n\nIt is interesting to notice that one of the perceptions which we\nclass among the highest is apparently developed comparatively early.\nI refer to the \u00e6sthetic perception of the beautiful. Now, the\nperception of beauty is generally considered as not very far below\nor removed from the perception of truth and right. But some insects\nand birds apparently possess this perception and the corresponding\nemotion in no low degree. The colors of flowers seem to exist mainly\nfor the attraction of insects to insure cross-fertilization, and\ncertain insects seem to prefer certain colors. But you may say that\nthese afford merely sense gratification like that which green\naffords to our eyes or sugar to our tastes.\n\nBut does not the grouping of colors in the flower appeal to some\n\u00e6sthetic standard in the mind of the insect? What of the tail of the\npeacock? Its iridescent rings and eyes evidently appeal to something\nin the mind of the female. Do form and grouping minister to pure\nsense gratification? What of the song of the thrush? Does not the\norderly and harmonious arrangement of notes and cadences appeal to\nsome standard of order of arrangement, and hence idea of harmony, in\nthe mind of the bird's mate?\n\nNow, I grant you readily that the A B C of this training is mere\nsense gratification at the sight of bright colors. Most insects and\nbirds have probably not advanced much beyond this first lesson.\nSavages have generally stopped there or reverted to it. But any\nappreciation of form and harmonious arrangement of cadence and\ncolors seems to me at least to demand some perception which we must\ncall \u00e6sthetic, or dangerously near it. But here you must judge\ncarefully for yourselves lest you be misled. For remember, please,\nthat those schemes of psychology farthest removed from, and least\nreadily reconcilable to, the theory of evolution maintain that\nperception of beauty is the work of the rational faculty, which also\nperceives truth and right in much the same way that it perceives\nand recognizes beauty. If the animal has the \u00e6sthetic perception, it\nhas the faculty which, at the next higher stage of development, will\nperceive, and recognize as such, both truth and right. We are\nconsidering no unimportant question; for on our answer to this\ndepends our answer to questions of far greater importance.\n\nDoes it look as if the animal had begun to learn the first rudiments\nof the great science of rights, of his own rights and those of\nothers? This is an exceedingly difficult question, though often\nanswered unhesitatingly in the negative. But what of the division of\nterritory by the dogs in oriental cities, a division evidently\ndepending upon something outside of mere brute strength and power to\nmaintain, and their respect of boundaries? The female is allowed, I\nam told by an eye-witness long resident in Constantinople, to\ndistribute her puppies in unoccupied spots through the city without\ninterference. But when she has once located them, she is not allowed\nto return and visit them, or pass that way again. So the account by\nDr. Washburn of platoons of dogs coming in turn, and peaceably, to\nfeed on a dead donkey in the streets of Constantinople, would seem\nto be most naturally explained by some dim recognition of rights.\nRook communities have not received the attention and investigation\nwhich they deserve, but their actions are certainly worthy of\nattention. Concerning the sense of ownership in dogs and other\nmammals opinions differ, and yet many facts are most naturally\nexplained on such a supposition.\n\nJust one more question in this connection, for we are in the\nborderland or twilightland where it is much safer to ask questions\nthan to attempt to answer them. How do you explain the \"instinctive\"\nfear of man on the part of wild and fierce animals? They certainly\ndo not quail before his brute strength, for a blow at such a time\nbreaks the charm and insures an attack. They quail before his eye\nand look. Is not this the answering of a personality in the animal\nto the personality in man; a recognition of something deeper than\nbone and muscle? And may not, as Mr. Darwin has urged, this fear in\nthe presence of a higher personality be the dim foreshadowing of an\nawe which promises indefinitely better things? Is, after all, the\nattachment of a dog to his master something far deeper than an\nappetite for bones or pats, or a fear of kicks?\n\nA host of other and similar questions throng upon us here, to no one\nof which we can give a definite answer. We need more investigation,\nmore light. We must not rest contented with old prejudices or accept\nwith too great certainty new explanations. The questions are worthy\nof careful and patient investigation. The study of comparative\nanatomy has thrown a flood of light on the structure and working of\nthe human body in health and disease. We shall never fully\nunderstand the mind of man until we know more of the working of the\nmind of the animal.\n\nIt would seem to be clear that there is a sequence of dominance in\nthe faculties of the intellect. First, the only means of acquiring\nknowledge is through sense-perception. But memory dawns far down in\nthe animal kingdom. And thus the animal begins to associate past\nexperience with present objects. The bee remembers the gaining of\nhoney in the past, associated with the color of the flower which she\nnow sees, and knows that honey is to be attained again. Thus in time\nassociation leads to inference, and understanding has dawned. But\nthe highest faculty of the intellect is the rational intelligence,\nwhich perceives beauty, truth, and goodness. This is the last to\ndevelop. Traces of its working may be perhaps discovered below man,\nbut only in man does it become dominant. Through it I perceive my\nrights and duties, and come to the consciousness of my own\npersonality as a moral agent. This tells me of the relation of my\nown personality to other persons and things. And these are evidently\nthe most important objects of human study. The attainment of this\nknowledge and the development of this faculty are evidently the goal\nof human intellectual development. This it is which has insured\nprogress and raised man ever higher above the brutes.\n\nBefore we can proceed to the study of the will we must clearly\nrecognize and define certain modes of mental and nervous action,\nwhich sooner or later manifest themselves in muscular activity. For,\nwhile certain of our bodily activities are clearly voluntary, others\ntake place wholly, or in part independently, of the individual will.\nBetween these different modes of bodily action we must distinguish\nas clearly as may be possible.\n\n1. Reflex Action. I touch something cold or hot in the dark,\nsuddenly and unexpectedly. I draw back my hand involuntarily and\nbefore I have perceived the sensation of cold or heat. You tell me\nto keep my eyes open while you make a sudden pass at them with your\nhand. I try hard to do so, but my eyes shut for all that. I shut\nthem unconsciously and against my own will. I say, \"They shut of\nthemselves.\" Now, this is not true, but the explanation is not\ndifficult. These and similar actions are entirely possible, although\nthe continuity between spinal marrow and brain may have been so\ninterrupted by some accident that sensation in the reflexly active\npart fails altogether. A bird flaps its wings after its head is cut\noff, and yet the seat of consciousness and will is certainly in the\nbrain. A patient with a \"broken back,\" and paralyzed in his legs,\nwill draw up his feet if they are tickled, although he is entirely\nunable to move them by any effort of his will and has no\nconsciousness of the irritation.\n\nThe physiological action is in this case clear. The vibration of the\nnerve caused by the tickling travels from the foot to the\nappropriate centre in the spinal marrow, and here gives rise to, or\nis switched off as, a motor impulse travelling back to the muscles\nof the leg, causing them to contract. In the injured patient the\nnervous impulse cannot reach the brain, the seat of consciousness,\nand hence this is not awakened. Normally consciousness does result\nin a majority of such cases, but only after the beginning or\ncompletion of the appropriate action. Yet the movements of our\ninternal organs, intestine and heart, go on continually, and in\nhealth we remain entirely unconscious of their action.\n\nBut reflex actions may be anything but simple. We walk and talk, and\nwrite or play the piano without ever thinking of a single muscle or\norgan. Yet we had once to learn with much effort to take each step\nor frame each letter. Thus actions, originally conscious and\nintended, easily become reflex; often repeated the brain leaves\ntheir control to the lower centres. We often say, \"I did not intend\nto do that; I could not help it.\" We forget that this excuse is our\nworst condemnation. It is a confession that we have allowed or\nencouraged a habit to wear a groove from which the wheels of our\nlife cannot escape. The essential characteristic of reflex action is\ntherefore that from beginning to completion it goes on independently\nof consciousness.\n\n2. Instinct. This is a much-abused word. It is frequently applied to\nall the mental actions of animals without much thought or care as to\nits meaning. Let us gain a definition from the study of a typical\ncase lest we use the word as a cloak for ignorance or negligent\nthoughtlessness. Watch a spider building its wonderful geometrical\nweb. The web is a work of art, and every motion of the spider\nbeautifully adapted to its purpose. But the spider is not therefore\nnecessarily an artist. Let us see of how much the spider is probably\nconscious, remembering that our best judgment is but an inference.\nWe have good reason to believe that she is conscious of the stimulus\nto action, hunger. She may be, probably is, conscious of the end to\nbe attained--to catch a fly for her dinner. She seems conscious of\nwhat she is doing. In all these respects this differs from reflex\naction. But she is probably unconscious of the exact fitness of the\nmeans to the end. We do not believe that she has adopted the\ngeometrical pattern, because she has discovered or calculated that\nthis will make the closest and largest net for the smallest outlay\nof labor and material. Furthermore the young spider builds\npractically as good a web as the old one. She has inherited the\npower, not developed or gained it by experience or observation. And\nall the members of the species have inherited it in much the same\ndegree of perfection.\n\nConcerning the origin of instincts there are several theories. Some\ninstincts would seem to be the result of non-intelligent, perhaps\nunconscious, habits becoming fixed by heredity and improved by\nnatural selection; others would appear to be modifications of\nactions originally due to intelligence. Instinct is therefore\ncharacterized by consciousness of the stimulus to act, of the means\nand end, without the knowledge of the exact adaptation of means to\nend. It is hereditary and characterizes species or large groups.\n\n3. Intelligent Action. You come in cold and sit down before an open\nfire. You push the brands together to make the fire burn. Applying\nonce more the criterion of consciousness to this action we notice\nthat you are conscious of the stimulus to act, of the steps of the\naction, and of the end to be attained, exactly as in instinctive\naction. But finally, and this is the essential characteristic of\nintelligent action, you are aware to a certain extent of the fitness\nof the means to the attainment of the end. This piece of knowledge\nyou had to acquire for yourself. Erasmus Darwin defined a fool as a\nman who had never tried an experiment. Experience and observation,\nnot heredity, are the sources of intelligence. Intelligence is power\nto think, and a man may be very learned--for do we not have learned\npigs?--and yet have very little real intelligence. Hence this is\npossessed by different individuals in very varying degrees.\n\nWe may now briefly compare these three kinds of nervous action.\n\nReflex action is involuntary and unconscious. The actor may, and\nusually does, become conscious of the action after it has been\ncommenced or completed, but this is not at all necessary or\nuniversal.\n\nInstinctive action is to a certain extent voluntary and conscious.\nThe actor is conscious of the stimulus, the means and mode, and the\nend or purpose of the action. Of the exact fitness or adaptation of\nthe means to the end the actor is unconscious.\n\nIntelligent action is conscious and voluntary. The actor is\nconscious of the stimulus to act, of the means and mode, and to a\ncertain extent of the adaptation of the means to the end. This last\nitem of knowledge, lacking in instinctive action, is acquired by\nexperience or observation.\n\nReflex action may be regarded as a comparatively mechanical, though\noften very complex, process; the reflex ganglia appear to be hardly\nmore than switch-boards. There is stimulus of the sense-organs, and\nthus what Mr. Romanes has called \"unfelt sensation,\" unfelt as far\nas the completion of the action is concerned. But in instinct the\nsensation no longer remains unfelt; perception is necessary,\nconsciousness plays a part. And this consciousness is a vastly more\nsubtle element, differing as much apparently from the vibration of\nbrain, or nervous, molecules as the Geni from the rubbing of\nAladdin's lamp, to borrow an illustration.\n\nBut this element of consciousness is one which it is exceedingly\ndifficult to detect in our analysis, and yet upon it our\nclassification and the psychic position of an animal must to a\ngreat extent depend. The amoeba contracts when pricked,\njelly-fishes swim toward the light, the earthworm, \"alarmed\" by the\ntread of your foot, withdraws into its hole. Are these and similar\nactions reflex or instinctive? A grain of consciousness preceding an\naction which before has been reflex changes it into instinct. Mr.\nRomanes, probably correctly, regards them as purely reflex. We must,\nI think, believe that these actions result in consciousness even in\nthe lowest forms. The selection and attainment of food certainly\nlooks like conscious action. Probably all nerve-cells or nervous\nmaterial were originally, even in the lowest forms, dimly conscious;\nthen by division of labor some became purely conductive, others more\nhighly perceptive. The important thing for us to remember in our\npresent ignorance is not to be dogmatic.\n\nFurthermore, the gain of a grain of consciousness of the adaptation\nof certain means to special ends changes instinctive action into\nintelligent, and its loss may reverse the process. Fortunately we\nhave found that in so far as actions, even instinctive, are modified\nby experience, they are becoming to that extent intelligent. This\ncriterion of intelligence seems easily applied. But this profiting\nby experience must manifest itself within the lifetime of the\nindividual, or in lines outside of circumstances to which its\nordinary instincts are adapted, or we may give to individual\nintelligence the credit due really to natural selection. We must be\ncautious in our judgments.\n\nThese reflex actions are performed independently of consciousness or\nwill. Consciousness may, probably does, attend the selection and\ngrasping of food; but most of the actions of the body will go on\nbetter without its interference. It is not yet sufficiently\ndeveloped, or, so to speak, wise enough to be intrusted with much\ncontrol of the animal.\n\nAmong higher worms cases of instinct seem proven. Traces of it will\nalmost certainly be yet found much lower down. Fresh-water mussels\nmigrate into deeper water at the approach of cold weather. And if\nthe clam has instincts, there is no reason why the turbellaria\nshould not also possess them. But all higher powers develop\ngradually, and their beginnings usually elude our search. Along the\nline leading from annelids to insects instinct is becoming dominant.\nA supraoesophageal ganglion has developed, and has been relieved\nof most of the direct control of the muscles. Very good sense-organs\nare also present. From this time on consciousness becomes clearer,\nand the brain is beginning to assert its right to at least know what\nis going on in the body, and to have something to say about it.\nStill, as long as the actions remain purely instinctive the brain,\nwhile conscious, is governed by heredity. The animal does as its\nancestors always have. It does not occur to it to ask why it should\ndo thus or otherwise, or whether other means would be better fitted\nto the end in view. It acts exactly like most of the members of our\ngreat political and theological parties. And until the animal has a\nbetter brain this is its best course and is favored by natural\nselection.\n\nBut the hand of even the best dead ancestors cannot always be\nallowed to hold the helm. The brain is still enlarging, the\nsense-organs bring in fuller and more definite reports of a wider\nenvironment. Greater freedom of action by means of a stronger\nlocomotive system is bringing continually new and varied\nexperiences. And if, as in vertebrates, longer life be added,\nfrequent repetition of the experience deepens the impression.\nSlowly, as if tentatively, the animal begins to modify some of its\ninstincts, at first only in slight details, or to adopt new lines of\naction not included in its old instincts, but suited to the new\nemergencies. This is the dawn of intelligence. Its beginnings still\nremain undiscovered. Mr. Darwin believes that traces of it can be\nfound in earthworms and other annelids. He also tells us that\noysters taken from a depth never uncovered by the sea, and\ntransported inland, open their shells, lose the contained water, and\ndie; but that left in reservoirs, where they are occasionally left\nuncovered for a short time, they learn to keep their shells shut,\nand live for a much longer time when removed from the water. If\noysters can learn by experience, lower worms probably can do the\nsame.\n\nCertain experiments made on sea-anemones, actin\u00e6 animals a little\nmore highly organized than hydra, demand repetition under careful\nobservation.[A] The observer placed on one of the tentacles of a\nsea-anemone a bit of paper which had been dipped in beef-juice. It\nwas seized and carried to the mouth and here discarded. This\ntentacle after one or two experiments refused to have anything more\nto do with it. But other tentacles could be successively cheated.\nThe nerve-cells governing each tentacle appear to have been able to\nlearn by experience, but each group in the diffuse nervous system\nhad to learn separately. The dawn of this much of intelligence far\ndown in the animal kingdom would not be surprising, for the\nselection and grasping of food has always involved higher mental\npower than most of the actions of these lowest animals. Memory goes\nfar down in the animal kingdom. Perhaps, as Professor Haeckel has\nurged, it is an ultimate mental property of protoplasm. And the\nmemory of past experience would continually tend to modify habit or\ninstinct.\n\n  [Footnote A: These experiments have been continued with most\n  interesting and valuable results by Dr. G.H. Parker, of Harvard\n  University.]\n\nIt is unsafe, therefore, to say just where intelligence begins. At a\ncertain point we find dim traces of it; below that we have failed to\nfind them. But that they will not be found, we dare not affirm. In\nthe highest insects instinct predominates, but marks of intelligence\nare fairly abundant. Ants and wasps modify their habits to suit\nemergencies which instinct alone could hardly cope with. Bees learn\nto use grafting wax instead of propolis to stop the chinks in their\nhives, and soon cease to store up honey in a warm climate.\n\nOur knowledge of vertebrate psychology is not yet sufficient to give\na history of the struggle for supremacy between instinct and\nintelligence, between inherited tendency and the consciousness of\nthe individual. But the outcome is evident; intelligence prevails,\ninstinct wanes. The actions of the young may be purely instinctive;\nit is better that they should be. But instinct in the adult is more\nand more modified by intelligence gained by experience. There is\nperhaps no more characteristic instinct than the habit of\nnest-building in birds. And yet there are numerous instances where\nthe structure and position of nests have been completely changed to\nsuit new circumstances. And the view that this habit is a pure\ninstinct, unmodified by intelligence, has been disproved by Mr.\nWallace. But while size of brain, keenness of sense-organs, and\nlength of life may be rightly emphasized as the most important\nelements in the development of vertebrate intelligence, the\nimportance of the appendages should never be forgotten. Cats seem to\nhave acquired certain accomplishments--opening doors, ringing\ndoor-bells, etc.--never attained by the more intelligent dog, mainly\nbecause of the greater mobility and better powers of grasping of the\nforepaws. The elephant has its trunk and the ape its hand. The power\nof handling and the increased size of the brain aided each other in\na common advance.\n\nThe teachableness of mammals is also a sign of high intelligence.\nThe young are often taught by the parent, a dim foreshadowing of the\nhuman family relation. And we notice this capacity in domestic\nanimals because of its practical value to man. And here, too, we\nnotice the difference between individuals, which fails in instinct.\nAll spiders of the same species build and hunt alike, although\ndifferences caused by the moulding influence of intelligence will\nprobably be here discovered. But among individual dogs and horses we\nfind all degrees of intelligence from absolute stupidity to high\nintelligence. And many mammals are slandered grievously by man. The\npig is not stupid, far from it.\n\nStill only in man does intelligence reign supreme and clearly show\nits innate powers. But even in man certain realms, like those of the\ninternal organs, are rarely invaded by consciousness, but are\nnormally left to the control of reflex action. These actions go on\nbetter without the interference of consciousness.\n\nBut other lines of action are relegated as rapidly as possible to\nthe same control. We learn to walk by a conscious effort to take\neach step; afterward we take each step automatically, and think only\nwhither we wish to go. We learn by conscious effort to talk and\nwrite, to sing, or play the piano. Afterward we frame each letter or\nnote automatically, and think only of the idea and its expression.\n\nSo also in our moral and spiritual nature.[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Mr. James Freeman Clarke has stated this better than I\n  can. \"We may state the law thus: 'Any habitual course of conduct\n  changes voluntary actions into automatic or involuntary (_i.e._,\n  reflex) actions.' By practice man forms habits, and habitual action\n  is automatic action, requiring no exercise of will except at the\n  beginning of the series of acts. The law of association does the\n  rest. As voluntary acts are transformed into automatic, the will is\n  set free to devote itself to higher efforts and larger attainments.\n  After telling the truth a while by an effort, we tell the truth\n  naturally, necessarily, automatically. After giving to good objects\n  for a while from principle, we give as a matter of course. Honesty\n  becomes automatic; self-control becomes automatic. We rule over our\n  spirit, repress ill-temper, keep down bad feelings, first by an\n  effort, afterwards as a matter of course.\n\n  \"Possibly these virtues really become incarnate in the bodily\n  organization. Possibly goodness is made flesh and becomes\n  consolidate in the fibres of the brain. Vices, beginning in the\n  soul, seem to become at last bodily diseases; why may not virtues\n  follow the same law? If it were not for some such law of\n  accumulation as this, the work of life would have to be begun\n  forever anew. Formation of character would be impossible. We should\n  be incapable of progress, our whole strength being always employed\n  in battling with our first enemies, learning evermore anew our\n  earliest lessons. But by our present constitution he who has taken\n  one step can take another, and life may become a perpetual advance\n  from good to better. And the highest graces of all--Faith, Hope, and\n  Love--obey the same law.\" See James Freeman Clarke, Every-Day\n  Religion, p. 122.]\n\nThere has been therefore in the successive forms and stages of\nanimal life a clear sequence of dominant nervous actions. The\nactions of all animals below the annelid are mainly reflex or\nautomatic, unconscious and involuntary. But in insects and lower\nvertebrates the highest actions at least are instinctive.\nConsciousness plays a continually more important part. Still the\nactions are controlled by hereditary tendency far more than by the\nwill of the individual. But in man instinct has been almost entirely\nreplaced by conscious, voluntary, intelligent action. And yet in\nman, as rapidly as possible, actions which at first require\nconscious effort become, through repetition and habit, reflex and\nautomatic. All our conscious effort and the energy of the will,\nbeing no longer required for these oft-repeated actions, are set\nfree for higher attainments. The territory which had to be conquered\nby hard battles has become an integral part of the realm. It now\nhardly requires even a garrison, but has become a source of supplies\nfor a new advance and march of conquest.\n\nBut all this time we have been talking about action and have not\ngiven a thought to the will. And we have spoken as if conscious\nperception and intelligence directly controlled will and action. But\nthis is of course incorrect. Will is practically power of choice.\nYou ask me whether I prefer this or that, and I answer perhaps that\nI do not care. Until I \"care\" I shall never choose. The perception\nmust arouse some feeling, if it is to result in choice. I see a\ndiamond in the road and think it is merely a piece of glass. I do\nnot stop. But as I am passing on; I remember that there was a\nremarkable brilliancy in its flash. It must have been, after all, a\ngem. My feelings are aroused. How proud I shall feel to wear it. Or\nhow much money I can get for it. Or how glad the owner will be when\nit is returned to her. I turn back and search eagerly. Perception is\nnecessary, but it is only the first step. The perception must excite\nsome feeling, if choice or exertion of the will is to follow. This\nis a truism.\n\nNow reflex action takes place independently of consciousness or\nwill. Instinctive action may be voluntary, but it is, after all, not\nso much the result of individual purpose as of hereditary tendency.\nIs there then no will in the animal until it has become intelligent?\nI think there has been a sort of voluntary action all the time. Even\nthe amoeba selects or chooses, if I may use the word, its food\namong the sand grains. And the will is stimulated to act by the\nappetite. Hunger is the first teacher. And how did appetite develop?\nWhy does the animal hunger for just the food suited to its digestion\nand needs? We do not know. And the reproductive appetite soon\nfollows. One of these results from the condition of the digestive,\nthe other from that of the reproductive, cells or protoplasm. These\nappetites are due to some condition in a part of the organism and\ncan be _felt_. They are in a sense not of the mind but of the body.\nAnd the response to them on the part of the mind is in some respects\nalmost comparable to reflex action. But the mode of the response is,\nto a certain extent at least, within the control of consciousness.\nThey train and spur the will as pure reflex action never could. But\nthe will is as yet hardly more than the expression of these\nappetites. It expresses not so much its own decision as that of the\nstomach. It is the body's slave and mouthpiece. And once again it is\nbest and safest for the animal that it should be so.\n\nAnd these appetites are at first comparatively feeble. There is but\nlittle muscle or nerve and but little food is required. But these\ncontinually strengthen and spur the will harder and more frequently.\nAnd the will stirs up the weary and flagging muscles. The will may\nbe a poor slave and the appetites hard taskmasters. But under their\nstern discipline it is growing stronger and more completely\nsubjugating the body. Better slavery to hard taskmasters than\nrottenness from inertia. The first requirement is power, activity,\nand then this power can be directed to ever higher ends. You cannot\nsteer the vessel until she has sails or an engine; with no \"way on\"\nshe will not mind the helm, she only drifts. But the condition of\nthe animal at this stage certainly looks very unpromising. Can the\nwill emancipate itself from appetite and control it? Or is it to\nremain the slave of the body?\n\nIn time an emotion appears which marks the influence not directly of\nthe body but of the individual consciousness. This is fear; it is\nfor the body, but not, like hunger, directly of it. It arises in the\nmind. It results from experience and memory. The first animal which\nfeared took a long step upward. But when and where was the dawn of\nfear? I touch a sea-anemone and it contracts. Has it felt fear? I\nthink not. The action certainly may be purely reflex. Natural\nselection, not mind, deserves the credit of that action. But I am\nsure that the cat fears the dog, or the dog the cat, as the case may\nbe. I have little or no doubt that the bird fears the cat. I am\ninclined to believe that the insect fears the bird and the spider\nthe wasp. But does the highest worm fear? I do not know. I do not\nsee how there can have been any fear until there was a nerve-centre\nhighly enough developed to remember past experiences of danger and\nfair sense-organs to report the present risk.\n\nOther emotions soon follow. Anger appears early. The order of\nappearance of these emotions or motives I shall not attempt to give\nto you. Indeed this is to us of relatively slight importance. The\nimportant point to notice is that a host of these have appeared in\nmammals and birds, and that each one of these is a new spur to the\nwill. And the will of a horse or dog, to say nothing of a pig, is by\nno means feeble. And these are slowly emancipating the animal from\nthe tyranny of appetite. But how slow the progress is! Has the\nemancipation yet become complete in man? I need not answer.\n\nThe will has in part, at least, escaped from abject slavery to\nappetite; it sometimes rises superior to fear. But it is evidently\nself-centred. The animal may have forgotten the claims of his dead\nancestors, he is certainly fully alive to his own interests. Can he\neven partially rise superior to prudential considerations, as he has\nto some extent to the claims of appetite? Is it possible to develop\nthe unselfish out of the purely selfish? And if so, how is this to\nbe accomplished? It is not accomplished in the animal; it is but\nvery incompletely accomplished in man. It will be accomplished one\nday.\n\nIn action, at least, the animal is not purely selfish. As Mr.\nDrummond has shown, reproduction, that old function and first to\ngain an organ, is not primarily for the benefit of self, but for the\nspecies. And not only the storing up of material in the egg, but\ncare for the young after birth, is found in some fish and insects,\nand increases from fish upward. I readily grant you that this in its\nbeginnings may be purely instinctive, and that not a particle of\ngenuine affection for the young may as yet be present in the mind of\nthe parent. But beneficial habits may, under the fostering care of\nselection, develop into instincts. The animal may at first be\nunconscious of these, and yet they may grow continually stronger.\nBut one day the animal awakens to its actions, and from that time on\nwhat had been done blindly and unconsciously is continued\nconsciously, intelligently, and from set purpose. This story is\nrepeated over and over again in the history of the animal-kingdom.\nThe care for the young once started as an instinct, affection will\nfollow from the very association of parent with young. Certainly in\nbirds and mammals there seems to be a very genuine love of the\nparents for their young. This is at first short lived, and the young\nare and have to be driven away, often by harsh treatment, to shift\nfor themselves. But while it lasts it certainly seems entirely real\nand genuine. And how strong it is. \"A bear robbed of her whelps\" is\nno meaningless expression. And even the weak and timid bird or\nmammal becomes strong and fierce in defence of her young. In the\npresence of this emotion appetite and fear are alike forgotten.\n\nBut this affection or love once started does not remain limited to\nparent and offspring. Mammals, especially the higher forms, are\nsocial. They frequently go in herds and troops, and appear to have a\ngenuine affection for each other. You all know how in herds of\ncattle or wild horses the males form a circle around the females and\nyoung at the approach of wolves. A troop of orangs were surprised by\ndogs at a little distance from their shelter. The old male orangs\nformed a ring and beat off the dogs until the females and young\ncould escape, and then retreated. But as they were now in\ncomparative safety a cry came from one young one, who had been\nunable to keep up in the scramble over the rocks, and was left on a\nbowlder surrounded by the dogs. Then one old orang turned back,\nfought his way through the dogs, tucked the little fellow under one\narm, fought his way out with the other, and brought the young one to\nsafety. I call that old orang a hero, but I am prejudiced and may\neasily be mistaken.\n\nIn a cage in a European zo\u00f6logical garden there were kept together a\nlittle American monkey and a large baboon of which the former was\ngreatly afraid. The keeper, to whom the little monkey was strongly\nattached, was one day attacked and thrown down by the baboon and in\ndanger of being killed. Then the little monkey ran to his help, and\nbit and beat his tyrant companion until he allowed the keeper to\nescape. We are all proud that the little monkey was an American.\n\nInstances of disinterested actions are so common among dogs and\nhorses that farther illustrations are entirely unnecessary. And\ndisinterested action is limited to fewer cases because the\nenvironment is rarely suited to its development in the animal world.\nBut do you answer that the affection of the dog is never really\ndisinterested, but a very refined form of selfishness. Possibly. But\nit were to be greatly desired that selfishness would more frequently\ntake that same refined form among men. But I cannot see how\nselfishness can ever become so refined as to lead an animal to die\nof grief over its master's grave.\n\nAnd if refined selfishness were all, I for one cannot help believing\nthat the dog would long ago have been asleep on a full stomach\nbefore the kitchen fire. Has no attempt been made to prove that all\nhuman actions are due to selfishness more or less refined? It is\nvery unwise to apply tests and use arguments concerning animals\nwhich, if applied with equal strictness to human conduct, would\nprove human society irrational and purely selfish.\n\nMammals may be self-centred. But the highest forms have set their\nfaces away from self and toward the non-self; some have at least\nstarted on the road which leads to unselfishness.\n\nAnd man is governed to a certain extent by prudential\nconsiderations. If he entirely disregarded these he would not be\nwise. But the development of the rational faculty has brought before\nhis mind a series of motives higher than these, which are slowly but\nsurely superseding them. Truth, right, and duty are motives of a\ndifferent order. With regard to these there can be no question of\nprofit or loss. Here the mind cannot stop to ask, Will it pay? Self\nmust be left out of account.\n\n        \"When duty whispers low, Thou must,\n         The soul replies, I can.\"\n\nAnd thus man rises above appetite, above prudential considerations,\nand becomes a free and moral agent. And family and social life bring\nhim into new relations, press home upon him new duties and\nresponsibilities, every one of which is a new motive compelling him\nto rise above self. And thus the unselfish, altruistic emotions have\nmade man what he is, and are in him, ever advancing toward their\nfuture supremacy. But some one will say, This is a very pretty\ntheory; it is not history. But the perception of truth and right is\ncertainly a fact, the result of ages of development. And the very\nhighest which the intellect can perceive is bound to become the\ncontrolling motive of the will. It always has been so. It must be\nso, if evolution is not to be purely degeneration. Thus only has man\nbecome what he is. And the voice of the people demanding truth and\njustice, whenever and wherever they see them, is the voice of God\npromising the future triumph of righteousness. For it is proof\npositive that man's face is resolutely set toward these, as his\nancestors have always marched steadily toward that which was the\nhighest possible attainment.\n\nWe find thus that there is a sequence in the motives which control\nthe will. The first and lowest motives are the appetites, and here\nthe will is the mouthpiece of the bodily organs. Then fear and a\nhost of other prudential considerations appear. The lowest of these\ntend purely to the gratification of the senses or to the avoidance\nof bodily discomfort. But they originate in the mind, and that is a\ngreat gain. But the higher prudential considerations take into\naccount something higher than mere bodily comfort or discomfort.\nApprobation and disapprobation are motives which weigh heavily with\nthe higher mammals. The lower prudential considerations are purely\nselfish. The higher ones, which stimulate to action for\nfellow-animals or men, show at least the dawn of unselfishness. And\nthe altruistic motives, which stimulate to action for the happiness\nand welfare of others, predominate in, and are characteristic of,\nman. The human will is slowly rising above the dominance of\nselfishness. With the dawn of the rational perception of truth,\nright, and duty, the very highest motives begin to gain control.\nAnd the will becomes more and more powerful as the motives become\nhigher. It is almost a mis-use of language to speak of the will of a\nslave of appetite. He is governed by the body, not at all by the\nmind.\n\nThe man who is governed by prudential considerations, and is always\nasking, Will it pay? is the incarnation of fickleness, instability,\nand feebleness. The apparent strength of the selfish will is usually\na hollow sham. But truth, right, and love are motives stronger than\ndeath. And the will, dominated by these, gives the body to be\nburned. The man of the future will have an iron will, because he\nwill keep these highest motives constantly before his mind.\n\nIn the preceding lectures we have traced the sequence of functions\nand have found that brain and mind, not digestion and muscle, are\nthe goal of animal development. In this lecture we have attempted to\ntrace a corresponding series of functions in the realm of mind. We\nhave found, I think, that there has been an orderly and logical\ndevelopment of perceptions, modes of action, and finally of motives\nin the animal mind. Let us now briefly review this history and see\nwhether it throws any light on the path of man's future progress.\n\nMost of the sensory cells of the animal minister at first to reflex\naction, and there is thus little true perception. The stimuli which\nhave called forth the reflex action may result afterward in\nconsciousness; but until brain and muscle have reached a higher\ngrade, this could be of but slight benefit to the animal. Perception\nand consciousness are exercised mainly in the recognition and\nattainment of food. When the animal begins to show fear, we may\nfeel tolerably certain that it has been conscious of past experience\nof danger and remembers these experiences. But the sense-organs are\nall the time improving, whether as servants of conscious perception\nor of reflex action, and the development of the higher sense-organs,\nespecially of the eyes, has called forth a higher development of the\nbrain. The brain continually develops both through constant exercise\nand through natural selection. Through the higher and more delicate\nsense-organs it perceives a continually wider range of more subtile\nelements in its environment. And the higher the sense-organ the more\ndirectly and purely does it minister to consciousness. The eye, when\ncapable of forming an image, is almost never concerned in a purely\nreflex action.\n\nFrom the constant recurrence of perceptions and experiences in a\nconstant order the animal begins to associate these, and when he has\nperceived the one to expect the other. Out of this grows, in time,\ninference and understanding. The mind is beginning to turn its\nattention not merely to objects and qualities, but to perceive\nrelations. And thus it has taken the first step toward the\nperception of abstract truth. And if it has the \u00e6sthetic perception\nand can perceive beauty, we have every reason to believe that the\nsame faculty will one day perceive truth and right. But on the\npurely animal plane of existence these powers could be of but little\nservice, and we can expect to find them developed only very slightly\nand under peculiar surroundings. And in this connection it is\ninteresting to notice the great results of man's training and\neducation in the dog. For the wolf and the jackal, the dog's\nnearest relatives, if not his actual ancestors, are not especially\nintelligent mammals. Compared with them the dog is a sage and a\nsaint.\n\nThe earliest form of action is the reflex. This is independent of\nboth consciousness and will. The only conscious voluntary action of\nthe animal is limited mainly or entirely to the recognition and\nattainment of food. The motive for the exertion of the will is the\nappetite, and the will is the slave or mouthpiece of the body. Far\nhigher than this is the stage of instinct. Here the animal is\nconscious of its actions and new motives begin to appear. But the\nanimal is guided by tendencies inherited from its ancestors. The\nwill has, so to speak, advisory power; it is by no means supreme.\nBut with a wider and deeper knowledge of its environment, with the\nmemory of past experiences, carried by the higher locomotive powers\ninto new surroundings, brought face to face with new emergencies\noutside of the range of its old instincts, it is compelled to try\nsome experiments of its own. It begins to modify these instincts,\nand in time altogether does away with many of them. It has risen a\nlittle above its old abject slavery to the appetites, it is slowly\nthrowing off the bondage to heredity. New emotions or motives have\narisen appealing directly to the individual will. The heir has been\nlong enough under guardians and regents, it assumes the government\nand can rightly say, \"L'\u00e9tat, c'est moi.\"\n\nBut a greater problem confronts it; can it rise above self? The\nanimal often seems absolutely selfish. Can the unselfish be\ndeveloped out of the selfish? This seems at first sight impossible.\nAnd the first lessons are so easy, the first steps so short, that we\ndo not notice them. Reproduction comes to the aid of mind. The\nyoung are born more and more immature. They begin to receive the\ncare of the parent. The love of the parent for the young is at first\nshort lived and feeble. But it is the genuine article, and, like the\nmustard-seed planted in good soil, must grow. It strengthens and\ndeepens. Soon it begins to widen also. Social life, very rude and\nimperfect, appears. And the members of this social group support,\nhelp, and defend one another. And doing for one another and helping\neach other, however slightly and imperfectly, strengthens their\naffection for one another. The animal is still selfish, so is man\nfrequently, but it is in a fair way to become unselfish, and this is\nall we can reasonably expect of it.\n\nFor these are vast revolutions from reflex action to instinct, and\nfrom instinct to the reign of the individual will, and from appetite\nto selfishness on the ground of higher motives, and from immediate\ngratification to prudential considerations. And the crowning change\nof all is from selfishness to love. And each one of them takes time.\nRemember that the Old Testament history is the record of how God\ntaught one little people that there is but one God, Jehovah. Think\nof the struggles, defeats, and captivities which the Israelites had\nto undergo before they learned this lesson, and even then only a\nfraction of the people ever learned it at all. As the prophet\nforetold, so it came to pass. Though Israel was as the sand by the\nsea-shore, but a remnant was saved.\n\nBut while we seek to do full justice to the animal, let us not\nunderestimate the vast differences between it and man. The true\nevolutionist takes no low view of man's present actual attainments;\nin his possibilities he has a larger faith than that of the\ndisbeliever in evolution. In intelligence and thought, in will power\nand freedom of choice, in one word, in all that makes up character\nand personality, man is immeasurably superior to the animal. These\npowers raise him to a new plane of being, give him an indefinitely\nhigher and broader life, and his appearance marks a new era. He\nalone is a moral, responsible being, to a certain extent the former\nof his own destiny and recorder of his doom, if he fails. This gives\nto all his actions a peculiar stamp of a dignity only his. What he\nis and is to be we must attempt to trace in another lecture. But to\none or two characteristic results of his progress we must call\nattention here.\n\nThe principal subject of man's study is not so much the things which\nsurround him as his relation to them and theirs to each other. His\nenvironment has become really one, not so much one of tangible and\nvisible objects as of invisible relations. And these will demand\nendless investigation. The more he studies them the more wonderful\ndo they become. The vein broadens and grows indefinitely richer the\ndeeper he searches into it. We find thus the purpose of the\nintellect; it is to study environment.\n\nAnd now a little about motives. The animal begins with appetite, and\nsome animals and men never get any farther. And yet how easily this\nappetite for food is satiated! We all remember our experiences as\nchildren around the Thanksgiving or Christmas table. What a\ndisappointment it was to us to find how soon our appetite had\nforsaken us, and that we had lost the power of enjoying the\ndelicacies which we had most anticipated. And over-indulgence often\nbrought sad results and was followed by a period of penitential\nfasting. And the appetites for sense gratification must always lead\nto this result. They not only crave things which \"perish with the\nusing;\" temporarily at least, often permanently, the appetite itself\nperishes with the gratification.\n\nBut what of the appetite, if you will pardon the expression, for\ntruth and right? All attainment only strengthens it; and, instead of\nenslaving, it makes men ever more free. And yet what a power there\nis in the appetite for truth and righteousness? In obedience to it\nman gives his body to be burned, or pours out his life-blood drop by\ndrop for its attainment, and rejoices in the sacrifice. There are\nvictims to appetite: there are only martyrs to truth. This soul\nhunger for truth and right, growing more intense as the soul is\nfilled with the object of desire, is the only one capable of\nindefinite development and dominance of the will. This must be and\nis the mental goal of animal development, if man has a future\ncorresponding in length at all to his past. Otherwise the history of\nlife becomes a \"story told by an idiot.\" For its satisfaction is the\nonly one which never causes satiety, and of which over-indulgence is\nimpossible. All others lead only to a slough of despond, or the\ndeeper and more treacherous slough of contentment, beyond which rise\nno delectable mountains or golden city.\n\nAnd now in closing let me call your attention to one thought of\npractical vital importance.\n\nAccording to the theory which we have agreed to adopt, higher\nspecies have arisen through a process of natural selection, those\nspecies surviving which are best conformed to their environment.\nAnd this applies to man as well as to lower animals. All knowledge\nis in man, therefore, primarily, a means by which he may conform to\nenvironment, survive, and progress. But conformity includes more\nthan mere knowledge of environment. A man might have all knowledge,\nand yet refuse to conform; and then his knowledge could not save him\nfrom destruction. For conformity alone gives survival. Conformity in\nman requires an effort of the will. It is intelligent, but it is\nalso voluntary action. And knowledge is a necessary means of\nconformity because through it we see how we may conform, and because\nit furnishes the motives which stimulate the will to the necessary\neffort.\n\nNow, that faculty of the intellect which is dominant in man, and\nwhich has raised him immeasurably above the animal, and made him\nman, is the rational intelligence. If there is any such thing as a\nlaw of history or as continuity in evolution, man's future progress\nmust depend upon his clearer vision and recognition of the\nperceptions of this faculty. Through it man perceives beauty, truth,\nand goodness, and attains knowledge of himself as a person and moral\nagent, and recognizes his rights and duties. Of all this the animal\nis and remains unconscious; indeed he is not yet a moral being and\nperson in any proper sense of the word.\n\nInasmuch as the rational perception is the dominant faculty in man,\nit must perceive the lines along which he is to conform. Truth,\nright, and duty must be his watchwords. These are to be the rules\nand motives of all his actions. He cannot live for the body, but for\nsomething higher, the mind. This was proven before man appeared on\nthe globe. He is to be a mental, intelligent being. But he is not to\nbe governed by appetite or mere prudential considerations. These are\nanimal, not human motives. These are not to be disregarded any more\nthan digestion can be safely disregarded by man. But they are not to\nbe his chief motives. He must subordinate these to the higher\nmotives furnished by right and duty. Man is not merely a mental but\na moral being. If he sinks below this plane of life he is not\nfollowing the path marked out for him in all his past development.\nIn order to progress, the higher vertebrate had to subordinate\neverything to mental development. In order to become man it had to\ndevelop the rational intelligence. In order to become higher man,\npresent man must subordinate everything to moral development. This\nis the great law of animal and human development clearly revealed in\nthe sequence of physical and mental functions.\n\nMust man be a religious being also? This question we must try to\nanswer in a future lecture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nNATURAL SELECTION AND ENVIRONMENT\n\n\nI have attempted to show that animal development has not been an\naimless drifting. Functions developed and organs arose and were\nperfected in a certain order. First the purely vegetative organs\nappeared, and the animal lived for digestion and reproduction; then\ncame muscle and it brought with it nerve. But these were not enough;\nthe brain had all the time been gradually improving, and now it\nbecomes the dominant function to which all others are subordinated.\nThe experiment was fairly tried. Mere digestion and reproduction are\ncarried to about the highest perfection which can be expected of\nthem in worms and mollusks. The bird tried what could be done with\ndigestion ministering to locomotion guided by the very keenest\nsense-organs and controlled by no mean brain. Even this experiment\nwas not a success. But one organ remained, the brain, and on its\nmental possibilities depend the future of the animal kingdom.\nVegetative organs and muscle have been tried and found wanting.[1]\n\n  [Footnote 1: See chart, p. 310.]\n\nWe have followed hastily the development of mind. The mind began its\ncareer as the servant of digestion, recognizing and aiding to attain\nfood. Action is at first mainly reflex. But conscious perception\nplays an ever more important part. The animal is at first guided by\nnatural selection through the survival of the most suitable reflex\nactions, then by inherited tendencies, finally by its own conscious\nintelligence and will. The first motives are the appetites, but\nthese are succeeded by ever higher motives as the perceptions become\nclearer and more subtile relations in environment are taken into\naccount. Governed first purely by appetites, the will is ever more\ninfluenced by prudential considerations, and finally shows\nwell-developed \"natural affections.\" It has set its face toward\nunselfishness.\n\nDigestion and muscle, as well as mind, have persisted in man. He is\nnot, cannot be, disembodied spirit. And in his mental life reflex\naction and instinct, appetite and prudence, are still of great\nimportance. But the higher and supreme development of these powers\ncould never have resulted in man. They might alone have produced a\nsuperior animal, never man. His mammalian structure found its\nlogical and natural goal in family and social life. And even the\nlowest goal of family life is incompatible with pure selfishness,\nand as family life advanced to an ever higher grade it became the\nschool of unselfishness and love. And social life had a similar\neffect.\n\nMoreover, man as a social being early began to learn that he could\nclaim something from his fellows, and that he owed something to\nthem. If he refused to help others, they would refuse to help him.\nThis was his first, very rude lesson in rights and duties. Love,\nduty, and right have ever since been the watchwords of his\ndevelopment and progress. We have not yet considered, and must for\nthe present disregard, the value and efficiency of religion in\naiding his advance. At present we emphasize only the historical\nfact that man has not become what he is by a higher development of\nthe body, nor by giving free rein to appetite, nor yet by making the\ndictates of selfish prudence supreme. And if there is any such thing\nas continuity in history, such modes and aims of life, if now\nfollowed, would surely only brutalize him and plunge him headlong in\ndegeneration. He must live for right, truth, love, and duty. In just\nso far as he makes any other aim in life supreme, or allows it to\neven rival these, he is sinking into brutality. This is the clear,\nunmistakable verdict of history, and we shall do well to heed it.\n\nBut granting all that can be claimed for this sequence, have not the\nlower forms whose anatomy we have sketched--worm, fish, and\nbird--halted at various points along this line of march? Yet they\nhave evidently survived. And if they have found safe resting-places,\ncannot higher forms turn back and join them? In other words, is not\ndegeneration easier than advance and just as safe? What is the\nresult if an animal tries to return to a lower plane of life or\nrefuses to take the next upward step? Generally extermination. The\nvery classification of worms in a number of small isolated groups,\nwhich must once have been connected by a host of intermediate forms,\nis indisputable proof of most terrible extermination. They did not\ngo forward, and the survivors are but an infinitesimal fraction of\nthose which perished. Let us take an illustration where pal\u00e6ontology\ncan help us. The earth was at one time covered with marsupial\nmammals. Some advanced into placental forms. The great mass remained\nbehind. And outside of Australia the opossums are the only survivors\nof them all. And this is only one example where a thousand could be\ngiven. Place is not long reserved for mere cumberers of the ground.\nThere are so few exceptions to this statement that we might almost\ncall it a law of biology.\n\nLet us see how it fares with an animal which retreats to a lower\nplane of life. A worm, rather than seek its own food, becomes a\nparasite. It degenerates, but still is easily recognized as a worm.\nA crustacean tries the same experiment, though living outside of its\nhost instead of in it. It sinks to a place even lower, if possible,\nthan that of the parasitic worm. A locomotive form becomes sessile.\nIt loses most of its muscles and the larger part of its nervous\nsystem; and even the digestive system, which it has made the goal of\nits existence, is inferior to that of its locomotive ancestors and\nrelatives. But to the vertebrate these lowest depths of stagnation\nand degeneration are, as a rule, impossible. From true fish upward\nparasitism and sessile life are practically impossible. Here\nstagnation and degeneration mean, as a rule, extinction. Of all the\nrelatives of vertebrates back to worms only the very aberrant lines\nof amphioxus and of the tunicata remain. Of the rest not a single\nsurvivor has yet been discovered. And yet what hosts of species must\nhave peopled the sea. The primitive round-mouthed fishes have\npractically disappeared. The ganoids survive in a few species out of\nthousands. The amphibia of the carboniferous and the next period and\nthe reptiles of the mesozoic have disappeared; only a few feeble\ndegenerate remnants persist. And this was necessarily so. Each\nadvancing form crowded hardest on those which occupied the same\nplace and sought the same food, that is, the members of the same\nspecies. And the first to suffer from its competition were its own\nbrethren. Death, rarely commuted into life imprisonment, is the\nverdict pronounced on all forms which will not advance. And does not\nthe same law of advance or extinction apply to man? What is the\nrecord of successive civilizations but its verification?\n\nNotice once more that as we ascend in the scale of development\nnatural selection selects more unsparingly and the path to life\nnarrows. It is a very easy matter for the lowest forms to get food.\nIndeed the plant sits still and its food comes to it. And the battle\nof brute force can be fought in a multitude of ways--by mere\nstrength, by activity, by offensive or defensive armor, or even by\nrunning into the mud and skulking. It is harder to gain knowledge,\nand yet many roads lead to an education. Colleges are by no means\nthe only seats of education. And many totally uneducated men have\ncollege diplomas. And life is, after all, the great university, and\nhere the sluggard fails and the plucky man with the poor \"fit\" often\ncarries off the honors.\n\n  \"But where shall wisdom be found?\n   And where is the place of understanding?\n   The gold and the crystal cannot equal it:\n   And the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold.\n   No mention shall be made of corals or of pearls:\n   For the price of wisdom is above rubies.\"\n\nAnd when it comes to righteousness there is only one right, and\neverything else is wrong. \"Wide is the gate and broad is the way\nthat leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat:\nBecause strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto\nlife, and few there be that find it.\" Therefore \"strive to enter in\nat the strait gate.\" And remember that \"strive\" means wrestle like\none of the athletes in the old Olympic games.\n\n   \"I saw also that the Interpreter took Christian again by the hand\n   and led him into a pleasant place, where was built a stately\n   palace beautiful to behold; at the sight of which Christian was\n   greatly delighted. He saw also, upon the top thereof, certain\n   persons walking, who were clothed all in gold. Then said\n   Christian, May we go in thither?\n\n   \"Then the Interpreter took him and led him up toward the door of\n   the palace; and, behold, at the door stood a great company of\n   men, as desirous to go in, but durst not. There also sat a man at\n   a little distance from the door at a table-side, to take the name\n   of him that should enter therein; he saw also that in the\n   door-way stood many men in armour, to keep it, being resolved to\n   do to the men that would enter what hurt and mischief they could.\n   Now was Christian somewhat in amaze. At last, when every man\n   started back for fear of the armed men, Christian saw a man of a\n   very stout countenance come up to the man that sat there to\n   write, saying, Set down my name, Sir; the which when he had done,\n   he saw the man draw his sword, and put an helmet upon his head,\n   and rush toward the door upon the armed men, who laid upon him\n   with deadly force; but the man, not at all discouraged, fell to\n   cutting and hacking most fiercely. So after he had received and\n   given many wounds to those that attempted to keep him out, he cut\n   his way through them all, and pressed forward into the palace, at\n   which there was a pleasant voice heard from those that were\n   within, even of those that walked upon the top of the palace\n   saying:\n\n        \"'Come in, come in;\n          Eternal glory thou shalt win.'\n\n   \"So he went in, and was clothed in such garments as they.\n\n   \"Then Christian smiled, and said, I think verily I know the\n   meaning of this.\"--Bunyan's, Pilgrim's Progress, p. 44.\n\nIf you wish to climb the Matterhorn many paths lead up the lower\nslopes, and a stumble here may cost you only a sprain. And I suppose\nthat several paths lead to the base of the cone. But thence to the\nsummit there is but one path, and a misstep means death. Pardon\nthese quotations and illustrations. They are my only means of at all\nadequately presenting to you a scientific man's conception of the\nmeaning of the struggle for life. The laws of evolution are written\nin blood and bear the death penalty. For\n\n              \"Life is not as idle ore,\n        But iron dug from central gloom,\n        And heated hot with burning fears,\n        And dipt in baths of hissing tears,\n        And battered with the shocks of doom\n        To shape and use.\"\n\nThere would seem therefore to be going on a process of natural\nselection. Natural selection seems to select more unsparingly and\nthe struggle for life--or even existence--to grow fiercer as we\nadvance from lower forms to higher in the animal kingdom.\n\nBut the theory which we have agreed to accept teaches us that these\nsurvivors are those which or who have conformed to their environment\nand that they have survived because of their conformity. And what do\nwe mean by environment? And does not man modify his environment?\nCertainly he changes by irrigation a desert into a garden. He\ncarries water against its tendency to the hill-top. But he has\nlearned to do this only by studying the laws which govern the\nmotions of fluids and rigorously obeying them. He must carry his\nwater in strong pipes and take it from some higher point, or must\nuse heat or some means to furnish the force to drive it to the\nhigher point. He cannot change a single iota of the law, and gains\ncontrol of the elements only by obedience to their laws. Electricity\nis man's best servant as long as he respects its laws, but it kills\nhim who disobeys them. But does not man make his own surroundings in\nsocial life? He merely enters upon a new mode of life; and if this\nnew mode be in conformity with the eternal forces and laws of\nenvironment man prospers in this new mode of life and conforms still\nmore closely.\n\nThere is, indeed, but one environment, but the lower animal comes in\ncontact with, and is affected by, but a small portion of its\nelements. Form and color were in the world before the animal had\ndeveloped an eye, but up to this time these could have but little\neffect on animal life. Light vibrations were present in ether long\nbefore the animal by responding to them made them any part of its\nown true environment. There is vastly more in environment than man\nhas yet discovered, and he will discover these elements only by\nobedience to their laws.\n\nEnvironment includes ultimately all the forces and elements which go\nto make up our world or universe. It is an exceedingly general term.\nI might say that under the environment of certain wheels, springs,\nand spindles, which we call a Jacquard loom, silk threads become a\nribbon worthy of a queen. Is Nature and environment only a huge\ndivine loom to weave man and something higher yet? One great\ndifference is evident. Under normal conditions the silk must become\na ribbon. But protoplasm can fail to conform and become waste.\nEnvironment is a very hard word to define, and our views concerning\nit may differ.\n\nOne thing, however, seems to me clear and evident. If each\nsuccessive stage in the ascending series is selected or survives on\naccount of its conformity to environment there must be some element\nor power, something or somewhat in environment specially\ncorresponding in some way to, or suited to drawing out, the\ncharacteristic of this ascending stage on account of which it\nsurvives. The forces and elements of environment make and work\nagainst those at each stage who wander from the right path, and for\nthose who follow it. And thus natural selection arises as the total\nresult of the combined working of all these forces. They all unite\nin one resultant working along a certain line, and natural selection\nis the effect of this resultant. In the stage represented by hydra\nthe forces of environment combine in a resultant which works for\ndigestion and reproduction and the best development of their organs.\nBut as the animal changes he comes into a new relation or occupies a\nnew position in respect to these forces. New elements in the old\nenvironment are beginning to press upon him. And the resultant\nchanges accordingly. He may be compared to a steamer at sea which\nraises a sail. The wind has been blowing for hours, but the sail\ngives it a new hold on the ship. Steam and wind now combine in a new\nresultant of forces. From worms upward environment manifests itself\nthrough natural selection as a power working for muscular force and\nbrute strength or activity.\n\nBut soon natural selection ceases to select on the ground of brute\nforce. After a time environment proves to be a power making for\nshrewdness. And when the mammal has appeared the resultant of the\nforces of environment impels more and more toward unselfishness, and\nwhen man has appeared environment proves to be a \"power, not\nourselves, that makes for righteousness.\" But what shall we say of\nan environment which unmasks itself at last as a power making for\nintelligence, unselfishness, and righteousness? Someone may answer\nit is a host of chemical and physical forces bringing about very\nhigh ends. That is very true, but is it the whole truth? The\nthinking man must ask, How did it come about, and why is it that all\nthese forces work together for such high moral and intelligent ends?\n\nWe face, therefore, the question, Can an environment which proves\nfinally and ultimately to be a power not ourselves making for\nrighteousness and unselfishness be purely material and mechanical?\nOr must there be in or behind it something spiritual? Shall we best\ncall environment, in its highest manifestation, \"it\" or \"him?\"\n\nThe old argument of Socrates, as on the last day of his life he sits\ndiscoursing with his friends, still holds good. He is discussing the\nsame old question, whether there is anything more than force,\nmaterial, mechanism in the world. He says that one might assign as\n\"the cause why I am sitting here that my body is composed of bones\nand muscles; that the bones are solid and separate, and that the\nmuscles can be contracted and extended, and are all inclosed in the\nflesh and skin; and that the bones, being jointed, can be drawn by\nthe muscles, and so I can move my legs as you see; and that this is\nthe reason why I am sitting here. But by the dog, these bones and\nmuscles would long ago have carried me to Megara or Booetia, moved\nby my opinion of what was best, if I had not thought it more right\nand honorable to submit to the sentence pronounced by the state than\nto run away from it. To call such things causes is absurd. For there\nis a great difference between the cause and that without which the\ncause would not produce its effect.\"\n\nIf there is no intelligence or love of truth in the cause, how can\nthere be anything higher in the effect? And if Socrates had been\nonly bone and muscle, he ought to have run away.\n\nOur problem stands somewhat as follows: We have given protoplasm, a\nstrange substance of marvellous capacities, which we call functions,\nand possessing a power of developing into beings of ever higher\ngrades of organization. Environment proves to be a combination of\nforces working for the higher development of functions in a certain\norderly sequence. And every lower function in the ascending line\ndemands the development of the next higher. Digestion demands\nmuscle, and muscle nerve, and nerve brain. We shall soon see that\nmammalian structure had to culminate in the family, and the family\ndemands unselfishness and obedience. Environment therefore proves\nfrom the beginning to have been unceasingly working for the highest\nend; never, even temporarily, merely for the lower. For we have seen\nthat environment works most unsparingly against those who, having\ntaken certain of the steps in the ascending path, fail to continue\ntherein.\n\nBut in order to attain this highest end for which it has always been\nworking, an immense number of subsidiary ends have had to be\nattained. These are not merely digestion and brain, but a host of\nothers: _e.g._, in vertebrates, vertebr\u00e6 of the right substance,\nposition, form, arrangement, and union. And in the ascending line,\nfor whose highest forms it has continually worked, the difficulties\nof attaining each subsidiary end have been successively solved, and\nthrough this host of subsidiary ends the animal kingdom has advanced\nstraight to its goal of intelligence and righteousness. Now the\nwhole process is a grand argument for design. But I would not\nemphasize the process so much as the end attained. This especially,\nwhen attained by conformity to that environment, demands more than\nmere mindless atoms in or behind that environment. Can we call the\nultimate power which makes for righteousness \"it?\" Can we call it\nless than \"Him, in whom we live and move and have our being?\"\n\nThe history of life is a grand drama. \"Paradise Lost\" and\nShakespeare's plays are but fragments of it. But without\nintelligence they could never have been composed; without a choice\nof means and ends they could never have been placed upon the stage.\nDoes the plot of this grander drama of evolution demand no\nintelligence in its ultimate cause and producer? Is the succession\nof steps, each succeeding the other in such order as to lead to\ntruth and right and continual progress toward a spiritual goal, is\nthis plot possible without a great composer who has seen the end\nfrom the beginning? Could it ever have been executed upon the stage\nof the world, and perhaps of the universe, without an executing\nwill?\n\nNow I freely grant you that this is no mathematical demonstration.\nNatural science does not deal in demonstrations, it rests upon the\ndoctrine of probabilities; just as we have to order our whole lives\naccording to this doctrine. Its solution of a problem is never the\nonly conceivable answer, but the one which best fits and explains\nall the facts and meets the fewest objections. The arguments for the\nexistence of a personal God are far stronger than those in favor of\nany theory of evolution. But we very rightly test the former\narguments, indefinitely more rigidly and severely, just because our\nvery life hangs on them. On the other hand, we should not reject\nthem as useless, because they are not of an entirely different kind\nfrom those on which all the actions and beliefs of our common daily\nlife are based. There is a scepticism which is merely a credulity of\nnegations. This also we should avoid.\n\nWe have considered a few of the reasons for thinking that, with the\nmaterial, there must be something spiritual in environment, that if\nthe woof is material the warp is God. Here we need not delay long.\nBlank atheism seems to be at present unpopular and generally\nregarded as unscientific. The so-called philosophic materialism of\nthe present day seems to be in general far nearer to pantheism than\nto the old form of materialism which recognized only atoms and\nmechanism. Atheism as a power to deform the lives of men has, for\nthe present, lost its hold, and even agnosticism is respectful. The\nmaterialism against which we have to struggle is not that of the\nschool, but of the shop, of society, of life. There are\ncomparatively few now who avow a system of philosophy making\nmindless atoms their first cause.\n\nBut there is a far grosser, more deadly materialism of the heart\nand will. It sits unrebuked in the front pews of our churches and\ncontrols alike church and parish, caucus and legislature. It calls\non us all to fall down and worship, promising the world if we obey,\nthe cross if we refuse. And we bow to it; and that is all it asks,\nfor a nod on our part makes us its slaves. It is the idolatry of\nmoney, position, shrewdness, learning--in one word, of success. It\ntakes all the strength out of our morality, loyalty and obedience to\nGod out of our religion, and makes cowards and liars of us, who\nshould be heroes. It makes our religion a byword with honest\nunbelievers. And if they are honest scientific minds, waiting for\nevidence of the practical value of our religion, why should they\nbelieve, when we live so successfully down to the religion which we\nwould scorn to openly profess? Our fathers may have been narrow or\nstraight-laced; they were not cross-eyed from trying to keep one eye\non God and the other on the main chance. What is the use of\nwhispering, \"Lord, Lord,\" Sundays, if we shout, \"Oh, Baal, hear us,\"\nall the rest of the week. Let us at least be honest, and \"if Baal be\ngod, follow him,\" and avow it. And worst, and most hideous, of all,\nwe are not so much hypocrites as self-deceived. Let us not forget\nthe old Greek doctrine of Ate, goddess of judicial blindness, sent\ndown only upon those who were living the unpardonable sin of\nindifference.\n\nBut supposing that there is in environment something more and other\nthan material, can we possibly know anything about it?\n\nI am in a boat near the mouth of a river. The boat is tossed by the\nwaves, driven by currents of wind, and now and then temporarily\nturned by eddies. I seem to look out upon a chaos of apparently\nconflicting forces. But all the time the wind and tide are sweeping\nme homeward. Now the wind, which sometimes indeed does shift, and\nthe great tidal wave are steadily bearing me in a certain direction,\nthough wave and eddy and gust may often make this appear doubtful to\nme. So, underneath all waves and eddies of environment, there is a\ngreat tidal wave, bearing man steadily onward; and I gain a certain\namount of valid knowledge of environment from the direction in which\nit is bearing me.\n\nLet us change the illustration. Man survives as all his ancestors\nhave survived before him, through conformity to environment.\nEnvironment has therefore during ages past been continually making\nimpressions upon him. And he can draw valid inferences concerning\nthe one power, which must underlie the apparent host of forces of\nenvironment, from the impressions which these have left upon the\nstructure of his mind and character. By studying himself he gains\nvalid knowledge of what is deepest in environment. For man is the\nmost completely and closely conformed thereto of all living beings.\n\nBut man _is_ a religious being. This is a fact which demands\nexplanation just as much as bone and muscle. Now no evolutionist\nwould believe that the eye could ever have developed without the\nstimulus of light acting upon the cells of the skin. Place the\nanimal in darkness and the eye becomes rudimentary and disappears.\nCould a visual organ for seeing moral and religious truth have ever\noriginated in the mind of man had there been no corresponding\npulsation and thrill of a corresponding reality in environment? Is\nnot the one development just as improbable or inconceivable as the\nother?\n\nAnd this is the reason that, when man awakened to himself and his\nown powers, he knew that there was and must be a God. \"Pass over the\nearth,\" says Plutarch; \"you may discover cities without walls,\nwithout literature, without monarchs, without palaces and wealth;\nwhere the theatre and the school are not known; but no man ever saw\na city without temples and gods, where prayers and oaths and oracles\nand sacrifices were not used for obtaining pardon or averting evil.\"\nGiven man and environment as they are, and a belief in God is a\nnecessary result. But you may ask, if we are to worship a personal\nGod, why might not a conscious and religious hydra, with equal\nright, worship an infinite stomach, and the annelid a god of mere\nbrute force?\n\nThere stands in Florence a magnificent statue by Michel Angelo. A\nhuman figure is only partially hewn out of the stone. He never\nfinished it. If you could have seen the master hewing the chips with\nhasty, impatient blows from the shapeless block, you would have been\ntempted to say that he was but a stonecutter, and but a hasty\nworkman at that. Even now we do not know exactly what form and\nexpression he would have given to the still unfinished head. But no\none can examine it and hesitate to pronounce it a grand work of a\nmaster-mind. In any manifestly incomplete work you must judge the\npurpose and character and powers of the workman or artist by its\nhighest possibilities, just so far as you have any reason to believe\nthat these possibilities will be realized. You must look at the\nrudely outlined heroic human figure in the block of stone, not at\nthe rough unfinished pedestal, if you would know Michel Angelo. So\nin the hydra and the annelid you must look at the possibilities of\nthe nervous system before you or he think that digestion and muscle\nare all.\n\nOnce more the highest powers dawn far down in the animal kingdom.\nThere are traces of mind in the amoeba, and of unselfishness in\nthe lower mammals. If there were a goal of human development higher\nand other than unselfishness, wisdom, and love, we should have seen\ntraces of it before this. But have we found the faintest sign of any\nsuch? Moreover, remember that a function continues to develop about\nas long as it shows the capacity for development. And during that\nperiod environment is a power making for its higher development. But\nis there any limit to the possible development of the three mental\nactivities mentioned above? I can see none. Then must we not expect\nthat environment will always make for these? And will environment\never manifest itself to man as the seat or instrument of a power\npossessing higher faculties other than these? Man must worship a\npersonal God of wisdom, unselfishness, and love, or cease to\nworship. The latter alternative he never yet has been able to take,\nand society survive under its domination. So I at least am compelled\nto read the finding of biological history.\n\nBut let us grant for the sake of argument that man contains still\nundeveloped germs of faculties capable of perceiving and attaining\nsomething as much higher than wisdom and love as these are higher\nthan brute force. You will answer, this is not only inconceivable,\nit is impossible. Still let us grant the possibility. We notice,\nfirst of all, that it is against the whole course of evolution that\nthese faculties should be other than mental, and what we class under\npowers pertaining to our personality. For ages past evidently, and\nno less really from the very beginning, evolution has worked for the\nbody only as a perfect vehicle of mind, and for this as leading to\nwill and character. And human development has led, and ever more\ntends, as Mr. Drummond has shown, to the arrest, though not the\ndegeneration, of the body. It is to remain at the highest possible\nstage of efficiency as the servant of mind. These higher powers will\nthus be mental and personal powers. And how has any and every\nadvance to higher capabilities been attained in the animal kingdom?\nMerely by the most active possible exercise of the next lower power.\nThis is proven by the sequence of physical and mental functions. We\nshall attain, therefore, any higher mental capacities only by the\ncontinual practice of wisdom and love. That is our only path to\nsomething higher, if higher there shall ever be. But if we find that\nthe God of our environment is a God of something higher than love\nand righteousness, will these cease to be characteristics of his\nnature and essence? Not at all.\n\nI have learned, perhaps, to know my father as a plain citizen. If I\nlater find that he is a king and statesman, with powers and mental\ncapacities of which I have never dreamed, do I therefore from that\ntime cease to think of him as wise and kind and good? Not in the\nleast. I only trust his love and wisdom as guide of my little life\nall the more. And shall not the same be true of God though he be\nking of all worlds and ages? It becomes unwise and wrong to worship\nGod as the God of might only when we have found that he is a God\nalso of something higher and nobler, of love; and after we have\nperceived this fully and worship him as love, we rest in the arms of\nhis infinite power.\n\nBut now that the work has gone thus far, we can see that all\ndevelopment must take place along personal, spiritual lines; and are\ncompelled to believe in a spiritual cause who knew the end from the\nbeginning. And man's farther progress depends upon his conformity to\nthis spiritual environment. And what is conformity to the personal\nelement in our environment but likeness to him? This is my only\npossible mode of conformity to a person--to become like him in word,\naction, thought, and purpose, and finally in all my being. Very far\nfrom a close resemblance we still are. But we are more like him than\nprimitive man was; and our descendants will resemble him far more\nclosely than we. And thus man, conscious of his environment, and\nthat means capable of knowing something about God, knows at least\nwhat God requires of him, namely, righteousness, love, and likeness\nto himself; or, as the old heathen seer expressed it, \"to do justly,\nlove mercy, and walk humbly before God.\" Man is and must be a\nreligious being. And he conforms consciously. Thus to be more like\nGod he must know more about him, and to know more about him he must\nbecome more like him. The two go hand in hand, and by mutual\nreaction strengthen each other. I will not enter into the most\nimportant question of all, whether we can ever really know a person\nunless we have some love for him. The facts of evolution seem to me\nto admit of but one interpretation, that of Augustine: \"Thou hast\nformed me for thee, O Lord, and my restless spirit finds no rest but\nin thee.\" Granted, therefore, a personal God in and behind\nenvironment, however dimly perceived, and conformity to environment\nmeans god-likeness; for conformity to a person can mean nothing less\nthan likeness to him.\n\nSome of you must, all of you should, have read Professor Huxley's\n\"Address on Education.\" In it he says, \"It is a very plain and\nelementary truth that the life, the fortune, and the happiness of\nevery one of us, and, more or less, of those who are connected with\nus, do depend upon our knowing something of the rules of a game\ninfinitely more difficult and complicated than chess. It is a game\nwhich has been played for unknown ages, every man and woman of us\nbeing one of the two players in a game of his or her own. The\nchess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the\nuniverse, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature.\nThe player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his\nplay is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our\ncost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest\nallowance for ignorance. To the man who plays well the highest\nstakes are paid with that sort of overflowing generosity with which\nthe strong shows delight in strength. And one who plays ill is\ncheckmated--without haste, but without remorse.\n\n\"My metaphor,\" he continues, \"will remind some of you of the famous\npicture in which Retzsch has depicted Satan playing at chess with\nman for his soul. Substitute for the mocking fiend in that picture\na calm, strong angel, who is playing for love, as we say, and would\nrather lose than win--and I should accept it as an image of human\nlife.\"[1]\n\n  [Footnote 1: Huxley: Lay Sermons and Addresses, p. 31.]\n\nThis is a marvellous illustration, and in general as true as it is\nbeautiful and grand. But that \"calm, strong angel who is playing for\nlove, as we say, and would rather lose than win,\" is certainly a\nvery strange antagonist. Is it, after all, possible that our\nclear-eyed scientific man has altogether misunderstood the game? Is\nnot the \"calm, strong angel\" more probably our partner? Certainly\nvery many things point that way. And who are our antagonists? Look\nwithin yourself and you will always find at least a pair ready to\ntake a hand against you, to say nothing of the possibilities of\nenvironment. \"Rex regis rebellis.\" Our partner is trying by every\nmethod, except perhaps by \"talking across the board,\" to teach us\nthe laws and methods of this great game. And calls and signals are\nalways allowable. The game is not finished in one hand; he gives us\na second and third, and repeats the signals, and never misleads.\nOnly when we carelessly or obstinately refuse to learn, and wilfully\nlose the game beyond all hope, does he leave us to meet our losses\nas best we may.\n\nLet us carry the illustration a step farther. Who knows that the\ngame was, or could be, at first taught without talking across the\nboard? I can find nothing in science to compel such a belief, many\nthings render it improbable. Grant a personality in environment to\nwhich personality in man is to conform and gain likeness.\nEnvironment can act on the digestive and muscular systems through\nmere material. But how can personality in environment act on\npersonality in man except by personal contact or by symbols easy of\ncomprehension according to its own laws? Some method of attaining\nacquaintance at least we should certainly expect.\n\nBut some of you may ask, How can any theory of evolution guarantee\nthat anything of the present shall survive in the future? It is\ncontinually changing and destroying former types. The old order of\neverything changes and passes away, giving place to the new. But is\nthis the whole truth? Evolution is a radical process, but we must\nnever forget that it is also, and at the same time, exceedingly\nconservative. The cell was the first invention of the animal\nkingdom, and all higher animals are and must be cellular in\nstructure. Our tissues were formed ages on ages ago; they have all\npersisted. Most of our organs are as old as worms. All these are\nvery old, older than the mountains, and yet I cannot doubt that they\nmust last as long as man exists. Indeed, while Nature is wonderfully\ninventive of new structures, her conservatism in holding on to old\nones is still more remarkable. In the ascending line of development\nshe tries an experiment once exceedingly thorough, and then the\nquestion is solved for all time. For she always takes time enough to\ntry the experiment exhaustively. It took ages to find how to build a\nspinal column or brain, but when the experiment was finished she had\nreason to be, and was, satisfied. And if this is true of bodily\norgans we should expect that the same law would hold good when the\nanimal development gradually passes over into the spiritual. And\nwhat is human history but the record of moral and religious\nexperiments, and their success or failure according as the\nexperimenters conformed to the laws of the spiritual forces with\nwhich they had to do?\n\nWe need not fear that our old fundamental beliefs will be lost.\nTheir very age shows that they have been thoroughly tested in the\ngreat experiment of human history and found sure. Modified they may\nbe; they will be used for higher purposes and the building of better\ncharacters than ours. They will not be lost or discarded. We too\noften think of nature as building like man, with huge scaffoldings,\nwhich must later be torn down and destroyed. But in the forest the\nonly scaffolding is the heart of oak.\n\nWe have seen that the sequence of functions in animal development\nhas culminated in man's rational, moral nature. He alone has the\nclear perception of the reality of right, truth, and duty. The\npursuit of these has made him what he is. His advance, if there is\nany continuity in history, depends upon his making these the ruling\nmotives and aims of his life. He must continually grow in\nrighteousness and unselfishness, if he is not to degenerate and give\nplace to some other product of evolution. Moreover, as these moral\nfaculties are capable of indefinite, if not infinite, development,\nthey must dominate his life through a future of indefinite duration.\nFor the length of the period of dominance of a function has always\nbeen proportional to the capacity of that function for future\ndevelopment. These can never, so far as we can see, be superseded,\nfor no rival to them can be discovered. We have found in them the\nculmination of the sequence of functions.\n\nWe have attempted to show in this lecture that reversal of this\ngrand sequence has always led to degeneration, or, in higher forms,\nfar more frequently, to extinction. As we ascend, natural selection\nworks more, rather than less, unsparingly. And as advance depends\nupon conformity to environment, and as the highest forms must be\nregarded as therefore most completely conformed, we gain our most\nadequate knowledge of environment when we study it as working\nespecially for these. For these have been from the very beginning\nits far-off, chief aim and goal. Viewed from this standpoint,\nenvironment proves to be a host of interacting forces uniting in a\nresultant \"power, not ourselves, that makes for righteousness,\" and\nunselfishness.\n\nInasmuch as man's rational moral nature, his personality, is the\nresult of the last and longest step toward and in conformity to\nenvironment, these powers correspond to that which is at the same\ntime highest, and deepest, and most fundamental in that environment.\nThis power which makes for righteousness is therefore to be regarded\nas personal and spiritual rather than material. It is God immanent\nin nature. And it is mainly to this personal and spiritual element\nin his environment that man is in the future to more completely\nconform. Conformity to this element in man's environment does not so\nmuch result in life as it _is_ life; failure to conform is death.\nAnd the pressure of environment upon man, compelling him to choose\nbetween life through conformity and non-conformity with death, can\nbe most naturally and adequately explained as the expression of his\nwill. We know what he requires of us.\n\nOur knowledge of him is very incomplete, but may be valid as far as\nit extends. And it would seem to be valid, for it has been tested by\nages of experiment. The results of this grand experiment have been\nsummed up in man's fundamental religious beliefs. And farther\nknowledge will be gained by more complete obedience to the\nrequirements already known. The evidence, that these fundamental\nreligious beliefs will persist, is of the same character as that\nupon which rests our belief in the persistence of cells and tissues.\nThe one is rooted in the structure of our minds; the other, in the\nstructure of our bodies. But, after all, only will can act upon\nwill, and personality upon personality. It remains for us to examine\nhow man was compelled by his very structure to develop a new element\nin his environment, conformed indeed to the laws of his old\nenvironment, but better fitted to draw out the moral and spiritual\nside of his nature. And in connection with this study we may hope to\ngain some new light on the laws of conformity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nCONFORMITY TO ENVIRONMENT\n\n\nWe are too prone to think that soil and climate, hill-side or plain,\nmountain and shore, temperature and rainfall, constitute the sole or\nthe most important elements in human environment. Every one of these\nelements is doubtless important. Frost, drought, or barrenness of\nsoil may make a region a desert, or dwarf the development of its\ninhabitants. Mountaineer, and the dweller on the plain, and the\nfisherman on the shore of the ocean develop different traits through\nthe influence of their surroundings. In too warm a climate the human\nrace loses its mental and moral vigor and degenerates. This is\nundeniable.\n\nBut, though one soil and climate and set of physical surroundings\nmay be more conducive than another to the development of heroism,\ntruthfulness, unselfishness, and righteousness, no one is essential\nto their production or sure to give rise to them. Moral and\nreligious character is a feature of man's personality, and our\npersonality is moulded mainly by the men and women with whom we\nassociate. A man is not only \"known by the company which he keeps;\"\nhe is usually fashioned by and conforms to it. As President Seelye\nhas well said, \"The only motive which can move a will is either a\nwill itself, or something into which a will enters. It is not a\nthought, but only a sentiment, a deed, or a person, by which we\nbecome truly inspired. It is not the intellect, but the heart and\nwill, through which and by which we are controlled. It is not the\nprecepts of life, but life itself, by which alone we are begotten\nand born unto life.\n\n\"Now, there are two ways in which living power, personal power, the\npower of a will, may enter a soul and give it life; the one is when\nGod's will works upon us, and the other when our wills work upon one\nanother. God's will may directly penetrate ours, enabling us to will\nand to do of his good pleasure; and our own wills, thus inspired,\nmay be the torch to kindle other wills with the same inspiration. It\nis in only one of these two ways that a human soul can be truly\ninspired; and, without a true inspiration, no amount of instruction,\nwhether in duty, or life, or anything else, will change a single\nmoral propensity.\"[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Seelye: Christian Missions, p. 154.]\n\nEven though a Lincoln may rise above his hereditary position or his\nsurroundings, they are the school in which he is trained; the\ngymnasium in which his mental and moral fibre is strengthened.\nFamily and social life form thus the element of man's environment by\nwhich he is mostly moulded, and to which he most naturally and\ncompletely conforms. Let us therefore briefly trace the origin of\nthis new element of man's environment, and then notice the effect\nupon him of conformity to its laws, and see whither these would lead\nhim.\n\nWe have already seen that intra-uterine development of the young was\nbeing carried ever farther by mammals, and we found one explanation\nof this in the fact that each mammalian egg represented a large\namount of nutriment, and that the mammal had very little material to\nspare for reproduction. Very possibly, too, the newly hatched\nmammals were exposed to even more numerous and greater dangers than\nthe young of birds. Even among lower mammals the young is feeble at\nbirth. But the human infant is absolutely helpless. And the centre\nof its helplessness is its brain. Its eyes and ears are\ncomparatively perfect, but its perceptions are very dim. Its muscles\nare all present, but it must very slowly and gradually learn to use\nthem. Its language is but a cry, its few actions reflex. The\nnew-born kitten may be just as helpless, but in a few weeks it will\nrun and play and hunt, and after a few months can care for itself.\nNot so the child. It must be cared for during months and years\nbefore it can be given independence. Its brain is so marvellously\ncomplex that it is finished as a thinking and willing and\nmuscle-controlling mechanism only long after birth. This means a\nperiod of infancy during which the young clings helplessly to the\nmother, who is its natural protector. And during this period the\nmother and young have to be cared for and protected by the male. And\nthe period of infancy and the protection of the female and young are\njust as truly, though in far less degree, characteristic of the\nhighest apes as of man.\n\nI can give you only this very condensed and incomplete abstract of\nMr. John Fiske's argument; you must read it for yourself in his\n\"Destiny of Man.\" And as he has there shown, this can have but one\nresult, and that is the family life of man. And we may yet very\npossibly have to acknowledge that family life of a very low grade\nis just as truly characteristic of the higher apes as of lower man.\nAnd thus the family life of man is the physiological result of, and\nrooted in, mammalian structure.\n\nAnd the benefits of family life are too great and numerous to even\nenumerate. First of all the family is the school of unselfishness.\nAll the love of the parent is drawn out for the helpless and\ndependent child, and grows as the parent works and thinks for it.\nAnd the child returns a fraction of his parents' love. Within the\nclose bond of the family the struggle for place and opportunity is\nreplaced by mutual helpfulness; and this doing and burden-bearing\nwith and for each other is a constant exercise in the practice of\nlove. And with out this mutual love and helpfulness the family\ncannot exist.\n\nAnd slowly man begins to apply the lessons learned in the family to\nother relations with partners, neighbors, and friends. Slowly he\ndiscovers that an entirely selfish life defeats its own ends. A\nvoice within him tells him continually that love is better than\nselfishness and ministering better than being ministered unto. It\ndawns upon him that it is against the nature of things that other\npeople should be so selfish and grasping; a few begin to apply the\nmoral to themselves, and a few of these to act accordingly.\n\nAnd what a change the few steps which man has taken in this\ndirection have wrought in his life. Says Professor Huxley: \"In place\nof ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint, in place of\nthrusting aside or treading down all competitors, it requires that\nthe individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows;\nits influence is directed not so much to the survival of the\nfittest as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It\nrepudiates the gladiatoral theory of existence.\"\n\nIt is a vast change from the \"gladiatorial theory\" to that of\n\"mutual helpfulness.\" Call it a revolution, if you will. Revolutions\nare not unheard of in the history of the animal kingdom any more\nthan in human history. We have seen, first, digestion and\nreproduction on the throne of animal organization, then muscle, and\nfinally brain. Each of these changes is in one sense a revolution.\n\nA little before the summer solstice the earth is whizzing away from\nthe sun; a few weeks later it is whizzing with equal rapidity in\nalmost the opposite direction. In the very nature of things it could\nnot be otherwise. But so silently and gradually does it come about\nthat we never feel the reversal of the engine; indeed the engine has\nnot been reversed at all. Very similar is the change of the struggle\nof brute against brute to that of man for man. Indeed human\ndevelopment seems now to be almost at such a solstice where the\npower that makes for love is almost exhausted in opposing the\ntendency toward selfishness. We shall not always stay at the\nsolstice; soon we shall make more rapid progress. And unselfishness\nlike the family relation is firmly rooted in mammalian structure.\n\nAnd man owes almost everything to family life. First the child gains\nthe advantage of the parent's experience. He is educated by the\nparent. In a few formative and receptive years he gains from the\nparent the results of centuries of human experience. The process is\nthus cumulative, the investment bears compound interest. And yet\nthis is peculiar to man only in degree. Have you never watched a\ncat train her kittens? And the education of the child in the savage\nfamily is very incomplete.\n\nThe family is the first and fundamental of all higher social and\npolitical unities. And without the persistence of the family the\nlarger social unit would become an inert mass. All the individual\nambition, all desire for family advancement, must be retained as\nstill a motive for energetic advance. And all the training which\nsocial life can give reaches the individual most effectively, or\nsolely, through the family. Society without the family would be like\nan army without company or regimental organization. Thus the very\nexistence, not only of training in love and mutual helpfulness, but\neven of society itself as a mere organization, depends upon the\nexistence and improvement of family life. And as so much depended\nupon and resulted from it, it could not but be fostered and improved\nby natural selection. The tribe or race with the best family life\nhas apparently survived. But all social animals have some means of\ncommunicating very simple thoughts or perceptions. The simplest\nillustrations of this are the calls and warning cries of mammals and\nbirds. It is not impossible that the higher mammals have something\nworthy of the name of language. But man alone, with his better brain\nand better anatomical structure of throat and mouth, and the closer\ninterdependence with his fellows, has attained to articulate speech.\nAnd this again has become the bond to a still closer union.\n\nNow our only question is, How does social life enable and aid man to\nconform to environment? We are interested not so much in his\nhappiness as in his progress. It helps and improves the body by\ngiving him a better and more constant supply of more suitable food,\nand better protection from inclemency of the weather, and in many\nother ways. Baths and gymnasia are built, and medical science\nprolongs life. Yet make the items as many as you can, and what a\nlong list of disadvantages to man physically you must set over\nagainst these. Many of these evils will doubtless disappear as\nsociety becomes better organized, but some will always remain to\nplague us. We pamper or abuse our stomachs, and dyspepsia results.\nWe live in hot-houses, and a host of diseases are fostered by them.\nIndeed it would be hard to count up the diseases for which social\nlife is directly or indirectly responsible. Social life becomes more\nand more complicated, and our nervous systems cannot bear the\nstrain. Medical science saves alive thousands who would otherwise\ndie, and these grow up to bear children as weak as themselves. We\nare looking now at the physical side alone; and from this standpoint\nthe survival of the invalid is a sore evil. Now society will and\nmust become healthier; we shall not always abuse our bodies as\nsinfully as we now do. Still, viewed from the standpoint of the body\nalone, the best, as it seems to me, which we can claim, is that\nsocial life does no more harm than good.\n\nWhat has social life done for man intellectually? Much. It gives him\nschools and colleges. But are our systems of education an unmixed\ngood? How many of our schools and colleges are places where men are\nstuffed with facts until they have no time nor inclination to think?\nThey may turn out learned men; do they produce thinkers? And how\nabout the spread of knowledge? Is it not a spread of information?\nAnd most of what goes forth from the press is not worthy of even\nthat name, or is information which a man had better be without. We\nare proud of being a nation of readers. And reading is good, if a\nman thinks about what he reads; otherwise it is like undigested food\nin the stomach, an injury and a curse. A dyspeptic gourmand is\nhelped by \"cutting down his rations.\" In our mental disease we need\nthe same course of treatment. Let us read fewer books and papers and\nthink more about what we do read.\n\nSociety may foster original thinking; it is none the less opposed to\nit.\n\n        \"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look,\n         He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.\"\n\nThis is the motto of all great parties in Church and State. Still\nsocial life has undoubtedly fostered thought. We think vastly more\nand better than primitive man; still we have much to learn. Society\nputs the experience of centuries at the service of every individual.\nPoor and unsatisfactory as are our modes of education, they are a\ngreat blessing intellectually and will become more helpful.\nAnd, after all, the friction of mind against mind in social\nlife--provided social intercourse is this, and not the commingling\nof two vacua--is a continual education of inestimable advantage. And\nall these advantages would without language have been absolutely\nimpossible. Intellectually our debt to society is inestimable.\n\nAnd how does social life aid man morally? I cannot help believing\nthat primitive society was the first school of the human conscience.\nIt was a rude school, but it taught man some grand lessons.\n\nThe primitive clan would seem to have existed as a rude army for\nthe defence of its members and for offensive operations against\nenemies. Individual responsibility on the part of its members was\nslight for offences against individuals of other clans, or against\nthe gods. For any such offence of one of its members the whole clan\nwas held, or held itself, largely responsible. If one man sinned,\nthe clan suffered. It could not therefore afford to pardon wilful\ndisobedience to regulations made by it or its leaders. Its very\nexistence depended on this strict discipline. And much the same\nstern discipline has to be maintained in our modern armies or they\nbecome utterly worthless.\n\nFurthermore, man, as a social being, is very ready to accept the\nestimate of his actions placed upon them by his fellows. It is not\neasy to resist public opinion now. The tie of class or professional\nfeeling is a tremendous power for good and evil. It must have been\nalmost irresistible in that primitive army, which summarily outlawed\nor killed the obstinately disobedient. But all obedience was lauded\nand rewarded. It had to be so. And if the tribe was worthy to\nsurvive, because its regulations were better than those of its\nrivals, or perhaps as nearly just and right as were well possible,\nit was altogether best and right it should be so. The voice of the\npeople was, in a very rude, stammering way, the voice of God. And\nthose who survived became more and more obedient, and found\nthemselves, when disobedient, feeling debased, and mean, and\nunworthy, as their fellows considered them. And all this feeling\ntended to develop a conscience in the individual answering to the\nestimates and regulations of the community.\n\nAnd remember that the primitive religion is a tribal religion. The\ngods felt toward a man just as his neighbors did. A public opinion\nof this sort is irresistible, and a man's conscience and estimate of\nhimself and his actions must conform to it. But you may say a man\nmay grant that this opinion is in a sense irresistible, and find\nhimself very miserable and unhappy under its condemnation. But he\nwould not feel remorse; this is a very different feeling. Possibly\nit may be. I am not so sure. But what I am interested in maintaining\nis that the condemnation of one's fellow-men puts more vividly\nbefore one's eyes, and emphasizes, the condemnation of one's own\nself. It may often be a necessary step in self-conviction. And what\nis most important, even in our own case, the condemnation of our\nfellows often brings with it self-condemnation.\n\nTry the experiment, as you will some day, of following a course of\naction which you feel fairly confident is right, but which all your\nneighbors think is foolish and wrong. See if you do not feel twinges\nwithin you which you must examine very closely to distinguish from\ntwinges of conscience. If you do not, I see but one explanation--you\nare conscious that God is with you, and content with this majority.\nBut in the case of primitive man God was always on the side of one's\ntribe.\n\nNow this does not explain the origin of man's conception of right;\nit presupposes such a conception in some dim form. I do not now know\nwhy right is right or beauty beautiful. I only know they are so.\nWhere or when either of these perceptions dawned I do not know. But,\ngiven some such dim perception, I believe that primitive human\nsociety gave it its iron grip on every fibre of man's nature.\n\nBefore the animal could safely be allowed to govern itself\nintelligently it had to serve a long apprenticeship to reflex action\nand instinct. And man's moral nature had to undergo a similar\napprenticeship to tribal regulation and tribal conscience. Only\nslowly was instinct modified and replaced by intelligent action. And\nhow this old tribal conscience persists. Often for good, although\nthere it were better replaced by an individual conscience working\nfor right. But how slowly you and I learn that there is a higher\nresponsibility than to party or class. How often my vote and action\nare controlled, not by my own conscience, but by the opinion of my\nfellows, or the feeling that, if my party suffers defeat, God's work\nwill suffer at the hands of my opponents. And what is all this but\nthe survival in a very degenerate form of the old tribal conscience\nof primitive man? And he knew, and could know, nothing better: I can\nand do.\n\nBut society slowly works for unselfishness. The love learned in the\nfamily manifests itself in ever-widening circles; it must do so if\nit is the genuine article. It works for neighbors and friends, then\nfor the poor and helpless of the community. Then it spreads to other\ncommunities and nations. For genuine love recognizes no bounds of\ntime or place. Slowly we learn that we are our brother's keepers,\nand that the brotherhood cannot stop short of the human race.\nGoodness and kindness radiate from one, perhaps unknown, member of\nthe community to his fellows, and thence all over the world. And the\nworld is the better for his one action.\n\nPrimitive society was thus the best possible school of conscience;\nand the family and it are the great school of unselfishness. But\nsociety is even more and better than this. It is the medium through\nwhich thought, power, and moral and religious life can spring from\nman to man. This is its last and culminating advantage: it is that\nfor which society really exists.\n\nFor, in the close bonds of family and social life, a new possibility\nof development has arisen based upon articulate speech. We might\nalmost call it a new form of heredity, independent of all\nblood-relationship. Progress in anatomical structure in the animal\nkingdom was slow, because any improvement could be transmitted only\nto the direct descendants of its original possessor. But in all\nmatters pertaining to or based upon mind, a new invention, or idea,\nor system becomes the property of him who can best appreciate it.\nThe torch is always handed on to the swiftest runner. Thus Socrates\nis the true father of Plato, and Plato of Aristotle. Whoever can\nbest understand and appreciate and enter into the spirit of Socrates\nand Plato becomes heir to their thoughts and interprets them to us.\nAnd the thought of one man enriches all races and times.\n\nBut a great teacher like Socrates is not merely an intellectual\npower. \"Probe a little deeper, surgeon,\" said the French soldier,\n\"and you'll find the emperor.\" Napoleon may have impressed himself\non the soldier's intellect; he had enthroned himself in his heart.\n\"Slave,\" said the old Roman, Marius, to the barbarian who had been\nsent into the dungeon to despatch him, \"slave, wouldst thou kill\nCains Marius?\" And the barbarian, though backed by all the power of\nRome, is said to have fled in dismay. Why did he run away? I do not\nknow. I only know that I should have done the same. One more\ninstance. Some thirty years ago the northern army was fleeing, a\ndisorganized mob, toward Winchester. Early had fallen upon them\nsuddenly in the gray of the morning, and, while one corps still held\nits ground, the rest of the army was melting away in panic. Then a\nlittle red-faced trooper came tearing down the line shouting, \"Face\nthe other way boys; face the other way.\" And those panic-stricken\nmen turned and rolled an irresistible avalanche of heroes upon the\nConfederate lines. What made them turn about? It was something which\nI can neither define nor analyze--the personal power of Sheridan. It\nis the secret of every great leader of men. Now Sheridan had\nimparted more than information to these men. Is it too much to say\nthat he put himself into them? From such men power streams out like\nelectricity from a huge dynamo.\n\nNow society furnishes the medium through which such a man can act.\nYou have all met such men, though probably not more than one or two\nof them. But one such man is a host. They may be men of few words.\nBut their very presence and look calls out all that is good in you;\nand while you are with them evil loses its power. Says the gay and\nlicentious Alcibiades, in Plato's \"Banquet\" concerning Socrates:\n\n\"When I heard Pericles or any other great orator, I was entertained\nand delighted, and I felt that he had spoken well. But no mortal\nspeech has ever excited in my mind such emotions as are excited by\nthis magician. Whenever I hear him, I am, as it were, charmed and\nfettered. My heart leaps like an inspired Corybant. My inmost soul\nis stung by his words as by the bite of a serpent. It is indignant\nat its own rude and ignoble character. I often weep tears of regret\nand think how vain and inglorious is the life I lead. Nor am I the\nonly one that weeps like a child and despairs of himself. Many\nothers are affected in the same way.\"\n\nThese men are the real kings. Their power for good, and sometimes\nfor evil, is inestimable. And the great advantage of social life, as\na means of conforming to environment, is the medium which it\nfurnishes to conduct the power of such men. Man's last effort toward\nconformity to environment, the struggle for existence in its last\nmost real form, is the life and death grapple between good and evil.\nFor here good and evil, righteousness and sin, come face to face in\nspiritual form; \"we wrestle not with flesh and blood.\" Life is more\nthan a game of chess or whist; it is a great battle; every man must,\nand does, take sides; he must fight or die. And the real kings of\nsociety are, as a rule, on the side of truth, and aid its triumph.\nFor one essential condition of such leadership is the power to\ninspire confidence in the love of the king for his willing subject.\nA suspicion of selfish aims in the leader breaks this bond. The hero\nmust be self-forgetful. This is one reason for man's hero-worship,\nand the magnetic, dominant power of the hero. But evil is\nessentially selfish and can gain and hold this kingship only as long\nas it can deceive. And these kings \"live forever.\" Dynasties and\nempires disappear, but Socrates and Plato, Luther and Huss, Cromwell\nand Lincoln, rule an ever-widening kingdom of ever more loyal\nsubjects.\n\nAnd society will have leaders; men may set up whatever form of\ngovernment they will, they are always searching for a king. And this\nis no sign of weakness or credulity. Man's desire for leadership is\nonly another proof of the vast future which he knows is before him,\nand into which he longs to be guided. The wiser a man is, the more\nhe desires to be taught; the nobler he becomes, the more\nwhole-souled is the homage which he pays to the noblest. Is it a\nsign of weakness or ignorance in students, of adult age and ripe\nmanhood, to flock to some great university to hear the wisdom and\ncatch the inspiration of some great master? When Jackson fell Lee\nexclaimed, \"I have lost my right arm.\" Was Jackson any the less for\nbeing the right arm to deal, as only he could, the crushing blows\nplanned by the great strategist?\n\nBut is not man to be independent and free? Certainly. But he gains\nfreedom from the petty tyranny of robber-baron or boss, and from the\nvery pettiest tyranny of all, the service of self, only as he finds\nand enlists under the king. Serve self and it will plunge you in,\nand drag you through, the ditch, till your own clothes abhor you.\nYou are free to choose your teacher and guide and example. But\nchoose you will and must. I am not propounding theories; I am\ntelling you facts. Whether for better or worse man always does and\nwill choose because he must. Look about you, look into yourselves.\nHave you no hero whom you admire and strive to resemble? no teacher\nto whom you listen? You must and do have your example and teacher.\nIs he teaching you to conform to environment, or leading you to be\nground in pieces by its forces all arrayed against you?\n\nThe Carpenter of Nazareth stood before Pilate. \"And Pilate said\nunto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I\nam a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into\nthe world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that\nis of the truth heareth my voice.\" And Pilate would not wait for the\nanswer to his question, What is truth? and the Jews chose Barabbas.\nWould you and I have acted differently? The answer of our Lord to\nPilate contains the essence of Christianity. \"You a king,\" says\nPilate in astonishment; \"where is your power to enforce your\nauthority?\" And our Lord's answer seems to me to mean substantially\nthis: Roman legions shall suffer defeat, rout, and extermination;\nand Roman power shall cease to terrify. All its might must decay.\nBut \"everyone that is of the truth\" shall attach himself to me with\na love which will brave rack and stake. All your power cannot give a\ngrain of new life. I can and will infuse my own divine life, my own\ndivine _self_, into men. And this new life is invincible, immortal,\nall-conquering. I have infused myself into a few fishermen, and they\nwill infuse _me_ into a host of other men. Thus I will transfigure\ninto my own character every man in the world, who is of the truth,\nand therefore will hear my voice. All the power of Rome cannot\nprevent it, and whatever opposes it must go down before it.\n\nChristianity is the contagion of a divine life. Society is the\nmedium through which it could and was to work. Greece had prepared\nthe language necessary for its spread. Roman power had built its\nhighways and levelled all obstructions.\n\n\"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.\" \"Not by might, nor by\npower, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.\"\n\nBut, you will object, the grandest kings have had, as a rule, the\nfewest loyal subjects. The prophets and seers are stoned. Elijah\nstands alone on Carmel and opposed to him are more than a thousand\nprophets of Baal, with court and king at their head. Heroism does\nnot pay, and heroes are few. Right is always in a hopeless minority.\nLet us look into this matter carefully, for the objection, even if\noverstated, certainly contains a large amount of truth.\n\nLet us go back to two forms having much the same grade of\norganization: both worms. One of them sets out to become a\nvertebrate, building an internal skeleton. The other forms an\nexternal skeleton and becomes a crab. To form its skeleton the crab\nhad only to thicken the cuticle already present in the annelid. It\nhad to modify the already existing parapodia and their muscles,\nchanging them to legs. The external skeleton gave from the start a\ndouble advantage--protection and better locomotion. Every grain of\nthickening aided the animal in the struggle for existence in both\nthese ways. The very fact that the skeleton was external may have\nrendered it more liable to variation, because it was thus exposed to\ncontinual stimuli. And the best were rapidly sifted out by Natural\nSelection. The change and development went on with comparative\nrapidity. In the mollusk the change was apparently still more easy\nand the development still more rapid.\n\nBut the development of an internal skeleton was more difficult and\nslower. It was of no use for the protection of the animal, and only\ngradually did it become of much service in locomotion. Being\ndeep-seated it very possibly changed all the more slowly.\nFurthermore, a cartilaginous rod, like the notochord, even fully\ndeveloped, hardly enabled the animal to fight directly with the\nmail-clad crab. The internal skeleton had to become far more highly\ndeveloped before its great advantages, and freedom from\ndisadvantages, became apparent. The mollusk and crab were working a\nmine rich in surface deposits although soon exhausted. The\nvertebrate lead was poor at the surface, and only later showed its\ninexhaustible richness. It looked as if the vertebrate were making a\nvery poor speculation.\n\nWhether this explanation be true or not, a glance at a chart,\nshowing the geological succession of occurrence of the different\nkingdoms, proves that in the oldest pal\u00e6ozoic periods there were\nwell-developed cuttlefish and crabs before there were any\nvertebrates worthy of the name. If any were present, their skeleton\nwas purely cartilaginous and not preserved.\n\nI think we may go farther, although in this latter consideration we\nmay very possibly be mistaken. We have already seen that the\nprogress made by any animal may be measured more or less accurately\nby the length of time during which its ancestors maintained a\nswimming life. The ancestors of the coelenterates settled to the\nbottom first. Then successively those of flatworms, mollusks,\nannelids, and crabs. All this time the ancestors of vertebrates were\nswimming in the water above. Food was probably more abundant,\ncertainly more easily and economically obtained by a creeping life,\non the bottom. But thither the vertebrate could not go. There his\nmail-clad competitors were too strong for him. Those which settled\nand tried to compete in this sort of life perished. We may have to\nexcept the ascidia, but they paid for their success by the loss of\nnearly all their vertebrate characteristics. The future progress of\nvertebrates depended upon their continual activity in the swimming\nlife. And they were forced by their environment to maintain this.\nOtherwise they might, probably would, never have attained their\npresent height of organization. Certainly at this time you would\nhave found it hard to believe that the victory was to fall to these\nweaker and smaller vertebrates.\n\nLet us come down to a later period. Reptiles, mammals, and birds are\nstruggling for supremacy. Of the power and diversity of form of\nthese old reptiles we have generally no adequate conception. The\nforms now living are but feeble remnants. There were huge\nsea-serpents, and forms like our present crocodiles, but far more\npowerful. Others apparently resembled in form and habit the\nherbivorous and carnivorous mammals of to-day. Others strode or\nleaped on two legs. And still others flew like bats or birds. They\nwere terrible forms, with coats of mail and powerful jaws and teeth.\nAnd they were active and swift. When we look at them we see that the\nvertebrate, though slow in gaining the lead, is sure to hold it. The\ninternal skeleton gave fewer advantages at the start; its greatest\nsuperiority had lain in future possibilities.\n\nBut which vertebrate is heir to the future? It would have been a\nhard choice between reptile and bird. I feel sure that I, for one,\nshould not have selected the mammal, a small, feeble being, hiding\nin holes and ledges, and continually hard put to it to escape\nbecoming a mouthful for some huge reptile. And yet the persecution,\nthe impossibility of contending by brute strength, may have forced\nthe mammal into the line of brain-building and placental\ndevelopment. The early development of mammals appears to have been\nslow. Pal\u00e6ontology proves that they were long surpassed by reptiles\nand birds. But the little mammal had the future. The battle was to\ngo against the strong.\n\nOnce again. The arboreal life of higher mammals would seem to be\nmost easily explained by the view that they were driven to it by\nstronger carnivorous mammals having possession of the ground. Brain\nwas good, for it planned escape from enemies. But it did not give\nits possessor immediate victory over muscle, tooth, and claw in the\ntiger. That was to come far later with the invention of traps and\nguns. Brain gave its possessor a sure hold of the future, and just\nenough of the present to enable it to survive by a hard struggle.\nAnd the same appears to have been true of primitive man.\n\nThus all man's ancestors have had to lead a life of continual\nstruggle against overwhelming odds and of seeming defeat. It was a\nlife of hardship, if not of positive suffering. The organ which was\nto give them future supremacy, whether it was backbone, placenta, or\nbrain, could in its earlier stages aid them only to a hardly won\nsurvival. The present apparently, and really as far as freedom from\ndiscomfort and danger is concerned, always belongs to forms\nhopelessly doomed to degeneration or stagnation. Crabs, not\nprimitive vertebrates, were masters of the good things of the sea;\nand, in later times, reptiles, not mammals, of those of the land.\nAny progressive form has to choose between the present and the\nfuture. It cannot grasp both. I am not propounding to you any\nmetaphysical theories, but plain, dry, hard facts of pal\u00e6ontology;\nexplain them as you will.\n\nAnd here we must add our last word about conformity to environment;\nand it is a most important consideration. Conformity to environment\nis not such an adaptation as will confer upon an animal the greatest\nimmunity from discomfort or danger, or will enable it to gain the\ngreatest amount of food and place, and produce the largest number of\noffspring. Indeed, if you will add one element to those mentioned\nabove, namely, that all these shall be attained with the least\namount of effort, they insure degeneration beyond a doubt. This is\nthe conformity of the bivalve mollusk. The clam has abundance of\nfood, enormous powers of reproduction, almost perfect protection\nagainst enemies, and lives a life of almost absolute freedom from\ndiscomfort, and the clam is really lower than most worms.\n\nIf an animal is to progress, it must keep such a conformity ever\nsecondary to a still more important element, namely, conformity or\nobedience to the laws of its own structure and being. This second\nelement the mollusk and every creeping stage neglected, and the\nresult of this neglect was stagnation or degeneration. Activity was\nessential to progress from the very structure and laws of\ndevelopment of the animal, while a great abundance of food was not.\nA life of ease, for the same reason, necessarily results in\ndegeneration.\n\nBut you will ask, What becomes of Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution,\nif obedience to the laws of individual being is more important than\nconformity to external conditions? Both are evidently necessary, and\nthey are not so different as they may seem at first sight. They are\nreally one and the same. Bringing out the best and highest there is\nin us, is the only true conformity to that which is deepest and\nsurest and most enduring in our environment. That in environment\nwhich makes for digestion is almost palpable and tangible, that\nwhich makes for activity less so perhaps; but that which makes for\nbrain and truth and right is intangible and invisible. We easily\nfail to notice it; and, unless we take a careful view of the course\nof development in the highest forms of life, we may be inclined to\ndeny its existence. But it is surely there, if man is a product of\nevolution.\n\nEach successive stage of animal life is not the preceding stage on a\nhigher plane, but the preceding stage modified in conformity to the\nenvironment of that from which it has just arisen. Says Professor\nHertwig[A]: \"During the process of organic development the external\nis continually becoming an integral part of the individual. The germ\nis continually growing and changing at the expense of surrounding\nconditions.\" Every stage thus contains the result of a host of\nreactions to a ruder and older portion of environment. And the\nhigher we go the more has the original protoplasm and structure been\nmodified as the result of these reactions.\n\n  [Footnote A: Hertwig: Zeit- und Streitfragen, p. 82.]\n\nWe have seen clearly that environment must be studied through its\neffect upon living beings. Viewed from any other standpoint it\nappears to be a myriad, almost a chaos, of interacting, apparently\nconflicting, forces. The resultant of some of these is shown by the\nanimal at any stage of its development. And as the animal advances,\nthe resultant determining its new line, or stage, of advance,\nincludes new forces, to which it has only lately become sensitive.\nAnd thus the human mind, as the last and highest product of\nevolution, mirrors most adequately the resultant of all its forces.\nIf we would know environment we must study ourselves, not atoms\nalone, nor rocks, nor worms.\n\nExtremely sensitive photographic plates, after long exposure, have\nproven the existence of stars so dim and far-off as to be invisible\nto the best telescopes. Man's mind is just such a sensitive plate;\nit is the only valid representation of environment.\n\nThe truth would appear to be that the law is present in environment,\nbut hard to read; but it is stamped upon our structure and being so\ndeeply and plainly that the dullest of us cannot fail to read it. We\nlearned the fact of gravitation the first time that we fell down in\nlearning to walk, long afterward we learned that its law guided\nearth and moon. And it is the presence of this law within us, and\nour own knowledge that we are conscious of it, that makes man\nwithout excuse. But conformity to that which is deepest in\nenvironment often, always, demands non-conformity to some of the\nmost palpable of surrounding conditions.\n\nThere is no better statement of the ultimate law of conformity than\nthe words of Paul: \"Be not conformed to this world; but be ye\ntransformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is\nthat good and acceptable and perfect will of God.\"\n\nAnd this difference is exactly what I have been trying to put before\nyou. The mollusk conformed, but the vertebrate conformed in a very\ndifferent way, and was transformed, \"metamorphosed,\" to translate\nthe Greek word literally, into something higher. And let us not\nforget that man conforms consciously and voluntarily, if at all; he\nis able to read in himself and environment the law to which lower\nforms have been compelled unconsciously to conform.\n\nThese facts merely illustrate a great law of life. No man's eye,\nmuch less hand, can grasp the whole of the present and at the same\ntime the future. Rather what we usually call present advantage is\nnot advantage at all, but the first step in degeneration. If one\nwill be rich in old age he must deny himself some gratifications in\nyouth; his present reward is his self-control. If a man will climb\nhigher than his fellows he must expect to be sometimes solitary; his\nreward is the ever-widening view, though the path be rougher and the\nair more biting than in their lower altitude. If he point to heights\nyet to attain, the majority will disbelieve him or say, \"Our present\nheight was good enough for our ancestors, it is good enough for us.\nWhy sacrifice a good thing and make yourself ridiculous scrambling\nafter what in the end may prove unattainable?\" If you discover new\ntruths you will certainly be called a subverter of old ones. And\nthis is entirely natural. The upward path was never intended to be\neasy.\n\nRead the \"Gorgias\" of Plato, and let us listen to the closing words\nof Socrates in that dialogue: \"And so, bidding farewell to those\nthings which most men account honors, and looking onward to the\ntruth, I shall earnestly endeavor to grow, so far as may be, in\ngoodness, and thus live, and thus, when the time comes, die. And, to\nthe best of my power, I exhort all other men also; and you\nespecially, in my turn, I exhort to this life and contest, which is,\nI protest, far above all contests here.\" You must remember that\nCallicles has been taunting Socrates with his lack of worldly wisdom\nand the certainty that in any court of justice he would be\nabsolutely helpless because of his lack of knowledge of the\nrhetorician's art: \"This way then we will follow, and we will call\nupon all other men to do the same, not that which you believe in and\ncall upon me to follow; for that way, Callicles, is worth nothing.\"\n\nAnd Socrates met the end which he expected: death at the hands of\nhis fellow-citizens.\n\nAnd here perhaps a little glimmer of light is thrown into one of the\ndarkest corners of human experience. The wise old author of\nEcclesiastes writes: \"There is a just man that perisheth in his\nrighteousness; and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in\nhis wickedness. There is a vanity which is done upon the earth, that\nthere be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of\nthe wicked; again, there be wicked men to whom it happeneth\naccording to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is\nvanity.\" \"I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to\nthe swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the\nwise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men\nof skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all\" (Eccles. viii.\n14; ix. 11). It is this element of chance that threatens to make a\nmockery of effort, and sometimes seems to make life but a travesty.\nThe terrible feature of Tennyson's description of Arthur's last, dim\nbattle in the west is not the \"crash of battle-axe on shattered\nhelm,\" but the all-engulfing mist.\n\nPerhaps this is all intended to teach us that riches and favor, and\neven bread, are not the essentials of life, and that failure to\nattain these is not such ruin as we often think. But no man ever\nstruggled for wisdom, righteousness, unselfishness, and heroism\nwithout attaining them; even though the more he attained the more\ndissatisfied he became with all previous attainment. And if our\nslight attainments in wisdom and knowledge always brought wealth and\nfavor, we might rest satisfied with the latter, instead of clearly\nrecognizing that wisdom must be its own reward. Uncertainty and\ndeprivation are the best and only training for a hero, not sure\nreward paid in popular plaudits.\n\nPolitical economists speak of the productiveness and prospectiveness\nof capital. We may well borrow these terms, using them in a somewhat\nmodified sense. In our sense capital is productive in so far as it\ngives an immediate return; it is prospective in proportion as the\nreturn is expected largely in the future. A \"pocket\" may yield an\nimmediate very large return of gold nuggets at a very slight expense\nof labor and appliances, but it is soon exhausted. In a mine the ore\nmay be poor near the surface, but grow richer as the shaft deepens;\nthe vein is narrow above, but widens below. The returns are at first\nsmall, its inexhaustible richness becomes apparent only after\nconsiderable time and labor. The value of the \"pocket\" is purely\nproductive, that of the mine largely or purely prospective. Indeed\nit may be opened at a loss. But even a rich mine may be worked\npurely for its productive value; it may be \"skinned.\"\n\nLet us apply this thought to the development of a species; although\nwhat is true of the species will generally be true of the individual\nalso, for the development of the two is, in the main, parallel. In\nthe animal all functions are to a certain extent productive, and all\ndirectly or indirectly prospective. When we examine the sequence of\nfunctions we cannot but notice how largely their value is\nprospective. As long as a lower function is rising to supremacy in\nthe animal, it appears to be retained purely for its productive\nvalue; thus digestion in hydra or gastr\u00e6a. But after a time animals\nappeared which had some muscle and nerve. And, by the process of\nnatural selection, those animals which used digestion as an end for\nits productive value became food for, and gave place to, those using\nit as a means of supporting muscle and nerve of greater prospective\nvalue. And similarly, those animals which used muscle, or even mind,\nproductively gave place to others using these prospectively.\n\nIn other words, the functions and capacities of any animal, the\nextent of its conformity to environment, may be regarded as its\ncapital. The animal may use this capital productively or\nprospectively. It may spend its income, and more too; it may\nincrease its capital. Now social capital will always fall sooner or\nlater to those communities whose members use it most prospectively,\nwho are willing to forego, to quite an extent, present enjoyment,\nand look for future return. The same is true of all development.\nSessile forms and mollusks, and, in a less degree, crabs and\nreptiles, worked for immediate return. They are like extravagant\nheirs who draw on their capital and sooner or later come to poverty.\nThe primitive vertebrate, the mammal, and the other ancestors of man\nused their capital prospectively, and it increased, as if at\ncompound interest.\n\nThe spendthrift appears at first sight to have the greatest\nenjoyment in life, the rising business man works hard and foregoes\nmuch. I believe that the latter is really by far the happier of the\ntwo. But, if you can spend only a day or two in a city, and your\nexamination is superficial, you may easily make the mistake of\nconsidering the spendthrift as the most successful man in the\ncommunity. So, in our brief visit to the world in times past, we\npicked out the crab, the reptile, and the carnivore as its rising\nmembers.\n\nOnce more, capital can be spent very quickly; to use it\nprospectively requires time. This is a truism; but it does no harm\nto call attention to truisms which have been neglected. Organs and\npowers of great prospective value are slow and difficult of\ndevelopment. If their increase is to be at all rapid, they must\nstart early. If their development and culture is deferred, there\nwill be little or no advance, but probably degeneration.\nExtravagance grows rapidly and soon becomes irresistible; habits of\nsaving must be formed early. The same is true of the development of\nall other virtues.\n\nThere is in the child an orderly sequence of development of mental\ntraits. While these powers are in their earlier, so to speak\nembryonic, stages of development, they can be fostered and increased\nor retarded. They are still plastic. Very early in a child's life\nacquisitiveness shows itself; he begins to say \"I,\" and \"mine,\" and\ndesires things to be his \"very own.\" And this can be fostered so\nthat the child will grow up a \"covetous machine.\" Or he may be\ntaught to share with others.\n\nNot so much later, while the child is still in the lower grades of\nhis school life, comes the period of moral development. If, during\nthis period, these powers are fostered and cultivated, they may, and\nprobably will, be dominant throughout his life. And herein lies the\ndignity and glory of the unappreciated, underpaid, and overworked\nteachers of our \"lower\" schools, that they have the opportunity to\ncultivate these moral powers of the child during these most critical\nyears of his life. Repression or neglect here works life-long and\nirreparable harm. The young man goes out into the world. Here\n\"practical\" men continually instruct him by precept upon precept,\nline upon line, that he cannot afford to be generous until he has\nacquired wealth; that he must first win success for himself, and\nthat he can then help others. And, unless his character is like\npasture-grown oak, he follows and improves upon their teachings. _He\nreverses the sequence of functions._ He puts acquisitiveness first\nand right and sterling honesty and unselfishness second. For a score\nor more of years he labors. At first he honestly intends to build up\na strong character and a generous nature just as soon as he can\nafford to; but for the present he cannot afford it. If he is to\nsucceed, he must do as others do and walk in the beaten track. He\nwins wealth and position, or learning and fame. He now has the\nability and means to help others, but he no longer cares to do so.\nLoyalty to truth, sterling honesty--the genuine, not the\nconventional counterfeit--unselfishness, in one word, character,\nthese are plants of slow growth. They require cultivation by habit\nthrough long years. In his case they have become aborted and\nincapable of rejuvenescence. But his rudiment of a moral nature\nfeels twinges of remorse. He ought not to have reversed the sequence\nof functions, and he knows it. But he cannot retrace his steps. He\nmade the development of character impossible when he made wealth his\nfirst and chief aim. If he has a million dollars he tries to insure\nhis soul by leaving in his will one-tenth to build a church, or,\npossibly, one-half for foreign missions. In the latter case he will\nbe held up as a shining example to all the youth of the land, and\nthe churches will ring with his praises. But what has been the\neffect of his life on the moral, social capital of the community? Is\nthe world better or worse for his life? He has all his life been\ndisseminating the germs of a soul-blight more infectious and deadly\nthan any bodily disease.\n\nIf he has made learning or fame his chief aim, he probably has not\nthe money to buy soul-insurance. He takes refuge in agnosticism,\nlike an ostrich in a bush. His agnosticism is in his will; he does\nnot wish to see. Or its cause is atrophy, through disuse, of moral\nvision. He cannot see. There are agnostics of quite another stamp,\nwhom we must respect and honor for their sterling honesty and\nhigh character, though we may have little respect for their\nphilosophical tenets. But how much has our scholar advanced the\nmorality of the community? He has probably done even more harm than\nthe business man, who is a mere \"covetous machine.\"\n\nThe \"practical\" man has reversed the sequence of functions.\nCharacter is, and must be, first; and wealth, learning, power, and\nfame are the materials, often exceedingly refractory, which it must\nsubjugate to its growth and use. And this subjugation is anything\nbut easy. The reversal of the sequence results in a moral\ndegradation and poverty indefinitely more dangerous to the community\nthan the slums of our great cities. For these may be controlled and\ncleansed; but the moral slum floods our legislatures and positions\nof honor and trust, and invades the churches. The mental and moral\nwater-supply of the community is loaded with disease-germs.\n\nThe social wealth of a community is the sum total of the wealth of\nits individual members. And a community is truly wealthy only when\nthis wealth is, to a certain extent, diffused. If there is any truth\nin our argument that the sequence of functions culminates in\nrighteousness and unselfishness, the real social wealth of a\ncommunity consists in its moral character, not in its money, or even\nin its intelligence. We may rest assured that character, resulting\nin industry and economy, will bring sufficient means of subsistence,\nso that all its members will be fed and housed and clothed. And art\nand culture, of the most ennobling and inspiring sort, will surely\nfollow. And even if such literature failed as largely composes our\npresent _fin-de-si\u00e8cle_ garbage-heap, we would not regret its\nabsence. That community will and must survive in which the largest\nproportion of members make the accumulation of character their chief\nand first aim. And to this community every rival must in time yield\nits place and power, and all its acquisitions. And in every\nadvancing community the position of any class or profession will in\ntime be determined by its moral wealth.\n\nBut this moral wealth is intangible. The rewards and penalties of\nmoral law easily escape notice in our hasty and superficial study of\nlife. The God immanent in our environment often seems to hide\nhimself. The altar of Jehovah is fallen down, and Baal's temples are\ncrowded with loud-mouthed worshippers. The bribes of present\nenjoyment and of immediate success loom up before us, and we doubt\nif any other success is possible.\n\nBut the law of progress, even now so dimly discernible in\nenvironment, is written in our minds in letters of fire. For we have\nalready seen that environment can be understood only by tracing its\neffects in the development of life. What is best and highest in us\nis the record of the working of what is best and highest in\nenvironment. And the personal God so dimly seen in environment is\nrevealed in man's soul. Man must study himself, if he is to know\nwhat environment requires of him. And if the knowledge of himself\nand of the laws of his being is the highest knowledge, is not the\nvision of, and struggle toward, higher attainments, not yet realized\nand hence necessarily foreseen, the only mode of farther progress?\nAnd what is this pursuit of, and devotion to, ideals not yet\nrealized and but dimly foreseen, if it is not Faith, \"the substance\nof things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen?\" By it alone\ncan man \"obtain a good report.\" Man must \"walk by faith, not by\nsight.\" \"For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things\nwhich are not seen are eternal.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nMAN\n\n\nIn Kingsley's fascinating historical romance, Raphael Aben-Ezra says\nto Hypatia, \"Is it not possible that we have been so busy discussing\nwhat the philosopher should be, that we have forgotten that he must\nfirst of all be a man?\" This truth we too often forget. No\nstatesman, philosopher, least of all teacher, can be truly great who\nis not, first of all, and above all, a great man. And in our study\nof man are we not prone to forget that he stands in certain very\ndefinite and close relations with surrounding nature?\n\nMan has been the object of so much special study, his position,\nowing to his higher moral and mental power, is so unique that he has\noften been regarded not only as a special creation, but as created\nto occupy a position not only unique, but also exceptional, above\nmany of the very laws of nature, and not bound by them. Many speak\nand write of him as if it were his chief glory and prerogative to be\nas far removed as possible, not only from the animal, but even from\nthe whole realm of nature. The mistake of making him an exception\narises, after all, not so much from too high a conception of man, at\nleast of his possibilities, as from too low a view of nature.\n\nBut however this view may have arisen, it is one-sided and mistaken.\nMan certainly has a place in Nature--not above it. If he is the\ngoal toward which the ascending series of living forms has\ncontinually tended, he is a part of the series--the real goal lies\nfar above him.\n\nPascal says, \"It is dangerous to show a man too clearly how closely\nhe resembles the brute without showing him at the same time his\ngreatness. It is equally dangerous to impress upon him his greatness\nwithout his lowliness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in\nignorance of both. But it is of great advantage to point out to him\nboth characteristics side by side.\"\n\nA great German thinker began his work on the human soul with a\ndiscussion of the law of gravitation.\n\nAll study of man must begin with the study of the atom. Man's life\nwe have seen to be the aggregate of the work of all the cells of his\nbody. But the protoplasm which composes his cells is a chemical\ncompound, and hence subject to all the laws of all the atoms of\nwhich it is composed. And its molecules, or the smallest\nmechanically separable compounds of these atoms, are arranged and\nrelated according to the laws of physics, so as to permit or produce\nthe play of certain forces which are always the result of atomic or\nmolecular combination. Every motive or thought demands the\ncombustion of a certain amount of material which has been already\nassimilated in the microscopic cellular laboratories of our body.\nEvery vital activity is manifested at least through chemical and\nphysical forces. And the elements of the fuel for our engines we\nreceive through plants from the inorganic world. For the plant, as\nwe have seen, stores up as potential energy in its compounds the\nactual energy of the sun's rays. And thus man lives and thinks by\nenergy, obtained originally from the sun. But man not only consumes\nfood and fuel. The complicated protoplasm is continually wearing out\nand being replaced. Every cell in our bodies is a centre toward\nwhich particles of material stream to be assimilated and form for a\ntime a part of the living substance, and then to be cast out again\nas dead matter. Our very existence depends upon this continual\nchange. There is synthesis of simple substances into more complex\ncompounds, and then analysis of these complex compounds into\nsimpler, and from this latter process results the energy manifested\nin every vital action. We are all whirlpools on the surface of\nnature; when the whirling ceases we disappear. Man, like every other\nliving being, exists in a condition of constant interchange with\nsurrounding nature; he is rooted in innumerable ways in the\ninorganic world.\n\nAnd because of these close relations the great characteristic of\nliving beings is the necessity and power of conformity to\nenvironment. Hence a very common definition of life is the continual\nadjustment of internal relations to external relations or\nconditions. To a very slight extent man can rise superior to certain\nof the ruder elements of his surroundings, but he gains this victory\nonly by learning and following the laws of the very environment\nwhich he succeeds in subjecting to himself. Indeed his higher\ndevelopment and finer build bring him into touch with an\nindefinitely wider range of surroundings than even the lower animal.\nForces, conditions, and relations which never enter the sphere of\nlife of lower forms, crowd and press upon him and he cannot escape\nthem. His higher position, instead of freeing him from dependence\nupon environment and subjection to law, makes him thus more\nsensitive, as well as more capable of exact conformity to an\nenvironment of almost infinite complexity; and more sure of absolute\nruin, if ignorant, negligent, or disobedient. The words of the\nGerman poet are literally true:\n\n        \"Nach ehernen, eisernen, grossen Gesetzen,\n         M\u00fcssen wir alle unseres Daseins\n         Kreise vollenden.\"\n\nBut man is an animal. And the principal characteristic of an animal\nis that it eats a certain amount of solid food. The plant lives on\nfluid nutriment, and this comes to it by the process of diffusion in\nevery drop of water and breath of air. The acquisition of food\nrequires no effort, and the plant makes none. It has therefore\nalways remained stationary and almost insensible. Not taking the\nfirst step it has never taken any of the higher ones. But solid food\nwould not, as a rule, come to the animal--though stationary and\nsessile animals are not uncommon in the water--he must go in search\nof it. This called into play the powers of locomotion and\nperception. And in the sequence of function we have seen digestion\ncalling for the development of muscle; and muscle, of nerve and\nbrain. And the brain became the organ of mind.\n\nMan as a mere animal is necessarily active and energetic; otherwise\nhe stagnates and degenerates. Labor is a curse, but work a blessing;\nand man's best work, of every kind, is done in the friction of life,\nnot in ease and quiet. Man is, further, a being composed of cells,\ntissues, and organs, which were successively developed for him by\nthe lower animal kingdoms. The old view, that man was the microcosm,\nhad in it a certain amount of every important truth. We need to be\ncontinually reminded of our indebtedness in a thousand ways to the\nlowest and most insignificant forms of life.\n\nMan is a vertebrate animal. This means that he has a locomotive, not\nprotective, skeleton, composed of cartilage--a tough, elastic,\norganic material, hardened, as a rule, by the deposition of mineral\nsalts, mainly phosphate of lime, in exceedingly fine particles, so\nas to form a homogeneous, flawless, elastic, tough, light, and\nunyielding skeleton, held together by firm ligaments.\n\nThe skeleton is internal, and this fact, as we have seen, gives the\npossibility of large size. And size is in itself no unimportant\nfactor. Professor Lotze maintains that without man's size and\nstrength, agriculture and the working of metals, and thus all\ncivilization, would have been impossible. But we have already seen\nthat there is an extreme of size, _e.g._, in the elephant, which\nmakes its possessor clumsy, able to exist only where there are large\namounts of food in limited areas, slow to reproduce, and lacking in\nadaptability. This extreme also is avoided in man; in this, as in\nmany other particulars, he holds the golden mean. But we have also\nseen that large size is, as a rule, correlated with long life and\ngreat opportunity for experience and observation. And these are the\nfoundations of intelligence. Hence the deliverance of the higher\nvertebrate, and especially of man, from any iron-bound subjection to\ninstinct.\n\nAnd here another question of vital importance meets us. Is man's\nlife at present as long as it should or can be? The question is\nexceedingly difficult, but a negative answer seems more probable. We\ncannot but hope that, with a better knowledge of our physical\nstructure, a clearer vision of the dangers to which we are exposed,\nmore study of the laws of physiology, heredity, and of our\nenvironment, and above all, less reckless disregard of these in a\nmad pursuit of pleasure, wealth, and position, man's period of\nmature, healthy, and best activity may be lengthened, perhaps, even\na score of years. The mitigation of hurry and worry alone, the two\ngreat curses of our American civilization, might postpone the\ncollapse of our nervous systems longer than we even dream. And if we\ncould add even five years to the working life of our statesmen,\nscholars, and discoverers, the work of these last five years, with\nthe advantage of all previously acquired knowledge and experience,\nmight be of more value than that of their whole previous life. Human\nadvance could not but be greatly, or even vastly, accelerated.\n\nMoreover, we have seen that the history of vertebrates is really the\nhistory of the development of the cerebrum, forebrain or large\nbrain, as we call it in man. This is the seat in man of\nconsciousness, thought, and will. This portion as a distinct and new\nlobe first appears in lowest vertebrates, increases steadily in size\nfrom class to class, reaches its most rapid development by mammals,\nand its culmination in man. During the tertiary period--the last of\nthe great geological periods--the brain in many groups of mammals\nincreased in size, both absolutely and relatively, eight to tenfold.\nDr. Holmes says, that the education of a child should begin a\ncentury or two before its birth; man really began his mental\neducation at least as early as the appearance of vertebrate life.\n\nBut man is a mammal. This means that every organ is at its best. The\ndigestive system, while making but a small part of the weight of the\nbody, and built mainly on the old plan, is wonderfully perfect in\nits microscopic details. The muscles are heavy and powerful,\narranged with the weight near the axis of the body, and replaced\nnear the ends of the appendages by light, tough sinews. The higher\nmammal is this compact, light, and agile. The skeleton is strong,\nand the levers of the appendages are fitted to give rapidity of\nmotion even at the expense of strength. And this again is possible\nonly because of the high development and strength of the muscles.\nMoreover, the highest mammals are largely arboreal, and in\nconnection with this habit have changed the foreleg into an arm and\nhand. The latter became the servant of the brain and gave the\npossibility of using tools.\n\nBut increase in size and activity, and the expense of producing each\nnew individual, led to the adoption of placental development. And\nthe mammal is so complex, the road from the egg to the fully\ndeveloped young is so long, that a long period of gestation is\nnecessary. And even at birth the brain, especially of man, is\nanything but complete. Hence the necessity of the mammalian habit of\nsuckling and caring for the young. And this feebleness and\ndependence of the young had begun far below man to draw out maternal\ntenderness and affection. And the mammalian mode of reproduction and\ncare of young led to a more marked difference and interdependence\nbetween the sexes.\n\nThe result of this is man's family life, as Mr. John Fiske has\nshown so beautifully in that fascinating monograph, \"The Destiny of\nMan.\" And family life once introduced becomes the foundation and\nbulwark of all civilization, morality, and religion. Far down in the\nmammalian series, before the development of the family, maternal\neducation has become prominent, and the young begins life, benefited\nby the experiences of the parent. How much more efficient is this in\nfamily life. But, furthermore, the family is perhaps the first,\ncertainly the most important, of those higher unities in which men\nare bound together. Social life of a sort undoubtedly existed,\nbefore man, among birds, insects, and lower mammals. The community\nwas often defective or incomplete in unity, or existed under such\nlimitations that it could not show its best results, but that it was\nof vast benefit from an even higher than mere physical standpoint,\nno one will, I think, deny. But with the family a new era of\neducation and social life began.\n\nFirst of all, the struggle for existence is thereby greatly modified\nand mitigated. This crowding out and trampling down of the weaker by\nthe stronger is transferred, to a certain extent, from the\nindividual to the family and, in great degree, from the family to\nlarger and larger social units. For within the limits of the family\ncompetition tends to be replaced by mutual helpfulness, and not only\nare the loneliness and horror of the struggle between isolated\nindividuals banished, but, what is vastly more, the family becomes\nthe school of unselfishness and love. And what has thus become true\nof the single family, and groups of nearly related families, is\nslowly being realized in the larger units of communities and\nstates. For, as families and communities are just as really\norganisms as are the individual men and women, whose soundness\ndepends upon the healthy activity of every organ, so there is a\nsurvival, first of families, then of communities and rival\ncivilizations, in proportion to their unity and soundness in every\npart. For on account of the close bonds of family and social life,\nand in connection with the development of articulate speech, a new\nkind of heredity, so to speak, arises, of vast importance for both\ngood and evil. This mental and moral heredity, over-leaping all\nboundaries of blood and natural kinship, spreads light and good\ninfluence or an immoral contagion through the community. And thus,\nin sheer self-defence, society passes laws setting limits to the\noppression of the poor and weak, lest, degraded and brutalized, they\nbecome breeding centres of physical and moral disease in the\ncommunity. The positive lesson that the surest mode of self-defence\nis the elevation of these submerged classes, we are just beginning\nto learn and apply.\n\nBy the ever-increasing acceleration of the development the gap\nbetween man and the lower animal widens with wonderful rapidity. Of\ncourse it is only in man, and higher man, that these last and\nhighest results of mammalian structure appear. But that, far removed\nas they are, they are the results of mammalian and vertebrate\ncharacteristics cannot, I think, be well denied. And this is only\none of innumerably possible illustrations of the fact that all our\nmost highly prized institutions are rooted far back in our ancestry,\noften ineradicably in the very organs of our bodies. And thus\nevolution, which many view only from its radical side--and it has a\nradical side--is really the conservative bulwark of all that is\nessentially worth possessing in the past.\n\nBut every factor in man's development tends toward intellectual and\nspiritual development. Man's vast increase of brain; his finely\nbalanced body; his upright gait; setting his hands free from the\nwork of locomotion that they might become the skilful servants of\nthe mind; finally, articulate speech and social, and, above all,\nfamily, life, all tended in this same direction.\n\nAnd this makes the great difficulty in assigning man his\nproper place in our systems of classification. Our zo\u00f6logical\nclassifications depend upon anatomical characteristics; and\nanatomically man belongs among the order primates. But mental and\nmoral values cannot be expressed in terms of anatomy, any more than\nwe can speak of an idea of so many horse-power, and hence worth\nthree or four ancestral dollars. Hence, while from the zo\u00f6logical\nstandpoint man is a primate, and while he is very probably descended\nfrom one of these, he has gradually risen above them mentally and\nspiritually, so that he stands as far above them as they above the\nlowest worm. And this leads us to the consideration of man, not\nmerely as a mammal, but as \"Anthropos,\" Homo sapiens, although he\noften degenerates into \"Simia destructor.\"\n\nFrom what has just been said man's pre-eminence cannot consist in\nany anatomical characteristic, even of the brain--much less of\nthumb, forefinger, hand, or foot. But man's mental and moral\ncharacteristics (even though germs of these may be present in the\nanimal), whether differing in degree or kind from theirs, raise his\nlife to a totally different plane. He lives in an environment of\nwhich the lower animal is as unconscious and ignorant as we of a\nfourth dimension of space. He has the knowledge of abstract truth\nand goodness, of certain standards outside of mere appetite and\ndesire, and feels and acknowledges, however dimly, the requirement\nand the ability to conform his life to these standards. He alone can\nsay \"I ought,\" and answer \"I can and will.\" And hence man alone\nactually lives in an environment of the laws of reason,\nresponsibility, and personality. Whatever germs of these higher\npowers the animal possesses are means to material ends, to the\nphysical life of the animal. In man the long and slow evolution has\nended in revolution, the material and physical have been dethroned,\nand truth and goodness reign supreme as ends in themselves.\n\nBut, you may object, this definition of man may be true ideally,\ncertainly it is not true actually. Where are the high ideals of\ntruth and goodness in the savage? and are these the supreme ends of\neven the average American of to-day? But allowing all weight to this\nobjection, does it not remain true that a being who never says \"I\nought,\" who acknowledges and manifests no responsibility, to whom\ngoodness does not appeal, and in whom these feelings cannot be\nawakened, is either not yet or no longer man? But far more than\nthis, if the character of the individual is to be judged by his\ntendency more than his present condition, by the way in which he is\ngoing more than his momentary position, is not the race to be judged\nand defined by a tendency, gradually though very slowly becoming\nrealized, and a goal, toward which it looks and which it is surely\nattaining, rather than by its present realization? As we rise\nhigher in the animal kingdom the characteristics of the successive\nhigher groups are more and more slow of attainment and difficult of\nrealization, just because of their grander possibilities. And this\nis true and important above all in the case of man. His\npossibilities are beyond our powers of conception, for, if you will,\nman is yet only larval man.\n\nWe have followed the sequence of functions to its culmination in a\nmind completely dominated by righteousness and unselfishness,\nhowever far above our present attainments this goal may be. We have\nfound that all attempts to reverse this sequence end in death or\ndegeneration. Failure to advance, especially in higher forms,\nresults in extinction or retrogression. We cannot stand still. Each\nhigher step is longer and more important than any preceding; each\nlast step is essential to life. Righteousness in the will is the\nlast step essential to man's progress. And if a sound mind in a\nsound body is important or necessary, a sound will, resolutely set\non right, is absolutely essential. Failure to attain this is ruin.\n\nAnd man can to a great extent place himself so that his surroundings\nshall aid him to take this last, essential, upward step. He does\nthis by the choice of his associates. If he associates himself with\nmen who are tending upward, he will rise ever higher. If he choose\nthe opposite kind of associates he must sink into ever deeper\ndegradation; he has thereby chosen death. For his associates, once\nchosen, make him like themselves. And thus natural selection makes\nfor the survival of those men who resolutely choose life. And\nthoughtless or careless failure to choose is ruin. The man has\npreferred degradation; it is only right that he should have it to\nsatiety.\n\nBut man is not, and never can be, pure spirit. He may \"let the ape\nand tiger die,\" but he must always retain the animal with its\nnatural appetites. Moreover, his higher mental capacities increase\ntheir power. Memory recalls past gratifications as it never does to\nthe animal; imagination paints before him vivid pictures of similar\nfuture enjoyments, and mental keenness and strength of will tell him\nthat they can all be his. But if he yields himself a slave to these\nappetites, if he seeks to be an animal rather than a spiritual\nbeing, he becomes not an animal but a brute; and the only genuine\nbrute is a degenerate man. And thus after conquering the world man's\nvery structure compels him to join battle with himself. For here, as\neverywhere else, to attempt to go backward to a plane of life once\npassed is to surely degenerate. The time when the prize of\npre-eminence could be won by mere physical superiority was passed\nbefore man had a history. Physical superiority must be maintained,\nand every advance in art and science, considered here as ministering\nto man's physical comfort, is advantageous just so far as these\nallow man freedom and aid to pursue the mental and moral line which\nis the only true path left open to him. But when even these are\nallowed to minister only to the animal, or to tempt to luxurious\nease and indifference to any higher aims, in a word, in so far as\nthey fail to minister to mental and moral advancement, they are in\ngreat danger of becoming, if they have not already become, a curse\nrather than a blessing. And we all know that this has been proven\nover and over again in human history. Families, cities, and nations\nrot, mainly because they cannot resist the seductions of an\noverwhelming material prosperity. A man says to his soul, \"Take\nthine ease, eat, drink and be merry,\" and to that man scripture and\nscience say, with equal emphasis, \"Thou fool!\"\n\nEvery upward step in attainment of the comforts of life, of art and\nscience, brings man into new fields not of careless enjoyment but of\nstruggle. They swarm with new enemies and temptations before\nunknown. The new attainments are not unalloyed blessings, they are\nmerely opportunities for victory or defeat. The uncertain battle is\nonly shifted to a little higher plane. Man has increased the forces\nat his command only to meet stronger opposing hosts. And retreat is\nimpossible. Man remains a spiritual being only on condition that he\nresolutely and vigilantly purposes to be so. To lag behind in this\nspiritual path is death.\n\nAnd the epitaph of nations and individuals is the record of their\ndefeat in this struggle to be masters and not slaves of their\nmaterial and intellectual attainments. Greece, the most intellectual\nof all nations of all times, died in mental senility of moral\nparalysis. Of Socrates's and Plato's \"following after truth\" nothing\nremained but the gossipy curiosity of a second childhood, living\nonly to tell or to hear some new thing. And the schools of\nphilosophy were closed because they had nothing to tell which was\nworth the knowing or hearing. All the wealth of the world was poured\ninto Rome, the home of Stoic philosophy, and it was smothered, and\ndied in rottenness under its material prosperity.\n\nA family, race, or nation starts out fresh in its youthful physical\nand mental vigor and strict obedience to moral law and in its faith\nin God. For these reasons it survives in the struggle for existence.\nIt grows in extent and power, in intelligence and wealth. But with\nthis increase in wealth and power comes a deadening of the mind to\nthe claims of moral law, and an idolatrous worship of material\nprosperity. The new generation looks upon the stern morality and\nindustry and self-control of its ancestors as straight-laced and\nnarrow. Morality may not be unfashionable, but any stern rebuke of\nimmorality is not conventional. Strong moral earnestness and\nwhole-souled loyalty to truth are not in good form. Wealth and\nsocial position become the chief ends of men's efforts, and, to buy\nthese, unselfishness and truth and self-respect are bartered away.\nLuxury, enervation, and effeminacy are rife, and snobbery follows\nclose behind them. The ancestral vigor, the insight to recognize\ngreat moral principles, and the power to gladly hazard all in their\ndefence have disappeared in a mist of indifference, which beclouds\nthe eyes and benumbs all the powers. The race of giants is dwindling\ninto dwarfs. They say, when the time comes, we will rouse ourselves\nand be like our fathers. And the crisis comes, but they are not\nequal to it. The nation has long enough cumbered the ground, it has\nalready died by suicide and must now give place to a race and\ncivilization which has some aim in, and hence right to, existence,\nand which is of some use to itself and others. If we would learn by\nobservation, and not by sad experience, we must remember that man is\nabove all, and must be a religious being conforming to the\npersonality of the God manifested in his environment.\n\nCan you find anywhere a more profound or scientific philosophy of\nhistory than that of Paul in the first chapter of Romans? \"For the\ninvisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly\nseen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his\neverlasting power and divinity; so that they are without excuse:\nbecause that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither\ngave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings and their senseless\nheart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became\nfools. And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God\ngave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not\nfitting; being filled with all unrighteousness.\"[A] And then follows\nthe dark picture, from which we revolt but which the ancient\nhistorians themselves justify.\n\n  [Footnote A: Romans i. 20-22, 28.]\n\nOn the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel at Rome is Michel Angelo's\nmarvellous painting of the creation of Adam. A human figure of\nmagnificent strength is half-rising from its recumbent posture, as\nif just awakening to consciousness, and is reaching out its hand to\ntouch the outstretched finger of God. The human being became and\nbecomes man when, and in proportion as, he puts himself in touch\nwith God, and is inspired with the divine life. The lower animal\nconformed mainly to the material in environment, man conforms\nconsciously to the spiritual and personal.\n\nAny science of human history that does not acknowledge man's\nrelation to a personal God is fatally incomplete; for it has missed\nthe goal of man's development and the chief means of his farther\nadvance. And a religion which does not emphasize this is worse than\na broken reed. It is a mirage of the desert, toward which thirsty\nsouls run only to die unsatisfied.\n\nMan can never overcome in this battle with the allurements of\nmaterial prosperity and with the pride and selfishness of intellect,\nexcept as he is interpenetrated and permeated with God, any more\nthan we can move or think, unless our blood is charged with the\noxygen of the air. It is not enough that man have God in his\nintellectual creed; he must have him in his heart and will, in every\nfibre of his personality, in every thought and action of life.\nOtherwise his defeat and ruin are sure.\n\nThree fatal heresies are abroad to-day: 1. Man's chief end is\navoidance of pain and discomfort, in one word, happiness; and God is\nsomehow bound to surfeit man with this. And this is the chief end of\na mollusk. 2. Man's chief end is material prosperity and social\nposition. 3. Man's chief end is intellect, knowledge. Each one of\nthese three ends, while good in a subordinate place, will surely\nruin man if made his chief end. For they leave out of account\nconformity to environment. \"Man's chief end is to glorify God and\nenjoy him for ever.\" And just as the plant glorifies the sun by\nturning to, and being permeated and vivified and built up by, the\nwarmth and light of its rays, similarly man must glorify God. This\nis the religion of conformity to environment: man working out his\nsalvation because God works in him. Thus, and thus only, shall man\novercome the allurements of these lower endowments and receive the\nrewards of \"him that overcometh.\"\n\nThus prosperity and adversity, success and failure, continually test\na man. If he can rise superior to these, can subjugate them and make\nthem subserve his moral progress, he survives; if he is mastered by\nthem, he perishes. Through these does natural selection mainly work\nto find and train great souls. They are the threads of the sieve of\ndestiny.\n\nIn this struggle man must fight against overwhelming odds, and the\ncost of victory is dear. He must be prepared, like Socrates, to \"bid\nfarewell to those things which most men count honors, and look\nonward to the truth.\" He appears to the world at large, often to\nhimself, eminently unpractical. The majority against his view and\nvote will usually be overwhelming. Truth is a stern goddess, and she\nwill often bid him draw sword and stand against his nearest and\ndearest friends. The issue will often appear to him exceeding\ndoubtful. The grander the truth for which he is fighting, the\ngreater the need of its defence and enforcement, the greater the\nprobability that he will never live to see its triumph. The hero\nmust be a man of gigantic faith. But all his ancestors have had to\nmake a similar choice and to fight a similar battle. The upward path\nwas intended to be exceedingly hard. This is a law of biology.\n\nWhy this is so I may not know. I only know that no better and surer\nway could have been discovered to train a race of heroes. For no man\never becomes a hero who has not learned to battle with the world and\nhimself. Does it not look as if God loved a heroic soul as much as\nmen worship one, and as if he intended that man should attain to\nit? Man was born and bred in hardship that he might be a hero.\n\n  \"Careless seems the great avenger; history's pages but record\n  One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the word;\n  Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,\n  Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown\n  Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.\n\n  \"Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,\n  Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just;\n  Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,\n  Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,\n  And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.\"\n\nThe Crown Prince of Prussia has less spending money than many a\nyoung fellow in Berlin. He is trained to economy, industry,\nself-control. He is to learn something better than habits of luxury,\nto rule himself, and thus later the German Empire. The children of a\ngreat captain, themselves to be soldiers, must endure hardness like\ngood soldiers. And man is to fight his way to a throne.\n\nBut his powers are still in their infancy and the goal far above\nhim. What he is to become you and I can hardly appreciate. First of\nall, the body will become finer, fitted for nobler ends. It will not\nbe allowed to degenerate. It may become less fitted for the rough\nwork, which can be done by machinery; it will be all the better for\nhigher uses. It is to be transformed, transfigured. The eye may not\nsee so far, it will be better fitted for perceiving all the beauties\nof art and nature. It will become a better means of expressing\npersonality, as our personality becomes more \"fit to be seen.\" It is\ncontinually gaining a speech of its own. And will not the ear become\nmore delicate, a better instrument for responding to the finest\nharmonies, and better gateway to our highest feelings? We may not\nhave so many molar teeth for chewing food, but may not our mouths\nbecome ever finer instruments for speech and song? In other words,\nthe body is to be transfigured by the mind and become its worthy\nservant and representative.\n\nAs we learn to live for something better than food and clothes, and\ncease to pamper the body, it will become better and healthier.\nScience will stamp out many diseases, and we shall learn to prevent\nothers by right living. And what a change in our moral and religious\nlife will be made by good health. What a cheerful courage and hope\nit will give.\n\nMan will become more intelligent. He will learn the laws of heredity\nand of life in general. He will see deeper into the relations of\nthings. He will recognize in himself and his environment the laws of\nprogress. He will clearly discern great moral truths, where we but\ndimly see lights and shadows.\n\nBut while we would not underestimate the value and necessity of\ngrowth in knowledge, we must as clearly recognize that the intellect\nis not the centre and essence of man's being. Knowledge, while the\nsurest form of wealth of which no one can rob us, and the best as\nthe stepping-stone to the highest well-being, is like wealth in one\nrespect: it is not character and can be used for good or evil. If my\nneighbor uses his greater knowledge as a means of overreaching us\nall, it injures us and ruins him.\n\nOur emotions, and this is but another word for our motives, stand\nfar nearer to the centre of life; for they control our conduct and\ndirectly determine what we are. Knowledge of environment is good,\nbut of what real and permanent use is such knowledge without\nconformity? Our real weakness is not our ignorance; we know the\ngood, but lack the will and purpose to live it out. And this is\nbecause the thought of truth and goodness excites no such strength\nof feeling as that of some lower gratification. We cannot perhaps\noverrate the value of intellect; we certainly underrate the value of\nemotion and feeling. \"Knowledge puffeth up, love buildeth.\" It does\nnot require great intellect, it does require intense feeling to be a\nhero. We slander the emotions by calling people emotional because\nthey are always talking about their feelings; but deep feeling is\nalways silent. It is not fashionable to feel deeply, and we are\ndwarfed by this conventionality. We have almost ceased to wonder,\nand hence we have almost ceased to learn; for the wise old Greeks\nknew that wonder is the mother of wisdom.\n\nThe man of the future will probably be a man of strong appetites,\nfor he will be healthy; he will be prudent, because wise; but he\nwill hold his appetites well in leash. He will trample upon mere\nprudential considerations at the call of truth or right. For in him\nthese highest motives will be absolute monarchs, and they are the\nonly motives which can enable a man to face rack and stake without\nflinching. He will be a hero because he feels intensely. In other\nwords, he will be a man of gigantic will, because he has a great\nheart. And in the man of the future all these powers will be not\nonly highly developed; they will be rightly proportioned and duly\nsubordinated. He will be a well-balanced man. But how few complete\nmen we now see.\n\nWe see the strong will without the clear intellect to guide it; the\ngush of feeling either directed toward low ends or evaporating in\nsentiment; the clear head with the cold heart. The high development\nof one mental power seems to draw away all strength and vitality\nfrom the rest. How rarely do we find the strong will guided by the\nkeen intellect toward the highest aims clearly discerned. Memory and\nimagination must always play their part in the joy set before us.\nBut in addition to all these, the white heat of feeling, of which\nman alone is capable, is necessary for his grandest efforts. Such a\nbeing would be a man born to be a king. And there will be a race of\nsuch men. And we must play the man that they may be raised upon our\nburied shoulders. And they will tower above us, as the seers of old\nin Judea, Athens, India, and Rome towered above their indolent,\nluxurious, blind, and material contemporaries. And with all their\naccelerated development, infinite possibilities will still stretch\nbeyond the reach of their imagination. For \"men follow duty, never\novertake.\"\n\nBut all our analyses are unsatisfactory. In the history of any great\npeople there is a period when they seem to rise above themselves.\nThey have the strength of giants, and accomplish things before and\nsince impossible. We sometimes ascribe these results to the\nexuberant vitality of the race at this time; and their life is large\nand grand. Such was England under Elizabeth. Think of her soldiers\nand explorers, her statesmen and poets. There were giants in those\ndays. What a healthy, hearty enjoyment they showed in all their\nwork, and with what ease was the impossible accomplished. The\ngreater the hardships to be borne or odds to be faced, the greater\nthe joy in overcoming them. They sailed out to give battle to the\nsuperior power of Spain, not at the command, but by the permission,\nof their queen; often without even this.\n\nAnd what a vigor and vitality there is in the literature of this\nperiod. Life is worth living, and studying, and describing. They see\nthe world directly as it is; not some distorted picture of it, seen\nby an unhealthy mind and drawn by a feeble hand. The world is ever\nnew and fresh to them because they see it through young, clear eyes.\n\nWere they giants or are we dwarfed? Which of the two lives is\nnormal? They used all their faculties and utilized all their powers.\nDo we? The only force or product which we are willing to see wasted\nis the highest mental and moral power. Our engines and turbine\nwheels utilize the last ounce of pressure of the steam or water. The\nmanufacturers pay high wages to hands who can tend machines run at\nthe highest possible speed. The profits of modern business come\nlargely from the utilization of force or products formerly wasted.\nBut how far do we utilize the highest faculties of the mind, which\nhave to do with character, the crowning glory of human development?\nAre we not eminently \"penny-wise and pound-foolish?\" A ship which\nuses only its donkey-engines, and does nothing but take in and get\nout cargo is a dismantled hulk. A captain who thinks only of cargo,\nand engines, and the length of the daily run, but who takes no\nobservations and consults no chart, will make land only to run upon\nrocks. Are we not too much like such dismantled hulks, or ships\nsailing with priceless cargoes but with mad captains?\n\nBut we have not yet seen the worst results of this waste of our\nhighest powers. The sessile animal, which lives mainly for\ndigestion, does not attain as good digestive organs as his more\nactive neighbor, who subordinates digestion to muscle. Lower powers\nreach their highest development only in proportion as they are\nstrictly subordinated to higher. This may be called a law of\nbiology. And our lower mental powers fail of their highest\ndevelopment and capacity mainly because of the lack of this\nsubordination.\n\nBut a disused organ is very likely to become a seat of disease and\nto thus enfeeble or destroy the whole body. And this disease effects\nthe most complete ruin when its seat is in the highest organs.\nDyspepsia is bad enough, but mania or idiocy is infinitely worse.\nAnd our moral powers are always enfeebled, and often diseased, from\nlack of strong exercise. And some blind guides, seeing only the\ndisease, cry out for the extirpation of the whole faculty, as some\nphysicians are said to propose the removal of the vermiform\nappendage in children. Similarly might the drunkard argue against\nthe value of brain, because it aches after a debauch. Our work is\nhard labor, and we gain no enjoyment in the use of our mental\npowers; for the enjoyment of any activity is proportional to the\nheight and glory of the purpose for which it is employed. As long as\nwe are content to use only our lower mental faculties and to gain\nlow ends, our use of even these will be feeble and ineffectual, and\nour lives will be poor, weak, and unhappy.\n\nBut future man will subordinate these lower powers to the higher. He\nwill utilize all that there is in him. And his efficiency must be\nvastly greater than ours. And finally, and most important, these men\nwill be all-powerful, because they have so conformed to environment\nthat all its forces combine to work with them.\n\nEngland under Elizabeth seemed to rise above itself. Think of\nHolland, under William the Silent, defying all the power of Spain.\nLook at Bohemia, under Ziska, a handful of peasants joining battle\nwith and defeating Germany and Austria combined. Think of Cromwell\nand his Ironsides, before whom Europe trembled. These men were not\nmerely giants, they were heroes. And the essence of heroism is\nself-forgetfulness. The last thought of William the Silent was not\nfor himself, but for his \"poor people.\" And those rugged Ironsides,\n\"fighting with their hands and praying with their hearts,\" smote\nwith light good-will and irresistibly, because they struck for truth\nand freedom, for right and God. These are motives of incalculable\nstrength, and they transfigure a man and raise him above his\nsurroundings and even himself. The man becomes heroic and godlike,\nand when possessed by these motives he has clasped hands with God.\nHe is inspired and infused with the divine power and life. Such a\nman has no time nor care to think of himself. To him it matters\nlittle whether he lives to see the triumph of his cause, provided he\ncan hasten it. Though victory be in the future, it is sure; and the\njoy of battle for so sure and grand a triumph is present reward\nenough. His very faith removes mountains and turns to night armies\nof the aliens. For heroism begets faith, just as surely as faith\nbegets heroism.\n\n\"Where there is no vision the people perish.\" When the member of\nCongress can see nothing higher than spoils of office, nothing\nlarger than a silver dollar, you should not criticise the poor man\nif his oratorical efforts do not move an audience like the sayings\nof Webster, Lincoln, or Phillips.\n\nFuture man will be heroic and divine, because he will live in an\natmosphere of truth and right and God, and will be consciously\ninspired by these divine, omnipotent motives.\n\nBut who will compose this future race? We cannot tell. And yet the\nattempt to answer the question may open our eyes to truth of great\npractical importance.\n\nIt would seem to be a fact that the offspring of a cross between\ndifferent races of the same species is as a rule more vigorous than\nthat of either pure race. Human history seems to show the same\nresult. The English race is a mixture of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes,\nand Normans, with a sprinkling of other races. And a new fusion of a\ngreat number of most diverse strains is rapidly going on in the\nnewly populated portions of America and in Australia. The mixture\ncontains thus far almost purely occidental races. It will in future\nalmost certainly contain oriental also. For the races of India,\nJapan, and even China, are no farther from us to-day than the\nancestors of many of our occidental fellow-citizens were a century\nago. Racial prejudices, however strong, weaken rapidly through\nintercourse and better acquaintance. One of the grandest and least\nperceived results of missionary work is the preparation for this\ngreat fusion.\n\nMany races will undoubtedly go down before the advance of\ncivilization and have no share in the future. Progress seems to be\nlimited to the inhabitants of temperate zones; and even here the\nweaker may be crowded out before the stronger rather than absorbed\nby them. But many whom we now despise may have a larger inheritance\nin the future than we. God is clearly showing us that we should not\ncount any man, much less any nation, common or unclean. And the laws\nof evolution give us a firm confidence that no good attained by any\nrace or civilization will fail to be preserved in the future.\n\nThe forms which seem to us at any one time the highest are as a rule\nnot the ancestors of the race of the future. These highest forms are\ntoo much specialized, and thus fitted to a narrow range of space,\ntime, and general conditions; when these change they pass away.\nSpecialization is doubly dangerous when it follows a wrong line. But\nwhenever it is carried far enough to lead to a one-sided\ndevelopment, it narrows the possibility of future advance; for it\nneglects or crowds out or prevents the development of other powers\nessential to life. The mollusk neglected nerve and muscle. But the\nscholar may, and often does, cultivate the brain at the expense of\nthe rest of the body until he and his descendants suffer, and the\nfamily becomes extinct.\n\nThe young men of the nobility of wealth, birth, and fashion usually\nmarry heiresses, if they can. But only in families of enormous\nwealth can there be more than one or two heiresses in the same\ngeneration. She has very probably inherited a portion of her wealth\nfrom one or more extinct branches of the family. Moreover, not to\nspeak of other factors, the labor and anxiety which have been\nessential to the accumulation and preservation of these great\nfortunes, or the mode of life which has accompanied their use or\nabuse, tend to diminish the number of children. Heiresses to very\nlarge fortunes usually therefore belong to families which are\ntending to sterility. And this has very probably been no unimportant\nfactor in the extinction of \"noble\" families.\n\nA sound body contains many organs, all of which must be sound. And\nin a sound mind there is an even greater number of faculties, all of\nwhich must be kept at a high grade of efficiency. Man is a\nmarvellously complex being, and more in danger of a narrow and\none-sided development than any lower animal. And it is very easy for\na certain grade or class of society, or for a whole race, to become\nso specialized, by the cultivation of only one set of faculties as\nto altogether prevent its giving birth to a complete humanity. Along\ncertain broad lines the Greeks and Romans attained results never\nsince equalled. But their neglect of other, even more important,\npowers and attainments, especially the moral and religious, doomed\nthem to a speedy decay. The rude northern races were on the whole\nbetter and nobler, and became heirs to Greek art and letters, and\nto Roman law. And this is another illustration of the advantage or\nnecessity of the fusion of races.\n\nTo answer the question, \"Which stratum or class in the community or\nworld at large is heir to the future?\" we must seek the one which is\nstill to a large extent generalized. It must be maintaining, in a\nsound body, a steady, even if slow, advance of all the mental\npowers. It will not be remarkable for the high development or lack\nof any quality or power; it must have a fair amount of all of them\nwell correlated. It must be well balanced, \"good all around,\" as we\nsay. And this class is evidently neither the highest nor the lowest\nin the community, but the \"common people, whom God must have loved,\nbecause he made so many of them.\"\n\nThey have, as a rule, fair-sized or large families. Their bodies are\nkept sound and vigorous by manual labor. They are compelled to think\non all sorts of questions and to solve them as best they can. They\nhave a healthy balance of mental faculties, even if they are not\nvery learned or artistic. They are kept temperate because they\ncannot afford many luxuries. Their healthy life prevents an undue\ncraving for them. They help one another and cultivate unselfishness.\nThe good old word, neighbor, means something to them. They have a\nsturdy morality, and you can always rely upon them in great moral\ncrises. They are patriotic and public-spirited; they have not so\nmany, or so enslaving, selfish interests. They have always been\ntrained to self-sacrifice and the endurance of hardship; and heroism\nis natural to them. They have a strong will, cultivated by the\nbattle of daily life. And among them religion never loses its hold.\n\nBut what of our tendencies to specialization in education and\nbusiness? Are these wrong and injurious? Specialization, like great\nwealth, is a great danger and a fearful test of character. It tends\nto narrowness. If you will know everything about something, you must\nmake a great effort to know something about, and have some interest\nin, everything. The great scholar is often anything but the\nlarge-minded, whole-souled man which he might have become. He has\nallowed himself to become absorbed in, and fettered by, his\nspecialty until he can see and enjoy nothing outside of it. There is\nno selfishness like that of learning.\n\nWe can accomplish nothing unless we concentrate our efforts upon a\ncomparatively narrow line of work. But this does not necessitate\nthat our views should be narrow or our aims low. Teufelsdr\u00f6ckh may\nlive on a narrow lane; but his thoughts, starting along the narrow\nlane, lead him over the whole world. The narrowness of our horizon\nis due to our near-sightedness.\n\nBut the only absolutely safe specialization is the highest possible\ndevelopment of our moral and religious powers. For their cultivation\nonly enlarges and strengthens all the other powers of body and mind.\n\"But,\" you will object, \"does religion always broaden?\" Yes. That\nwhich narrows is the base alloy of superstition. But a religion\nwhich finds its goal and end in conformity to environment,\ncharacter, and godlikeness can only broaden.\n\nBut there is the so-called \"breadth\" of the shallow mind which\nattempts to find room at the same time for things which are mutually\nexclusive. God and Baal, right and wrong, honesty and lying,\nselfishness and love, these are mutually exclusive. You cannot find\nroom in your mind for both members of the pair at the same time. You\nmust choose. And, when you have chosen, abide by your choice. A\nladleful of thin dough fallen on the floor is very broad. But its\nbreadth is due to lack of consistency. Better narrowness than such\nbreadth.\n\nBut while individual specialization may be safe for the individual,\nand beneficial to the race, the race which is to inherit the future\nmust remain unspecialized. It must not sacrifice future\npossibilities to present rapidity of advance. And the common people\nare advancing safely, slowly, but surely. Wealth and learning become\nof permanent prospective and real value only when they are\ninvested in the masses. They are the final depositaries of all\nwealth--material, intellectual, moral, and religious. Whatever, and\nonly that which, becomes a part of their life becomes thereby\nendowed with immortality. Will we invest freely or will we wait to\nhave that which we call our own wrested from us? If we refuse it to\nour own kin and nation, it will surely fall to foreigners. \"God made\ngreat men to help little ones.\"\n\nThe city of God on earth is being slowly \"builded by the hands of\nselfish men.\" But the builders are becoming continually more\nunselfish and righteous, and as they become better and purer its\nwalls rise the more rapidly.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE\n\n\nWe have studied the teachings of science concerning man and his\nenvironment, let us turn now to the teachings of the Bible. And\nthough eight chapters have been devoted to the teachings of science,\nand only one to the teachings of the Bible, it is not because I\nunderestimate the importance of the latter. It is more difficult to\nclearly discover just what are the teachings of Nature in science.\nThe lesson is written in a language foreign to most of us, and one\nrequiring careful study; and yet once deciphered it is clear.\nScience attains the laws of Nature by the study of animal and human\nhistory. But this record is a history of continually closer\nconformity to environment on the part of all advancing forms. The\nanimal kingdom is the clay which is turned, as Job says, to the seal\nof environment, and it makes little difference whether we study the\nseal or the impression; we shall read the same sentence. Environment\nhas stamped its laws on the very structure of man's body and mind.\nAnd the old biblical writers read these laws, guided by God's\nSpirit, in their own hearts, and in those of their neighbors, and in\ntheir national history, as the record of God's working, and gave us\nconcrete examples of the results of obedience and disobedience.\nHence the teaching of the Bible is always clear and unmistakable.\n\nThe Bible treats of three subjects--Nature, Man, and God--and the\nrelations of each of these to the others. I have tried to present to\nyou in the first chapter the biblical conception of Nature and its\nrelation to God. In its relation to man it is his manifestation to\nus, and, in its widest sense, the sum of the means and modes through\nwhich he develops, aids, and educates us. And in this conception I\nfind science to be strictly in accord with scripture.\n\nNow what is the scriptural idea of man? Man interests us especially\nin three aspects. He is a corporeal being; he is an intellectual\nbeing; he is a moral being, with feelings, will, and personality.\n\nMan's body. Plato considered the body as a source of evil and a\nhindrance to all higher life. And Plato was by no means alone in\nthis. The Bible takes a very different view. Neglect of the body is\nalways rebuked. The only place, so far as I can find, where the body\nis called vile is where it is compared with the glorious body into\nwhich it is to be transformed. \"Your bodies,\" writes Paul to the\nCorinthians, \"are members of Christ,\" \"temples of the Holy Ghost.\"\nBut the Bible teaches that the body is to be the servant, not the\nruler, of the spirit. \"I keep under my body, and bring it into\nsubjection,\" continues Paul. Here again science is strictly in\naccord with scripture.\n\nMan is an intellectual being. I need not quote the praises of\nknowledge in the Old Testament. They must be fresh in your mind. But\nthe practical Peter writes, \"giving all diligence add to your faith\nvirtue; and to virtue knowledge.\" And Paul prays that the love of\nthe Ephesians may \"abound more and more in knowledge and in all\njudgment.\" But the important knowledge is the knowledge of God, and\nof Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. And similarly science\nemphasizes that the chief end of all knowledge is that we should\nknow the environment to which we are to conform. Knowledge is useful\nto strengthen and clarify the mind, that it may see and conform to\ntruth and God: and if it fails to become a means to conformity, it\nhas failed of the chief, and practically the only, end for which it\nwas intended. We are to come \"in the unity of the faith and of the\nknowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of\nthe stature of the fulness of Christ.\" But knowledge which only\npuffs up and distracts the mind from the great aims and ends which\nit should serve is rebuked with equal emphasis by the Bible and by\nscience.\n\nI would not claim that we have set too high a value upon knowledge,\nperhaps we cannot; but there is something far higher on which we are\ninclined to set far too low a value. This is righteousness and love;\nand true wisdom is knowledge permeated, vivified, and transfigured\nby devotion to these higher ends. And in this highest realm of the\nmind feeling and will rule conjointly. Love is a feeling which\nalways will and must find its way to activity through the will, and\nit is an activity of the will roused by the very deepest feeling,\ninspired by a worthy object. If you try to divorce them, both die.\nHence Paul can say, \"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of\nangels, and though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all\nmysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I\ncould remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.\" And John\ngoes, if possible, even farther and says, \"Every one that loveth is\nborn of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God;\nfor God is love.\" And this sort of love bears and believes and hopes\nand endures, and never fails. And for this reason the Bible lays\nsuch tremendous emphasis on the heart, not as the centre of emotion\nalone, but as the seat of will as well. And science points to the\nsame end, though she sees it afar off.\n\nAnd what of God? God is a Spirit, Creator, Author, and Finisher of\nall things, and filling all. But while omnipotent, omnipresent, and\nomniscient, these are not the characteristics emphasized in the\nBible. He is righteous. \"Shall not the judge of all the earth do\nright?\" is the grand question of the father of the faithful. And\nwhen Moses prays God to show him his glory, God answers, \"I will\nmake all my goodness pass before thee.\" He is the \"refuge of\nIsrael,\" the \"everlasting arms\" underneath them, pitying them \"as a\nfather pitieth his children.\" And in the New Testament we are bidden\nto pray to our Father, who _is_ love, and whose temple is the heart\nof whosoever will receive him. Truly a very personal being.\n\nNow the Bible rises here indefinitely above anything that mere\nnatural science can describe. But can the ultimate \"Power, not\nourselves, which makes for righteousness\" and unselfishness, of\nwhose presence in environment science assures us, be ever better\ndescribed than by these words concerning the \"Father of our\nspirits?\"\n\nAnd an infinitely wise, good, and loving being will have fixed modes\nof working; for \"with him is no variableness, neither shadow of\nturning.\" Thus only can man trust and know him. The old Stoic\nphilosopher tells us \"everything has two handles, and can be\ncarried by one of them, but not by the other.\" So with God's laws.\nMany seem to look upon them as a hindrance and limitation to him in\ncarrying out his righteous and loving will toward man. But they are\nreally the modes or means of his working, which he uses with such\nregularity and consistency that we can always rely upon them and\nhim. The pure river of the water of life proceedeth from the throne\nof God and of the Lamb.\n\nIf I am lying ill waiting anxiously for the physician I can think of\nthis great city as a mass of blocks of houses separating him from\nme. But the houses have been arranged in blocks so as to leave free\nstreets, along which he can travel the more quickly. And God's laws\nare not blocks, but thoroughfares, planned that the angels of his\nmercy may fly swiftly to our aid. We are prone to forget that these\nlaws are expressly made for your and my benefit, as well as that of\nall beings, that we may be righteous and unselfish. And this is one\nground of the apostle's faith that \"all things work together for\ngood to them that love God.\" And in the Apocalypse the earth helps\nthe woman. It must be so.\n\nBut what if you or I try to block the thoroughfare? What would\nhappen to us if we tried to stop bare-handed the current of a huge\ndynamo, or to hold back the torrent of Niagara? Nothing but death\ncan result. And what if I stem myself against the \"river of the\nwater of life, proceeding from the throne of God,\" and try to turn\nit aside or hold it back from men perishing of thirst? And that is\njust what sin is, even if done carelessly or thoughtlessly; for men\nhave no right to be careless and thoughtless about some things.\n\"The wages of sin is death;\" physical death for breaking physical\nlaw, and spiritual death for breaking spiritual law. How can it be\notherwise? The wages are fairly earned. The hardest doctrine for a\nscientific man to believe is that there can be any forgiveness of\nsuch sin as the heedless, ungrateful breaking of such wise and\nbeneficent laws of a loving Father. And yet my earthly father has\nhad to forgive me a host of times during my boyhood. Perhaps I can\nhope the same from God; I take his word for it.\n\nBut if you or I think that it is safe to trifle with God's laws, we\nare terribly mistaken. The Lord proclaimed himself to Moses as \"The\nLord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and\nabundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands,\nforgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no\nmeans clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon\nthe children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and\nto the fourth generation.\" But someone will say, This is terrible.\nIt is terrible; but the question is, Does the Bible speak the truth\nabout nature? Is nature a \"fairy godmother,\" or does she bring men\nup with sternness and inflict suffering upon the innocent children,\nif necessary, lest they copy after their sinful parents? Do the\nchildren of the defaulter and drunkard and debauchee suffer because\nof the sins of their father, or do they not? If the blessings won by\nparental virtue go down to the thousandth generation, must not the\nevil consequences of sin go down to the third or fourth?\n\nThat we are not under the law, but under grace, does not mean, as\nsome seem to think, that it is safe to sin. Otherwise the\nforgiveness of God becomes the lowest form of indulgence\nslanderously attributed to the Church of Rome. We gain freedom from\nlaw as well as penalty only by obedience. The artist can safely\nforget the laws and rules of his art only when by long obedience and\npractice he obeys them unconsciously. We seem to be threatened with\na belief that God will never punish sin in one who has professed\nChristianity. This view cheapens sin and makes pardon worthless, it\ntakes the iron out of the blood, and the backbone out of all our\nreligion and ethics. It ruins Christians and disgraces Christianity.\nWe sometimes seem to think that our nation or church or denomination\nis so important to the carrying on of God's work that he cannot\nafford to let any evil befall us, whatever we may do or be.\n\n\"Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes\nof the house of Israel, that abhor judgment and pervert all equity.\nThey build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The\nheads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for\nhire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean\nupon the Lord and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come\nupon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field,\nand Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as\nthe high places of the forest.\" That was plain preaching, and the\npeople did not like it. They would not like it any better to-day; it\nwould come too near the truth.\n\nBut others seem to think that God is too kind, not to say\ngood-natured, to allow his children to suffer for their sins. This\nis part of a creed, unconsciously very widely held to-day, that\ncomfort, not character, is the chief end of life. Now if God is too\nkind to allow his children to suffer some of the natural\nconsequences of sin, he is not a really kind and loving father, he\nis spoiling his children. Salvation is soundness, sanity, health;\njust as holiness is wholeness, escape from the disease, and not\nmerely from the consequences of sin. A physician, unless a quack,\nnever promises relief from a deep-seated disease without any pain or\ndiscomfort. And if the disease is the result of indulgence, he warns\nus that relapse into indulgence will bring a worse recurrence of the\npain. Perhaps, after all, Socrates was not so far from right when he\nmaintained that if a man had sinned the best and only thing for him\nis to suffer for it. \"God the Lord will speak peace unto his people,\nand to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly.\" And our\nLord says, \"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the\nprophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say\nunto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in\nno wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. For I say unto you,\nThat except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the\nscribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of\nheaven.\" If we would be great in the kingdom of heaven we must do\nand teach the commandments. One of the best lessons that the clergy\ncan learn from science is that law and penalty are not things of the\npast. They are eternal facts; and if so, ought sometimes to be at\nleast mentioned from the pulpit as well as remembered in the pew.\n\nBut if God is a person striving to communicate with man, and if man\nis a person intended to conform to environment by becoming like God,\nwhat is more probable from the scientific stand-point than that God\nshould seek and find some means of making himself clearly known to\nman in some personal way? I do not see how any scientific man who\nbelieves in a personal God can avoid asking this question. And is\nthere any more natural solution of the question than that given in\nthe Bible? \"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.\"\n\"God, who spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath\nin these last days spoken unto us by his son.\" Philip says, \"Lord,\nshow us the Father and it sufficeth us.\" Jesus saith unto him, \"Have\nI been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he\nthat hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou shew us the\nFather? Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in\nme? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the\nFather abiding in me doeth his works.\"\n\n\"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,\nand men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were\nevil.\"\n\nSomething more is needed than light. We need more light and\nknowledge of our duty; we need vastly more the will-power to do it.\nI know how I ought to live; I do not live thus. What I need is not a\nteacher, but power to become a son of God. \"I delight in the law of\nGod after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members,\nwarring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity\nunder the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I\nam! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?\"\n\nThis is the terrible question. How is it to be answered? Let us\nremember our illustration of the change wrought in that\npanic-stricken army before Winchester by the appearance of Sheridan.\nWhat these men needed was not information. No plan of battle\nreported as sure of success by trustworthy and competent witnesses,\nand forwarded from the greatest leader could have stayed that rout.\nWhat they needed was Sheridan and the magnetic power of his\npersonality. This is the strange power of all great leaders of men,\nwhether orators, statesmen, or generals. It is intellect acting on\nand through intellect, but it is also vastly more; it is will acting\non will. The leader does not merely instruct others, he inspires\nthem, puts himself into them, and makes them heroes like himself.\n\nNow something like this, but vastly grander and deeper, seems to me\nto have been the work of our Lord. Read John's gospel and see how it\nis interpenetrated with the idea of the new life to be gained by\ncontact with our Lord, and how this forms the foundation of his hope\nand claim to give men this new life by drawing them to himself. And\nPeter says that it was impossible for the Prince of Life to be\nholden of death, for he was the centre and source from which not\nonly new thoughts and purposes, but new will and life was to stream\nout into the souls of men. This power of our Lord may have been\nmiraculous and supernatural in degree; I feel assured that it was\nnot unnatural in kind and mode of action.\n\nAnd here, young men, pardon a personal word about your preaching.\nYou will need to preach many sermons of warning against, and\ndenunciation of, sin; many of instruction in duty. The Bible is a\nstore-house of instruction and men need it, and you must make it\nclear to them. All this is good and necessary, but it is not enough.\nLearn from the experience of the greatest preacher, perhaps, who\never lived.\n\nPaul, the greatest philosopher of ancient times, came to Athens. You\ncan well imagine how he had waited and longed for the opportunity to\nspeak in this home of philosophy and intellectual life. Now he was\nto speak, not to uncultured barbarians, but to men who could\nunderstand and appreciate his best thoughts. He preached in Athens\nthe grandest sermon, as far as argument is concerned, ever uttered.\nI doubt if ever a sermon of Paul's accomplished less. He could not\neven rouse a healthy opposition. The idea of a new god, Jesus, and a\nnew goddess, the Resurrection, rather tickled the Athenian fancy. He\nleft them, and, in deep dejection, went down to Corinth. There he\ndetermined to know only \"Christ and him crucified,\" and thus\npreaching in material, vicious Corinth he founded a church.\n\nSome of you will go through the same experience. You will preach to\ncultured and intelligent audiences, and they will listen courteously\nand eagerly as long as you tell them something new, and do not ask\nthem to do anything. The only possible way of reaching Athenian\nintellect or Corinthian materialism and vice is by preaching Christ,\n\"the power of God and the wisdom of God.\" And you will reach more\nCorinthians than Athenians.\n\nYou may preach sermons full of the grandest philosophy and\ntheology, and of the highest, most exact, science; you may chain men\nby your logic, thrill them by your rhetoric, and move them to tears\nby your eloquence, and they will go home as dead and cold as they\ncame. What they need is power, life. But preach \"Christ and him\ncrucified\"--not merely dead two thousand years ago--but risen and\nalive for evermore, and with us to the end of the world, the\ngrandest, most heroic, divinest helper who ever stood by a man, one\nall-powerful to help and who never forsakes, and every one of your\nhearers who is not dead to truth will catch the life, and go home\nalive and not alone.\n\nSo long as we preach a dead Christ we shall have a dead church, as\nhopeless as the apostles were before the resurrection. \"But now is\nChrist risen from the dead,\" \"alive for evermore.\" See how Paul and\nPeter and John, and doubtless all the others, talked with him and he\nwith them, after he was taken from them, and you have found the\nsecret of their power, and of that of all the great Christian heroes\nand martyrs who could truly say, Lord Jesus, we understand each\nother. Better yet, prove by experience that it is possible for every\none of us.\n\nAnd our Lord and Master is the connecting link between God and man,\nthrough whom God's own Holy Spirit is poured like a mighty flood\ninto the hearts and lives of men, transfiguring them and filling\nthem with the divine power. This is the biblical idea of\nChristianity; man, through Christ, flooded and permeated and\ninterpenetrated with the Holy Spirit of God. And thus Paul is dead\nand yet alive, but fully possessed and dominated by the spirit of\nChrist. Alive as never before, and yet his every thought, word, and\ndeed is really that of his great leader. Can you talk of self-denial\nto such a Christian? He had forgotten that such a man as Saul of\nTarsus or Paul ever existed; he lives only in his Master's work, and\nis transfigured by it. This, and nothing less, is Christianity, and\nthis is the very highest and grandest heroism. Paul conquers Europe\nsingle-handed, alone he stands before C\u00e6sar's tribunal, and yet he\nis never alone; and from the gloom of the Mammertine dungeon he\nsends back a shout of triumph. And Peter walks steadily, cheerfully,\nand unflinchingly, in the footsteps of his Master to share his\ncross.\n\nLet us, before leaving this topic, notice carefully just what\nreligion, and especially Christianity, is not.\n\n1. It is not merely opinion or intellectual belief in a creed. This\nmay be good, or even necessary, but it is not religion. \"Thou\nbelievest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also\nbelieve and tremble.\" We speak with pride, sometimes, of our\npuissant Christendom, so industrious, so intelligent, so moral, with\nits ubiquitous commerce, its adorning arts, its halls of learning,\nits happy firesides, and its noble charities. And yet what is our\nvaunted Christendom but a vast assemblage of believing but\ndisobedient men? Said William Law to John Wesley, \"The head can as\neasily amuse itself with a living and justifying faith in the blood\nof Jesus as with any other notion.\" The most sacred duty may\ndegenerate into a dogma, asking only to be believed. \"I go, sir,\"\nanswered the son in the parable, \"but went not.\"\n\n2. It is not mere feeling. It is neither hope of heaven's joy, nor\nfear of hell's misery. It may rightly include these, but it is\nvastly more and higher. It is neither ecstasy nor remorse. The most\nresolutely impenitent sinner can shout \"Hallelujah,\" and \"Woe is\nme,\" as loudly as any saint. Now feeling is of vast importance. It\nstands close to the will and stimulates it, but it is not\nconformity. The will must be aroused to a robust life.\n\n3. Christianity is these and a great deal more. Mere belief would\nmake religion a mere theology. Mere emotion would make it mere\nexcitement. The true divine idea of it is a life; doing his will,\nnot indolently sighing to do it, and then lamenting that we do it\nnot; but the thing itself in actual achievement, from day to day,\nfrom month to month, from year to year. Thus religion rises on us in\nits own imperial majesty. It is no mere delight of the understanding\nin the doctrines of our faith; no mere excitement of the\nsensibilities, now harrowed by fear, and now jubilant in hope; but a\nwarfare and a work, a warfare against sin, and a work with God.\nReligion is not an entertainment, but a service. We are to set\nbefore us the perfect standard, and then struggle to shape our lives\nto it. Personal sanctity must be made a business of.[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: This page is mainly a series of quotations from Dr.\n  R.D. Hitchcock's sermon on \"Religion, the Doing of God's Will.\"]\n\nA little more than thirty years ago a regiment was sent home from\nthe Army of the Potomac to enforce the draft after the riots in this\ncity. Some of you may picture to yourselves a thousand men with silk\nbanners and gold lace and bright uniforms, resplendent in the\nsunshine. You could not make a worse mistake.\n\nFirst in that gray early morning came two old flags, so torn by shot\nand shell that there was hardly enough left of them to tell whether\nthe State flag was that of Massachusetts or Virginia. And behind\nthese came scant three hundred men. All the rest were sleeping\nbetween Washington and Richmond, some on almost every battle-field.\nThe uniforms were old and faded from sun and rain. Only gun-barrel\nand bayonet were bright. And the men were scarred and tired and\nfoot-sore, haggard from hard fighting and long, swift marches. For\nthese men had been trained to be hurried back and forth behind the\nlong line of battle, that they might be hurled into it wherever the\nneed was greatest. I do not suppose that one of them could have\ndelivered a fourth-of-July oration on Patriotism. They were trained\nnot to talk, but to obey orders. But they had stood in the \"bloody\nangle\" at Spottsylvania all day and all night; and in the gray dawn\nof the next morning, when strength and courage are always at ebb,\nfaint and exhausted, their last cartridge shot away, had sprung\nforward at the command of their colonel to make a last desperate,\nforlorn defence with the bayonet against the advancing enemy.\nNumbers do not count against men like these. What made them such\ninvincible heroes? It was mainly the resolute will and long training\nto obey orders. A Christian should never forget that he is a soldier\nin the army of the Lord of Hosts; that enlistment is easy and\nquickly accomplished; but that the training is long, and that he\nmust learn, above all, to \"endure hardness.\"\n\nAnd so, my brothers, I beg of you to preach a heroic Christianity,\nfor if there ever was a heroic religion it is ours. If you offer\nmerely free transportation to a future heaven of delight on \"flowery\nbeds of ease,\" you will enlist only the coward and the sluggard. But\neveryone who has a drop of strong old Norse blood in his veins will\nprefer a heathen Valhalla, though builded in hell, to such a heaven.\nAnd his Norse instincts will be nearer truth than your counterfeit\nof a debased Christianity. But preach the city of God's\nrighteousness on earth and now among men, and call on every heroic\nsoul to take sides with God against sin within himself and the evil\nand misery all around him. There is an almost infinite amount of\nstrength, endurance, and heroism in this \"slow-witted but\nlong-winded\" human race waiting to leap up at the appeal to fight\nonce more and win a victory after repeated defeats before the sun\ngoes down. Appeal to this and point to the great \"captain of our\nsalvation made perfect through sufferings,\" and every man that is of\nthe truth will hear in your voice the call of the Master and King.\nYou will not be disappointed, but among the publicans and fishermen\nof America you will find heroic souls, who will leave all to follow,\nas faithfully and unflinchingly as those from the shores of Galilee.\n\nAnd what of faith? Faith is the personal attachment of a soul to\nsuch a leader. Fortunately the Bible contains a scientific monograph\non this subject. I refer, of course, to the eleventh chapter of the\nepistle to the Hebrews. And the whole result is summed up in a few\nwords of the thirteenth verse. The great heroes, like Enoch, Noah,\nand Abraham, \"saw the promises afar off, and were persuaded of them,\nand embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and\npilgrims on the earth.\"\n\nThey saw the promises afar off, dimly, on the horizon of their\nmental vision; as one looks into the distance and cannot tell\nwhether what he sees be cloud or mountain. And until they could make\nup their minds that there was some substance in the vision, they did\nnot embrace it. They were not credulous. Neither were they\ncarelessly or heedlessly sure that there was and could be nothing in\nthe vision but mist and fancy. They recognized that on their\ndecision of the question hung the life of which they meant to make\nthe very most. They looked again and again, and kept thinking about\nit. Thus they became and were \"persuaded of them.\" And most people\nstop here with a merely intellectual faith in their heads, and very\nlittle in their hearts and lives. Not so these old heroes; they were\nnot so purely and coldly intellectual that they could not _do_\nanything. They \"embraced them.\" They said, that is exactly what I\nwant and need, and I'll have it, if it costs me my life.\n\nNow a promise is always conditional; if you want one thing, you must\ngive up something else. It involves a choice between alternatives;\nyou can have either one freely, you cannot have both. It was to them\nas to Christ on the \"exceeding high mountain,\" God or the world; God\nwith the cross, or the world with Satan thrown in. And the same\nalternative confronts us.\n\nMoses could be a good Jew or a good Egyptian. Most of us, while\nresolved to be excellent Jews at heart, would have said nothing\nabout it, but remained sons of Pharaoh's daughter in order to\nbenefit the Jews by our influence in our lofty station. We should\nhave become miserable hybrids with all the vices and weaknesses of\nboth races, but with none of the virtues of either. And for all that\nwe should ever have done the Jews might have rotted in Egyptian\nbondage. Enlargement and deliverance would have arisen to the Jews\nfrom some other place; but we and our father's house would have been\ndestroyed. By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's\ndaughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the children of\nGod, etc. And certainly he did suffer for it.\n\nThey embraced the promises with their whole hearts. They were stoned\nand sawn asunder rather than give them up. And what was the effect\non their characters? Having counted the cost, and being perfectly\nwilling to accept any loss or pain for the sake of these promises,\nand hence inspired by them, they became sublime heroes. Through\nfaith they \"subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained\npromises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of\nfire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made\nstrong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the\naliens. And others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea,\nmoreover of bonds and imprisonment: they wandered about in\nsheepskins and in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented.\nOf whom the world was not worthy.\" That is a faith worth having, and\nit is as sound philosophy as it is scripture.\n\n\"These all died in faith, not having received the promises.\" Did\nthey receive nothing? Moses and Elijah, Gideon and Barak gained\npower and heroism greater than we can conceive of. Surely that was\nenough. But they did not get the whole of the promise, or even the\nbest of it. And the simple reason was that God cannot make a promise\nsmall enough to be completely fulfilled to a man in his earthly\nlife. He gets enough to make him a king, but this does not begin to\nexhaust the promise. It is inexhaustible. This is the experience of\nanyone who will faithfully try it. And this experience is the\ngrandest argument for immortality.\n\nTherefore, \"giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue ([Greek:\naret\u00ea], strength), and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge\ntemperance ([Greek: enkrateia], self-control), and to temperance\npatience ([Greek: hypomen\u00ea], endurance), and to patience godliness,\nand to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness\ncharity\" (love).\n\nAnd what of prayer? How can it be answered in a universe of law? We\ncertainly could have no confidence that our prayers could or would\nbe answered if ours were not a universe of law. God's laws are, as\nwe have seen, his modes of working out his great plan. And the last\nand highest unfolding of God's plan is the development of man. And\nman is to become conformed to his environment, and conformity of\nman's highest powers to his environment is likeness to God.\n\nThe laws of nature, then, are in ultimate analysis and highest aim\nthe different steps in God's plan of man's salvation from the\ndisease of sin, not merely or mainly from its consequences, and his\nattainment of holiness. For this is the only true and sound manhood.\nSalvation is spiritual health, resulting also in health of body and\nof mind. If God's laws are his modes of carrying out his plan for\ngodlikeness in man, then they are so thought out as to be the means\nof helping me to every real good.\n\nThe Bible declares explicitly that the aim of prayer is not to\ninform God of our needs. For he knows them already. It is not to\nchange God's purpose, for he is unchangeable, and we should rejoice\nin this. We are to pray for our daily bread; we are to pray for the\nsick; and, if best for them and consistent with God's plan, they\nshall recover. Elijah prayed for drought and prayed for rain, and\nwas answered. And Abraham's prayer would have saved Sodom, had there\nbeen ten righteous men in the city. \"Men ought alway to pray and not\nto faint.\"\n\n                     \"More things are wrought by prayer\n        Than this world dreams of. Wherefore let thy voice\n        Rise like a fountain for me night and day.\n        For what are men better than sheep or goats\n        That nourish a blind life within the brain,\n        If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer\n        Both for themselves and those who call them friend?\n        For so the whole round earth is every way\n        Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.\"\n\nBut could not all these things be brought about without a single\nprayer? Not according to the plan of man's education which God has\nadopted. Whether he could well have made a plan by which material\nblessings could have been bestowed upon men who do not ask for them,\nI do not know. The ravens and all animals are fed without a single\nprayer, for they are not fitted or intended to hold communion with\nGod. But a prayerless race of men has never been fed long; it has\nsoon ceased to exist. God's plan of salvation and ordering of the\nuniverse involves prayer as a means of blessing and good things as\nan answer to prayer. God says, I make you a co-worker with me. I\nwill help you in everything; but you must call on me for help, or\nyou will forget that I am the source of your help and strength, and\nthus having lost your communion with me will die. \"When Jeshurun\nwaxed fat he kicked.\" This is the oft-repeated story of the Old\nTestament and of all history. And thus, while material blessings are\ngiven in answer to prayer, these are not the chief end for which\nprayer is to be offered.\n\nPrayer is a means of conformity to environment, of godlikeness. How\ndo you become like a friend? Of course by associating and talking\nwith him. And why does it help you to associate with a hero? Simply\nbecause you cannot be with him without being inspired with his\nheroism. And so while I may pray for bread and clothes and\nopportunities, and God will give me these or something better; I\nwill, if wise, pray for purity, courage, moral power, heroism, and\nholiness. And I know that these will stream from his soul into mine\nlike a great river. And so I may pray for bread and be denied; for\nhunger, with some higher good, may be far better for me than a full\nstomach. But if I pray for any spiritual gift, which will make me\ngodlike, and on which as an heir of God I have a rightful claim,\nevery law and force in God's universe is a means to answer that\nprayer. And best of all, if I pray for the gift of God's Spirit,\nthat is the prayer which the whole world of environment has been\nframed to answer.\n\nBut this I can never have unless I hunger for it. I can never have\nit to use as a means of gaining some lower good which I worship more\nthan God. God will not and cannot lend himself to any such idolatry.\nI must be willing to give up anything and everything else for its\nattainment. Otherwise the answer to the prayer would ruin me.\n\nI cannot grasp the higher while using both hands to grasp the\nlower.\n\nThus religion is the interpenetration and permeation of my\npersonality by that of God. And prayer is the communion by which\nthis permeation becomes possible. And faith is the vision of these\npossibilities, the being persuaded by them, and the resolute purpose\nto attain them. And faith in Christ is confiding communion with him\nand obedience to his commands that his divine life may flow over\ninto me and dominate mine. And common-sense, and the more refined\ncommon-sense which we call science, can show me no other means to\nthe attainment of that godlikeness which is the only true conformity\nto environment.\n\nAnd, holding such a belief and faith, we must be hopeful. And only\nnext in importance to faith and love stands hope. The hero must be\nhopeful. And when times look dark about you, and they sometimes\nwill, you must still hope.\n\n        \"O it is hard to work for God,\n           To rise and take his part\n         Upon the battle-field of earth,\n           And not sometimes lose heart!\n\n        \"O there is less to try our faith\n           In our mysterious creed,\n         Than in the godless look of earth\n           In these our hours of need.\n\n        \"Ill masters good; good seems to change\n           To ill with greatest ease;\n         And, worst of all, the good with good\n           Is at cross purposes.\n\n        \"Workman of God! O lose not heart,\n           But learn what God is like;\n         And in the darkest battle-field\n           Thou shalt know where to strike.\n\n        \"Muse on his justice, downcast soul!\n           Muse, and take better heart;\n         Back with thine angel to the field,\n           Good luck shall crown thy part!\n\n        \"For right is right, since God is God;\n           And right the day must win;\n         To doubt would be disloyalty,\n           To falter would be sin.\"\n\nHope on, be strong and of a good courage. For in the dark hours\nothers will lean on you to catch your hope and courage. To many a\npoor discouraged soul you must be \"a hiding-place from the wind and\na covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the\nshadow of a great rock in a weary land.\" Every power and force in\nthe universe of environment makes for the ultimate triumph of truth\nand right. Defeat is impossible. \"One man with God on his side is\nthe majority that carries the day. 'We are but two,' said Abu Bakr\nto Mohammed as they were flying hunted from Mecca to Medina. 'Nay;'\nanswered Mohammed, 'we are three; God is with us.'\"\n\nAnd not only the race will triumph and regain the Paradise lost. The\ncity of God shall surely be with men, and God will dwell with them\nand in them. But you and I can and shall triumph too.\n\nWe are prone to feel that the individual man is too insignificant a\nbeing to be the object of God's care and forethought. But we should\nnot forget that it is the individual who conforms, and that the\nhigher and nobler race is to be attained through the elevation of\nindividuals, one after another. God deals with races and nations as\nsuch. But his laws and promises are made almost entirely for the\nindividuals of which these larger units are concerned.\n\nBut there is another standpoint from which we may gain a helpful\nview of the matter. I may be the meanest citizen of my native state,\nand my father may leave me heir of only a few acres of rocky land.\nBut, if my title is good, every power in the state is pledged to put\nme in possession of my inheritance. They who would rob me may be\nstrong; but the state will call out every able-bodied man, and pour\nout every dollar in its treasury before it will allow me to be\ndefrauded of my legal rights. And it must do this for me, its\nmeanest citizen, else there is no government, but anarchy, and\noppression, and the rule of the strongest. And we all recognize that\nthis is but right and necessary, and would be ashamed of our state\nand government were it not literally true.\n\nIf I travel in distant lands, my passport is the sign that all the\npower of these United States is pledged to protect me from\ninjustice. Think of the sensitiveness of governments to any wrong\ndone to their private citizens. England went to war with Abyssinia\nto protect and deliver two Englishmen. And shall God do less? Can he\ndo less? If it is only just and right and necessary for earthly\ngovernments to thus care for their citizens, shall not the ruler and\n\"judge of all the earth do right?\"\n\nNow you and I are commanded to be heirs of God, to attain to\nlikeness to him. This is therefore our legal right, guaranteed by\nhim, for every command of God is really a promise. And he will\nexhaust every power in the universe before he allows anything to\nprevent us from gaining our legal rights, provided only that we are\nearnest in claiming them.\n\nBut if I alienate my rights to my inheritance, the commonwealth\ncannot help me. If I renounce my citizenship, the government of the\nUnited States can no longer protect me. And so I can alienate my\n\"right to the tree of life,\" and to entrance into the city, and I\ncan forfeit my heirship to all that God would give me. \"For I am\npersuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor\nprincipalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,\nnor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, shall be able to\nseparate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our\nLord.\" But I can alienate and make void every promise and title, if\nI will or if I do not care. This is the unique glory, and awfulness\nof the human will. And we know that to them that love God all things\nwork together for good. \"If God is for us who is against us?\" It\nmust be so if God's laws are his modes of aiding men to conform to\nenvironment.\n\nAnd what of the church? Is it anything else or other than a means of\naiding man to conform to environment? If it fails of this, can it be\nany longer the church of God? The church is a means, not an end. And\nit is a means of godlikeness in man.\n\nSome would make it a social club. The bond of union between its\nmembers is their common grade of wealth, social position, or\nintellectual attainments. And this idea of the church has deeper\nroot in the minds of us all than we think. I can imagine a far\nbetter club than one formed and framed on this principle, but it is\ndifficult for me to imagine a worse counterfeit of a church. Others\nmake it a source of intellectual delectation, and the means of\nhearing one or two striking sermons each week. Such a church will\nconduce to the intelligence of its members, and may be rather more,\nthough probably less, useful than the old New England Lyceum lecture\nsystem. Such a church is of about as much practical value to the\nworld at large as some consultations of physicians are to their\npatients. The doctors have a most interesting discussion, but the\npatient dies, and the nature of the disease is discovered at the\nautopsy. Others still would make of the church a great railroad\nsystem, over which sleeping-cars run from the City of Destruction,\nwith a coupon good to admit one to the Golden City at the other end.\nThe coaches are luxurious and the road-bed smooth. The Slough of\nDespond has been filled, the Valley of Humiliation bridged at its\nnarrowest point, and the Delectable Mountains tunnelled. But\nscoffers say that most of the passengers make full use of the\nunlimited stop-over privileges allowed at Vanity Fair.\n\nThe Bible would seem to give the impression that the church is the\narmy of the Lord of Hosts, a disciplined army of hardy, heroic\nsouls, each soldier aiding his fellow in working out the salvation\nwhich God is working in him. And it joins battle fiercely and\nfearlessly with every form of sin and misery, counting not the odds\nagainst it. And the Salvation Army seems to me to have conceived and\nrealized to a great extent just what at least one corps in this\ngrand army can and should be. And you and I can learn many a lesson\nfrom them.\n\nThe church is the body of which Christ is the head, and you and I\nare \"members in particular.\" Let us see to it that we are not the\nweak spot in the body, crippling and maiming the whole. The church\nis the city of God among men, and we are its citizens, bound by its\nlaws, loyal servants of the Great King, sworn to obey his commands\nand enlarge his kingdom, and repel all the assaults of his\nadversaries. Thus the Bible seems to me to depict the church of God.\nBut what if the army contains a multitude of men who will not obey\norders or submit to discipline? or if the city be overwhelmed with a\nmass of aliens, who see in its laws and institutions mainly means of\nselfish individual advantage? Responsibility, not privilege, is the\nfoundation of strong character in both men and institutions. There\nwas a good grain of truth in the old Scotch minister's remark, that\nthey had had a blessed work of grace in his church; they had not\ntaken anybody in, but a lot had gone out.\n\nThere are plenty of churches of Laodicea to-day. May you be\ndelivered from them. But, thank God, there are also churches of\nPhiladelphia and Smyrna. May you be pastors of one of the latter. It\nwill not pay you a very large salary, for Demas has gone to the\nchurch of Laodicea, because the minister of the church of Smyrna was\nnot orthodox, or not sufficiently spiritually minded--meaning\nthereby that he rebuked the sins of actual living men in general,\nand of Demas in particular--or preached politics, and did not mind\nhis business. And your church may be small. For many of the\ncongregation have gone to the church around the other corner, which\nis mainly a cluster of associations, having excellent names, and\nuseful for almost every purpose except building up a manly, rugged,\nheroic, godlike character. The minister there, they will tell you,\npreaches delightful sermons. They make you \"feel so good.\" He\nannihilates pantheism, and his denunciations of materialism are\neloquent in the extreme. But his incarnations of materialism are\nHuxley and Darwin, and to the uncharitable he seems to almost\ncarefully avoid any language which might seem to reflect upon the\ndollar- and place-worship of some of the occupants of his front\npews. Now, I am not here to defend Mr. Huxley or Mr. Darwin.\nWithstand them to the face wherever they are to be blamed. And for\nsome utterances they are undoubtedly to be blamed, honest souls as\nthey were. But I for one cannot help feeling that there is among the\n\"dwellers in Jerusalem\" a materialism of the heart which is\nindefinitely worse than any intellectual heresy. When you hit at the\none heresy strike hard at the other also.\n\nMany will have left your little church of Smyrna. It had to be so.\nFor the divine sifting process, which is natural selection on its\nhighest plane, has not ceased to work. It must and shall still go\non; it cannot be otherwise. Has the great principle ceased to be\ntrue in modern history that \"though the number of the children of\nIsrael be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved?\"\n\nBut do not be discouraged. Preach Christ and a heroic Christianity.\nDo not be afraid to demand great things of your people. Remember\nthat Ananias was encouraged to go to Paul because the Lord would\nshow Paul how great things he should suffer for the name of Jesus.\nThis is what appeals to the heroic in every man, and we do not make\nnearly enough use of it. And the heroic Christ and his heroic\nChristianity will draw every heroic soul in the community to\nhimself. They may not be very heroic looking. You may be in some\nhill town in old Massachusetts \"Nurse of heroes.\" Pardon me, I do\nnot intend to be invidious. Heroism is cosmopolitan. One of the\npillars of your church may be the school-teacher of the little red\nschool-house at the fork of the roads, in the yard ornamented with\nalders, mulleins, and sumachs. She boards around, and is clad in\nanything but silks and sealskins. But she trains well her band of\nhardy little fellows, who will later fear the multitude as little as\nthey now mind the Berkshire winds. And from the pittance she\nreceives for training these rebellious urchins into heroic men she\nis supporting an old mother somewhere, or helping a brother to an\neducation. And your deacon will be some farmer, perhaps uncouth in\nappearance and rough of dress, and certainly blunt in his scanty\nspeech. He'll not flatter you nor your sermons; and until you've\nlived with him for years you will not know what a great heart there\nis in that rugged frame, and what wealth of affection in that silent\nhand-shake. And there is his wife. She is round and ample, and\ncertainly does not look especially solemn or pious. She is aunt and\nmother to the whole community, the joy of all the children, nurse of\nthe sick, and comfort of the dying. She is doing the work of ten at\nhome, and of a host in the village. And your right-hand man is\ngreat Onesiphorus from the mill down in the valley, fighting an\nuphill battle to keep the wolf from the door, while he and his wife\ndeny themselves everything, that their flock of children may have\nbetter training for fighting God's battles than they ever enjoyed.\n\nI cannot describe these men and women. If you have lived with\nthem, you will need no description, and would resent the\ninadequacy of mine. If you have never had the good fortune to live\nwith them, it is impossible to make you see them as they are. When\nyou once have thoroughly known them, language will fail you to do\nthem justice, and you will prefer to be silent rather than slander\nthem by inadequate portrayal. They are at first sight not\nattractive-looking. If you stand outside and look at them from a\ndistance their lives will appear to you very humdrum and prosaic.\nBut remember that for almost thirty years our Lord lived just such\na life in Nazareth, making ploughs and yokes; and then, when the\nyounger brothers and sisters were able to care for themselves,\nsnatched three years from supporting a peasant family in Galilee\nto redeem a world. And who was Peter but a rough, hardy fisherman?\n\nNow a Paul, trained at the feet of Gamaliel, was also needed; and\nthe twelve did not come from the lowest ranks of society. But they\nwere honest, industrious, practical, courageous, hardy, common\npeople. And single-handed they went out to conquer empires. And they\nsucceeded through the power of God in them.\n\nWho knows the possibilities of your little church in the hilltown of\nSmyrna? These men and women are the pickets of God's great host.\nThey are scattered up and down our land, fighting alone the great\nbattle, unknown of men and sometimes thinking that they must be\nforgotten of God. And the picket's lonely post is what tries a man's\ncourage and strength.\n\nTake your example from Paul's epistle. Greet Phebe, the\nschoolmistress, and Aquila and Priscilla on their rocky farm on the\nmountain-side, and greet the burden-bearing Onesiphorus. And give\nthem God's greeting and encouragement, for he sends it to them\nthrough you. Show them the heroism which there is in their \"humdrum\"\nlives; and cheer them in the efforts, of whose grandeur they are all\nunconscious. Bid them \"be strong and of a very good courage.\" For in\nthe character of these people there is the granite of the eternal\nhills, and in their hearts should be the sunshine of God. Do not be\nashamed of your congregation. Their dimes or dollars may look\npitifully small and few on the collector's plate; only God sees the\nreal immensity of the gift in the self-denial which it has cost.\nYour people will take sides with the cause of right, while it is\nstill unpopular. They have furnished the moral backbone and\nunswerving integrity of many of your great business houses in this\ncity to-day. From those families will go forth the men whom the good\nwill trust and the evil fear. The power for good proceeding from\nyour church will be like the floods which Ezekiel saw pouring out\nfrom beneath the threshold of the Lord's house.\n\nFor these common people, whom \"God must have loved because he made\nso many of them,\" are the true heirs to the future. And wealth and\nculture, art and learning, are to burn like torches to light their\nmarch. Finally, my young brothers, do not be bitterly disappointed\nif you are not \"popular preachers.\" Do not let too many people go to\nsleep under your preaching, even if one young man did go to sleep\nunder one of Paul's sermons. But if now and then someone is angry at\nwhat you have said, do not worry too much over it. Preach the truth\nin love. If Elijah and John the Baptist, and Peter and Paul, were to\npreach to-day I doubt greatly whether they would be popular\npreachers. I cannot find that they ever were so. They would probably\nbe peripatetic candidates, until someone supported them as\nindependent evangelists. After their death we would rear them great\nmonuments, and then devote ourselves to railing at Timothy because\nhe was not more like what we imagine Paul was.\n\nEven Socrates found that he must bid farewell to what men count\nhonors, if he would follow after truth. You may have the same\nexperience. You will have to champion many an unpopular cause, and\nyour people will not like it. They will say you lack tact. Now Paul\nwas a man of infinite tact. Witness his sermon on Mars' Hill. But if\nhis letters to the church in Corinth were addressed to most modern\nchurches, they would soon set out in search of a pastor of greater\nadaptability.\n\nIf you play the man, and fight the good fight of faith, I do not see\nhow you can always avoid hitting somebody on the other side. And he\nwill pull you down if he can; and will probably succeed in sometimes\nmaking your life very uncomfortable. Remember the teaching of\nscripture and science, that the upward path was never intended to\nbe easy. The scriptural passages to this effect you can find all\nthrough the gospels and epistles, and I need not quote them to you.\nI will, however, tell you honestly that many are of the opinion that\nthese passages are now obsolete, being applicable only to the first\ncenturies, or to especially critical times in the history of\nthe church. I cannot share that view, but, lest I seem too\nold-fashioned, will merely quote the ringing words of our own Dr.\nHitchcock, that \"no man ever enters heaven save on his shield.\" And\nallow me to quote in the same connection the testimony of that\nprince of scientists, Professor Huxley, in his lecture on \"Evolution\nand Ethics:\"\n\n\"If we may permit ourselves a larger hope of abatement of the\nessential evil of the world than was possible to those who, in the\ninfancy of exact knowledge, faced the problem of existence more than\na score of centuries ago, I deem it an essential condition of the\nrealization of that hope that we should cast aside the notion that\nthe escape from pain and sorrow is the proper object of life.\n\n\"We have long since emerged from the heroic childhood of our race,\nwhen good and evil could be met with the same 'frolic welcome;' the\nattempts to escape from evil, whether Indian or Greek, have ended in\nflight from the battle-field; it remains to us to throw aside the\nyouthful over-confidence and the no less youthful discouragement of\nnonage. We are grown men, and must play the man\n\n                          \"... 'strong in will\n        To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield,'\n\n\"cherishing the good that falls in our way and bearing the evil in\nand around us, with stout heart set on diminishing it. So far we all\nmay strive in one faith toward one hope:\n\n        \"'It may be that the gulfs will wash us down,\n          It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles.\n\n                 \"... but something ere the end,\n           Some work of noble note may yet be done.'\"\n\nWe must be strong and of a very good courage. While the avoidance of\npain and discomfort, or even happiness, cannot be the proper end of\nlife, it is not a world of misery or an essentially and hopelessly\nevil world. There is plenty of misery in the world, and we cannot\ndeny it. Neither can we deny that God has put us in the world to\nrelieve misery, and that until we have made every effort and\nstrained every nerve as we have never yet done, we, and not God, are\nlargely responsible for it. But behind misery stand selfishness and\nsin as its cause. And here we must not parley but fight. And the\nhosts of evil are organized and mighty. \"The sons of this world are\nfor their own generation wiser than the sons of light.\" And we shall\nnever overcome them by adopting their means. But we can and shall\nsurely overcome. For he that is with us is more than they that be\nwith them. \"The skirmishes are frequently disastrous to us, but the\ngreat battles all go one way.\" And we long for the glory of \"him\nthat overcometh.\" But the victor's song can come only after the\nbattle, and be sung only by those who have overcome. And we would\nnot have it otherwise if we could. The closing words of Dr.\nHitchcock's last sermon are the following:\n\n\"It is one of the revelations of scripture that we are to judge the\nangels, sitting above them on the shining heights. It may well be\nso. Those angels are the imperial guard, doing easy duty at home. We\nare the tenth legion, marching in from the swamps and forests of the\nfar-off frontier, scarred and battered, but victorious over death\nand sin.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nPRESENT ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION\n\n\nIn all our study we have taken for granted the truth of the theory\nof evolution. If you are not already persuaded of this by the\nwritings of Darwin, Wallace, and many others, no words or arguments\nof mine would convince you. We have used as the foundation of our\nargument only the fundamental propositions of Mr. Darwin's theory.\n\nBut while all evolutionists accept these propositions they differ\nmore or less in the weight or efficiency which they assign to each.\nIn a sum in multiplication you may gain the same product by using\ndifferent factors; but if the product is to be constant, if you\nhalve one factor, you must double another. Evolution is a product of\nmany factors. One evolutionist lays more, another less, emphasis on\nnatural selection, according as he assigns less or more efficiency\nto other forces or processes. Furthermore, evolutionists differ\nwidely in questions of detail, and some of these subsidiary\nquestions are of great practical importance and interest. It may be\nuseful, therefore, to review these propositions in the light of the\nfacts which we have gathered, and to see how they are interpreted,\nand what emphasis is laid on each by different thinkers.\n\nThe fundamental fact on which Mr. Darwin's theory rests is the\n\"struggle for existence.\" Life is not something to be idly enjoyed,\nbut a prize to be won; the world is not a play-ground, but an arena.\nAnd the severity of the struggle can scarcely be overrated. Only one\nor two of a host of runners reach the goal, the others die along the\ncourse. Concerning this there can be no doubt, and there is little\nroom for difference of interpretation.\n\nThe struggle may take the form of a literal battle between two\nindividuals, or of the individual with inclemency of climate or\nother destructive agents. More usually it is a competition, no more\nnoticeable and no less real than that between merchants or\nmanufacturers in the same line of trade.\n\nThe weeds in our gardens compete with the flowers for food, light,\nand place, and crowd them out unless prevented by man. And when the\nweeds alone remain, they crowd on each other until only a few of the\nhardiest and most vigorous survive. And flowers, by their nectar,\ncolor, and odor, compete for the visits of insects, which insure\ncross-fertilization. And fruits are frequently or usually the\ninducements by which plants compete for the aid of animals in the\ndissemination of their seeds. So there is everywhere competition and\nstruggle; many fail and perish, few succeed and survive.\n\nIn a foot-race it is often very difficult to name the winner. Muscle\nalone does not win, not even good heart and lungs. Good judgment,\npatience, coolness, courage, many mental and moral qualities, are\nessential to the successful athlete. So in the struggle for life.\nThe race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.\n\nThe total of \"points\" which wins this \"grand prize\" is the\naggregate of many items, some of which appear to us very\ninsignificant. Hence, when we ask, \"Who will survive?\" the answer is\nnecessarily vague. Mr. Darwin's answer is, Those best conformed to\ntheir environment; and Mr. Spencer's statement of the survival of\nthe fittest means the same thing.\n\nThe judges who pronounce and execute the verdict of death, or award\nthe prize of life, are the forces and conditions of environment. We\nhave already considered the meaning of this word. Many of its forces\nand conditions are still unknown, or but very imperfectly\nunderstood. But known or unknown, visible or invisible, the result\nof their united action is the extinction or degradation of these\nindividuals which deviate from certain fairly well-marked lines of\ndevelopment. We must keep clearly before our minds the fact that the\nworld of living beings makes up by far the most important part of\nthe environment of any individual plant or animal. Two plants may be\nequally well suited to the soil and climate of any region; but if\none have a scanty development of root or leaf, or is for any reason\nmore liable to attacks from insects or germs, other things being\nequal, it will in time be crowded out by its competitor. Worms are\neaten by lower vertebrates, and these by higher. An animal's\nenvironment, like that of a merchant or manufacturer, is very\nlargely a matter of the ability and methods of its competitors. And\nman, compelled to live in society, makes that part of the\nenvironment by which he is most largely moulded.\n\nThis process of extinction Mr. Darwin has called \"natural\nselection.\" Natural selection is not a force, but a process,\nresulting from the combined action of the forces of environment. It\nis not a cause in any proper sense of the word, but a result of a\nmyriad of interacting forces. The combination of these forces in a\nprocess of natural selection leading directly to a moral and\nspiritual goal demands an explanation in some ultimate cause. This\nexplanation we have already tried to find.\n\nIt is a process of extinction. It favors the fittest, but only by\nleaving them to enjoy the food and place formerly claimed, or still\nfurnished, by the less fit. In any advancing group, as the less fit\nare crowded out, and the better fitted gain more place and food and\nmore rapid increase, the whole species becomes on an average better\nconformed. More abundant nourishment and increased vigor seem also\nto be accompanied by increased variation. And by the extinction of\nthe less fit the probability is increased that more fit individuals\nwill pair with one another and give rise to even fitter offspring,\npossessing perhaps new and still more valuable variations.\n\nBut if, of a group of weaker forms, those alone survive which adopt\na parasitic life, those which in adult life move the least will\nsurvive and reproduce; there will result the survival of the least\nmuscular and nervous. This degeneration will continue until the\nspecies has sunken into equilibrium, so to speak, with its\nsurroundings. Here natural selection works for degeneration. Sessile\nanimals have had a similar history. But these parasitic and sessile\nforms had already been hopelessly distanced in the race for life.\nTheir presence cannot impede the leaders; indeed their survival is\nnecessary to directly or indirectly furnish food for the better\nconformed. In the animal and plant world there is abundant room and\nadvantage at the top.\n\nOnce more, natural selection works as a rule for the survival of\nindividuals, only indirectly for that of organs composing, or of\nspecies including, these individuals. It may work for the\ndevelopment of a trait or structure which, while of no immediate\nadvantage to the individual, increases the probability of its\nrearing a larger number of fitter offspring. Thus defence of the\nyoung by birds may be a disadvantage to the parent, but this is more\nthan counterbalanced in the life of the species by the number of\nyoung coming to maturity and inheriting the trait. Even here natural\nselection favors the survival of the trait indirectly by sparing the\ndescendants of the individual possessing it. Natural selection may\nalways work on and through individuals without always working for\ntheir sole and selfish advantage.\n\nIn human society we find the selection of families, societies,\nnations, and civilizations going on, but mainly as the result of the\nsurvival of the fittest individuals.\n\nThere may very probably be a struggle for existence between organs\nor cells in the body of each individual. The amount of nutriment in\nthe body is a more or less fixed quantity; and if one organ seizes\nmore than its fair share, others may or must diminish for lack. But\nthe limit to this usurpation must apparently be set by the crowding\nout of those individuals in which it is carried too far. Natural\nselection, so to speak, leaves the individual responsible for the\ndistribution of the nutriment among the organs, and spares or\ndestroys the individual as this usurpation proves for its advantage\nor disadvantage.\n\nIt makes its verdict much as the judges at a great poultry or dog\nshow count the series of points, giving each one of them a certain\nvalue on a certain scale, and then award the prize to the individual\nhaving the highest aggregate on the whole series. Any such\nillustration is very liable to mislead; I wish to emphasize that\nfitness to survive is determined by the aggregate of the qualities\nof an individual.\n\nBut an animal having one organ of great value or capacity may thus\ncarry off the prize, even though its other organs deserve a much\nlower mark. This is the case with man. In almost every respect,\nexcept in brain and hand, he is surpassed by the carnivora, the cat,\nfor example. But muscle may be marked, in making up the aggregate,\non a scale of 500, and brain on a scale of 5,000, or perhaps of\n50,000. A very slight difference in brain capacity outweighs a great\nsuperiority in muscle in the struggle between man and the carnivora,\nor between man and man.\n\nThe scale on which an organ is marked will be proportional to its\nusefulness under the conditions given at a given time. During the\nperiod of development of worms and lower vertebrates much muscle\nwith a little brain was more useful than more brain with less\nmuscle. Hence, as a rule, the more muscular survived; the brain\nincreasing slowly, at first apparently largely because of its\ncorrelation with muscle and sense-organs. At a later date muscle,\ntooth, and claw were more useful on the ground; brain and hand in\nthe trees. Hence carnivora ruled the ground, and certain arboreal\napes became continually more anthropoid. At a later date brain\nbecame more useful even on the ground, and was marked on a higher\nscale, because it could invent traps and weapons against which\nmuscle was of little avail. Just at present brain is of use to, and\nvalued by, a large portion of society in proportion to its\nefficiency in making and selfishly spending money. But slowly and\nsurely it is becoming of use as an organ of thought, for the sake of\nthe truth which it can discover and incarnate.\n\nNatural selection works thus apparently for the survival of the\nindividuals possessing in the aggregate the most complete conformity\nto environment. Let us now imagine that an animal is so constructed\nas to be capable of variation along several disadvantageous or\nneutral lines, and along only one which is advantageous. The\ndevelopment would of course proceed along the advantageous line. Let\nus farther imagine that to the descendants of this individual two,\nand only two, advantageous lines of variations are allowed by its\nstructure. Then natural selection would probably favor the decidedly\nadvantageous line, if such there were. But as long as the structure\nof the animal allows variation along only a few lines, the\ntwo advantageous variations would, according to the law of\nprobabilities, frequently occur in the same individual. The eggs and\nspermatozoa of two such individuals might not infrequently unite,\nand thus in time the two characteristics be inherited by a large\nfraction of the species.\n\nAnd now let me quote from Mr. Spencer:\n\n   \"But in proportion as the life grows complex--in proportion as a\n   healthy existence cannot be secured by a large endowment of some\n   one power, but demands many powers; in the same proportion do\n   there arise obstacles to the increase of any particular power, by\n   'the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.' As\n   fast as the faculties are multiplied, so fast does it become\n   possible for the several members of a species to have various\n   kinds of superiorities over one another. While one saves its life\n   by higher speed, another does the like by clearer vision, another\n   by keener scent, another by quicker hearing, another by greater\n   strength, another by unusual power of enduring cold or hunger,\n   another by special sagacity, another by special timidity, another\n   by special courage; and others by other bodily and mental\n   attributes. Now it is unquestionably true that, other things\n   equal, each of these attributes, giving its possessor an extra\n   chance of life, is likely to be transmitted to posterity. But\n   there seems no reason to suppose that it will be increased in\n   subsequent generations by natural selection. That it may be thus\n   increased, the individuals not possessing more than average\n   endowments of it must be more frequently killed off than\n   individuals highly endowed with it; and this can happen only when\n   the attribute is one of greater importance, for the time being,\n   than most of the other attributes. If those members of the\n   species which have but ordinary shares of it, nevertheless\n   survive by virtue of other superiorities which they severally\n   possess, then it is not easy to see how this particular attribute\n   can be developed by natural selection in subsequent generations.\n   The probability seems rather to be that, by gamogenesis, this\n   extra endowment will, on the average, be diminished in\n   posterity--just serving in the long run to compensate the\n   deficient endowments of other individuals whose special powers\n   lie in other directions, and so to keep up the normal structure\n   of the species. The working out of the process is here somewhat\n   difficult to follow; but it appears to me that as fast as the\n   number of bodily and mental faculties increases, and as fast as\n   the maintenance of life comes to depend less on the amount of any\n   one, and more on the combined action of all, so fast does the\n   production of specialties of character by natural selection alone\n   become difficult. Particularly does this seem to be so with a\n   species so multitudinous in its powers as mankind, and above all\n   does it seem to be so with such of the human powers as have but\n   minor shares in aiding the struggle for life--the \u00e6sthetic\n   faculties for example.\"--Spencer, \"Principles of Biology,\" \u00a7 166.\n\nCan thus natural selection, acting upon fortuitous variations, be\nthe sole guiding process concerned in progress? Must there not be\nsome combining power to produce the higher individuals which are\nprerequisites to the working of natural selection?\n\nWe are considering the efficiency of natural selection in enhancing\nuseful variations through a series of generations. Let us return to\nthe distinction between productiveness and prospectiveness of social\ncapital. Applied to variations productiveness means immediate\nadvantage, prospectiveness the greater future and permanent returns.\nNow all persisting variations must, in animals below man, apparently\nbe somewhat productive, else they would not continue, much less\nincrease. Now the immediate return from prospective variations is\noften smaller than from productive. It looks at first as if\nproductive variations would always be preserved by natural\nselection, and that prospective variations would not long advance.\nYet in the muscular system variations valuable largely for their\nfuture value are neither few nor unimportant. How can the brain in\nits infancy develop until it gains supremacy over muscle, or muscle\nhave done the same with digestion? Now a partial explanation of this\nis to be found in the correlation of organs. This is therefore a\nfactor of vast importance in progress through evolution.\n\nProgress in any one line demands correlated changes in many organs.\nThus in the advance of annelids to insects the muscular system\nincreases in relative bulk, and absolutely in complexity. But a\nchange or increase in the muscle must be accompanied by\ncorresponding changes in the motor-nerve fibrils; and these again\nwould be useless unless accompanied by increased complexity and more\nor less readjustment of the cells and fibrils of the nerve-centres.\nAnd all these additions to, and readjustments of, the nerve-centres\nmust take place without any disturbance of the other necessary\nadjustments already attained. This is no simple problem.\n\nWe will here neglect the fact that many other changes are going on\nsimultaneously. Legs are being formed or moulded into jaws, the\nanterior segments are fusing into a head, and their ganglia into a\nbrain; an external skeleton is developing. Furthermore the increase\nof the muscular and nervous systems must be accompanied by increased\npowers of digestion, respiration, and excretion. Practically the\nwhole body is being recast. We insist only on the necessity of\nsimultaneous and parallel changes in muscles, nerves, and\nnerve-centres; though what is true of these is true, in greater or\nless degree, of all the other organs.\n\nYou may answer that this is to be explained by the law of\ncorrelation of organs; that when changes in one organ demand\ncorresponding changes in another, these two change similarly and\nmore or less at the same time and rate. But this is evidently not an\nexplanation but a restatement of the fact. The question remains,\nWhat makes the organs vary simultaneously so as to always correspond\nto each other? The whole series of changes must to some extent be\neffected at once and in the same individual, if it is to be\npreserved by natural selection. Fortuitous variations here and there\nalong the line of the series are of little or no avail. That the\nwhole series of variations should happen to occur in one animal is\naltogether against the law of probabilities; if the favorable\nvariation occurs in only a part of the series it remains useless\nuntil the corresponding variation has taken place in the other\nterms. And while the variation is thus awaiting its completion, so\nto speak, it is useless, and cannot be fostered by natural\nselection.\n\nEvolution by means of fortuitous variations, combined and controlled\nonly through natural selection, seems to me at least impossible; and\nthis view is, I think, steadily gaining ground.\n\nNatural selection, while a real and very important factor in\nevolution, cannot be its sole and exclusive explanation. It\npresupposes other factors, which we as yet but dimly perceive. And\nthis does not impeach the validity of Mr. Darwin's theory any more\nthan Newton's theory of gravitation is impeached by the fact that it\noffers no explanation as to why the apple falls or how bodies\nattract one another.\n\nFor natural selection explains the survival, but not the origin, of\nthe fittest. Given a species or other group composed of more and\nless fit individuals and the fittest will survive. How does it come\nabout that there are any more and less fit individuals? This brings\nus to the consideration of the subject of variation.\n\nLet us begin with a simple case of change in the adult body. The\nworkman grasps his tools day after day, and his hands become horny.\nThe skin has evidently thickened, somewhat as on the soles of the\nfeet. This is no mere mechanical result of pressure alone.\nContinuous pressure would produce the opposite result. But under the\nstimulus of intermittent pressure the capillaries, or smallest blood\nvessels, furnish more nutriment to the cells composing the lowest\nlayer of the outer skin or epidermis. These cells, being better\nnourished, reproduce by division more rapidly, and the epidermis,\nbecoming composed of a greater number of layers of cells, thickens.\nThe outer-most layers, being farthest from the blood supply, dry up\nand are packed together into a horny mass.\n\nIf I go out into the sunshine I become tanned. This again is not a\ndirect and purely chemical or physical result of the sun's rays, but\nthese have stimulated the cells of the skin to undergo certain\nmodifications. Any change in the living body under changed\nconditions is not passive, but an active reaction to a stimulus\nfurnished by the surroundings. The same stimulus may excite very\ndifferent reactions in different individuals or species.\n\nEarly in this century a farmer, Seth Wright, found among his lambs a\nyoung ram with short legs and long body. The farmer kept the ram,\nreasoning that his short legs would prevent him from leading the\nflock over the farm-walls and fences. From this ram was descended\nthe breed of ancon, or otter, sheep. Now the stimulus which had\nexcited this variation must have been applied early in embryonic\nlife, or perhaps during the formation or maturing of the germ-cells\nthemselves. Such a variation we call a congenital variation.\n\nThese cases are merely illustrations of the general truth that in\nevery variation there are two factors concerned: the living being\nwith its constitution and inherent tendencies and the external\nstimulus.\n\nThe courses of the different balls in a charge of grape-shot, hurled\nfrom a cannon, are evidently due to two sets of forces--1, their\ninitial energy and the direction of their aim; 2, the deflecting\npower of resisting objects or forces--or the different balls might\nroll with great velocity down a precipitous mountain-side. In the\nfirst case velocity and direction of course would be determined\nlargely by initial impulse; in the second, by the attraction of the\nearth and by the inequalities of its surface.\n\nIn evolution, environment, roughly speaking, corresponds to these\ndeflecting or attracting external objects or forces; inherent\ntendencies to initial impulse. If we lay great weight on initial\ntendencies, inherent in protoplasm from the very beginning, we shall\nprobably lay less stress on natural selection as a guiding,\ndirecting process.\n\nThe great botanist, N\u00e4geli, has propounded a most ingenious and\nelaborate theory of evolution, as dependent mainly on inherent\ninitial tendency. We can notice only one or two of its salient\npoints. All development is, according to his view, due to a tendency\nin the primitive living substance toward more complete division of\nlabor and greater complexity. This tendency, which he calls\nprogression, or the tendency toward perfection, is the result of the\nchemical and molecular structure of the formative controlling\nprotoplasm (idioplasm) of the body, and is transmitted with other\nparental traits from generation to generation. And structural\ncomplexity thus increases like money at compound interest.\nDevelopment is a process of unfolding or of realization of the\npossibilities of this tendency under the stimulus of surrounding\ninfluences. Environment plays an essential part in his system. But\nonly such changes are transmissible to future generations as have\nresulted from modifications arising in the idioplasm. Descendants of\nplants which have varied under changed conditions revert, as a rule,\nto the old type, when returned to the old surroundings. And in the\nanimal world effects of use and disuse are, according to his view,\nnot transmissible.\n\nNatural selection plays a very subordinate part. It is purely\ndestructive. Given an infinity of place and nourishment--do away,\nthat is, with all struggle and selection--and the living world would\nhave advanced, purely by the force of the progressive tendency, just\nas far as it now has; only there would have survived an indefinite\nnumber of intermediate forms. It would have differed from our\npresent living world as the milky way does from the starry\nfirmament.\n\nHe compares the plant kingdom to a great, luxurious tree, branching\nfrom its very base, whose twigs would represent the present stage of\nour different species. Left to itself it would put out a chaos of\ninnumerable branches. Natural selection, like a gardener, prunes the\ntree into shape. Children might imagine that the gardener caused the\ngrowth; but the tree would have been broader and have branched more\nluxuriantly if left to itself.[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: See N\u00e4geli, \"Theorie der Abstammungslehre,\" p. 18;\n  also pp. 12, 118, 285.]\n\nEvery species must vary perpetually. Now this proposition is\napparently not in accord with fact; for some have remained unchanged\nduring immense periods. And natural selection, by removing the less\nfit, certainly appears to contribute to progress by raising the\naverage of the species. The theory seems extreme and one-sided. And\nyet it has done great service by calling in question the\nall-sufficiency of natural selection and the modifying power of\nenvironment, and by emphasizing, probably overmuch, the importance\nof initial inherent tendency, whose value has been entirely\nneglected by many evolutionists.\n\nLack of space compels us to leave unnoticed most of the exceedingly\nvaluable suggestions of N\u00e4geli's brilliant work.\n\nIt is still less possible to do any justice in a few words to\nWeismann's theory. Into its various modifications, as it has grown\nfrom year to year, we have no time to enter. And we must confine\nourselves to his views of variation and heredity.\n\nIn studying protozoa we noticed that they reproduced by fission,\neach adult individual dividing into two young ones. There is\ntherefore no old parent left to die. Natural death does not occur\nhere, only death by violence or unfavorable conditions. The protozoa\nare immortal, not in the sense of the endless persistence of the\nindividual, but of the absence of death. Heredity is here easily\ncomprehensible, for one-half, or less frequently a smaller fraction,\nof the substance of the parent goes to form the new individual.\nThere is direct continuity of substance from generation to\ngeneration.\n\nBut in volvox a change has taken place. The fertilized egg-cell,\nformed by the union of egg and spermatozoon, is a single cell, like\nthe individual resulting from the conjugation or fusion of two\nprotozoa. But in the many-celled individual, which develops out of\nthe fertilized egg, there are two kinds of cells. 1. There are other\negg-cells, like the first, each one of which can, under favorable\nconditions, develop into a multicellular individual like the\nparent. And the germ-cells (eggs and spermatozoa) of volvox are\nimmortal like the protozoa. But, 2, there are nutritive, somatic\ncells, which nourish and transport the germ-cells, and after their\ndischarge die. These somatic cells, being mortal, differ altogether\nfrom the germ-cells and the protozoa. The protoplasm must differ in\nchemical, or molecular, or other structure in the two cases, and we\ndistinguish the germ-plasm of the germ-cells, resembling in certain\nrespects N\u00e4geli's idioplasm, from somatoplasm, which performs most\nof the functions of the cell. The somatoplasm arises from, and hence\nmust be regarded as a modification of, the germ-plasm. The\ngerm-plasm can increase indefinitely in the lapse of generations,\nincrease of the somatoplasm is limited.\n\nWhen a new individual develops, a certain portion of the germ-plasm\nof the egg is set aside and remains unchanged in structure. This,\nincreasing in quantity, forms the reproductive elements for the next\ngeneration. The germ-plasm, which does not form the whole of each\nreproductive element, but only a part of the nucleus, is thus an\nexceedingly stable substance. And there is a just as real continuity\nof germ-plasm through successive generations of volvox, or of any\nhigher plants or animals, as in successive generations of protozoa.\n\nIn certain plants there is an underground stem or rootstock, which\ngrows perennially, and each year produces a plant from a bud at its\nend. This underground rootstock would represent the continuous\ngerm-plasm of successive generations; the plants which yearly arise\nfrom it would represent the successive generations of adult\nindividuals, composed mainly of somatoplasm. Or we may imagine a\nlong chain, with a pendant attached to each tenth or one-hundredth\nlink. The links of the chain would represent the series of\ngenerations of germ-cells; the pendants, the adults of successive\ngenerations.\n\nBut any leaf of begonia can be made to develop into a new plant,\ngiving rise to germ-cells. Here there must be scattered through the\nleaves of the plant small portions of germ-plasm, which generally\nremain dormant, and only under special conditions increase and give\nrise to germ-cells.\n\nA large part of the germ-plasm of the fertilized egg is used to give\nrise to the somatoplasm composing the different systems of the\nembryo and adult. Weismann's explanation of this change of\ngerm-plasm into somatoplasm is very ingenious, and depends upon his\ntheory of the structure of the germ-plasm; and this latter theory\nforms the basis of his theory of evolution. It would take too long\nto state his theory of the structure of germ-plasm, but an\nillustration may present fairly clear all that is of special\nimportance to us.\n\nThe molecules of germ-plasm are grouped in units, and these in an\nascending series of units of continually increasing complexity,\nuntil at last we find the highest unit represented in the nucleus of\nthe germ-cell. This grouping of molecules in units of increasing\ncomplexity is like the grouping of the men of an army in companies,\nregiments, brigades, divisions, etc.\n\nTo form the somatoplasm of the different tissues of the body, this\ncomplicated organization breaks up, as the egg divides, into an\never-increasing number of cells. First, so to speak, the corps\nseparate to preside over the formation of different body regions.\nThen the different divisions, brigades, and regiments, composing\neach next higher unit, separate, being detailed to form ever\nsmaller portions of the body. The process of changing germ-plasm\ninto somatoplasm is one of disintegration. The germ-plasm\ncontains representatives of the whole army; a somatic cell only\nrepresentatives of one special arm of a special training. Germ-plasm\nin the egg is like Humpty-Dumpty on the wall; somatoplasm, like\nHumpty-Dumpty after his great fall.\n\nI use these rude illustrations to make clear one point: Germ-plasm\ncan easily change into somatoplasm, but somatoplasm once formed can\nnever be reconverted into germ-plasm, any more than the fallen hero\nof the nursery rhyme could ever be restored.\n\nThe germ-plasm is, according to Weismann, a very peculiar, complex,\nstable substance, continuous from generation to generation since the\nfirst appearance of life on the globe. It is in the body of the\nparent, but scarcely of it. Its relation to the body is like that of\na plant to the soil or of a parasite to its host. It receives from\nthe body practically only transport and nourishment. It is like a\nself-perpetuating, close corporation; and the somatoplasm has no\nmeans of either controlling it or of gaining representation in it.\n\nSays Weismann[A]: \"The germ-cells are contained in the organism, and\nthe external influences which affect them are intimately connected\nwith the state of the organism in which they lie hid. If it be well\nnourished, the germ-cells will have abundant nutriment; and,\nconversely, if it be weak and sickly, the germ-cells will be\narrested in their growth. It is even possible that the effects of\nthese influences may be more specialized; that is to say, they may\nact only upon certain parts of the germ-cells. But this is indeed\nvery different from believing that the changes of the organism which\nresult from external stimuli can be transmitted to the germ-cells\nand will redevelop in the next generation at the same time as that\nat which they arose in the parent, and in the same part of the\norganism.\"\n\n  [Footnote A: Essays upon Heredity, p. 105.]\n\nBut if the germ-plasm has this constitution and relation to the rest\nof the body, how is any variation possible? Different individuals of\nany species have slightly different congenital tendencies. Hence in\nthe act of fertilization two germ-plasms of slightly different\nstructure and tendency are mingled. The mingling of the two produces\na germ-plasm and individual differing from both of the parents.\nThus, according to Weismann's earlier view, the origin of variation\nwas to be sought in sexual reproduction through the mingling of\nslightly different germ-plasms.\n\nBut how did these two germ-plasms come to be different? How was the\nvariation started? To explain this Weismann went back to the\nunicellular protozoa. These animals are undoubtedly influenced by\nenvironment and vary under its stimuli. Here the variations were\nstamped upon the germ-plasm, and the commingling of these variously\nstamped germ-plasms has resulted in all the variations of higher\nanimals.\n\nOf late Weismann has modified and greatly improved this portion of\nhis theory. He now accepts the view that external influences may act\nupon the germ-plasm not only in protozoa but also in all higher\nanimals. Variation is thus due to the action or stimulus of\nexternal influences, supplemented by sexual reproduction.\n\nBut the very constitution of the germ-plasm and its relation to the\nbody absolutely forbids the transmission of acquired somatic\ncharacteristics and of the special effects of use and disuse.\nMuscular activity promotes general health, and might thus conduce to\nbetter-nourished germ-cells and to more vigorous and therefore\nathletic descendants. The exercise of the muscles might possibly\ncause such a condition of the blood that the portion of the\ngerm-plasm representing the muscular system of the next generation\nmight be especially nourished or stimulated. Thus an athletic parent\nmight produce more athletic children.\n\nBut let us imagine twin brothers of equal muscular development. One\nfrom childhood on exercises the lower half of his body; the other,\nthe upper. Both take the same amount of exercise, and have perhaps\nequal muscular development, but located in different halves of the\nbody. Now it is hard to conceive that it can make any difference in\nthe nourishing or stimulating influence of the blood, whether the\nmuscular activity resides in one half of the body or the other. The\nchildren might be exactly alike.\n\nOne man drives the pen, a second plays the piano, and a third wields\na light hammer. All three use different muscles of the hand and arm.\nHow can this use of special muscles stamp itself upon the germ-cells\nin such a way that the offspring will have these special muscles\nenlarged? Granting that external influences of environment and\nbodily condition may effect the germ-cells; granting even that some\nof the most general effects of use and disuse might be transmitted,\nwhat warrant have we for believing that the special acquired\ncharacteristic can be transmitted? Weismann answers, None at all.\nThe somatoplasm can only in the most general way affect the\nself-perpetuating, close corporation of the germ-plasm.[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Weismann, Essays, p. 286.]\n\nThere is thus, according to Weismann, nothing to direct variation to\ncertain organs, or to guide and combine the variations of these\norgans along certain lines, except natural selection. To a certain\nextent variation may be limited by the very structure of the animal.\nBut within these limits there are wide ranges where one variation is\napparently just as likely to occur as another.\n\nWithin these wide limits variation appears to be fortuitous. Natural\nselection must wait until the individuals appear in which these\nvariations occur already correlated, and then seize upon these\nindividuals. It is apparently the only guiding, directing force.\nLinear variation, that is, a variation advancing continuously along\none or very few straight lines, would appear to be impossible.\n\nIn N\u00e4geli's theory initial tendency is overwhelmingly dominant; in\nWeismann's, natural selection is almighty.\n\nWeismann's followers have received the name of Neo-Darwinians. The\nso-called Neo-Lamarckian school believes in the transmissibility of\nacquired characteristics, and of at least particular effects of use\nand disuse. The one theory is neither more nor less Darwinian than\nthe other. For while Darwin emphasized natural selection, he\naccepted to a certain extent the transmission of special effects of\nuse and disuse.\n\nA special theory of heredity, pangenesis, has been accepted by many\nof the Neo-Lamarckian school. The theory of pangenesis, as\npropounded by Mr. Darwin, may be very briefly stated as follows: The\ncells in all parts of the body are continually throwing off germinal\nparticles, or \"gemmules.\" These become scattered through the body,\ngrow, and multiply by division. On account of mutual attraction they\nunite in the reproductive glands to form eggs or spermatozoa. The\ngerm-cells are thus the bearers of heredity because they contain\nsamples, so to speak, of all the organs of the body.\n\nIn heredity, according to Weismann's theory, the egg is the centre\nof control, the continuous germ-plasm the source of all transmitted\nchanges; according to Darwin's theory, the body is the source, and\nthe egg is derived in great part at least from it. If you put to the\ntwo the time-honored question, Which is first, the owl or the egg?\nWeismann would announce, with emphasis, The egg; Darwin would say,\nThe owl. One proposition is the converse of the other, and most\nfacts accord almost equally well with both theories.\n\nIn any family, devoted for generations to literary or artistic\npursuits, the children show, as a rule, an aptitude for such\npursuits not manifested by those of other families. According to the\nNeo-Lamarckian view, this inherited aptitude is to a certain extent\nthe result of the constant exercise of these faculties through a\nseries of generations. The active efforts and voluntary disposition\nof the parents have given an increased predisposition to the child.\n\"Quite the reverse,\" says Weismann, \"the increase of an organ in the\ncourse of generations does not depend upon the summation of\nexercise taken during single lives, but upon the summation of more\nfavorable predispositions in the germ.\" \"An organism cannot acquire\nanything unless it already possesses the predisposition to acquire\nit.\"[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Weismann, Essays, pp. 85 and 171.]\n\nWe may accept or deny this last statement, but it is evident\nthat facts like these, and indeed the origin of most or all\ncharacteristics involving use or disuse, may be explained almost\nequally well by either theory.\n\nBut as far as the transmission of effects of somatic changes is\nconcerned, if protozoa undergo special modifications under the\ninfluence of external conditions, will not the germ-cells undergo\nspecial modification under the influence of changes in the\nsomatoplasm which forms their immediate environment? We must never\nforget the close relationship between all the cells of the body, and\nhow slight a change in the body or its surroundings may conduce to\nsterility or fertility. Such isolation and independence in the body,\non the part of the germ-cells, is opposed to all that we know of the\norganic unity of the body, whose cells have arisen by the\ndifferentiation of, and division of labor between, cells primitively\nalike. The facts of bud-variation, of changes in the parent stock\ndue to grafting, and others, of which Mr. Darwin has given a summary\nin the eleventh chapter of the first volume of his \"Plants and\nAnimals under Domestication,\" have never been adequately explained\nby Weismann in accordance with his theory. He has perhaps succeeded\nin parrying their force by showing that some such explanation is\nconceivable; they still point strongly against him.\n\nWilson has good reason for his \"steadily growing conviction that\nthe cell is not a self-regulating mechanism in itself, that no cell\nis isolated, and that Weismann's fundamental proposition is false.\"\n\nBut, granting the force of these criticisms, the question still\nremains, Is the special effect of use or disuse transmissible? Would\nthe blacksmith's son have a stronger right arm?\n\n1. The isolation and independence of the germ-cells, which Weismann\npostulates as opposing this, can hardly be as great as he thinks. 2.\nIt is in his view impossible to conceive how these acquired\ncharacteristics can in any way reach and affect the germ-cells in\nsuch a manner as to reappear in the next generation. 3. All\nvariations can be explained by his own theory without such\ntransmission. Why then believe that acquired characteristics can in\nsome inconceivable way affect the germ-cells so as to reappear in\nthe next generation, as long as all the facts can be explained in a\nmore simple and easily conceivable manner?\n\nAs to his second argument, I would readily acknowledge that it is at\npresent difficult or impossible for me to conceive how any cell can\nact upon another, except through the nutrient or other fluids which\nit can produce. But though I cannot conceive how one cell can affect\nanother, I may be compelled to believe that it does so. And this\nWeismann readily acknowledges.\n\nDriesch changed by pressure the relative position of the cells of a\nvery young embryo, so that those which in a normal embryo would have\nproduced one organ were now compelled, if used at all, to form quite\na different one. And yet these displaced cells formed the organ\nrequired of cells normally occupying this new position, not the one\nfor which they were normally intended. And the organ which they\nwould have builded in a normal embryo was now formed by other cells\ntransferred to their rightful place.\n\nWhat made them thus change? Not change of substance or structure,\nfor the slight pressure could hardly have modified this. Not change\nof nutriment. The only visible or easily conceivable change was in\nposition relative to other cells of the embryo.\n\nLet us in imagination simplify Driesch's experiment, for the sake of\ngaining a clearer view of its meaning. In a certain embryo at an\nearly stage are certain cells whose descendants should form the\nlining of the intestine and be used in the adult for digestion. A\nsecond set of cells should form muscle endowed mainly with\ncontractility. When these two sets of cells, or some of them,\nexchange positions in the embryo, they exchange lines of\ndevelopment. The first set now form muscle, the second digestive\ntissue. The only change has been in their relative positions.\nDriesch maintains, therefore, that the goal of development in any\nembryonic cell is determined not by structure or nutriment but by\nposition. And this would seem to be true of the cells of the\nearliest embryonic stages.\n\nCertain other experiments point in the same direction. Cut a hydra\ninto equal halves and each half will form a complete animal. The\nlower half forms a new top, with mouth and tentacles; the upper\nhalf, a new base. Cut the other hydra a hair's-breadth farther up.\nThe same layer of cells which in the first animal formed the lower\nexposed surface of the upper half now forms the upper exposed\nsurface of the lower half. And with this change of position it has\nchanged its line of development; it will now give rise to a new\nupper half, not a base as before. The same experiment can be tried\non certain worms with similar results, only head and tail differ far\nmore than top and base of hydra. Difference in the position of cells\nhas made vast difference in their line of development. Now in both\nembryo and adult there must be some directing influence guiding\nthese cells. What is it?\n\nAn army is more than a mob of individuals; it is individuals plus\norganization, discipline, authority. A republic is not square miles\nof territory and thousands or millions of inhabitants. It is these\nplus organization, central government. Webster claimed that the\ncentral government was, and had to be, before the states. The\norganism cannot exist without its parts; it has a very real\nexistence in and through them. It can coerce them. The state may be\nan abstraction, but it is one against which it is usually fatal to\nrebel, and which can say to a citizen, Go and be hanged, and he\nstraightway mounts the scaffold. Now these are analogies and prove\nnothing. But in so far as they throw light on the essential idea of\nan organism, they may aid us in gaining a right view of our \"cell\nrepublic.\"\n\nSays Whitman in a very interesting article on the \"Inadequacy of the\nCell-Theory\": \"That organization precedes cell-formation and\nregulates it, rather than the reverse, is a conclusion that forces\nitself upon us from many sides.\" \"The structure which we see in a\ncell-mosaic is something superadded to organization, not itself the\nfoundation of organization. Comparative embryology reminds us at\nevery turn that the organism dominates cell-formation, using for\nthe same purpose one, several, or many cells, massing its material\nand directing its movements, and shaping its organs as if cells did\nnot exist, or as if they existed only in complete subordination to\nits will, if I may so speak. The organization of the egg is carried\nforward to the adult as an unbroken physiological unity, or\nindividuality, through all modifications and transformations.\" And\nWilson, Whitman, Hertwig, and others urge \"that the organism as a\nwhole controls the formative processes going on in each part\" of the\nembryo. And many years ago Huxley wrote, \"They (the cells) are no\nmore the producers of the vital phenomena than the shells scattered\nalong the sea-beach are the instruments by which the gravitative\nforce of the moon acts upon the ocean. Like these, the cells mark\nonly where the vital tides have been, and how they have acted.\"[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: See articles by Whitman and Wilson, Journal of\n  Morphology, vol. viii., pp. 649, 607, etc.]\n\n\"Interaction of cells\" can help us but little. For how can\nneighboring cells direct others placed in a new position? The\nexpression, if not positively misleading and untrue, is at the best\nonly a restatement of fact. It certainly offers no explanation.\nFlood-tide is not due to the interaction of particles of water,\nthough this may influence the form of the waves.\n\nThe centre of control is therefore not to be sought in individual\ncells, whether germ-cells or somatic, but in the organism. And it is\nthe whole organism, one and indivisible, which controls in germ,\nembryo, and adult, in egg and owl. This individuality, or whatever\nyou will call it, impresses itself upon developing somatic cells,\nmoulding them into appropriate organs, and upon germ-cells in\nprocess of formation, moulding them so that they may continue its\nsway. The muscle, modified by use or disuse, is a better expression\nof the individuality of its possessor, and the same individuality\nmoulds similarly and simultaneously the germ-cells. Both are\ndifferent expressions or manifestations of the same individuality.\nOnly slowly does the individuality mould the muscles and nerves of\nthe adult body to its use. Still more slow may be the moulding of\nthe still more refractory germ-plasm, if such there be. But the\nmoulding process goes on parallel in the two cases.\n\nBut Weismann's argument rests not merely upon any difficulty or\nimpossibility of the transmissibility of acquired characteristics.\nHis argument is rather that all facts can be better explained by his\ntheory without postulating or accepting such transmission, cases of\nwhich have never been absolutely proven. But the question is not\nwhether his theory offers a possible explanation of the facts, but\nwhether it is the most probable explanation of all the facts. No one\nwould deny, I think, that the continuity of the germ-plasm offers\nthe best and most natural explanation of heredity; and that\nvariations could be produced by the influence on the germ-plasm of\nexternal conditions seems entirely probable.\n\nBut when we consider the aggregation of these variations in a\nprocess of evolution, his theory seems unsatisfactory. We have\nalready seen that what we commonly call a variation involves not one\nchange, but a series of changes, each term of which is necessary.\nMuscle, nerve, and ganglion must all vary simultaneously and\ncorrespondingly. Correlation and combination are just as essential\nas variation. And evolution often demands the disappearance of less\nfit structures just as much as the advance of the fittest. Says\nOsborne, \"It is misleading to base our theory of evolution and\nheredity solely upon entire organs; in the hand and foot we have\nnumerous cases of muscles in close contiguity, one steadily\ndeveloping, the other degenerating.\" Weismann offers the explanation\nthat \"if the average amount of food which an animal can assimilate\nevery day remains constant for a considerable time, it follows that\na strong influx toward one organ must be accompanied by a drain upon\nothers, and this tendency will increase, from generation to\ngeneration, in proportion to the development of the growing organ,\nwhich is favored by natural selection in its increased blood-supply,\netc.; while the operation of natural selection has also determined\nthe organ which can bear a corresponding loss without detriment to\nthe organism as a whole.\"[A]\n\n  [Footnote A: Weismann, Essays, p. 88.]\n\nHere again natural selection of individuals, not the diminished\nsupply of nutriment, has to determine which of many muscles shall be\npoorly fed and which favored. But natural selection can favor\nspecial organs only indirectly through the individuals which possess\nsuch organs. Variation is fortuitous, and there is nothing, except\nnatural selection, to combine or direct them. And, I think, we have\nalready seen that any theory which neglects or excludes such\ndirecting and combining agencies must be unsatisfactory and\ninadequate. Weismann has promised us an explanation of correlation\nof variation in accordance with his theory; and if such an\nexplanation can be made, it would remove one of the strongest\nobjections. But for the present the objection has very great weight.\n\nFurthermore, as Osborne has insisted, linear variations, or\nvariations proceeding along certain single and well-marked lines,\nwould seem inexplicable by, if not fatal to, Weismann's theory. And\nyet Osborne, Cope, and others have shown that the teeth of mammals\nhave developed steadily along well-marked lines. They have\napparently not resulted at all by selection from a host of\nfortuitous variations.\n\nSays Osborne in his \"Cartwright Lectures\"[A]: \"It is evident that\nuse and disuse characterize all the centres of evolution; that\nchanges of structure are slowly following on changes of function or\nhabit. In eight independent regions of evolution in the human body\nthere are upward of twenty developing organs, upward of thirty\ndegenerating organs.\" Now this parallelism, through a long series of\ngenerations, between the evolution of organs, their advance or\ndegeneration, and the use or disuse of these same organs, that is,\nof the habits of the individual, is certainly of great significance.\nIt must have an explanation; and the most natural one would seem to\nbe the transmission of the effects of use and disuse.\n\n  [Footnote A: American Naturalist, vols. xxv. and xxvi.]\n\nOn the whole Osborne's verdict would seem just: The Neo-Lamarckian\ntheory fails to explain heredity, Weismann's theory does not explain\nevolution. But, if the effects of use and disuse are transmitted,\ncorrelation of variation is to be expected. Muscle, nerve, and\nganglion all vary in correlation because they are all used together\nand in like degree. Evolution and degeneration of muscles in hand\nand foot go on side by side, because some are used and some are\ndisused. Centres of use and disuse must be centres of evolution. And\nthere would be as many distinct centres of evolution in different\nparts of the body as there were centres of use and disuse. And\nbetween these centres there might be no correlation except\nthat of use and disuse. Brain, muscles, and jaws would develop\nsimultaneously in the ancestors of insects. And the effects of use\nand disuse, transmitted through a series of generations, would be\ncumulative. The species advances rapidly because all its members\nhave in general the same habits; the same parts are advancing or\ndegenerating, although at different rates, in all its individuals.\nAn animal having an organ highly developed is far less likely to\npair with one having a lower development of the same organ. The\nNeo-Lamarckian theory supplies thus what is lacking in the\nNeo-Darwinian.\n\nIn lower forms, like hydra, of simple structure and comparatively\nfew possibilities of variation, natural selection is dominant. In\nhigher forms, like vertebrates, and especially in man, it is of\ndecidedly subordinate value as a promoter of evolution. For man, as\nwe have seen, is a marvellously complex being. The great difficulty\nin his case is not so much to quickly gain new and favorable\nvariations as to keep all the organs and powers of the body steadily\nadvancing side by side. Natural selection has in man the important\nbut subordinate position of the judge in a criminal court, to\npronounce the death verdict on the hopeless and incorrigible.\n\nBoth Neo-Darwinians and Neo-Lamarckians have erred in being too\nexclusively mechanical in their theories. It is the main business of\nthe scientific man to discover and study mechanisms. But he must\nremember that mechanism does not produce force, it only transmits\nit. If he maintains that he has nothing to do with anything outside\nof mechanism, that the invisible and imponderable force lies outside\nof his domain, he has handed over to metaphysics the fairest and\nrichest portion of his realm. In our fear of being metaphysical we\nhave swung to another extreme, and have lost sight of valuable truth\nwhich lay at the bottom of the old vitalistic theories. Cells,\ntissues, and organs are but channels along which the flood of\nlife-force flows. Boveri has well said, \"There is too much\nintelligence (Verstand) in nature for any purely mechanical theory\nto be possible.\"\n\nEach theory contains important truth. N\u00e4geli's view of the\nimportance of initial tendencies, inherent in the original living\nsubstance, is too often undervalued. My own conviction, at least, is\nsteadily strengthening that, without some such original tendency or\naim, evolution would never have reached its present culmination in\nman. His error lies in emphasizing this factor too exclusively. The\nfundamental proposition of Weismann's theory, that heredity is due\nto continuity of germ-plasm, seems to contain important truth. But\nwe need not therefore accept his theory of a germ-plasm so isolated\nand independent as to be beyond control or influence by the\nhabits of the body. The importance of use and disuse, and the\ntransmissibility of their effects, would seem to supply a factor\nessential to evolution. Weismann has done good service in\nemphasizing the stability of the germ-plasm. Evolution is always\nslow, and, for that very reason, sure.\n\nIf these conclusions are correct, they have an important practical\nbearing. Struggle and effort are essential to progress. Not inborn\ntalent alone, but the use which one makes of it, counts in\nevolution. The effects of use and disuse are cumulative. The\nhard-fought battle of past generations becomes an easy victory in\nthe present, just because of the strength acquired and handed down\nfrom the past struggle. Persistent variation toward evil is in time\nweeded out by natural selection. And, while evil remains in the\nworld, we are to lay up stores of strength for ourselves and our\ndescendants by sturdily fighting it. But the effects of right living\nthrough a hundred generations are not overcome by the criminal life\nof one or two. Evil surroundings weigh more in producing criminals\nthan heredity, and their children are not irreclaimable.\n\nThe struggles and victories of each one of us encourage the rest.\nThere is, to borrow Mr. Huxley's language, not only a survival of\nthe fittest, but a fitting of as many as possible to survive. And in\nthe midst of the hardest struggle there is the peace which comes\nfrom the assurance of a glorious triumph.\n\n\n\n                Condensed Chart of Development of the Main Line\n                    of the Animal Kingdom leading to Man.\n\n               |                            | ORGANS        | MOST RAPIDLY\n  PHYLOGENETIC |                            | APPROACHING   | ADVANCING\n  SERIES.      | NEW ATTAINMENTS.           | CULMINATION.  | ORGANS.\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Amoeba.      | Cell.                      |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Volvox.      | Somatic and reproductive   |               | Reproductive.\n               | cells                      |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Hydra.       | Simple reproductive organs.|               | Reproductive.\n               | Gastro vascular cavity.    |               |\n               | (Tissues).                 |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Turbellaria. | D | Complex reproductive   | Reproductive. | Digestive.\n               | e | Organs. Supra-oes.     |               |\n               | v | Ganglion and cords.    |               |\n               | e | Sense organs.          |               |\n               | l | Body wall.ns.          |               |\n               | o |                        |               |\n               | p |                        |               |\n  -------------+---|------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Annelid.     | O | Perivisceral Cavity.   |               |\n               | r | Intestine. Circulatory |               |\n               | g | system. Nephridia.     |               |\n               | a | Visual eyes.           |               |\n               | n |                        |               |\n               | s |                        |               |\n  -------------+---+------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Primitive    | Notochord. Fins.           |               |\n  Vertebrate.  |                            |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Fish.        | Backbone (incomplete).     | Digestive.    | Muscles.\n               | Paired Fins. Jaws from     |               |\n               | Branchial Arches. Simple   |               |\n               | heart. Air Bladder. Brain. |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Amphibian.   | Legs. Lungs. Cerebrum      |               | Muscles.\n               | increases from this        |               |\n               | form on.                   |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Reptile.     | Double heart.              |               | Muscles and\n               |                            |               | appendages.\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Lower        | Constant high temperature  |               | Muscles and\n  Placental    | Placenta.                  |  Muscle.      | appendages.\n  Mammals.     |                            |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+               +--------------\n  Ape.         | Erect posture. Hand. Large |               | Brain.\n               | cerebrum.                  |               |\n               |                            |               |\n               |                            |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n  Man.         | Very large cerebrum.       |               | BRAIN.\n               | Personality.               |               |\n               |                            |               |\n               |                            |               |\n  -------------+----------------------------+---------------+--------------\n\n                                                   [Table continued below]\n\n\n\n   |             |DOMINANT MENTAL|              |               |\n   | DOMINANT    |(OR NERVOUS)   | SEQUENCE OF  | SEQUENCE OF   | ENVIRONMENT\n   | FUNCTION.   |ACTION.        | PERCEPTIONS. | MOTIVES.      | MAKES FOR.\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n  A|             |               |Touch. Smell. | Hunger.       |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n  V|Reproduction.|               |Touch. Smell. | Hunger.       |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+\n   |             |               |              |               |\n  H|Reproduction.| Reflex.       |Touch. Smell. | Hunger.       |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n   |Reproduction.| Reflex.       |Touch. Smell. | Hunger.       |\n  T|             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |Rapid\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------|reproduction\n   | Digestion   | Reflex.       | Touch.       | Hunger.       |and good\n  A| Muscular.   |               | Smell.       |               |digestion.\n  n|             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------|\n  P| Digestion   | Instinct.     |  ?           |               |\n  V| Muscular.   |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n   | Digestion   | Instinct.     | Hearing.     |               |\n  F| Muscular.   |               | Sight.       |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   |             |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------|Fear and       |\n  A| Digestion   | Instinct.     | Hearing.     |other          |Strength and\n  m| Muscular.   |               | Sight.       |prudential     |activity.\n   |             |               |              |considerations.|\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------|               |\n  R| Muscular.   | Instinct. ?   | Hearing.     |               |\n   |             |               | Sight.       |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------|               |\n  L| Muscular.   | Instinct ? ?  | Hearing.     |               |\n  P|             |               | Sight.       |               |\n  M|             |               |              |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n   | Muscular.   | Intelligence. |Mental        |      \"        |    \" ?\n  A| Nervous.    |               |Perception.   |               |(Shrewdness?)\n  p|             |               |Understanding.|               |\n  e|             |               |Association.  |               |\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n   | Mind.*      | Intelligence. | Reason.*     | Love of man.  |Shrewdness.\n  M|             |               |              | Truth.        |Righteousness\n  a|             |               |              | Right.*       | and\n  n|             |               |              |               |unelfishness*\n   +-------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+-------------\n                               * Apparently capable of indefinite development.\n\n\n\n\n\n    PHYLOGENETIC CHART OF PRINCIPAL TYPES OF ANIMAL LIFE.\n    _____________________________________________________\n\n                              Man.\n                              /|\\\n                               |\n                               |  Apes.\n                             \\ | /\n                              \\|/\n                               |\n    Lower Placental Mammals.\\  |\n                             \\ |\n                              \\|\n          Marsupial Mammals.\\  |\n                             \\ |\n         Oviparous Mammals.\\  \\|     /Birds.\n                            \\  |    /\n                             \\ |   /\n                              \\|\n                               |  /Reptiles.\n                               | /\n                   Ampibia.\\   |/\n                            \\  |\n                             \\ |\n                              \\|\n            Insect.\\           |\n                    \\          |\n                     \\         |\n                      \\        |\n                       \\       |     /Fish.\n                        \\      |    /\n                         \\     |   /        /Mollusca.\n                          \\    |  /        /\n             Annelid.------\\   | /        /\n                            \\  |/        /\n                             \\ |        /\n                               |       /\n                               |      /\n                               |     /\n                               |    /\n            Schematic Worm.\\   |   /\n                            \\  |  /\n                             \\ | /      /Turbellaria.\n                              \\|       /\n                               |      /\n                               |     /\n                               |    /\n                   Hydra.\\     |   /\n                          \\    |  /\n                           \\   | /\n                            \\  |/\n                             \\ |\n                              \\|\n                               |\n                               |    /Volvox.\n                               |   /\n                               |  /\n              Magosphaera.\\    | /\n                           \\   |/\n                            \\  |\n                             \\ |\n                              \\|    /Amoeba.\n                               |   /\n                               |  /\n                               | /\n                               |/\n                               |\n                               |\n                               |\n    _____________________________________________________\n\n           PHYLOGENETIC CHART OF PRINCIPAL TYPES OF\n                         ANIMAL LIFE.\n    _____________________________________________________\n\n\n\n\n\n  INDEX\n\n\n  Amoeba, 32\n\n  Annelids, 61, 103\n\n  Apes, anthropoid, 91\n\n  Appetites, 137\n\n  Arthropoda, 61\n\n  Articulata, 61\n\n\n  Beauty, perception of, 121\n\n  Bible, 241\n\n  Blastosphere, 44\n\n  Brain, 64, 108;\n    of insects, 69;\n    vertebrates, 75, 85;\n    man, 96.\n    See also Ganglion\n\n\n  Cell, 34, 36\n\n  Child, mental development of, 204\n\n  Christianity, 192, 250, 252\n\n  Church, 265\n\n  Circulatory system,\n    worms, 62;\n    insects, 66;\n    vertebrates, 84\n\n  Classification, 20\n\n  Coelenterata, 42, 55\n\n  Conformity to environment, 150, 170, 177, 197, 243, 259, 265\n\n  Conscience, 184\n\n  Correlation of organs, 284\n\n\n  Darwinism, 10\n\n  Degeneration, 155, 279\n\n  Digestion, 309;\n    amoeba, 33;\n    hydra, 37;\n    worms, 47, 52;\n    insects, 66;\n    vertebrates, 73, 81\n\n\n  Ear, 50, 64\n\n  Echinoderms, 57\n\n  Ectoderm, 37, 44\n\n  Egg, 43\n\n  Embryology, 43\n\n  Emotions, 136, 230, 309\n\n  Entoderm, 37, 44\n\n  Environment, 158, 309;\n    God immanent in, 161, 175;\n    mirrored in human mind, 199\n\n  Evolution, 3;\n    conservative, 173\n\n  Excretion,\n    amoeba, 33;\n    worms, 48, 53;\n    vertebrates, 73, 81\n\n\n  Faith, 209, 256\n\n  Family, 180;\n    origin of, Cf. 88, 178, 217;\n    results of, 181\n\n  Flagellata, 39\n\n\n  Ganglion,\n    supra-oesophageal, 49, 54;\n    annelids, 64.\n    See Brain\n\n  Gastr\u00e6a, 45\n\n  Gastrula, 44\n\n  God, 244;\n    knowable, 167\n\n\n  Head,\n    insect, 68;\n    vertebrate, 75\n\n  Heredity, mental and moral, 188\n\n  Heroism, 193, 200, 227\n\n  History, 15\n\n  Hope, 262\n\n  Huxley (quoted), 99, 171, 273\n\n  Hydra, 37\n\n\n  Insects, 65, 105\n\n  Instinct, 127, 131\n\n  Intellect, 117, 124\n\n  Intelligence, 117\n\n  Intelligent action, 128, 132\n\n\n  Jaws,\n    insects, 67;\n    vertebrates, 73\n\n\n  Knowledge, value of, 150, 229, 242\n\n\n  Law, Divine, 245\n\n  Locomotion and nervous development, 61.\n    See also Muscular System\n\n  Love, 139, 180, 243\n\n\n  Magosph\u00e6ra, 40\n\n  Mammals, 85, 92;\n    oviparous, 86;\n    marsupial, 87;\n    placental, 88;\n    temporarily surpassed by reptiles, 195\n\n  Man, 210, 219;\n    anatomical characteristics, 92;\n    mental and moral characteristics, 99, 112, 147, 150, 219, 242;\n    relation to nature, 210;\n    animal, 213;\n    moral, 220;\n    religious, 224;\n    hero, 227;\n    future, 228, 231\n\n  Materialism, 165\n\n  Mesoderm, 45\n\n  Mind, 115, 144;\n    amoeba, 33\n\n  Mollusks, 58, 106\n\n  Motives, 136, 148;\n    sequence of, 143\n\n  Muscular system, 309;\n    hydra, 38;\n    worms, 62;\n    insects, 68;\n    vertebrates, 73, 108, 216\n\n\n  N\u00e4geli, 288\n\n  Natural selection, 12, 152, 278\n\n  Nature, 9, 28\n\n  Neo-Darwinians and Neo-Lamarckians, 296\n\n  Nervous system, 102;\n    hydra, 38;\n    turbellaria, 48;\n    mollusks, 59;\n    annelids, 63;\n    insects, 69;\n    vertebrates, 74\n\n  Notochord, 74, 79\n\n\n  Ontogenesis, 26\n\n\n  Phylogenesis, 26, 100, 310\n\n  Placenta, 88\n\n  Prayer, 259\n\n  Primates, 91\n\n  Productiveness and prospectiveness, 193, 200, 202\n\n  Protoplasm, 32, 34\n\n  Protozoa, 39\n\n\n  Reflex action, 125, 135, 146\n\n  Religion, 166, 224, 262\n\n  Reproduction, 309;\n    amoeba, 32, 35;\n    hydra, 38;\n    magosph\u00e6ra, 40;\n    volvox, 41;\n    turbellaria, 50;\n    annelids, 62;\n    insects, 66;\n    vertebrates, 73.\n    See also Size and Surface and Mass\n\n  Respiration,\n    amoeba, 35;\n    worms, 48, 63;\n    insects, 66;\n    vertebrates, 77, 84\n\n\n  Sequence of functions, 80, 109, 174, 309;\n    condensed history of, 100, 152, 221;\n    reversal of, 154, 205\n\n  Sexual reproduction, 33, 37, 41\n\n  Sin, 245\n\n  Size, 35, 51, 72, 76, 89, 214\n\n  Skeleton, 58, 74;\n    mollusks, 59;\n    insects, 65, 67, 71;\n    vertebrates, 74, 82\n\n  Social life, 182, 217\n\n  Socrates, 161, 189, 200\n\n  Specialization, 236, 239\n\n  Struggle for existence, 11, 158, 277;\n    mitigation of, 217\n\n  Surface and mass, 35, 50\n\n\n  Tissues, 42\n\n  Turbellaria, 46, 102\n\n\n  Vertebrates, 73, 81, 107;\n    primitive, 77\n\n  Volvox, 40\n\n\n  Weismann, 290\n\n  Will, 136\n\n  Worms, 56;\n    schematic, 52\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe Morse Lectures for 1895\n\nTHE WHENCE AND WHITHER OF MAN\n\nA BRIEF HISTORY OF MAN'S ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT, AND OF THE\nEVOLUTION OF HIS MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CAPACITIES THROUGH CONFORMITY\nTO ENVIRONMENT\n\nBy JOHN M. TYLER Professor of Biology, Amherst College\n\n12mo, $1.75\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, PUBLISHERS\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis work is a solidification of some new matter with the substance\nof the ten Morse Lectures delivered at Union Theological Seminary in\nthe spring of 1895. Professor Tyler aims to trace the development of\nman from the simple living substance to his position at present,\npaying attention to incidental facts merely as incidental and\ncontributory. He keeps always in view the successive accomplishments\nof life as they appear in the person of accepted general truth,\nrather than in the guise of the facts of progress.\n\nHe begins by saying: \"We take for granted the probable truth of the\ntheory of evolution as stated by Mr. Darwin, and that it applies to\nman as really as to any lower animal.\" He assumes that an acceptable\nhistorian of biology must possess a genealogical tree of the animal\nkingdom, and adds that a knowledge of the sequence of dominant\nfunctions or \"physiological dynasties,\" is quite as necessary to his\ninquiry as a history of the development of anatomical details. Since\nthe germs of the future are always concealed in the history of the\npresent, he claims that \"if we can trace this sequence of dominant\nfunctions, whose evolution has filled past ages, we can safely\nforetell something, at least, of man's future development.\"\n\nThe possibility of making false trails, at times, should not deter\nthe investigator; for what he would establish is not the history of\na single human race, nor of the movements of a century, but an\nunderstanding of the development of animal life through ages. \"And\nonly,\" says Professor Tyler, \"when we have a biological history can\nwe have any satisfactory conception of environment.\" The book\nconcludes with a brief notice of the modern theories of heredity and\nvariation advanced by Nageli and Weismann.\n\n\n\n\nThe Morse Lectures for 1894\n\n\nTHE RELIGIONS OF JAPAN\n\nFROM THE DAWN OF HISTORY TO THE ERA OF THE M\u00c9IJI\n\nBy WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS, D.D.\n\nFormerly of the Imperial University of Tokio; Author of \"The\nMikado's Empire\" and \"Corea, the Hermit Nation\"\n\n12mo, $2.00\n\n\"The book is excellent throughout, and indispensable to the\nreligious student.\"--_The Atlantic Monthly_.\n\n\"To any one desiring a knowledge of the development and ethical\nstatus of the East, this book will prove of the utmost assistance,\nand Dr. Griffis may be thanked for throwing a still greater charm\nabout the Land of the Rising Sun.\"--_The Churchman_.\n\n\"Already an acknowledged authority on Japanese questions, Dr.\nGriffis in this volume gives to an appreciative public, what we risk\ncalling his most valuable contribution to the literature this\nprofoundly interesting nation has evoked.\"--_The Evangelist_.\n\n\"... The fine quality of Dr. Griffis' works. His book is fresh and\noriginal, and may be depended on as material for scientific use....\nIt may safely be said that it is the best general account of the\nreligions of Japan that has appeared in the English language, and\nfor any but the special student it is the best we know of in any\ntongue.\"--_The Critic_.\n\n\n\n\nThe Morse Lectures for 1893\n\nTHE PLACE OF CHRIST IN MODERN THEOLOGY\n\nBy A.M. FAIRBAIRN, M.A., D.D.\n\nPrincipal of Mansfield College, Oxford; Gifford Lecturer in the\nUniversity of Aberdeen; Late Morse Lecturer in Union Seminary, New\nYork, and Lyman Beecher Lecturer in Yale University\n\n8vo, $2.50\n\n\"One of the most valuable and comprehensive contributions to\ntheology that has been made during this generation.\"--_London\nSpectator_.\n\n\"The knowledge, ability, and liberality of the author unite to make\nthe work interesting and valuable.\"--_The Dial_.\n\n\"It is very high, but thoroughly deserved, praise to say that it is\nworthy of its great theme.\"--_The Critical Review_.\n\n\"The volume reveals Dr. Fairbairn as a clear and vigorous thinker,\nwho knows how to be bold without being too bold.\"--_New York\nTribune_.\n\n\"Suggestive, stimulating, and a harbinger of the future catholic\ntheology.\"--_Boston Literary World_.\n\n\"It is a book abounding in fine and philosophical thoughts, and\ndeeply sympathetic with the most earnest religious thinking of the\ntime.\"--_The Critic_.\n\n\"If the object of a book of theology is to stir up the heart and\nmind with strong, clear thinking on divine things, no book,\ncertainly, of the present season surpasses Dr. Fairbairn's.\"--_The\nOutlook_.\n\n\"An important contribution to theological literature.\"--_London\nTimes_.\n\n\"The work shows a keen insight into the relations of truth combined\nwith a rare power of accurate judgment.\"--_New York Observer_.\n\n\"Beyond question this is one of the most signally valuable books of\nthe season.\"--_The Advance_, Chicago.\n\n\n\n\nThe Ely Lectures for 1891\n\nORIENTAL RELIGIONS AND CHRISTIANITY\n\nA COURSE OF LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE STUDENTS OF UNION\nTHEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK\n\nBy FRANK F. ELLEWOOD, D.D.\n\nSecretary of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian\nChurch, U.S.A.; Lecturer on Comparative Religion in the University\nof the City of New York\n\n12mo, $1.75\n\n\"The volume is not only valuable, it is interesting; it not only\ngives information, but it stimulates thought.\"--_Evangelist_.\n\n\"Thoroughly Christian in spirit.... There is a compactness about it\nwhich makes it full of information and suggestion.\"--_Christian\nInquirer_.\n\n\"The author has read widely, reflected carefully, and written\nably.\"--_Congregationalist_.\n\n\"It is a book which we can most heartily commend to every pastor and\nto every intelligent student, of the work which the Church is called\nto do in the world.\"--_The Missionary_.\n\n\"An able work.\"--_Boston Transcript_.\n\n\"A more instructive book has not been issued for years.\"--_New York\nObserver_.\n\n\"A noteworthy contribution to Christian polemics.\"--_Boston Beacon_.\n\n\"The special value of this volume is in its careful differentiation\nof the schools of religionists in the East and the distinct points\nof antagonism on the very fundamental ideas of Oriental religions\ntoward the religion of Jesus.\"--_Outlook_.\n\n\"We wish this book might be read by all missionaries and by all\nChristians at home.\"--_Presbyterian and Reformed Review_.\n\n\n\n\nThe Ely Lectures for 1890\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE\n\nBy LEWIS FRENCH STEARNS\n\nProfessor of Christian Theology in Bangor Theological Seminary\n\n12mo, $2.00\n\n\n\"The tone and spirit which pervade them are worthy of the theme, and\nthe style is excellent. There is nothing of either cant or pedantry\nin the treatment. There is simplicity, directness, and freshness of\nmanner which strongly win and hold the reader.\"--_Chicago Advance_.\n\n\"We have read them with a growing admiration for the ability,\nstrength, and completeness displayed in the argument. It is a book\nwhich should be circulated not only in theological circles, but\namong young men of reflective disposition who are beset by the\nso-called 'scientific' attacks upon the foundations of the Christian\nfaith.\"--_Christian Intelligencer_.\n\n\"The style is a model of clearness even where the reasoning is\ndeep.\"--_Christian Inquirer_.\n\n\"His presentation of the certainty, reality, and scientific\ncharacter of the facts in a Christian consciousness is very\nstrong.\"--_The Lutheran_.\n\n\"An important contribution to the library of apologetics.\"--_Living\nChurch_. (P.E.)\n\n\"A good and useful work.\"--_The Churchman_. (P.E.)\n\n\"The work is searching, careful, strong, and sound.\"--_Chautauquan_.\n\n\"As thorough and logical as it is spiritual.\"--_Congregationalist_.\n\n\"A timely and apropos contribution to the defenses of\nChristianity.\"--_Interior_.","title":"The Whence and the Whither of Man: A Brief History of His Origin and Development through Conformity to Environment; Being the Morse Lectures of 1895","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":92067}