{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_23427/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_23427","id":"gutenberg_23427","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23427","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution (Biology) -- History"],"text":"Produced by Stacy Brown, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEvolution, Old & New\n\n\n    \"The want of a practical acquaintance with Natural History leads the\n    author to take an erroneous view of the bearing of his own theories\n    on those of Mr. Darwin.--_Review of 'Life and Habit,' by Mr. A. R.\n    Wallace, in 'Nature,' March 27, 1879._\n\n    \"Neither lastly would our observer be driven out of his conclusion,\n    or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knows\n    nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument;\n    he knows the utility of the end; he knows the subserviency and\n    adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his\n    ignorance concerning other points, his doubts concerning other\n    points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness\n    of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which he does\n    know.\"\n\n    Paley's '_Natural Theology_,' chap. i.\n\n\n\n\nEvolution, Old & New\n\nOr the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck,\nas compared with that of Charles Darwin\n\n_by_\n\nSamuel Butler\n\n\n  New York\n  E. P. Dutton & Company\n  681 Fifth Avenue\n\n\n\n\n_Made and printed in Great Britain_\n\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\n\n    The demand for a new edition of \"Evolution, Old and New,\" gives me\n    an opportunity of publishing Butler's latest revision of his work.\n    The second edition of \"Evolution, Old and New,\" which was published\n    in 1882 and re-issued with a new title-page in 1890, was merely a\n    re-issue of the first edition with a new preface, an appendix, and\n    an index. At a later date, though I cannot say precisely when,\n    Butler revised the text of the book in view of a future edition. The\n    corrections that he made are mainly verbal and do not, I think,\n    affect the argument to any considerable extent. Butler, however,\n    attached sufficient importance to them to incur the expense of\n    having the stereos of more than fifty pages cancelled and new\n    stereos substituted. I have also added a few entries to the index,\n    which are taken from a copy of the book, now in my possession, in\n    which Butler made a few manuscript notes.\n\n    R. A. STREATFEILD.\n\n    _October, 1911._\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE\n\nTO\n\nTHE SECOND EDITION\n\n\nSince the proof-sheets of the Appendix to this book left my hands,\nfinally corrected, and too late for me to be able to recast the first of\nthe two chapters that compose it, I hear, with the most profound regret,\nof the death of Mr. Charles Darwin.\n\nIt being still possible for me to refer to this event in a preface, I\nhasten to say how much it grates upon me to appear to renew my attack\nupon Mr. Darwin under the present circumstances.\n\nI have insisted in each of my three books on Evolution upon the\nimmensity of the service which Mr. Darwin rendered to that\ntranscendently important theory. In \"Life and Habit,\" I said: \"To the\nend of time, if the question be asked, 'Who taught people to believe in\nEvolution?' the answer must be that it was Mr. Darwin.\" This is true;\nand it is hard to see what palm of higher praise can be awarded to any\nphilosopher.\n\nI have always admitted myself to be under the deepest obligations to Mr.\nDarwin's works; and it was with the greatest reluctance, not to say\nrepugnance, that I became one of his opponents. I have partaken of his\nhospitality, and have had too much experience of the charming simplicity\nof his manner not to be among the readiest to at once admire and envy\nit. It is unfortunately true that I believe Mr. Darwin to have behaved\nbadly to me; this is too notorious to be denied; but at the same time I\ncannot be blind to the fact that no man can be judge in his own case,\nand that after all Mr. Darwin may have been right, and I wrong.\n\nAt the present moment, let me impress this latter alternative upon my\nmind as far as possible, and dwell only upon that side of Mr. Darwin's\nwork and character, about which there is no difference of opinion among\neither his admirers or his opponents.\n\n_April 21, 1882._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nContrary to the advice of my friends, who caution me to avoid all\nappearance of singularity, I venture upon introducing a practice, the\nexpediency of which I will submit to the judgment of the reader. It is\none which has been adopted by musicians for more than a century--to the\ngreat convenience of all who are fond of music--and I observe that\nwithin the last few years two such distinguished painters as Mr.\nAlma-Tadema and Mr. Hubert Herkomer have taken to it. It is a matter for\nregret that the practice should not have been general at an earlier\ndate, not only among painters and musicians, but also among the people\nwho write books. It consists in signifying the number of a piece of\nmusic, picture, or book by the abbreviation \"Op.\" and the number\nwhatever it may happen to be.\n\nNo work can be judged intelligently unless not only the author's\nrelations to his surroundings, but also the relation in which the work\nstands to the life and other works of the author, is understood and\nborne in mind; nor do I know any way of conveying this information at a\nglance, comparable to that which I now borrow from musicians. When we\nsee the number against a work of Beethoven, we need ask no further to be\ninformed concerning the general character of the music. The same holds\ngood more or less with all composers. Handel's works were not\nnumbered--not at least his operas and oratorios. Had they been so, the\nsignificance of the numbers on Susanna and Theodora would have been at\nonce apparent, connected as they would have been with the number on\nJephthah, Handel's next and last work, in which he emphatically\nrepudiates the influence which, perhaps in a time of self-distrust, he\nhad allowed contemporary German music to exert over him. Many painters\nhave dated their works, but still more have neglected doing so, and some\nof these have been not a little misconceived in consequence. As for\nauthors, it is unnecessary to go farther back than Lord Beaconsfield,\nThackeray, Dickens, and Scott, to feel how much obliged we should have\nbeen to any custom that should have compelled them to number their works\nin the order in which they were written. When we think of Shakespeare,\nany doubt which might remain as to the advantage of the proposed\ninnovation is felt to disappear.\n\nMy friends, to whom I urged all the above, and more, met me by saying\nthat the practice was doubtless a very good one in the abstract, but\nthat no one was particularly likely to want to know in what order my\nbooks had been written. To which I answered that even a bad book which\nintroduced so good a custom would not be without value, though the value\nmight lie in the custom, and not in the book itself; whereon, seeing\nthat I was obstinate, they left me, and interpreting their doing so into\nat any rate a modified approbation of my design, I have carried it into\npractice.\n\nThe edition of the 'Philosophie Zoologique' referred to in the following\nvolume, is that edited by M. Chas. Martins, Paris, Librairie F. Savy,\n24, Rue de Hautefeuille, 1873.\n\nThe edition of the 'Origin of Species' is that of 1876, unless another\nedition be especially named.\n\nThe italics throughout the book are generally mine, except in the\nquotations from Miss Seward, where they are all her own.\n\nI am anxious also to take the present opportunity of acknowledging the\nobligations I am under to my friend Mr. H. F. Jones, and to other\nfriends (who will not allow me to mention their names, lest more errors\nshould be discovered than they or I yet know of), for the invaluable\nassistance they have given me while this work was going through the\npress. If I am able to let it go before the public with any comfort or\npeace of mind, I owe it entirely to the carefulness of their\nsupervision.\n\nI am also greatly indebted to Mr. Garnett, of the British Museum, for\nhaving called my attention to many works and passages of which otherwise\nI should have known nothing.\n\n_March 31, 1879._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n  Statement of the Question--Current Opinion adverse to\n  Teleology                                                          1\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n  The Teleology of Paley and the Theologians                        12\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n  Impotence of Paley's Conclusion--The Teleology of the\n  Evolutionist                                                      24\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n  Failure of the First Evolutionists to see their Position\n  as Teleological                                                   34\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n  The Teleological Evolution of Organism--The Philosophy\n  of the Unconscious                                                43\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n  Scheme of the Remainder of the Work--Historical Sketch\n  of the Theory of Evolution                                        60\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n  Pre-Buffonian Evolution, and some German Writers                  68\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n  Buffon--Memoir                                                    74\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n  Buffon's Method--The Ironical Character of his Work               78\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n  Supposed Fluctuations of Opinion--Causes or Means of\n  the Transformation of Species                                     97\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n  Buffon--Puller Quotations                                        107\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n  Sketch of Dr. Erasmus Darwin's Life                              173\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n  Philosophy of Dr. Erasmus Darwin                                 195\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n  Fuller Quotations from the 'Zoonomia'                            214\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n  Memoir of Lamarck                                                235\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n  General Misconception concerning Lamarck--His\n  Philosophical Position                                           244\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n  Summary of the 'Philosophie Zoologique'                          261\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n  Mr. Patrick Matthew, MM. Etienne and Isidore Geoffroy\n  St. Hilaire, and Mr. Herbert Spencer                             315\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n  Main Points of Agreement and of Difference between the\n  Old and New Theories of Evolution                                335\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n  Natural Selection considered as a Means of Modification--The\n  Confusion which this Expression occasions                        345\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n  Mr. Darwin's Defence of the Expression, Natural\n  Selection--Professor Mivart and Natural Selection                362\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n  The Case of the Madeira Beetles as illustrating the\n  Difference between the Evolution of Lamarck and\n  of Mr. Charles Darwin--Conclusion                                373\n\nAPPENDIX                                                           385\n\nINDEX                                                              409\n\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. CURRENT OPINION ADVERSE TO TELEOLOGY.\n\n\nOf all the questions now engaging the attention of those whose destiny\nhas commanded them to take more or less exercise of mind, I know of none\nmore interesting than that which deals with what is called\nteleology--that is to say, with design or purpose, as evidenced by the\ndifferent parts of animals and plants.\n\nThe question may be briefly stated thus:--\n\nCan we or can we not see signs in the structure of animals and plants,\nof something which carries with it the idea of contrivance so strongly\nthat it is impossible for us to think of the structure, without at the\nsame time thinking of contrivance, or design, in connection with it?\n\nIt is my object in the present work to answer this question in the\naffirmative, and to lead my reader to agree with me, perhaps mainly, by\nfollowing the history of that opinion which is now supposed to be fatal\nto a purposive view of animal and vegetable organs. I refer to the\ntheory of evolution or descent with modification.\n\nLet me state the question more at large.\n\nWhen we see organs, or living tools--for there is no well-developed\norgan of any living being which is not used by its possessor as an\ninstrument or tool for the effecting of some purpose which he considers\nor has considered for his advantage--when we see living tools which are\nas admirably fitted for the work required of them, as is the carpenter's\nplane for planing, or the blacksmith's hammer and anvil for the\nhammering of iron, or the tailor's needle for sewing, what conclusion\nshall we adopt concerning them?\n\nShall we hold that they must have been designed or contrived, not\nperhaps by mental processes indistinguishable from those by which the\ncarpenter's saw or the watch has been designed, but still by processes\nso closely resembling these that no word can be found to express the\nfacts of the case so nearly as the word \"design\"? That is to say, shall\nwe imagine that they were arrived at by a living mind as the result of\nscheming and contriving, and thinking (not without occasional mistakes)\nwhich of the courses open to it seemed best fitted for the occasion, or\nare we to regard the apparent connection between such an organ, we will\nsay, as the eye, and the sight which is affected by it, as in no way due\nto the design or plan of a living intelligent being, but as caused\nsimply by the accumulation, one upon another, of an almost infinite\nseries of small pieces of good fortune?\n\nIn other words, shall we see something for which, as Professor Mivart\nhas well said, \"to us the word 'mind' is the least inadequate and\nmisleading symbol,\" as having given to the eagle an eyesight which can\npierce the sun, but which, in the night is powerless; while to the owl\nit has given eyes which shun even the full moon, but find a soft\nbrilliancy in darkness? Or shall we deny that there has been any purpose\nor design in the fashioning of these different kinds of eyes, and see\nnothing to make us believe that any living being made the eagle's eye\nout of something which was not an eye nor anything like one, or that\nthis living being implanted this particular eye of all others in the\neagle's head, as being most in accordance with the habits of the\ncreature, and as therefore most likely to enable it to live contentedly\nand leave plenitude of offspring? And shall we then go on to maintain\nthat the eagle's eye was formed little by little by a series of\naccidental variations, each one of which was thrown for, as it were,\nwith dice?\n\nWe shall most of us feel that there must have been a little cheating\nsomewhere with these accidental variations before the eagle could have\nbecome so great a winner.\n\nI believe I have now stated the question at issue so plainly that there\ncan be no mistake about its nature, I will therefore proceed to show as\nbriefly as possible what have been the positions taken in regard to it\nby our forefathers, by the leaders of opinion now living, and what I\nbelieve will be the next conclusion that will be adopted for any length\nof time by any considerable number of people.\n\nIn the times of the ancients the preponderance of opinion was in favour\nof teleology, though impugners were not wanting. Aristotle[1] leant\ntowards a denial of purpose, while Plato[2] was a firm believer in\ndesign. From the days of Plato to our own times, there have been but few\nobjectors to the teleological or purposive view of nature. If an animal\nhad an eye, that eye was regarded as something which had been designed\nin order to enable its owner to see after such fashion as should be most\nto its advantage.\n\nThis, however, is now no longer the prevailing opinion either in this\ncountry or in Germany.\n\nProfessor Haeckel holds a high place among the leaders of German\nphilosophy at the present day. He declares a belief in evolution and in\npurposiveness to be incompatible, and denies purpose in language which\nholds out little prospect of a compromise.\n\n\"As soon, in fact,\" he writes, \"as we acknowledge the exclusive activity\nof the physico-chemical causes in living (organic) bodies as well as in\nso-called inanimate (inorganic) nature,\"--and this is what Professor\nHaeckel holds we are bound to do if we accept the theory of descent with\nmodification--\"we concede exclusive dominion to that view of the\nuniverse, which we may designate as _mechanical_, and which is opposed\nto the teleological conception. If we compare all the ideas of the\nuniverse prevalent among different nations at different times, we can\ndivide them all into two sharply contrasted groups--a _causal_ or\n_mechanical_, and a _teleological_ or _vitalistic_. The latter has\nprevailed generally in biology until now, and accordingly the animal and\nvegetable kingdoms have been considered as the products of a creative\npower, acting for a definite purpose. In the contemplation of every\norganism, the unavoidable conviction seemed to press itself upon us,\nthat such a wonderful machine, so complicated an apparatus for motion as\nexists in the organism, could only be produced by a power analogous to,\nbut infinitely more powerful than the power of man in the construction\nof his machines.\"[3]\n\nA little lower down he continues:--\n\n\"_I maintain with regard to_\" this \"_much talked of 'purpose in nature'\nthat it has no existence but for those persons who observe phenomena in\nplants and animals in the most superficial manner_. Without going more\ndeeply into the matter, we can see at once that the rudimentary organs\nare a formidable obstacle to this theory. And, indeed, anyone who makes\na really close study of the organization and mode of life of the various\nanimals and plants, ... must necessarily come to the conclusion, that\nthis 'purposiveness' no more exists than the much talked of\n'beneficence' of the Creator.\"[4]\n\nProfessor Haeckel justly sees no alternative between, upon the one hand,\nthe creation of independent species by a Personal God--by a \"Creator,\"\nin fact, who \"becomes an organism, who designs a plan, reflects upon and\nvaries this plan, and finally forms creatures according to it, as a\nhuman architect would construct his building,\"[5]--and the denial of all\nplan or purpose whatever. There can be no question but that he is right\nhere. To talk of a \"designer\" who has no tangible existence, no organism\nwith which to think, no bodily mechanism with which to carry his\npurposes into effect; whose design is not design inasmuch as it has to\ncontend with no impediments from ignorance or impotence, and who thus\ncontrives but by a sort of make-believe in which there is no\ncontrivance; who has a familiar name, but nothing beyond a name which\nany human sense has ever been able to perceive--this is an abuse of\nwords--an attempt to palm off a shadow upon our understandings as though\nit were a substance. It is plain therefore that there must either be a\ndesigner who \"becomes an organism, designs a plan, &c.,\" or that there\ncan be no designer at all and hence no design.\n\nWe have seen which of these alternatives Professor Haeckel has adopted.\nHe holds that those who accept evolution are bound to reject all\n\"purposiveness.\" And here, as I have intimated, I differ from him, for\nreasons which will appear presently. I believe in an organic and\ntangible designer of every complex structure, for so long a time past,\nas that reasonable people will be incurious about all that occurred at\nany earlier time.\n\nProfessor Clifford, again, is a fair representative of opinions which\nare finding favour with the majority of our own thinkers. He writes:--\n\n\"There are here some words, however, which require careful definition.\nAnd first the word purpose. A thing serves a purpose when it is adapted\nfor some end; thus a corkscrew is adapted to the end of extracting corks\nfrom bottles, and our lungs are adapted to the end of respiration. We\nmay say that the extraction of corks is the purpose of the corkscrew,\nand that respiration is the purpose of the lungs, but here we shall have\nused the word in two different senses. A man made the corkscrew with a\npurpose in his mind, and he knew and intended that it should be used for\npulling out corks. _But nobody made our lungs with a purpose in his mind\nand intended that they should be used for breathing._ The respiratory\napparatus was adapted to its purpose by natural selection, namely, by\nthe gradual preservation of better and better adaptations, and by the\nkilling-off of the worse and imperfect adaptations.\"[6]\n\nNo denial of anything like design could be more explicit. For Professor\nClifford is well aware that the very essence of the \"Natural Selection\"\ntheory, is that the variations shall have been mainly accidental and\nwithout design of any sort, but that the adaptations of structure to\nneed shall have come about by the accumulation, through natural\nselection, of any variation that _happened_ to be favourable.\n\nIt will be my business on a later page not only to show that the lungs\nare as purposive as the corkscrew, but furthermore that if drawing corks\nhad been a matter of as much importance to us as breathing is, the list\nof our organs would have been found to comprise one corkscrew at the\nleast, and possibly two, twenty, or ten thousand; even as we see that\nthe trowel without which the beaver cannot plaster its habitation in\nsuch fashion as alone satisfies it, is incorporate into the beaver's own\nbody by way of a tail, the like of which is to be found in no other\nanimal.\n\nTo take a name which carries with it a far greater authority, that of\nMr. Charles Darwin. He writes:--\n\n\"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We\nknow that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued\nefforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the\neye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this\ninference be presumptuous? Have we any right to declare that the Creator\nworks by intellectual powers like those of man?\"[7]\n\nHere purposiveness is not indeed denied point-blank, but the intention\nof the author is unmistakable, it is to refer the wonderful result to\nthe gradual accumulation of small accidental improvements which were not\ndue as a rule, if at all, to anything \"analogous\" to design.\n\n\"Variation,\" he says, \"will cause the slight alterations;\" that is to\nsay, the slight successive variations whose accumulation results in such\na marvellous structure as the eye, are caused by--variation; or in other\nwords, they are indefinite, due to nothing that we can lay our hands\nupon, and therefore certainly not due to design. \"Generation,\" continues\nMr. Darwin, \"will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection\nwill pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go\non for millions of years, and during each year on millions of\nindividuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical\ninstrument might be thus formed as superior to one of glass, as the\nworks of the Creator are to those of man?\"[8]\n\nThe reader will observe that the only skill--and this involves\ndesign--supposed by Mr. Darwin to be exercised in the foregoing process,\nis the \"unerring skill\" of natural selection. Natural selection,\nhowever, is, as he himself tells us, a synonym for the survival of the\nfittest, which last he declares to be the \"more accurate\" expression,\nand to be \"sometimes\" equally convenient.[9] It is clear then that he\nonly speaks metaphorically when he here assigns \"unerring skill\" to the\nfact that the fittest individuals commonly live longest and transmit\nmost offspring, and that he sees no evidence of design in the numerous\nslight successive \"alterations\"--or variations--which are \"caused by\nvariation.\"\n\nIt were easy to multiply quotations which should prove that the denial\nof \"purposiveness\" is commonly conceived to be the inevitable\naccompaniment of a belief in evolution. I will, however, content myself\nwith but one more--from Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire.\n\n\"Whoever,\" says this author, \"holds the doctrine of final causes, will,\nif he is consistent, hold also that of the immutability of species; and\nagain, the opponent of the one doctrine will oppose the other also.\"[10]\n\nNothing can be plainer; I believe, however, that even without quotation\nthe reader would have recognized the accuracy of my contention that a\nbelief in the purposiveness or design of animal and vegetable organs is\ncommonly held to be incompatible with the belief that they have all been\nevolved from one, or at any rate, from not many original, and low, forms\nof life. Generally, however, as this incompatibility is accepted, it is\nnot unchallenged. From time to time a voice is uplifted in protest,\nwhose tones cannot be disregarded.\n\n\"I have always felt,\" says Sir William Thomson, in his address to the\nBritish Association, 1871, \"that this hypothesis\" (natural selection)\n\"does not contain the true theory of evolution, if indeed evolution\nthere has been, in biology. Sir John Herschel, in expressing a\nfavourable judgment on the hypothesis of zoological evolution (with\nhowever some reservation in respect to the origin of man), objected to\nthe doctrine of natural selection on the ground that it was too like the\nLaputan method of making books, and that it did not sufficiently take\ninto account a continually guiding and controlling intelligence. This\nseems to me a most valuable and instructive criticism. _I feel\nprofoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too\nmuch lost sight of in recent zoological speculations._ Reaction against\nthe frivolities of teleology such as are to be found in the notes of the\nlearned commentators on Paley's 'Natural Theology,' has, I believe, had\na temporary effect in turning attention from the solid and irrefragable\nargument so well put forward in that excellent old book. But\noverpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie\nall around us,\"[11] &c. Sir William Thomson goes on to infer that all\nliving beings depend on an ever-acting Creator and Ruler--meaning, I am\nafraid, a Creator who is not an organism. Here I cannot follow him, but\nwhile gladly accepting his testimony to the omnipresence of intelligent\ndesign in almost every structure, whether of animal or plant, I shall\ncontent myself with observing the manner in which plants and animals act\nand with the consequences that are legitimately deducible from their\naction.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See note to Mr. Darwin, Historical Sketch, &c., 'Origin of Species,\np. xiii. ed. 1876, and Arist. 'Physicae Auscultationes,' lib. ii. cap.\nviii. s. 2.\n\n[2] See Phaedo and Timaeus.\n\n[3] 'History of Creation,' vol. i. p. 18 (H. S. King and Co., 1876).\n\n[4] Ibid. p. 19.\n\n[5] 'History of Creation,' vol. i. p. 73 (H. S. King and Co., 1876).\n\n[6] 'Fortnightly Review,' new series, vol. xviii. p. 795.\n\n[7] 'Origin of Species,' p. 146, ed. 1876.\n\n[8] 'Origin of Species,' p. 146, ed. 1876.\n\n[9] Page 49.\n\n[10] 'Vie et Doctrine scientifique d'Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire,' by\nIsidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire. Paris, 1847, p. 344.\n\n[11] Address to the British Association, 1871.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE TELEOLOGY OF PALEY AND THE THEOLOGIANS.\n\n\nLet us turn for a while to Paley, to whom Sir W. Thomson has referred\nus. His work should be so well known that an apology is almost due for\nquoting it, yet I think it likely that at least nine out of ten of my\nreaders will (like myself till reminded of it by Sir W. Thomson's\naddress) have forgotten its existence.\n\n\"In crossing a heath,\" says Paley, \"suppose I pitched my foot against a\nstone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly\nanswer that for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for\never; nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this\nanswer. But suppose I had found a _watch_ upon the ground, and it should\nbe inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly\nthink of the answer I had before given--that for anything I knew the\nwatch might have been always there. Yet, why should not this answer\nserve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as\nadmissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for\nno other, viz. that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what\nwe could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed\nand put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and\nadjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point\nout the hour of the day: that if the different parts had been\ndifferently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what\nthey are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than\nthat in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been\ncarried on in the machine, or none that would have answered the use\nwhich is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these\nparts, and of their offices all tending to one result: we see a\ncylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its\nendeavours to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a\nflexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of flexure)\ncommunicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We\nthen find a series of wheels the teeth of which catch in, and apply to\neach other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance, and\nfrom the balance to the pointer; and at the same time by the size and\nshape of those wheels so regulating the motion as to terminate in\ncausing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a\ngiven space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of\nbrass in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other\nmetal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed\na glass, a material employed on no other part of the work, but in the\nroom of which if there had been any other than a transparent substance,\nthe hour could not have been observed without opening the case. This\nmechanism being observed, ... the inference, we think, is inevitable\nthat the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at\n_some time, and at some place or other, an artificer_ or artificers who\nformed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who\ncomprehended its construction and designed its use.\"[12]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"That an animal is a machine, is a proposition neither correctly true\nnor wholly false.... I contend that there is a mechanism in animals;\nthat this mechanism is as properly such, as it is in machines made by\nart; that this mechanism is intelligible and certain; that it is not the\nless so because it often begins and terminates with something which is\nnot mechanical; that wherever it is intelligible and certain, it\ndemonstrates intention and contrivance, as well in the works of nature\nas in those of art; and that it is the best demonstration which either\ncan afford.\"[13]\n\nThere is only one legitimate inference deducible from these premises if\nthey are admitted as sound, namely, that there must have existed \"_at\nsome time, and in some place, an artificer_\" who formed the animal\nmechanism after much the same mental processes of observation,\nendeavour, successful contrivance, and after a not wholly unlike\nsuccession of bodily actions, as those with which a watchmaker has made\na watch. Otherwise the conclusion is impotent, and the whole argument\nbecomes a mere juggle of words.\n\n\"Now, supposing or admitting,\" continues Paley, \"that we know nothing of\nthe proper internal constitution of a gland, or of the mode of its\nacting upon the blood; then our situation is precisely like that of an\nunmechanical looker-on who stands by a stocking loom, a corn mill, a\ncarding machine, or a threshing machine, at work, the fabric and\nmechanism of which, as well as all that passes within, is hidden from\nhis sight by the outside case; or if seen, would be too complicated for\nhis uninformed, uninstructed understanding to comprehend. And what is\nthat situation? This spectator, ignorant as he is, sees at one end a\nmaterial enter the machine, as unground grain the mill, raw cotton the\ncarding machine, sheaves of unthreshed corn the threshing machine, and\nwhen he casts his eye to the other end of the apparatus, he sees the\nmaterial issuing from it in a new state and what is more, a state\nmanifestly adapted for its future uses: the grain in meal fit for the\nmaking of bread, the wool in rovings fit for the spinning into threads,\nthe sheaf in corn fit for the mill. Is it necessary that this man, in\norder to be convinced that design, that intention, that contrivance has\nbeen employed about the machine, should be allowed to pull it to pieces,\nshould be enabled to examine the parts separately, explore their action\nupon one another, or their operation, whether simultaneous or\nsuccessive, upon the material which is presented to them? He may long to\ndo this to satisfy his curiosity; he may desire to do it to improve his\ntheoretic knowledge; ... but for the purpose of ascertaining the\nexistence of counsel and design in the formation of the machine, he\nwants no such intromission or privity. The effect upon the material, the\nchange produced in it, the utility of the change for future\napplications, abundantly testify, be the concealed part of the machine,\nor of its construction, what it will, _the hand and agency of a\ncontriver_.\"[14]\n\nThis is admirably put, but it will apply to the mechanism of animal and\nvegetable bodies only, if it is used to show that they too must have had\na contriver who has a hand, or something tantamount to one; who does\nact; who, being a contriver, has what all other contrivers must have, if\nthey are to be called contrivers--a body which can suffer more or less\npain or chagrin if the contrivance is unsuccessful. If this is what\nPaley means, his argument is indeed irrefragable; but if he does not\nintend this, his words are frivolous, as so clear and acute a reasoner\nmust have perfectly well known.\n\nWhether Paley's argument will prove a source of lasting strength to\nhimself or no, is a point which my readers will decide presently; but I\nam very clear about its usefulness to my own position. I know few\nwriters whom I would willingly quote more largely, or from whom I find\nit harder to leave off quoting when I have once begun. A few more\npassages, however, must suffice.\n\n\"I challenge any man to produce in the joints and pivots of the most\ncomplicated or the most flexible machine that ever was contrived, a\nconstruction _more artificial_\" (here we have it again), \"or more\nevidently artificial than the human neck. Two things were to be done.\nThe head was to have the power of bending forward and backward as in the\nact of nodding, stooping, looking upwards or downwards; and at the same\ntime of turning itself round upon the body to a certain extent, the\nquadrant, we will say, or rather perhaps a hundred and twenty degrees of\na circle. For these two purposes two distinct contrivances are employed.\nFirst the head rests immediately upon the uppermost part of the\nvertebra, and is united to it by a hinge-joint; upon this joint the head\nplays freely backward and forward as far either way as is necessary or\nas the ligaments allow, which was the first thing required.\n\n\"But then the rotatory motion is thus unprovided for; therefore,\nsecondly, to make the head capable of this a further mechanism is\nintroduced, not between the head and the uppermost bone of the neck,\nwhere the hinge is, but between that bone and the next underneath it. It\nis a mechanism resembling a tenon and mortise. This second or uppermost\nbone but one has what the anatomists call a process, viz. a projection\nsomewhat similar in size and shape to a tooth, which tooth, entering a\ncorresponding hollow socket in the bone above it, forms a pivot or axle,\nupon which that upper bone, together with the head which it supports,\nturns freely in a circle, and as far in the circle as the attached\nmuscles permit the head to turn. Thus are both motions perfect without\ninterfering with each other. When we nod the head we use the\nhinge-joint, which lies between the head and the first bone of the neck.\nWhen we turn the head round, we use the tenon and mortise, which runs\nbetween the first bone of the neck and the second. We see the same\ncontrivance and the same principle employed in the frame or mounting of\na telescope. It is occasionally requisite that the object end of the\ninstrument be moved up and down as well as horizontally or equatorially.\nFor the vertical motion there is a hinge upon which the telescope plays,\nfor the horizontal or equatorial motion, an axis upon which the\ntelescope and the hinge turn round together. And this is exactly the\nmechanism which is applied to the action of the head, nor will anyone\nhere doubt of the existence of counsel and design, except it be by that\ndebility of mind which can trust to its own reasonings in nothing.\"[15]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The patella, or knee-pan, is a curious little bone; in its form and\noffice unlike any other bone in the body. It is circular, the size of a\ncrown-piece, pretty thick, a little convex on both sides, and covered\nwith a smooth cartilage. It lies upon the front of the knee, and the\npowerful tendons by which the leg is brought forward pass through it (or\nrather make it a part of their continuation) from their origin in the\nthigh to their insertion in the tibia. It protects both the tendon and\nthe joint from any injury which either might suffer by the rubbing of\none against the other, or by the pressure of unequal surfaces. It also\ngives to the tendons a very considerable mechanical advantage by\naltering the line of their direction, and by advancing it farther out of\nthe centre of motion; and this upon the principles of the resolution of\nforce, upon which all machinery is founded. These are its uses. But what\nis most observable in it is that it appears to be supplemental, as it\nwere, to the frame; added, as it should almost seem, afterwards; not\nquite necessary, but very convenient. It is separate from the other\nbones; that is, it is not connected with any other bones by the common\nmode of union. It is soft, or hardly formed in infancy; and is produced\nby an ossification, of the inception or progress of which no account can\nbe given from the structure or exercise of the part.\"[16]\n\nIt is positively painful to me to pass over Paley's description of the\njoints, but I must content myself with a single passage from this\nadmirable chapter.\n\n\"The joints, or rather the ends of the bones which form them, display\nalso in their configuration another use. The nerves, blood-vessels, and\ntendons which are necessary to the life, or for the motion of the limbs,\nmust, it is evident in their way from the trunk of the body to the place\nof their destination, travel over the moveable joints; and it is no less\nevident that in this part of their course they will have from sudden\nmotions, and from abrupt changes of curvature, to encounter the danger\nof compression, attrition, or laceration. To guard fibres so tender\nagainst consequences so injurious, their path is in those parts\nprotected with peculiar care; and that by a provision in the figure of\nthe bones themselves. The nerves which supply the fore arm, especially\nthe inferior cubital nerves, are at the elbow conducted by a kind of\ncovered way, between the condyle, or rather under the inner\nextuberances, of the bone which composes the upper part of the arm. At\nthe knee the extremity of the thigh-bone is divided by a sinus or cliff\ninto two heads or protuberances; and these heads on the back part stand\nout beyond the cylinder of the bone. Through the hollow which lies\nbetween the hind parts of these two heads, that is to say, under the\nham, between the ham strings, and within the concave recess of the bone\nformed by the extuberances on either side; in a word, along a defile\nbetween rocks pass the great vessels and nerves which go to the leg. Who\nled these vessels by a road so defended and secured? In the joint at the\nshoulder, in the edge of the cup which receives the head of the bone, is\na notch which is covered at the top with a ligament. Through this hole\nthus guarded the blood-vessels steal to their destination in the arm\ninstead of mounting over the edge of the concavity.\"[17]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"What contrivance can be more mechanical than the following, viz.: a\nslit in one tendon to let another tendon pass through it? This structure\nis found in the tendons which move the toes and fingers. The long\ntendon, as it is called in the foot, which bends the first joint of the\ntoe, passes through the short tendon which bends the second joint; which\ncourse allows to the sinews more liberty and a more commodious action\nthan it would otherwise have been capable of exerting. There is nothing,\nI believe, in a silk or cotton mill, in the belts or straps or ropes by\nwhich the motion is communicated from one part of the machine to another\nthat is more artificial, or more evidently so, than this perforation.\n\n\"The next circumstance which I shall mention under this head of\nmuscular arrangement, is so decidedly a mark of intention, that it\nalways appeared to me to supersede in some measure the necessity of\nseeking for any other observation upon the subject; and that\ncircumstance is the tendons which pass from the leg to the foot being\nbound down by a ligament at the ankle, the foot is placed at a\nconsiderable angle with the leg. It is manifest, therefore, that\nflexible strings passing along the interior of the angle, if left to\nthemselves, would, when stretched, start from it. The obvious\" (and it\nmust not be forgotten that the preventive _was_ obvious) \"preventive is\nto tie them down. And this is done in fact. Across the instep, or rather\njust above it, the anatomist finds a strong ligament, under which the\ntendons pass to the foot. The effect of the ligament as a bandage can be\nmade evident to the senses, for if it be cut the tendons start up. The\nsimplicity, yet the clearness of this contrivance, its exact resemblance\nto established resources of art, place it amongst the most indubitable\nmanifestations of design with which we are acquainted.\"\n\nThen follows a passage which is interesting, as being the earliest\nattempt I know of to bring forward an argument against evolution, which\nwas, even in Paley's day, called \"Darwinism,\" after Dr. Erasmus Darwin\nits propounder.[18] The argument, I mean, which is drawn from the\ndifficulty of accounting for the incipiency of complex structures. This\nhas been used with greater force by the Rev. J. J. Murphy, Professor\nMivart, and others, against that (as I believe) erroneous view of\nevolution which is now generally received as Darwinism.\n\n\"There is also a further use,\" says Paley, \"to be made of this present\nexample, and that is as it precisely contradicts the opinion, that the\nparts of animals may have been all formed by what is called appetency,\ni. e. endeavour, perpetuated and imperceptibly working its effect\nthrough an incalculable series of generations. We have here no\nendeavour, but the reverse of it; a constant resistency and reluctance.\nThe endeavour is all the other way. The pressure of the ligament\nconstrains the tendons; the tendons react upon the pressure of the\nligament. It is impossible that the ligament should ever have been\ngenerated by the exercise of the tendons, or in the course of that\nexercise, forasmuch as the force of the tendon perpendicularly resists\nthe fibre which confines it, and is constantly endeavouring not to form\nbut to rupture and displace the threads of which the ligament is\ncomposed.\"[19]\n\nThis must suffice.\n\n\"True theories,\" says M. Flourens, inspired by a passage from\nFontenelle, which he proceeds to quote, \"true theories make themselves,\"\nthey are not made, but are born and grow; they cannot be stopped from\ninsisting upon their vitality by anything short of intellectual\nviolence, nor will a little violence only suffice to kill them. \"True\ntheories,\" he continues, \"are but the spontaneous mental coming\ntogether of facts, which have combined with one another by virtue only\nof their own natural affinity.\"[20]\n\nWhen a number of isolated facts, says Fontenelle, take form, group\nthemselves together coherently, and present the mind so vividly with an\nidea of their interdependence and mutual bearing upon each other, that\nno matter how violently we tear them asunder they insist on coming\ntogether again; then, and not till then, have we a theory.\n\nNow I submit that there is hardly one of my readers who can be\nconsidered as free from bias or prejudice, who will not feel that the\nidea of design--or perception by an intelligent living being, of ends to\nbe obtained and of the means of obtaining them--and the idea of the\ntendons of the foot and of the ligament which binds them down, come\ntogether so forcibly, that no matter how strongly Professors Haeckel and\nClifford and Mr. Darwin may try to separate them, they are no sooner\npulled asunder than they straightway fly together again of themselves.\n\nI shall argue, therefore, no further upon this head, but shall assume it\nas settled, and shall proceed at once to the consideration that next\nsuggests itself.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] 'Natural Theology,' ch. i. Sec. 1.\n\n[13] Ch. vii.\n\n[14] Ch. vii.\n\n[15] 'Natural Theology.' ch. viii.\n\n[16] 'Natural Theology,' ch. viii.\n\n[17] 'Natural Theology,' ch. viii.\n\n[18] \"What!\" says Coleridge, in a note on Stillingfleet, to which Mr.\nGarnett, of the British Museum, has kindly called my attention, \"Did Sir\nWalter Raleigh believe that a male and female ounce (and if so why not\ntwo tigers and lions, &c.?) would have produced in course of generations\na cat, or a cat a lion? This is Darwinising with a vengeance.\"--See\n'Athenaeum,' March 27, 1875, p. 423.\n\n[19] 'Natural Theology,' ch. ix.\n\n[20] \"La vraie theorie n'est que l'enchainement naturel des faits, qui\ndes qu'ils sont assez nombreux, se touchent, et se lient, les uns aux\nautres par leur seule vertu propre.\"--Flourens, 'Buffon, Hist. de ses\nTravaux.' Paris, 1844, p. 82.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nIMPOTENCE OF PALEY'S CONCLUSION. THE TELEOLOGY OF THE EVOLUTIONIST.\n\n\nThough the ideas of design, and of the foot, have come together in our\nminds with sufficient spontaneity, we yet feel that there is a\ndifference--and a wide difference if we could only lay our hands upon\nit--between the design and manufacture of the ligament and tendons of\nthe foot on the one hand, and on the other the design, manufacture, and\ncombination of artificial strings, pieces of wood, and bandages, whereby\na model of the foot might be constructed.\n\nIf we conceive of ourselves as looking simultaneously upon a real foot,\nand upon an admirably constructed artificial one, placed by the side of\nit, the idea of design, and design by an intelligent living being with a\nbody and soul (without which, as has been already insisted on, the use\nof the word design is delusive), will present itself strongly to our\nminds in connection both with the true foot, and with the model; but we\nfind another idea asserting itself with even greater strength, namely,\nthat the design of the true foot is far more intricate, and yet is\ncarried into execution in far more masterly manner than that of the\nmodel. We not only feel that there is a wider difference between the\nability, time, and care which have been lavished on the real foot and\nupon the model, than there is between the skill and the time taken to\nproduce Westminster Abbey, and that bestowed upon a gingerbread cake\nstuck with sugar plums so as to represent it, but also that these two\nobjects must have been manufactured on different principles. We do not\nfor a moment doubt that the real foot was designed, but we are so\nastonished at the dexterity of the designer that we are at a loss for\nsome time to think who could have designed it, where he can live, in\nwhat manner he studied, for how long, and by what processes he carried\nout his design, when matured, into actual practice. Until recently it\nwas thought that there was no answer to many of these questions, more\nespecially to those which bear upon the mode of manufacture. For the\nlast hundred years, however, the importance of a study has been\nrecognized which does actually reveal to us in no small degree the\nprocesses by which the human foot is manufactured, so that in the\nendeavour to lay our hands upon the points of difference between the\nkind of design with which the foot itself is designed, and the design of\nthe model, we turn naturally to the guidance of those who have made this\nstudy their specialty; and a very wide difference does this study,\nembryology, at once reveal to us.\n\nWriting of the successive changes through which each embryo is forced to\npass, the late Mr. G. H. Lewes says that \"none of these phases have any\nadaptation to the future state of the animal, but are in positive\ncontradiction to it or are simply purposeless; whereas all show stamped\non them the unmistakable characters of _ancestral_ adaptation, and the\nprogressions of organic evolution. What does the fact imply? There is\nnot a single known example of a complex organism which is not developed\nout of simpler forms. Before it can attain the complex structure which\ndistinguishes it, there must be an evolution of forms similar to those\nwhich distinguish the structure of organisms lower in the series. On the\nhypothesis of a plan which prearranged the organic world, nothing could\nbe more unworthy of a supreme intelligence than this inability to\nconstruct an organism at once, without making several previous tentative\nefforts, undoing to-day what was so carefully done yesterday, and\n_repeating for centuries the same tentatives in the same succession_. Do\nnot let us blink this consideration. There is a traditional phrase much\nin vogue among the anthropomorphists, which arose naturally enough from\na tendency to take human methods as an explanation of the Divine--a\nphrase which becomes a sort of argument--'The Great Architect.' But if\nwe are to admit the human point of view, a glance at the facts of\nembryology must produce very uncomfortable reflections. For what should\nwe say to an architect who was unable, or being able was obstinately\nunwilling, to erect a palace except by first using his materials in the\nshape of a hut, then pulling them down and rebuilding them as a cottage,\nthen adding story to story and room to room, _not_ with any reference to\nthe ultimate purposes of the palace, but wholly with reference to the\nway in which houses were constructed in ancient times? What should we\nsay to the architect who could not form a museum out of bricks and\nmortar, but was forced to begin as if going to construct a mansion, and\nafter proceeding some way in this direction, altered his plan into a\npalace, and that again into a museum? Yet this is the sort of succession\non which organisms are constructed. The fact has long been familiar; how\nhas it been reconciled with infinite wisdom? Let the following passage\nanswer for a thousand:--'The embryo is nothing like the miniature of the\nadult. For a long while the body in its entirety and in its details,\npresents the strangest of spectacles. Day by day and hour by hour, the\naspect of the scene changes, and this instability is exhibited by the\nmost essential parts no less than by the accessory parts. One would say\nthat nature feels her way, and only reaches the goal after many times\nmissing the path' (on dirait que la nature tatonne et ne conduit son\noeuvre a bon fin, qu'apres s'etre souvent trompee).\"[21]\n\nThe above passage does not, I think, affect the evidence for design\nwhich we adduced in the preceding chapter. However strange the process\nof manufacture may appear, when the work comes to be turned out the\ndesign is too manifest to be doubted.\n\nIf the reader were to come upon some lawyer's deed which dealt with\nmatters of such unspeakable intricacy, that it baffled his imagination\nto conceive how it could ever have been drafted, and if in spite of this\nhe were to find the intricacy of the provisions to be made, exceeded\nonly by the ease and simplicity with which the deed providing for them\nwas found to work in practice; and after this, if he were to discover\nthat the deed, by whomsoever drawn, had nevertheless been drafted upon\nprinciples which at first seemed very foreign to any according to which\nhe was in the habit of drafting deeds himself, as for example, that the\ndraftsman had begun to draft a will as a marriage settlement, and so\nforth--yet an observer would not, I take it, do either of two things. He\nwould not in the face of the result deny the design, making himself\njudge rather of the method of procedure than of the achievement. Nor yet\nafter insisting in the manner of Paley, on the wonderful proofs of\nintention and on the exquisite provisions which were to be found in\nevery syllable--thus leading us up to the highest pitch of\nexpectation--would he present us with such an impotent conclusion as\nthat the designer, though a living person and a true designer, was yet\nimmaterial and intangible, a something, in fact, which proves to be a\nnothing: an omniscient and omnipotent vacuum.\n\nOur observer would feel he need not have been at such pains to establish\nhis design if this was to be the upshot of his reasoning. He would\ntherefore admit the design, and by consequence the designer, but would\nprobably ask a little time for reflection before he ventured to say who,\nor what, or where the designer was. Then gaining some insight into the\nmanner in which the deed had been drawn, he would conclude that the\ndraftsman was a specialist who had had long practice in this particular\nkind of work, but who now worked almost as it might be said\nautomatically and without consciousness, and found it difficult to\ndepart from a habitual method of procedure.\n\nWe turn, then, on Paley, and say to him: \"We have admitted your design\nand your designer. Where is he? Show him to us. If you cannot show him\nto us as flesh and blood, show him as flesh and sap; show him as a\nliving cell; show him as protoplasm. Lower than this we should not\nfairly go; it is not in the bond or _nexus_ of our ideas that something\nutterly inanimate and inorganic should scheme, design, contrive, and\nelaborate structures which can make mistakes: it may elaborate low\nunerring things, like crystals, but it cannot elaborate those which have\nthe power to err. Nevertheless, we will commit such abuse with our\nunderstandings as to waive this point, and we will ask you to show him\nto us as air which, if it cannot be seen, yet can be felt, weighed,\nhandled, transferred from place to place, be judged by its effects, and\nso forth; or if this may not be, give us half a grain of hydrogen,\ndiffused through all space and invested with some of the minor\nattributes of matter; or if you cannot do this, give us an imponderable\nlike electricity, or even the higher mathematics, but give us something\nor throw off the mask and tell us fairly out that it is your paid\nprofession to hoodwink us on this matter if you can, and that you are\nbut doing your best to earn an honest living.\"\n\nWe may fancy Paley as turning the tables upon us and as saying: \"But you\ntoo have admitted a designer--you too then must mean a designer with a\nbody and soul, who must be somewhere to be found in space, and who must\nlive in time. Where is this your designer? Can you show him more than I\ncan? Can you lay your finger on him and demonstrate him so that a child\nshall see him and know him, and find what was heretofore an isolated\nidea concerning him, combine itself instantaneously with the idea of the\ndesigner, we will say, of the human foot, so that no power on earth\nshall henceforth tear those two ideas asunder? Surely if you cannot do\nthis, you too are trifling with words, and abusing your own mind and\nthat of your reader. Where, then, is your designer of man? Who made him?\nAnd where, again, is your designer of beasts and birds, of fishes, and\nof plants?\"\n\nOur answer is simple enough; it is that we can and do point to a living\ntangible person with flesh, blood, eyes, nose, ears, organs, senses,\ndimensions, who did of his own cunning after infinite proof of every\nkind of hazard and experiment scheme out, and fashion each organ of the\nhuman body. This is the person whom we claim as the designer and\nartificer of that body, and he is the one of all others the best fitted\nfor the task by his antecedents, and his practical knowledge of the\nrequirements of the case--for he is man himself.\n\nNot man, the individual of any given generation, but man in the entirety\nof his existence from the dawn of life onwards to the present moment. In\nlike manner we say that the designer of all organisms is so incorporate\nwith the organisms themselves--so lives, moves, and has its being in\nthose organisms, and is so one with them--they in it, and it in\nthem--that it is more consistent with reason and the common use of\nwords to see the designer of each living form in the living form itself,\nthan to look for its designer in some other place or person.\n\nThus we have a third alternative presented to us.\n\nMr. Charles Darwin and his followers deny design, as having any\nappreciable share in the formation of organism at all.\n\nPaley and the theologians insist on design, but upon a designer outside\nthe universe and the organism.\n\nThe third opinion is that suggested in the first instance, and carried\nout to a very high degree of development by Buffon. It was improved,\nand, indeed, made almost perfect by Dr. Erasmus Darwin, but too much\nneglected by him after he had put it forward. It was borrowed, as I\nthink we may say with some confidence, from Dr. Darwin by Lamarck, and\nwas followed up by him ardently thenceforth, during the remainder of his\nlife, though somewhat less perfectly comprehended by him than it had\nbeen by Dr. Darwin. It is that the design which has designed organisms,\nhas resided within, and been embodied in, the organisms themselves.\n\nWith but a very little change in the present signification of words, the\nquestion resolves itself into this.\n\nShall we see God henceforth as embodied in all living forms; as dwelling\nin them; as being that power in them whereby they have learnt to fashion\nthemselves, each one according to its ideas of its own convenience, and\nto make itself not only a microcosm, or little world, but a little\nunwritten history of the universe from its own point of view into the\nbargain? From everlasting, in time past, only in so far as life has\nlasted; invisible, only in so far as the ultimate connection between the\nwill to do and the thing which does is invisible; imperishable, only in\nso far as life as a whole is imperishable; omniscient and omnipotent,\nwithin the limits only of a very long and large experience, but ignorant\nand impotent in respect of all else--limited in all the above respects,\nyet even so incalculably vaster than anything that we can conceive?\n\nOr shall we see God as we were taught to say we saw him when we were\nchildren--as an artificial and violent attempt to combine ideas which\nfly asunder and asunder, no matter how often we try to force them into\ncombination?\n\n\"The true mainspring of our existence,\" says Buffon, \"lies not in those\nmuscles, veins, arteries, and nerves, which have been described with so\nmuch minuteness, it is to be found in the more hidden forces which are\nnot bounden by the gross mechanical laws which we would fain set over\nthem. Instead of trying to know these forces by their effects, we have\nendeavoured to uproot even their very idea, so as to banish them utterly\nfrom philosophy. But they return to us and with renewed vigour; they\nreturn to us in gravitation, in chemical affinity, in the phenomena of\nelectricity, &c. Their existence rests upon the clearest evidence; the\nomnipresence of their action is indisputable, but that action is hidden\naway from our eyes, and is a matter of inference only; we cannot\nactually see them, therefore we find difficulty in admitting that they\nexist; we wish to judge of everything by its exterior; we imagine that\nthe exterior is the whole, and deeming that it is not permitted us to\ngo beyond it, we neglect all that may enable us to do so.\"[22]\n\nOr may we not say that the unseen parts of God are those deep buried\nhistories, the antiquity and the repeatedness of which go as far beyond\nthat of any habit handed down to us from our earliest protoplasmic\nancestor, as the distance of the remotest star in space transcends our\ndistance from the sun?\n\nBy vivisection and painful introspection we can rediscover many a long\nburied history--rekindling that sense of novelty in respect of its\naction, whereby we can alone become aware of it. But there are other\nremoter histories, and more repeated thoughts and actions, before which\nwe feel so powerless to reawaken fresh interest concerning them, that we\ngive up the attempt in despair, and bow our heads, overpowered by the\nsense of their immensity. Thus our inability to comprehend God is\ncoextensive with our difficulty in going back upon the past--and our\nsense of him is a dim perception of our own vast and now inconceivably\nremote history.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[21] Quatrefages, 'Metamorphoses de l'Homme et des Animaux,' 1862, p.\n42; G. H. Lewes, 'Physical Basis of Mind,' 1877, p. 83.\n\n[22] Tom. ii. p. 486, 1794.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nFAILURE OF THE FIRST EVOLUTIONISTS TO SEE THEIR POSITION AS\nTELEOLOGICAL.\n\n\nIt follows necessarily from the doctrine of Dr. Erasmus Darwin and\nLamarck, if not from that of Buffon himself, that the greater number of\norgans are as purposive to the evolutionist as to the theologian, and\nfar more intelligibly so. Circumstances, however, prevented these\nwriters from acknowledging this fact to the world, and perhaps even to\nthemselves. Their _crux_ was, as it still is to so many evolutionists,\nthe presence of rudimentary organs, and the processes of embryological\ndevelopment. They would not admit that rudimentary and therefore useless\norgans were designed by a Creator to take their place once and for ever\nas part of a scheme whose main idea was, that every animal structure was\nto serve some useful end in connection with its possessor.\n\nThis was the doctrine of final causes as then commonly held; in the face\nof rudimentary organs it was absurd. Buffon was above all things else a\nplain matter of fact thinker, who refused to go far beyond the obvious.\nLike all other profound writers, he was, if I may say so, profoundly\nsuperficial. He felt that the aim of research does not consist in the\nknowing this or that, but in the easing of the desire to know or\nunderstand more completely--in the peace of mind which passeth all\nunderstanding. His was the perfection of a healthy mental organism by\nwhich over effort is felt instinctively to be as vicious and\ncontemptible as indolence. He knew this too well to know the grounds of\nhis knowledge, but we smaller people who know it less completely, can\nsee that such felicitous instinctive tempering together of the two great\ncontradictory principles, love of effort and love of ease, has underlain\nevery step of all healthy growth through all conceivable time. Nothing\nis worth looking at which is seen either too obviously or with too much\ndifficulty. Nothing is worth doing or well done which is not done fairly\neasily, and some little deficiency of effort is more pardonable than any\nvery perceptible excess; for virtue has ever erred rather on the side of\nself-indulgence than of asceticism, and well-being has ever advanced\nthrough the pleasures rather than through austerity.\n\nAccording to Buffon, then--as also according to Dr. Darwin, who was just\nsuch another practical and genial thinker, and who was distinctly a\npupil of Buffon, though a most intelligent and original one--if an organ\nafter a reasonable amount of inspection appeared to be useless, it was\nto be called useless without more ado, and theories were to be ordered\nout of court if they were troublesome. In like manner, if animals bred\nfreely _inter se_ before our eyes, as for example the horse and ass, the\nfact was to be noted, but no animals were to be classed as capable of\ninterbreeding until they had asserted their right to such classification\nby breeding with tolerable certainty. If, again, an animal looked as if\nit felt, that is to say, if it moved about pretty quickly or made a\nnoise, it must be held to feel; if it did neither of these things, it\ndid not look as if it felt and therefore it must be said not to feel.\n_De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est lex_ was one of the\nchief axioms of their philosophy; no writers have had a greater horror\nof mystery or of ideas that have not become so mastered as to be, or to\nhave been, superficial. Lamarck was one of those men of whom I believe\nit has been said that they have brain upon the brain. He had his theory\nthat an animal could not feel unless it had a nervous system, and at\nleast a spinal marrow--and that it could not think at all without a\nbrain--all his facts, therefore, have to be made to square with this.\nWith Buffon and Dr. Darwin we feel safe that however wrong they may\nsometimes be, their conclusions have always been arrived at on that\nfairly superficial view of things in which, as I have elsewhere said,\nour nature alone permits us to be comforted.\n\nTo these writers, then, the doctrine of final causes for rudimentary\norgans was a piece of mystification and an absurdity; no less fatal to\nany such doctrine were the processes of embryological development. It\nwas plain that the commonly received teleology must be given up; but the\nidea of design or purpose was so associated in their minds with\ntheological design that they avoided it altogether. They seem to have\nforgotten that an internal teleology is as much teleology as an external\none; hence, unfortunately, though their whole theory of development is\nintensely purposive, it is the fact rather than the name of teleology\nwhich has hitherto been insisted upon, even by the greatest writers on\nevolution--the name having been denied even by those who were most\ninsisting on the thing itself.\n\nIt is easy to understand the difficulty felt by the fathers of evolution\nwhen we remember how much had to be seen before the facts could lie well\nbefore them. It was necessary to attain, firstly, to a perception of the\nunity of person between parents and offspring in successive generations;\nsecondly, it must be seen that an organism's memory goes back for\ngenerations beyond its birth, to the first beginnings in fact, of which\nwe know anything whatever; thirdly, the latency of that memory, as of\nmemory generally till the associated ideas are reproduced, must be\nbrought to bear upon the facts of heredity; and lastly, the\nunconsciousness with which habitual actions come to be performed, must\nbe assigned as the explanation of the unconsciousness with which we grow\nand discharge most of our natural functions.\n\nBuffon was too busy with the fact that animals descended with\nmodification at all, to go beyond the development and illustration of\nthis great truth. I doubt whether he ever saw more than the first, and\nthat dimly, of the four considerations above stated.\n\nDr. Darwin was the first to point out the first two considerations with\nsome clearness, but he can hardly be said to have understood their full\nimportance: the two latter ideas do not appear to have occurred to him.\n\nLamarck had little if any perception of any one of the four. When,\nhowever, they are firmly seized and brought into their due bearings one\nupon another, the facts of heredity become as simple as those of a man\nmaking a tobacco pipe, and rudimentary organs are seen to be essentially\nof the same character as the little rudimentary protuberance at the\nbottom of the pipe to which I referred in 'Erewhon.'[23]\n\nThese organs are now no longer useful, but they once were so, and were\ntherefore once purposive, though not so now. They are the expressions of\na bygone usefulness; sayings, as it were, about which there was at one\ntime infinite wrangling, as to what both the meaning and the expression\nshould best be, so that they then had living significance in the mouths\nof those who used them, though they have become such mere shibboleths\nand cant formulae to ourselves that we think no more of their meaning\nthan we do of Julius Caesar in the month of July. They continue to be\nreproduced through the force of habit, and through indisposition to get\nout of any familiar groove of action until it becomes too unpleasant for\nus to remain in it any longer. It has long been felt that embryology and\nrudimentary structures indicated community of descent. Dr. Darwin and\nLamarck insisted on this, as have all subsequent writers on evolution;\nbut the explanation of why and how the structures come to be\nrepeated--namely, that they are simply examples of the force of\nhabit--can only be perceived intelligently by those who admit so much\nunity between parents and offspring that the self-development of the\nlatter can be properly called habitual (as being a repetition of an act\nby one and the same individual), and can only be fully sympathized with\nby those who recognize that if habit be admitted as the key to the fact\nat all, the unconscious manner in which the habit comes to be repeated\nis only of a piece with all our other observations concerning habit. For\nthe fuller development of the foregoing, I must refer the reader to my\nwork 'Life and Habit.'\n\nThe purposiveness, which even Dr. Darwin, and Lamarck still less, seem\nnever to have quite recognized in spite of their having insisted so much\non what amounts to the same thing, now comes into full view. It is seen\nthat the organs external to the body, and those internal to it are, the\nsecond as much as the first, things which we have made for our own\nconvenience, and with a prevision that we shall have need of them; the\nmain difference between the manufacture of these two classes of organs\nbeing, that we have made the one kind so often that we can no longer\nfollow the processes whereby we make them, while the others are new\nthings which we must make introspectively or not at all, and which are\nnot yet so incorporate with our vitality as that we should think they\ngrow instead of being manufactured. The manufacture of the tool, and the\nmanufacture of the living organ prove therefore to be but two species of\nthe same genus, which, though widely differentiated, have descended as\nit were from one common filament of desire and inventive faculty. The\ngreater or less complexity of the organs goes for very little. It is\nonly a question of the amount of intelligence and voluntary\nself-adaptation which we must admit, and this must be settled rather by\nan appeal to what we find in organism, and observe concerning it, than\nby what we may have imagined _a priori_.\n\nGiven a small speck of jelly with some kind of circumstance-suiting\npower, some power of slightly varying its actions in accordance with\nslightly varying circumstances and desires--given such a jelly-speck\nwith a power of assimilating other matter, and thus, of reproducing\nitself, given also that it should be possessed of a memory, and we can\nshow how the whole animal world can have descended it may be from an\namoeba without interference from without, and how every organ in every\ncreature is designed at first roughly and tentatively but finally\nfashioned with the most consummate perfection, by the creature which has\nhad need of that organ, which best knew what it wanted, and was never\nsatisfied till it had got that which was the best suited to its varying\ncircumstances in their entirety. We can even show how, if it becomes\nworth the Ethiopian's while to try and change his skin, or the leopard's\nto change his spots, they can assuredly change them within a not\nunreasonable time and adapt their covering to their own will and\nconvenience, and to that of none other; thus what is commonly conceived\nof as direct creation by God is moved back to a time and space\ninconceivable in their remoteness, while the aim and design so obvious\nin nature are shown to be still at work around us, growing ever busier\nand busier, and advancing from day to day both in knowledge and power.\n\nIt was reserved for Mr. Darwin and for those who have too rashly\nfollowed him to deny purpose as having had any share in the development\nof animal and vegetable organs; to see no evidence of design in those\nwonderful provisions which have been the marvel and delight of observers\nin all ages. The one who has drawn our attention more than perhaps any\nother living writer to those very marvels of coadaptation, is the\nforemost to maintain that they are the result not of desire and design,\neither within the creature or without it, but of blind chance, working\nno whither, and due but to the accumulation of innumerable lucky\naccidents.\n\n\"There are men,\" writes Professor Tyndall in the 'Nineteenth Century,'\nfor last November, \"and by no means the minority, who, however wealthy\nin regard to facts, can never rise into the region of principles; and\nthey are sometimes intolerant of those that can. They are formed to plod\nmeritoriously on in the lower levels of thought; unpossessed of the\npinions necessary to reach the heights, they cannot realize the mental\nact--the act of inspiration it might well be called--by which a man of\ngenius, after long pondering and proving, reaches a theoretic conception\nwhich unravels and illuminates the tangle of centuries of observation\nand experiment. There are minds, it may be said in passing, who, at the\npresent moment, stand in this relation to Mr. Darwin.\"\n\nThe more rhapsodical parts of the above must go for what they are worth,\nbut I should be sorry to think that what remains conveyed a censure\nwhich might fall justly on myself. As I read the earlier part of the\npassage I confess that I imagined the conclusion was going to be very\ndifferent from what it proved to be. Fresh from the study of the older\nmen and also of Mr. Darwin himself, I failed to see that Mr. Darwin had\n\"unravelled and illuminated\" a tangled skein, but believed him, on the\ncontrary, to have tangled and obscured what his predecessors had made in\ngreat part, if not wholly, plain. With the older writers, I had felt as\nthough in the hands of men who wished to understand themselves and to\nmake their reader understand them with the smallest possible exertion.\nThe older men, if not in full daylight, at any rate saw in what quarter\nof the sky the dawn was breaking, and were looking steadily towards it.\nIt is not they who have put their hands over their own eyes and ours,\nand who are crying out that there is no light, but chance and blindness\neverywhere.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] Page 210, first edition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE TELEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF ORGANISM--THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE\nUNCONSCIOUS.\n\n\nI have stated the foregoing in what I take to be an extreme logical\ndevelopment, in order that the reader may more easily perceive the\nconsequences of those premises which I am endeavouring to re-establish.\nBut it must not be supposed that an animal or plant has ever conceived\nthe idea of some organ widely different from any it was yet possessed\nof, and has set itself to design it in detail and grow towards it.\n\nThe small jelly-speck, which we call the amoeba, has no organs save\nwhat it can extemporize as occasion arises. If it wants to get at\nanything, it thrusts out part of its jelly, which thus serves it as an\narm or hand: when the arm has served its purpose, it is absorbed into\nthe rest of the jelly, and has now to do the duty of a stomach by\nhelping to wrap up what it has just purveyed. The small round\njelly-speck spreads itself out and envelops its food, so that the whole\ncreature is now a stomach, and nothing but a stomach. Having digested\nits food, it again becomes a jelly-speck, and is again ready to turn\npart of itself into hand or foot as its next convenience may dictate. It\nis not to be believed that such a creature as this, which is probably\njust sensitive to light and nothing more, should be able to form a\nconception of an eye and set itself to work to grow one, any more than\nit is believable that he who first observed the magnifying power of a\ndew drop, or even he who first constructed a rude lens, should have had\nany idea in his mind of Lord Rosse's telescope with all its parts and\nappliances. Nothing could be well conceived more foreign to experience\nand common sense. Animals and plants have travelled to their present\nforms as man has travelled to any one of his own most complicated\ninventions. Slowly, step by step, through many blunders and mischances\nwhich have worked together for good to those that have persevered in\nelasticity. They have travelled as man has travelled, with but little\nperception of a want till there was also some perception of a power, and\nwith but little perception of a power till there was a dim sense of\nwant; want stimulating power, and power stimulating want; and both so\nbased upon each other that no one can say which is the true foundation,\nbut rather that they must be both baseless and, as it were, meteoric in\nmid air. They have seen very little ahead of a present power or need,\nand have been then most moral, when most inclined to pierce a little\ninto futurity, but also when most obstinately declining to pierce too\nfar, and busy mainly with the present. They have been so far blindfolded\nthat they could see but for a few steps in front of them, yet so far\nfree to see that those steps were taken with aim and definitely, and not\nin the dark.\n\n\"Plus il a su,\" says Buffon, speaking of man, \"plus il a pu, mais aussi\nmoins il a fait, moins il a su.\" This holds good wherever life holds\ngood. Wherever there is life there is a moral government of rewards and\npunishments understood by the amoeba neither better nor worse than by\nman. The history of organic development is the history of a moral\nstruggle.\n\nWe know nothing as yet about the origin of a creature able to feel want\nand power, nor yet what want and power spring from. It does not seem\nworth while to go into these questions until an understanding has been\ncome to as to whether the interaction of want and power in some low form\nor forms of life which could assimilate matter, reproduce themselves,\nvary their actions, and be capable of remembering, will or will not\nsuffice to explain the development of the varied organs and desires\nwhich we see in the higher vertebrates and man. When this question has\nbeen settled, then it will be time to push our inquiries farther back.\n\nBut given such a low form of life as here postulated, and there is no\nforce in Paley's pretended objection to the Darwinism of his time.\n\n\"Give our philosopher,\" he says, \"appetencies; give him a portion of\nliving irritable matter (a nerve or the clipping of a nerve) to work\nupon; give also to his incipient or progressive forms the power of\npropagating their like in every stage of their alteration; and if he is\nto be believed, he could replenish the world with all the vegetable and\nanimal productions which we now see in it.\"[24]\n\nAfter meeting this theory with answers which need not detain us, he\ncontinues:--\n\n\"The senses of animals appear to me quite incapable of receiving the\nexplanation of their origin which this theory affords. Including under\nthe word 'sense' the organ and the perception, we have no account of\neither. How will our philosopher get at vision or make an eye? Or,\nsuppose the eye formed, would the perception follow? The same of the\nother senses. And this objection holds its force, ascribe what you will\nto the hand of time, to the power of habit, to changes too slow to be\nobserved by man, or brought within any comparison which he is able to\nmake of past things with the present. Concede what you please to these\narbitrary and unattested superstitions, how will they help you? Here is\nno inception. No laws, no course, no powers of nature which prevail at\npresent, nor any analogous to these would give commencement to a new\nsense; and it is in vain to inquire how that might proceed which would\nnever _begin_.\"\n\nIn answer to this, let us suppose that some inhabitants of another world\nwere to see a modern philosopher so using a microscope that they should\nbelieve it to be a part of the philosopher's own person, which he could\ncut off from and join again to himself at pleasure, and suppose there\nwere a controversy as to how this microscope had originated, and that\none party maintained the man had made it little by little because he\nwanted it, while the other declared this to be absurd and impossible; I\nask, would this latter party be justified in arguing that microscopes\ncould never have been perfected by degrees through the preservation of\nand accumulation of small successive improvements, inasmuch as men\ncould not have begun to want to use microscopes until they had had a\nmicroscope which should show them that such an instrument would be\nuseful to them, and that hence there is nothing to account for the\n_beginning_ of microscopes, which might indeed make some progress when\nonce originated, but which could never originate?\n\nIt might be pointed out to such a reasoner, firstly, that as regards any\nacquired power the various stages in the acquisition of which he might\nbe supposed able to remember, he would find that, logic notwithstanding,\nthe wish did originate the power, and yet was originated by it, both\ncoming up gradually out of something which was not recognisable as\neither power or wish, and advancing through vain beating of the air, to\na vague effort, and from this to definite effort with failure, and from\nthis to definite effort with success, and from this to success with\nlittle consciousness of effort, and from this to success with such\ncomplete absence of effort that he now acts unconsciously and without\npower of introspection, and that, do what he will, he can rarely or\nnever draw a sharp dividing line whereat anything shall be said to\nbegin, though none less certain that there has been a continuity in\ndiscontinuity, and a discontinuity in continuity between it and certain\nother past things; moreover, that his opponents postulated so much\nbeginning of the microscope as that there should be a dew drop, even as\nour evolutionists start with a sense of touch, of which sense all the\nothers are modifications, so that not one of them but is resolvable into\ntouch by more or less easy stages; and secondly, that the question is\none of fact and of the more evident deductions therefrom, and should not\nbe carried back to those remote beginnings where the nature of the facts\nis so purely a matter of conjecture and inference.\n\nNo plant or animal, then, according to our view, would be able to\nconceive more than a very slight improvement on its organization at a\ngiven time, so clearly as to make the efforts towards it that would\nresult in growth of the required modification; nor would these efforts\nbe made with any far-sighted perception of what next and next and after,\nbut only of what next; while many of the happiest thoughts would come\nlike all other happy thoughts--thoughtlessly; by a chain of reasoning\ntoo swift and subtle for conscious analysis by the individual, as will\nbe more fully insisted on hereafter. Some of these modifications would\nbe noticeable, but the majority would involve no more noticeable\ndifference than can be detected between the length of the shortest day,\nand that of the shortest but one.\n\nThus a bird whose toes were not webbed, but who had under force of\ncircumstances little by little in the course of many generations learned\nto swim, either from having lived near a lake, and having learnt the art\nowing to its fishing habits, or from wading about in shallow pools by\nthe sea-side at low water, and finding itself sometimes a little out of\nits depth and just managing to scramble over the intermediate yard or so\nbetween it and safety--such a bird did not probably conceive the idea of\nswimming on the water and set itself to learn to do so, and then\nconceive the idea of webbed feet and set itself to get webbed feet. The\nbird found itself in some small difficulty, out of which it either saw,\nor at any rate found that it could extricate itself by striking out\nvigorously with its feet and extending its toes as far as ever it could;\nit thus began to learn the art of swimming and conceived the idea of\nswimming synchronously, or nearly so; or perhaps wishing to get over a\nyard or two of deep water, and trying to do so without being at the\ntrouble of rising to fly, it would splash and struggle its way over the\nwater, and thus practically swim, though without much perception of what\nit had been doing. Finding that no harm had come to it, the bird would\ndo the same again, and again; it would thus presently lose fear, and\nwould be able to act more calmly; then it would begin to find out that\nit could swim a little, and if its food lay much in the water so that it\nwould be of great advantage to it to be able to alight and rest without\nbeing forced to return to land, it would begin to make a practice of\nswimming. It would now discover that it could swim the more easily\naccording as its feet presented a more extended surface to the water; it\nwould therefore keep its toes extended whenever it swam, and as far as\nin it lay, would make the most of whatever skin was already at the base\nof its toes. After very many generations it would become web-footed, if\ndoing as above described should have been found continuously convenient,\nso that the bird should have continuously used the skin about its toes\nas much as possible in this direction.\n\nFor there is a margin in every organic structure (and perhaps more than\nwe imagine in things inorganic also), which will admit of references,\nas it were, side notes, and glosses upon the original text. It is on\nthis margin that we may err or wander--the greatness of a mistake\ndepending rather upon the extent of the departure from the original\ntext, than on the direction that the departure takes. A little error on\nthe bad side is more pardonable, and less likely to hurt the organism\nthan a too great departure upon the right one. This is a fundamental\nproposition in any true system of ethics, the question what is too much\nor too sudden being decided by much the same higgling as settles the\nprice of butter in a country market, and being as invisible as the link\nwhich connects the last moment of desire with the first of power and\nperformance, and with the material result achieved.\n\nIt is on this margin that the fulcrum is to be found, whereby we obtain\nthe little purchase over our structure, that enables us to achieve great\nresults if we use it steadily, with judgment, and with neither too\nlittle effort nor too much. It is by employing this that those who have\na fancy to move their ears or toes without moving other organs learn to\ndo so. There is a man at the Agricultural Hall now playing the violin\nwith his toes, and playing it, as I am told, sufficiently well. The eye\nof the sailor, the wrist of the conjuror, the toe of the professional\nmedium, are all found capable of development to an astonishing degree,\neven in a single lifetime; but in every case success has been attained\nby the simple process of making the best of whatever power a man has had\nat any given time, and by being on the look out to take advantage of\naccident, and even of misfortune. If a man would learn to paint, he must\nnot theorize concerning art, nor think much what he would do beforehand,\nbut he must do _something_--it does not matter what, except that it\nshould be whatever at the moment will come handiest and easiest to him;\nand he must do that something as well as he can. This will presently\nopen the door for something else, and a way will show itself which no\nconceivable amount of searching would have discovered, but which yet\ncould never have been discovered by sitting still and taking no pains at\nall. \"Dans l'animal,\" says Buffon, \"il y a moins de jugement que de\nsentiment.\"[25]\n\nIt may appear as though this were blowing hot and cold with the same\nbreath, inasmuch as I am insisting that important modifications of\nstructure have been always purposive; and at the same time am denying\nthat the creature modified has had any purpose in the greater part of\nall those actions which have at length modified both structure and\ninstinct. Thus I say that a bird learns to swim without having any\npurpose of learning to swim before it set itself to make those movements\nwhich have resulted in its being able to do so. At the same time I\nmaintain that it has only learned to swim by trying to swim, and this\ninvolves the very purpose which I have just denied. The reconciliation\nof these two apparently irreconcilable contentions must be found in the\nconsideration that the bird was not the less trying to swim, merely\nbecause it did not know the name we have chosen to give to the art\nwhich it was trying to master, nor yet how great were the resources of\nthat art. A person, who knew all about swimming, if from some bank he\ncould watch our supposed bird's first attempt to scramble over a short\nspace of deep water, would at once declare that the bird was trying to\nswim--if not actually swimming. Provided then that there is a very\nlittle perception of, and prescience concerning, the means whereby the\nnext desired end may be attained, it matters not how little in advance\nthat end may be of present desires or faculties; it is still reached\nthrough purpose, and must be called purposive. Again, no matter how many\nof these small steps be taken, nor how absolute was the want of purpose\nor prescience concerning any but the one being actually taken at any\ngiven moment, this does not bar the result from having been arrived at\nthrough design and purpose. If each one of the small steps is purposive\nthe result is purposive, though there was never purpose extended over\nmore than one, two, or perhaps at most three, steps at a time.\n\nReturning to the art of painting for an example, are we to say that the\nproficiency which such a student as was supposed above will certainly\nattain, is not due to design, merely because it was not until he had\nalready become three parts excellent that he knew the full purport of\nall that he had been doing? When he began he had but vague notions of\nwhat he would do. He had a wish to learn to represent nature, but the\nline into which he has settled down has probably proved very different\nfrom that which he proposed to himself originally. Because he has taken\nadvantage of his accidents, is it, therefore, one whit the less true\nthat his success is the result of his desires and his design? The\n'Times' pointed out not long ago that the theory which now associates\nmeteors and comets in the most unmistakable manner, was suggested by one\naccident, and confirmed by another. But the writer added well that \"such\naccidents happen only to the zealous student of nature's secrets.\" In\nthe same way the bird that is taking to the habit of swimming, and of\nmaking the most of whatever skin it already has between its toes, will\nhave doubtless to thank accidents for no small part of its progress; but\nthey will be such accidents as could never have happened to, or been\ntaken advantage of by any creature which was not zealously trying to\nmake the most of itself--and between such accidents as this, and design,\nthe line is hard to draw; for if we go deep enough we shall find that\nmost of our design resolves itself into as it were a shaking of the bag\nto see what will come out that will suit our purpose, and yet at the\nsame time that most of our shaking of the bag resolves itself into a\ndesign that the bag shall contain only such and such things, or\nthereabouts.\n\nAgain, the fact that animals are no longer conscious of\ndesign and purpose in much that they do, but act unreflectingly,\nand as we sometimes say concerning ourselves \"automatically\" or\n\"mechanically\"--that they have no idea whatever of the steps whereby\nthey have travelled to their present state, and show no sign of doubt\nabout what must have been at one time the subject of all manner of\ndoubts, difficulties, and discussions--that whatever sign of reflection\nthey now exhibit is to be found only in case of some novel feature or\ndifficulty presenting itself; these facts do not bar that the results\nachieved should be attributed to an inception in reason, design, and\npurpose, no matter how rapidly and as we call it instinctively, the\ncreatures may now act.\n\nFor if we look closely at such an invention as the steam engine in its\nlatest and most complicated developments, about which there can be no\ndispute but that they are achievements of reason, purpose, and design,\nwe shall find them present us with examples of all those features the\npresence of which in the handiwork of animals is too often held to bar\nreason and purpose from having had any share therein.\n\nAssuredly such men as the Marquis of Worcester and Captain Savery had\nvery imperfect ideas as to the upshot of their own action. The simplest\nsteam engine now in use in England is probably a marvel of ingenuity as\ncompared with the highest development which appeared possible to these\ntwo great men, while our newest and most highly complicated engines\nwould seem to them more like living beings than machines. Many, again,\nof the steps leading to the present development have been due to action\nwhich had but little heed of the steam engine, being the inventions of\nattendants whose desire was to save themselves the trouble of turning\nthis or that cock, and who were indifferent to any other end than their\nown immediate convenience. No step in fact along the whole route was\never taken with much perception of what would be the next step after the\none being taken at any given moment.\n\nNor do we find that an engine made after any old and well-known pattern\nis now made with much more consciousness of design than we can suppose a\nbird's nest to be built with. The greater number of the parts of any\nsuch engine, are made by the gross as it were like screws and nuts,\nwhich are turned out by machinery and in respect of which the labour of\ndesign is now no more felt than is the design of him who first invented\nthe wheel. It is only when circumstances require any modification in the\narticle to be manufactured that thought and design will come into play\nagain; but I take it few will deny that if circumstances compel a bird\neither to give up a nest three-parts built altogether, or to make some\ntrifling deviation from its ordinary practice, it will in nine cases out\nof ten make such deviation as shall show that it had thought the matter\nover, and had on the whole concluded to take such and such a course,\nthat is to say, that it had reasoned and had acted with such purpose as\nits reason had dictated.\n\nAnd I imagine that this is the utmost that anyone can claim even for\nman's own boasted powers. Set the man who has been accustomed to make\nengines of one type, to make engines of another type without any\nintermediate course of training or instruction, and he will make no\nbetter figure with his engines than a thrush would do if commanded by\nher mate to make a nest like a blackbird. It is vain then to contend\nthat the ease and certainty with which an action is performed, even\nthough it may have now become matter of such fixed habit that it cannot\nbe suddenly and seriously modified without rendering the whole\nperformance abortive, is any argument against that action having been an\nachievement of design and reason in respect of each one of the steps\nthat have led to it; and if in respect of each one of the steps then as\nregards the entire action; for we see our own most reasoned actions\nbecome no less easy, unerring, automatic, and unconscious, than the\nactions which we call instinctive when they have been repeated a\nsufficient number of times.\n\nThis has been often pointed out, but I insisted upon it and developed it\nin 'Life and Habit,' more I believe than has been done hitherto, at the\nsame time making it the key to many phenomena of growth and heredity\nwhich without such key seem explained by words rather than by any\ncorresponding peace of mind in our ideas concerning them. Seeing that I\ndwelt much on the importance of bearing in mind the vanishing tendency\nof consciousness, volition, and memory upon their becoming intense, a\ntendency which no one after five minutes' reflection will venture to\ndeny, some reviewers have imagined that I am advocating the same views\nas have been put forward by Von Hartmann under the title of 'the\nPhilosophy of the Unconscious.' Unless, however, I am much mistaken,\ntheir opinion is without foundation. For so far as I can gather, Von\nHartmann personifies the unconscious and makes it act and think--in fact\ndeifies it--whereas I only infer a certain history for certain of our\ngrowths and actions in consequence of observing that often repeated\nactions come in time to be performed unconsciously. I cannot think I\nhave done more than note a fact which all must acknowledge, and drawn\nfrom it an inference which may or may not be true, but which is at any\nrate perfectly intelligible, whereas if Von Hartmann's meaning is\nanything like what Mr. Sully says it is,[26] I can only say that it has\nnot been given to me to form any definite conception whatever as to what\nthat meaning may be. I am encouraged moreover to hope that I am not in\nthe same condemnation with Von Hartmann--if, indeed, Von Hartmann is to\nbe condemned, about which I know nothing--by the following extract from\na German Review of 'Life and Habit.'\n\n     \"Der erste dieser beiden Erklaerungsversuche, ist eine wahre\n     'Philosophie des Unbewussten' nicht des Hartmann'schen Unbewussten\n     welches hellsehend und wunderthaetig von aussen in die natuerliche\n     Entwickelung der Organismen eingreift, sondern eines Unbewussten\n     welches wie der Verfasser zeigt, in allen organischen Wesen\n     anzunehmen unsere eigene Erfahrung und die Stufenfolge der\n     Organismen von den Moneren und Amoeben bis zu den hoechsten\n     Pflanzen und Thieren und uns selbst aufwaerts--uns gestattet, wenn\n     nicht uns noethigt. Der Gedankengang dieser neuen oder wenigstens in\n     diesem Sinne wohl zum ersten Male consequent im Einzelnen\n     durchgefuehrten Philosophie des Unbewussten ist, seinen Hauptzuegen\n     nach kurz angedeutet, folgender.\"[27]\n\nEven here I am made to personify more than I like; I do not wish to say\nthat the unconscious does this or that, but that when we have done this\nor that sufficiently often we do it unconsciously.\n\nIf the foregoing be granted, and it be admitted that the unconsciousness\nand seeming automatism with which any action may be performed is no bar\nto its having a foundation in memory, reason, and at one time\nconsciously recognized effort--and this I believe to be the chief\naddition which I have ventured to make to the theory of Buffon and Dr.\nErasmus Darwin--then the wideness of the difference between the\nDarwinism of eighty years ago and the Darwinism of to-day becomes\nimmediately apparent, and it also becomes apparent, how important and\ninteresting is the issue which is raised between them.\n\nAccording to the older Darwinism the lungs are just as purposive as the\ncorkscrew. They, no less than the corkscrew, are a piece of mechanism\ndesigned and gradually improved upon and perfected by an intelligent\ncreature for the gratification of its own needs. True there are many\nimportant differences between mechanism which is part of the body, and\nmechanism which is no such part, but the differences are such as do not\naffect the fact that in each case the result, whether, for example,\nlungs or corkscrew, is due to desire, invention, and design.\n\nAnd now I will ask one more question, which may seem, perhaps, to have\nbut little importance, but which I find personally interesting. I have\nbeen told by a reviewer, of whom upon the whole I have little reason to\ncomplain, that the theory I put forward in 'Life and Habit,' and which I\nam now again insisting on, is pessimism--pure and simple. I have a very\nvague idea what pessimism means, but I should be sorry to believe that I\nam a pessimist. Which, I would ask, is the pessimist? He who sees love\nof beauty, design, steadfastness of purpose, intelligence, courage, and\nevery quality to which success has assigned the name of \"worth,\" as\nhaving drawn the pattern of every leaf and organ now and in all past\ntime, or he who sees nothing in the world of nature but a chapter of\naccidents and of forces interacting blindly?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[24] 'Nat. Theol.,' ch. xxiii.\n\n[25] 'Oiseaux,' vol. i. p. 5.\n\n[26] 'Westminster Review,' vol. xlix. p. 124.\n\n[27] Translation: \"The first of these two attempts is a true 'philosophy\nof the unconscious,' not Hartmann's unconscious, which influences the\nnatural evolution of organism from without as though by Providence and\nmiracle, but of an unconscious, which, as the author shows, our own\nexperience and the progressive succession of organisms from the monads\nand amoebae up to the highest plants and animals, including ourselves,\nallows, if it does not compel us to assume [as obtaining] in all organic\nbeings. This philosophy of the unconscious is new, or at any rate now\nfor the first time carried out consequentially in detail; its main\nfeatures, briefly stated are as follows.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSCHEME OF THE REMAINDER OF THE WORK. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE THEORY OF\nEVOLUTION.\n\n\nI have long felt that evolution must stand or fall according as it is\nmade to rest or not on principles which shall give a definite purpose\nand direction to the variations whose accumulation results in specific,\nand ultimately in generic differences. In other words, according as it\nis made to stand upon the ground first clearly marked out for it by Dr.\nErasmus Darwin and afterwards adopted by Lamarck, or on that taken by\nMr. Charles Darwin.\n\nThere is some reason to fear that in consequence of the disfavour into\nwhich modern Darwinism is seen to be falling by those who are more\nclosely watching the course of opinion upon this subject, evolution\nitself may be for a time discredited as something inseparable from the\ntheory that it has come about mainly through \"the means\" of natural\nselection. If people are shown that the arguments by which a somewhat\nstartling conclusion has been reached will not legitimately lead to that\nconclusion, they are very ready to assume that the conclusion must be\naltogether unfounded, especially when, as in the present case, there is\na vast mass of vested interests opposed to the conclusion. Few know that\nthere are other great works upon descent with modification besides Mr.\nDarwin's. Not one person in ten thousand has any distinct idea of what\nBuffon, Dr. Darwin, and Lamarck propounded. Their names have been\ndiscredited by the very authors who have been most indebted to them;\nthere is hardly a writer on evolution who does not think it incumbent\nupon him to warn Lamarck off the ground which he at any rate made his\nown, and to cast a stone at what he will call the \"shallow speculations\"\nor \"crude theories\" or the \"well-known doctrine\" of the foremost\nexponent of Buffon and Dr. Darwin. Buffon is a great name, Dr. Darwin is\nno longer even this, and Lamarck has been so systematically laughed at\nthat it amounts to little less than philosophical suicide for anyone to\nstand up in his behalf. Not one of our scientific elders or chief\npriests but would caution a student rather to avoid the three great men\nwhom I have named than to consult them. It is a perilous task therefore\nto try and take evolution from the pedestal on which it now appears to\nstand so securely, and to put it back upon the one raised for it by its\npropounders; yet this is what I believe will have to be done sooner or\nlater unless the now general acceptance of evolution is to be shaken\nmore rudely than some of its upholders may anticipate. I propose\ntherefore to give a short biographical sketch of the three writers whose\nworks form new departures in the history of evolution, with a somewhat\nfull _resume_ of the positions they took in regard to it. I will also\ntouch briefly upon some other writers who have handled the same subject.\nThe reader will thus be enabled to follow the development of a great\nconception as it has grown up in the minds of successive men of genius,\nand by thus growing with it, as it were, through its embryonic stages,\nhe will make himself more thoroughly master of it in all its bearings.\n\nI will then contrast the older with the newer Darwinism, and will show\nwhy the 'Origin of Species,' though an episode of incalculable value,\ncannot, any more than the 'Vestiges of Creation,' take permanent rank in\nthe literature of evolution.\n\nIt will appear that the evolution of evolution has gone through the\nfollowing principal stages:--\n\nI. A general conception of the fact that specific types were not always\nimmutable.\n\nThis was common to many writers, both ancient and modern; it has been\noccasionally asserted from the times of Anaximander and Lucretius to\nthose of Bacon and Sir Walter Raleigh.\n\nII. A definite conception that animal and vegetable forms were so\nextensively mutable that few (and, if so, perhaps but one) could claim\nto be of an original stock; the direct effect of changed conditions\nbeing assigned as the cause of modification, and the important\nconsequences of the struggle for existence being in many respects fully\nrecognized. The fact of design or purpose in connection with organism,\nas causing habits and thus as underlying all variation, was also\nindicated with some clearness, but was not thoroughly understood.\n\nThis phase must be identified with the name of Buffon, who, as I will\nshow reason for believing, would have carried his theory much further if\nhe had not felt that he had gone as far in the right direction as was\nthen desirable. Buffon put forward his opinions, with great reserve and\nyet with hardly less frankness, in volume after volume from 1749 to\n1788, the year of his death, but they do not appear to have taken root\nat once in France. They took root in England, and were thence\ntransplanted back to France.\n\nIII. A development in England of the Buffonian system, marked by\nglimpses of the unity between offspring and parents, and broad\nsuggestions to the effect that the former must be considered as capable\nof remembering, under certain circumstances, what had happened to it,\nand what it did, when it was part of the personality of those from whom\nit had descended.\n\nA definite belief, openly expressed, that not only are many species\nmutable, but that all living forms, whether animal or vegetable, are\ndescended from a single, or at any rate from not many, original low\nforms of life, and this as the direct consequence of the actions and\nrequirements of the living forms themselves, and as the indirect\nconsequence of changed conditions. A definite cause is thus supposed to\nunderlie variations, and the resulting adaptations become purposive; but\nthis was not said, nor, I am afraid, seen.\n\nThis is the original Darwinism of Dr. Erasmus Darwin. It was put forward\nin his 'Zoonomia,' in 1794, and was adopted almost in its entirety by\nLamarck, who, when he had caught the leading idea (probably through a\nFrench translation of the 'Loves of the Plants,' which appeared in\n1800), began to expound it in 1801; in 1802, 1803, 1806, and 1809, he\ndeveloped it with greater fulness of detail than Dr. Darwin had done,\nbut perhaps with a somewhat less nice sense of some important points.\nTill his death, in 1831, Lamarck, as far as age and blindness would\npermit, continued to devote himself to the exposition of the theory of\ndescent with modification.\n\nIV. A more distinct perception of the unity of parents and offspring,\nwith a bolder reference of the facts of heredity (whether of structure\nor instinct), to memory pure and simple; a clearer perception of the\nconsequences that follow from the survival of the fittest, and a just\nview of the relation in which those consequences stand to \"the\ncircumstance-suiting\" power of animals and plants; a reference of the\nvariations whose accumulation results in species, to the volition of the\nanimal or plant which varies, and perhaps a dawning perception that all\nadaptations of structure to need must therefore be considered as\n\"purposive.\"\n\nThis must be connected with Mr. Matthew's work on 'Naval Timber and\nArboriculture,' which appeared in 1831. The remarks which it contains in\nreference to evolution are confined to an appendix, but when brought\ntogether, as by Mr. Matthew himself, in the 'Gardeners' Chronicle' for\nApril 7, 1860, they form one of the most perfect yet succinct\nexpositions of the theory of evolution that I have ever seen. I shall\ntherefore give them in full.[28] This book was well received, and was\nreviewed in the 'Quarterly Review,'[29] but seems to have been valued\nrather for its views on naval timber than on evolution. Mr. Matthew's\nmerit lies in a just appreciation of the importance of each one of the\nprincipal ideas which must be present in combination before we can have\na correct conception of evolution, and of their bearings upon one\nanother. In his scheme of evolution I find each part kept in due\nsubordination to the others, so that the whole theory becomes more\ncoherent and better articulated than I have elsewhere found it; but I do\nnot detect any important addition to the ideas which Dr. Darwin and\nLamarck had insisted upon.\n\nI pass over the 'Vestiges of Creation,' which should be mentioned only\nas having, as Mr. Charles Darwin truly says, \"done excellent service in\nthis country, in calling attention to this subject, in removing\nprejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of\nanalogous views.\"[30] The work neither made any addition to ideas which\nhad been long familiar, nor arranged old ones in a satisfactory manner.\nSuch as it is, it is Dr. Darwin and Lamarck, but Dr. Darwin and Lamarck\nspoiled. The first edition appeared in 1844.\n\nI also pass over Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire's 'Natural History,' which\nappeared 1854-62, and the position of which is best described by calling\nit intermediate between the one which Buffon thought fit to pretend to\ntake, and that actually taken by Lamarck. The same may be said also of\nEtienne Geoffroy. I will, however, just touch upon these writers later\non.\n\nA short notice, again, will suffice for the opinions of Goethe,\nTreviranus, and Oken, none of whom can I discover as having originated\nany important new idea; but knowing no German, I have taken this\nopinion from the resume of each of these writers, given by Professor\nHaeckel in his 'History of Creation.'\n\nV. A time of retrogression, during which we find but little apparent\nappreciation of the unity between parents and offspring; no reference to\nmemory in connection with heredity, whether of instinct or structure; an\nexaggerated view of the consequences which may be deduced from the fact\nthat the fittest commonly survive in the struggle for existence; the\ndenial of any known principle as underlying variations; comparatively\nlittle appreciation of the circumstance-suiting power of plants and\nanimals, and a rejection of purposiveness. By far the most important\nexponent of this phase of opinion concerning evolution is Mr. Charles\nDarwin, to whom, however, we are more deeply indebted than to any other\nliving writer for the general acceptance of evolution in one shape or\nanother. The 'Origin of Species' appeared in 1859, the same year, that\nis to say, as the second volume of Isidore Geoffroy's 'Histoire\nNaturelle Generale.'\n\nVI. A reaction against modern Darwinism, with a demand for definite\npurpose and design as underlying variations. The best known writers who\nhave taken this line are the Rev. J. J. Murphy and Professor Mivart,\nwhose 'Habit and intelligence' and 'Genesis of Species' appeared in 1869\nand 1871 respectively. In Germany Professor Hering has revived the idea\nof memory as explaining the phenomena of heredity satisfactorily,\nwithout probably having been more aware that it had been advanced\nalready than I was myself when I put it forward recently in 'Life and\nHabit.' I have never seen the lecture in which Professor Hering has\nreferred the phenomena of heredity to memory, but will give an extract\nfrom it which appeared in the 'Athenaeum,' as translated by Professor Ray\nLankester.[31] The only new feature which I believe I may claim to have\nadded to received ideas concerning evolution, is a perception of the\nfact that the unconsciousness with which we go through our embryonic and\ninfantile stages, and with which we discharge the greater number and\nmore important of our natural functions, is of a piece with what we\nobserve concerning all habitual actions, as well as concerning memory;\nan explanation of the phenomena of old age; and of the main principle\nwhich underlies longevity. I may, perhaps, claim also to have more fully\nexplained the passage of reason into instinct than I yet know of its\nhaving been explained elsewhere.[32]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[28] See ch. xviii. of this volume.\n\n[29] Vol. xlix. p. 125.\n\n[30] 'Origin of Species,' Hist. Sketch, xvii.\n\n[31] See page 199 of this volume.\n\n[32] Apropos of this, a friend has kindly sent me the following extract\nfrom Balzac:--\"Historiquement, les paysans sont encore au lendemain de\nla Jacquerie, leur defaite est restee inscrite dans leur cervelle. _Ils\nne se souviennent plus du fait, il est passe a l'etat d'idee\ninstinctive._\"--Balzac, 'Les Paysans,' v.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nPRE-BUFFONIAN EVOLUTION, AND SOME GERMAN WRITERS.\n\n\nLet us now proceed to the fuller development of the foregoing sketch.\n\n\"Undoubtedly,\" says Isidore Geoffroy, \"from the most ancient times many\nphilosophers have imagined vaguely that one species can be transformed\ninto another. This doctrine seems to have been adopted by the Ionian\nschool from the sixth century before our era.... Undoubtedly also the\nsame opinion reappeared on several occasions in the middle ages, and in\nmodern times; it is to be found in some of the hermetic books, where the\ntransmutation of animal and vegetable species, and that of metals, are\ntreated as complementary to one another. In modern times we again find\nit alluded to by some philosophers, and especially by Bacon, whose\nboldness is on this point extreme. Admitting it as 'incontestable that\nplants sometimes degenerate so far as to become plants of another\nspecies,' Bacon did not hesitate to try and put his theory into\npractice. He tried, in 1635, to give 'the rules' for the art of changing\n'plants of one species into those of another.'\"\n\nThis must be an error. Bacon died in 1626. The passage of Bacon referred\nto is in 'Nat. Hist.,' Cent. vi. (\"Experiments in consort touching the\ndegenerating of plants, and the transmutation of them one into\nanother\"), and is as follows:--\n\n\"518. This rule is certain, that plants for want of culture degenerate\nto be baser in the same kind; and sometimes so far as to change into\nanother kind. 1. The standing long and not being removed maketh them\ndegenerate. 2. Drought unless the earth, of itself, be moist doth the\nlike. 3. So doth removing into worse earth, or forbearing to compost the\nearth; as we see that water mint turneth into field mint, and the\ncolewort into rape by neglect, &c.\"\n\n\"525. It is certain that in very steril years corn sown will grow to\nanother kind:--\n\n    'Grandia saepe quibus mandavimus hordea sulcis,\n    Infelix lolium, et steriles dominantur avenae.'\n\nAnd generally it is a rule that plants that are brought forth for\nculture, as corn, will sooner change into other species, than those that\ncome of themselves; for that culture giveth but an adventitious nature,\nwhich is more easily put off.\"\n\nChanged conditions, according to Bacon (though he does not use these\nwords), appear to be \"the first rule for the transmutation of plants.\"\n\n\"But how much value,\" continues M. Geoffroy, \"ought to be attached to\nsuch prophetic glimpses, when they were neither led up to, nor justified\nby any serious study? They are conjectures only, which, while bearing\nevidence to the boldness or rashness of those who hazarded them, remain\nalmost without effect upon the advance of science. Bacon excepted, they\nhardly deserve to be remembered. As for De Maillet, who makes birds\nspring from flying fishes, reptiles from creeping fishes, and men from\ntritons, his dreams, taken in part from Anaximander, should have their\nplace not in the history of science, but in that of the aberrations of\nthe human mind.\"[33]\n\nA far more forcible and pregnant passage, however, is the following,\nfrom Sir Walter Raleigh's 'History of the World,' which Mr. Garnett has\nbeen good enough to point out to me:--\n\n\"For mine owne opinion I find no difference but only in magnitude\nbetween the Cat of Europe, and the Ounce of India; and even those dogges\nwhich are become wild in Hispagniola, with which the Spaniards used to\ndevour the naked Indians, are now changed to Wolves, and begin to\ndestroy the breed of their Cattell, and doe often times teare asunder\ntheir owne children. The common crow and rooke of India is full of red\nfeathers in the droun'd and low islands of Caribana, and the blackbird\nand thrush hath his feathers mixt with black and carnation in the north\nparts of Virginia. The Dog-fish of England is the Sharke of the South\nOcean. For if colour or magnitude made a difference of Species, then\nwere the Negroes, which wee call the Blacke-Mores, _non animalia\nrationalia_, not Men but some kind of strange Beasts, and so the giants\nof the South America should be of another kind than the people of this\npart of the World. We also see it dayly that the nature of fruits are\nchanged by transplantation.\"[34]\n\nFor information concerning the earliest German writers on evolution, I\nturn to Professor Haeckel's 'History of Creation,' and find Goethe's\nname to head the list. I do not gather, however, that Goethe added much\nto the ideas which Buffon had already made sufficiently familiar.\nProfessor Haeckel does not seem to be aware of Buffon's work, and quotes\nGoethe as making an original discovery when he writes, in the year\n1796:--\"Thus much then we have gained, that we may assert without\nhesitation that all the more perfect organic natures, such as fishes,\namphibious animals, birds, mammals, and man at the head of the last,\nwere all formed upon one original type, which only varies more or less\nin parts which were none the less permanent, and still daily changes and\nmodifies its form by propagation.\"[35] But these, as we shall see, are\nalmost Buffon's own words--words too that Buffon insisted on for many\nyears. Again Professor Haeckel quotes Goethe as writing in the year\n1807:--\n\n\"If we consider plants and animals in their most imperfect condition,\nthey can hardly be distinguished.\" This, however, had long been insisted\nupon by Bonnet and Dr. Erasmus Darwin, the first of whom was a\nnaturalist of world-wide fame, while the 'Zoonomia' of Dr. Darwin had\nbeen translated into German between the years 1795 and 1797, and could\nhardly have been unknown to Goethe in 1807, who continues: \"But this\nmuch we may say, that the creatures which by degrees emerge as plants\nand animals out of a common phase where they are barely distinguishable,\narrive at perfection in two opposite directions, so that the plant in\nthe end reaches its highest glory in the tree, which is immovable and\nstiff, the animal in man who possesses the greatest elasticity and\nfreedom.\" Professor Haeckel considers this to be a remarkable passage,\nbut I do not think it should cause its author to rank among the founders\nof the evolution theory, though he may justly claim to have been one of\nthe first to adopt it. Goethe's anatomical researches appear to have\nbeen more important, but I cannot find that he insisted on any new\nprinciple, or grasped any unfamiliar conception, which had not been long\nsince grasped and widely promulgated by Buffon and by Dr. Erasmus\nDarwin.\n\nTreviranus (1776-1837), whom Professor Haeckel places second to Goethe,\nis clearly a disciple of Buffon, and uses the word \"degeneration\" in the\nsame sense as Buffon used it many years earlier, that is to say, as\n\"descent with modification,\" without any reference to whether the\noffspring was, as Buffon says, \"perfectionne ou degrade.\" He cannot\nclaim, any more than Goethe, to rank as a principal figure in the\nhistory of evolution.\n\nOf Oken, Professor Haeckel says that his 'Naturphilosophie,' which\nappeared in 1809--in the same year, that is to say, as the 'Philosophie\nZoologique' of Lamarck--was \"the nearest approach to the natural theory\nof descent, newly established by Mr. Charles Darwin,\" of any work that\nappeared in the first decade of our century. But I do not detect any\nimportant difference of principle between his system and that of Dr.\nErasmus Darwin, among whose disciples he should be reckoned.\n\n\"We now turn,\" says Professor Haeckel after referring to a few more\nGerman writers who adopted a belief in evolution, \"from the German to\nthe French nature-philosophers who have likewise held the theory of\ndescent, since the beginning of this century. At their head stands Jean\nLamarck, who occupies the first place next to Darwin and Goethe in the\nhistory of the doctrine of Filiation.\"[36] This is rather a surprising\nassertion, but I will leave the reader of the present volume to assign\nthe value which should be attached to it.\n\nProfessor Haeckel devotes ten lines to Dr. Erasmus Darwin, who he\ndeclares \"expresses views very similar to those of Goethe and Lamarck,\nwithout, however, _then_ knowing anything about these two men;\" which is\nall the more strange inasmuch as Dr. Darwin preceded them, and was a\ngood deal better known to them, probably, than they to him; but it is\nplain Professor Haeckel has no acquaintance with the 'Zoonomia' of Dr.\nErasmus Darwin. From all, then, that I am able to collect, I conclude\nthat I shall best convey to the reader an idea of the different phases\nwhich the theory of descent with modification has gone through, by\nconfining his attention almost entirely to Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin,\nLamarck, and Mr. Charles Darwin.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' vol. ii. p. 385, 1859.\n\n[34] 'History of the World,' bk. i. ch. vii. Sec. 9 ('Athenaeum,' March 27,\n1875).\n\n[35] 'History of Creation,' vol. i. p. 91.\n\n[36] 'History of Creation,' bk. i. ch. iii. (H. S. King, 1876).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nBUFFON--MEMOIR.\n\n\nBuffon, says M. Flourens, was born at Montbar, on the 7th of September,\n1707; he died in Paris, at the Jardin du Roi, on the 16th of April,\n1788, aged 81 years. More than fifty of these years, as he used himself\nto say, he had passed at his writing-desk. His father was a councillor\nof the parliament of Burgundy. His mother was celebrated for her wit,\nand Buffon cherished her memory.\n\nHe studied at Dijon with much _eclat_, and shortly after leaving became\naccidentally acquainted with the Duke of Kingston, a young Englishman of\nhis own age, who was travelling abroad with a tutor. The three travelled\ntogether in France and Italy, and Buffon then passed some months in\nEngland.\n\nReturning to France, he translated Hales's 'Vegetable Statics' and\nNewton's 'Treatise on Fluxions.' He refers to several English writers on\nnatural history in the course of his work, but I see he repeatedly\nspells the English name Willoughby, \"Willulghby.\" He was appointed\nsuperintendent of the Jardin du Roi in 1739, and from thenceforth\ndevoted himself to science.\n\nIn 1752 Buffon married Mdlle. de Saint Belin, whose beauty and charm of\nmanner were extolled by all her contemporaries. One son was born to\nhim, who entered the army, became a colonel, and I grieve to say, was\nguillotined at the age of twenty-nine, a few days only before the\nextinction of the Reign of Terror.\n\nOf this youth, who inherited the personal comeliness and ability of his\nfather, little is recorded except the following story. Having fallen\ninto the water and been nearly drowned when he was about twelve years\nold, he was afterwards accused of having been afraid: \"I was so little\nafraid,\" he answered, \"that though I had been offered the hundred years\nwhich my grandfather lived, I would have died then and there, if I could\nhave added one year to the life of my father;\" then thinking for a\nminute, a flush suffused his face, and he added, \"but I should petition\nfor one quarter of an hour in which to exult over the thought of what I\nwas about to do.\"\n\nOn the scaffold he showed much composure, smiling half proudly, half\nreproachfully, yet wholly kindly upon the crowd in front of him.\n\"Citoyens,\" he said, \"Je me nomme Buffon,\" and laid his head upon the\nblock.\n\nThe noblest outcome of the old and decaying order, overwhelmed in the\nmost hateful birth frenzy of the new. So in those cataclysms and\nrevolutions which take place in our own bodies during their development,\nwhen we seem studying in order to become fishes and suddenly make, as it\nwere, different arrangements and resolve on becoming men--so, doubtless,\nmany good cells must go, and their united death cry comes up, it may be,\nin the pain which an infant feels on teething.\n\nBut to return. The man who could be father of such a son, and who could\nretain that son's affection, as it is well known that Buffon retained\nit, may not perhaps always be strictly accurate, but it will be as well\nto pay attention to whatever he may think fit to tell us. These are the\nonly people whom it is worth while to look to and study from.\n\n\"Glory,\" said Buffon, after speaking of the hours during which he had\nlaboured, \"glory comes always after labour if she can--_and she\ngenerally can_.\" But in his case she could not well help herself. \"He\nwas conspicuous,\" says M. Flourens, \"for elevation and force of\ncharacter, for a love of greatness and true magnificence in all he did.\nHis great wealth, his handsome person, and graceful manners seemed in\ncorrespondence with the splendour of his genius, so that of all the\ngifts which Fortune has it in her power to bestow she had denied him\nnothing.\"\n\nMany of his epigrammatic sayings have passed into proverbs: for example,\nthat \"genius is but a supreme capacity for taking pains.\" Another and\nstill more celebrated passage shall be given in its entirety and with\nits original setting.\n\n\"Style,\" says Buffon, \"is the only passport to posterity. It is not\nrange of information, nor mastery of some little known branch of\nscience, nor yet novelty of matter that will ensure immortality. Works\nthat can claim all this will yet die if they are conversant about\ntrivial objects only, or written without taste, genius and true nobility\nof mind; for range of information, knowledge of details, novelty of\ndiscovery are of a volatile essence and fly off readily into other\nhands that know better how to treat them. The matter is foreign to the\nman, and is not of him; the manner is the man himself.\"[37]\n\n\"Le style, c'est l'homme meme.\" Elsewhere he tells us what true style\nis, but I quote from memory and cannot be sure of the passage. \"Le\nstyle,\" he says, \"est comme le bonheur; il vient de la douceur de\nl'ame.\"\n\nIs it possible not to think of the following?--\n\n\"But whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be\ntongues they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish\naway ... and now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the\ngreatest of these is charity.\"[38]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[37] 'Discours de Reception a l'Academie Francaise.'\n\n[38] 1 Cor. xiii. 8, 13.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nBUFFON'S METHOD--THE IRONICAL CHARACTER OF HIS WORK.\n\n\nBuffon's idea of a method amounts almost to the denial of the\npossibility of method at all. \"The true method,\" he writes, \"is the\ncomplete description and exact history of each particular object,\"[39]\nand later on he asks, \"is it not more simple, more natural and more true\nto call an ass an ass, and a cat a cat, than to say, without knowing\nwhy, that an ass is a horse, and a cat a lynx.\"[40]\n\nHe admits such divisions as between animals and vegetables, or between\nvegetables and minerals, but that done, he rejects all others that can\nbe founded on the nature of things themselves. He concludes that one who\ncould see things in their entirety and without preconceived opinions,\nwould classify animals according to the relations in which he found\nhimself standing towards them:--\n\n\"Those which he finds most necessary and useful to him will occupy the\nfirst rank; thus he will give the precedence among the lower animals to\nthe dog and the horse; he will next concern himself with those which\nwithout being domesticated, nevertheless occupy the same country and\nclimate as himself, as for example stags, hares, and all wild animals;\nnor will it be till after he has familiarized himself with all these\nthat curiosity will lead him to inquire what inhabitants there may be in\nforeign climates, such as elephants, dromedaries, &c. The same will hold\ngood for fishes, birds, insects, shells, and for all nature's other\nproductions; he will study them in proportion to the profit which he can\ndraw from them; he will consider them in that order in which they enter\ninto his daily life; he will arrange them in his head according to this\norder, which is in fact that in which he has become acquainted with\nthem, and in which it concerns him to think about them. This order--the\nmost natural of all--is the one which I have thought it well to follow\nin this volume. My classification has no more mystery in it than the\nreader has just seen ... it is preferable to the most profound and\ningenious that can be conceived, for there is none of all the\nclassifications which ever have been made or ever can be, which has not\nmore of an arbitrary character than this has. Take it for all in all,\"\nhe concludes, \"it is more easy, more agreeable, and more useful, to\nconsider things in their relation to ourselves than from any other\nstandpoint.\"[41]\n\n\"Has it not a better effect not only in a treatise on natural history,\nbut in a picture or any work of art to arrange objects in the order and\nplace in which they are commonly found, than to force them into\nassociation in virtue of some theory of our own? Is it not better to let\nthe dog which has toes, come after the horse which has a single hoof,\nin the same way as we see him follow the horse in daily life, than to\nfollow up the horse by the zebra, an animal which is little known to us,\nand which has no other connection with the horse than the fact that it\nhas a single hoof?\"[42]\n\nCan we suppose that Buffon really saw no more connection than this? The\nwriter whom we shall presently find[43] declining to admit any essential\ndifference between the skeletons of man and of the horse, can here see\nno resemblance between the zebra and the horse, except that they each\nhave a single hoof. Is he to be taken at his word?\n\nIt is perhaps necessary to tell the reader that Buffon carried the\nforegoing scheme into practice as nearly as he could in the first\nfifteen volumes of his 'Natural History.' He begins with man--and then\ngoes on to the horse, the ass, the cow, sheep, goat, pig, dog, &c. One\nwould be glad to know whether he found it always more easy to decide in\nwhat order of familiarity this or that animal would stand to the\nmajority of his readers than other classifiers have found it to know\nwhether an individual more resembles one species or another; probably he\nnever gave the matter a thought after he had gone through the first\ndozen most familiar animals, but settled generally down into a\nclassification which becomes more and more specific--as when he treats\nof the apes and monkeys--till he reaches the birds, when he openly\nabandons his original idea, in deference, as he says, to the opinion of\n\"le peuple des naturalistes.\"\n\nPerhaps the key to this piece of apparent extravagance is to be found\nin the word \"mysterieuse.\"[44] Buffon wished to raise a standing protest\nagainst mystery mongering. Or perhaps more probably, he wished at once\n\"to turn to animals and plants under domestication,\" so as to insist\nearly on the main object of his work--the plasticity of animal forms.\n\nI am inclined to think that a vein of irony pervades the whole, or much\nthe greater part of Buffon's work, and that he intended to convey, one\nmeaning to one set of readers, and another to another; indeed, it is\noften impossible to believe that he is not writing between his lines for\nthe discerning, what the undiscerning were not intended to see. It must\nbe remembered that his 'Natural History' has two sides,--a scientific\nand a popular one. May we not imagine that Buffon would be unwilling to\ndebar himself from speaking to those who could understand him, and yet\nwould wish like Handel and Shakespeare to address the many, as well as\nthe few? But the only manner in which these seemingly irreconcilable\nends could be attained, would be by the use of language which should be\nself-adjusting to the capacity of the reader. So keen an observer can\nhardly have been blind to the signs of the times which were already\nclose at hand. Free-thinker though he was, he was also a powerful member\nof the aristocracy, and little likely to demean himself--for so he would\ndoubtless hold it--by playing the part of Voltaire or Rousseau. He would\nhelp those who could see to see still further, but he would not dazzle\neyes that were yet imperfect with a light brighter than they could\nstand. He would therefore impose upon people, as much as he thought was\nfor their good; but, on the other hand, he would not allow inferior men\nto mystify them.\n\n\"In the private character of Buffon,\" says Sir William Jardine in a\ncharacteristic passage, \"we regret there is not much to praise; his\ndisposition was kind and benevolent, and he was generally beloved by his\ninferiors, followers, and dependents, which were numerous over his\nextensive property; he was strictly honourable, and was an affectionate\nparent. In early youth he had entered into the pleasures and\ndissipations of life, and licentious habits seem to have been retained\nto the end. But the great blemish in such a mind was his declared\ninfidelity; it presents one of those exceptions among the persons who\nhave been devoted to the study of nature; and it is not easy to imagine\na mind apparently with such powers, scarcely acknowledging a Creator,\nand when noticed, only by an arraignment for what appeared wanting or\ndefective in his great works. So openly, indeed, was the freedom of his\nreligious opinions expressed, that the indignation of the Sorbonne was\nprovoked. He had to enter into an explanation which he in some way\nrendered satisfactory; and while he afterwards attended to the outward\nordinances of religion, he considered them as a system of faith for the\nmultitude, and regarded those most impolitic who most opposed them.\"[45]\n\nThis is partly correct and partly not. Buffon was a free-thinker, and as\nI have sufficiently explained, a decided opponent of the doctrine that\nrudimentary and therefore useless organs were designed by a Creator in\norder to serve some useful end throughout all time to the creature in\nwhich they are found.\n\nHe was not, surely, to hide the magnificent conceptions which he had\nbeen the first to grasp, from those who were worthy to receive them; on\nthe other hand he would not tell the uninstructed what they would\ninterpret as a license to do whatever they pleased, inasmuch as there\nwas no God. What he did was to point so irresistibly in the right\ndirection, that a reader of any intelligence should be in no doubt as to\nthe road he ought to take, and then to contradict himself so flatly as\nto reassure those who would be shocked by a truth for which they were\nnot yet ready. If I am right in the view which I have taken of Buffon's\nwork, it is not easy to see how he could have formed a finer scheme, nor\nhave carried it out more finely.\n\nI should, however, warn the reader to be on his guard against accepting\nmy view too hastily. So far as I know I stand alone in taking it.\nNeither Dr. Darwin nor Flourens, nor Isidore Geoffroy, nor Mr. Charles\nDarwin see any subrisive humour in Buffon's pages; but it must be\nremembered that Flourens was a strong opponent of mutability, and\nprobably paid but little heed to what Buffon said on this question;\nIsidore Geoffroy is not a safe guide, as will appear presently; Mr.\nCharles Darwin seems to have adopted the one half of Isidore Geoffroy's\nconclusions without verifying either; and Dr. Erasmus Darwin, who has no\nsmall share of a very pleasant conscious humour, yet sometimes rises to\nsuch heights of unconscious humour, that Buffon's puny labour may well\nhave been invisible to him. Dr. Darwin wrote a great deal of poetry,\nsome of which was about the common pump. Miss Seward tells us, as we\nshall see later on, that he \"illustrated this familiar object with a\npicture of Maternal Beauty administering sustenance to her infant.\"\nBuffon could not have done anything like this.\n\nBuffon never, then, \"arraigned the Creator for what was wanting or\ndefective in His works;\" on the contrary, whenever he has led up by an\nirresistible chain of reasoning to conclusions which should make men\nrecast their ideas concerning the Deity, he invariably retreats under\ncover of an appeal to revelation. Naturally enough, the Sorbonne\nobjected to an artifice which even Buffon could not conceal completely.\nThey did not like being undermined; like Buffon himself, they preferred\nimposing upon the people, to seeing others do so. Buffon made his peace\nwith the Sorbonne immediately, and, perhaps, from that time forward,\ncontradicted himself a little more impudently than heretofore.\n\nIt is probably for the reasons above suggested that Buffon did not\npropound a connected scheme of evolution or descent with modification,\nbut scattered his theory in fragments up and down his work in the\nprefatory remarks with which he introduces the more striking animals or\nclasses of animals. He never wastes evolutionary matter in the preface\nto an uninteresting animal; and the more interesting the animal, the\nmore evolution will there be commonly found. When he comes to describe\nthe animal more familiarly--and he generally begins a fresh chapter or\nhalf chapter when he does so--he writes no more about evolution, but\ngives an admirable description, which no one can fail to enjoy, and\nwhich I cannot think is nearly so inaccurate as is commonly supposed.\nThese descriptions are the parts which Buffon intended for the general\nreader, expecting, doubtless, and desiring that such a reader should\nskip the dry parts he had been addressing to the more studious. It is\ntrue the descriptions are written _ad captandum_, as are all great\nworks, but they succeed in captivating, having been composed with all\nthe pains a man of genius and of great perseverance could bestow upon\nthem. If I am not mistaken, he looked to these parts of his work to keep\nthe whole alive till the time should come when the philosophical side of\nhis writings should be understood and appreciated.\n\nThus the goat breeds with the sheep, and may therefore serve as the text\nfor a dissertation on hybridism, which is accordingly given in the\npreface to this animal. The presence of rudimentary organs under a pig's\nhoof suggests an attack upon the doctrine of final causes in so far as\nit is pretended that every part of every animal or plant was specially\ndesigned with a view to the wants of the animal or plant itself once and\nfor ever throughout all time. The dog with his great variety of breeds\ngives an opportunity for an article on the formation of breeds and\nsub-breeds by man's artificial selection. The cat is not honoured with\nany philosophical reflections, and comes in for nothing but abuse. The\nhare suggests the rabbit, and the rabbit is a rapid breeder, although\nthe hare is an unusually slow one; but this is near enough, so the hare\nshall serve us for the theme of a discourse on the geometrical ratio of\nincrease and the balance of power which may be observed in nature. When\nwe come to the carnivora, additional reflections follow upon the\nnecessity for death, and even for violent death; this leads to the\nquestion whether the creatures that are killed suffer pain; here, then,\nwill be the proper place for considering the sensations of animals\ngenerally.\n\nPerhaps the most pregnant passage concerning evolution is to be found in\nthe preface to the ass, which is so near the beginning of the work as to\nbe only the second animal of which Buffon treats after having described\nman himself. It points strongly in the direction of his having believed\nall animal forms to have been descended from one single common ancestral\ntype. Buffon did not probably choose to take his very first opportunity\nin order to insist upon matter that should point in this direction; but\nthe considerations were too important to be deferred long, and are\naccordingly put forward under cover of the ass, his second animal.\n\nWhen we consider the force with which Buffon's conclusion is led up to;\nthe obviousness of the conclusion itself when the premises are once\nadmitted; the impossibility that such a conclusion should be again lost\nsight of if the reasonableness of its being drawn had been once\nadmitted; the position in his scheme which is assigned to it by its\npropounder; the persistency with which he demonstrates during forty\nyears thereafter that the premises, which he has declared should\nestablish the conclusion in question, are indisputable;--when we\nconsider, too, that we are dealing with a man of unquestionable genius,\nand that the times and circumstances of his life were such as would go\nfar to explain reserve and irony--is it, I would ask, reasonable to\nsuppose that Buffon did not, in his own mind, and from the first, draw\nthe inference to which he leads his reader, merely because from time to\ntime he tells the reader, with a shrug of the shoulders, that _he_ draws\nno inferences opposed to the Book of Genesis? Is it not more likely that\nBuffon intended his reader to draw his inferences for himself, and\nperhaps to value them all the more highly on that account?\n\nThe passage to which I am alluding is as follows:--\n\n\"If from the boundless variety which animated nature presents to us, we\nchoose the body of some animal or even that of man himself to serve as a\nmodel with which to compare the bodies of other organized beings, we\nshall find that though all these beings have an individuality of their\nown, and are distinguished from one another by differences of which the\ngradations are infinitely subtle, there exists at the same time a\nprimitive and general design which we can follow for a long way, and the\ndepartures from which (_degenerations_) are far more gentle than those\nfrom mere outward resemblance. For not to mention organs of digestion,\ncirculation, and generation, which are common to all animals, and\nwithout which the animal would cease to be an animal, and could neither\ncontinue to exist nor reproduce itself--there is none the less even in\nthose very parts which constitute the main difference in outward\nappearance, a striking resemblance which carries with it irresistibly\nthe idea of a single pattern after which all would appear to have been\nconceived. The horse, for example--what can at first sight seem more\nunlike mankind? Yet when we compare man and horse point by point and\ndetail by detail, is not our wonder excited rather by the points of\nresemblance than of difference that are to be found between them? Take\nthe skeleton of a man; bend forward the bones in the region of the\npelvis, shorten the thigh bones, and those of the leg and arm, lengthen\nthose of the feet and hands, run the joints together, lengthen the jaws,\nand shorten the frontal bone, finally, lengthen the spine, and the\nskeleton will now be that of a man no longer, but will have become that\nof a horse--for it is easy to imagine that in lengthening the spine and\nthe jaws we shall at the same time have increased the number of the\nvertebrae, ribs, and teeth. It is but in the number of these bones, which\nmay be considered accessory, and by the lengthening, shortening, or mode\nof attachment of others, that the skeleton of the horse differs from\nthat of the human body.... We find ribs in man, in all the quadrupeds,\nin birds, in fishes, and we may find traces of them as far down as the\nturtle, in which they seem still to be sketched out by means of furrows\nthat are to be found beneath the shell. Let it be remembered that the\nfoot of the horse, which seems so different from a man's hand, is,\nnevertheless, as M. Daubenton has pointed out, composed of the same\nbones, and that we have at the end of each of our fingers a nail\ncorresponding to the hoof of a horse's foot. Judge, then, whether this\nhidden resemblance is not more marvellous than any outward\ndifferences--whether this constancy to a single plan of structure which\nwe may follow from man to the quadrupeds, from the quadrupeds to the\ncetacea, from the cetacea to birds, from birds to reptiles, from\nreptiles to fishes--in which all such essential parts as heart,\nintestines, spine, are invariably found--whether, I say, this does not\nseem to indicate that the Creator when He made them would use but a\nsingle main idea, though at the same time varying it in every\nconceivable way, so that man might admire equally the magnificence of\nthe execution and the simplicity of the design.[46]\n\n\"If we regard the matter thus, not only the ass and the horse, _but even\nman himself, the apes, the quadrupeds, and all animals might be regarded\nbut as forming members of one and the same family_. But are we to\nconclude that within this vast family which the Creator has called into\nexistence out of nothing, there are other and smaller families,\nprojected as it were by Nature, and brought forth by her in the natural\ncourse of events and after a long time, of which some contain but two\nmembers, as the ass and the horse, others many members, as the weasel,\nmartin, stoat, ferret, &c., and that on the same principle there are\nfamilies of vegetables, containing ten, twenty, or thirty plants, as the\ncase may be? If such families had any real existence they could have\nbeen formed only by crossing, by the accumulation of successive\nvariations (_variation successive_), and by degeneration from an\noriginal type; but if we once admit that there are families of plants\nand animals, so that the ass may be of the family of the horse, and\nthat the one may only differ from the other through degeneration from a\ncommon ancestor, we might be driven to admit that the ape is of the\nfamily of man, that he is but a degenerate man, and that he and man have\nhad a common ancestor, even as the ass and horse have had. It would\nfollow then that every family, whether animal or vegetable, had sprung\nfrom a single stock, which after a succession of generations, had become\nhigher in the case of some of its descendants and lower in that of\nothers.\"\n\nWhat inference could be more aptly drawn? But it was not one which\nBuffon was going to put before the general public. He had said enough\nfor the discerning, and continues with what is intended to make the\nconclusions they should draw even plainer to them, while it conceals\nthem still more carefully from the general reader.\n\n\"The naturalists who are so ready to establish families among animals\nand vegetables, do not seem to have sufficiently considered the\nconsequences which should follow from their premises, for these would\nlimit direct creation to as small a number of forms as anyone might\nthink fit (reduisoient le produit immediat de la creation, a un nombre\nd'individus aussi petit que l'on voudroit). _For if it were once shown\nthat we had right grounds for establishing these families; if the point\nwere once gained that among animals and vegetables there had been, I do\nnot say several species, but even a single one, which had been produced\nin the course of direct descent from another species; if for example it\ncould be once shown that the ass was but a degeneration from the\nhorse--then there is no further limit to be set to the power of nature,\nand we should not be wrong in supposing that with sufficient time she\ncould have evolved all other organized forms from one primordial type\n(et l'on n'auroit pas tort de supposer, que d'un seul etre elle a su\ntirer avec le temps tous les autres etres organises)._\"\n\nBuffon now felt that he had sailed as near the wind as was desirable.\nHis next sentence is as follows:--\n\n\"But no! It is certain _from revelation_ that all animals have alike\nbeen favoured with the grace of an act of direct creation, and that the\nfirst pair of every species issued full formed from the hands of the\nCreator.\"[47]\n\nThis might be taken as _bona fide_, if it had been written by Bonnet,\nbut it is impossible to accept it from Buffon. It is only those who\njudge him at second hand, or by isolated passages, who can hold that he\nfailed to see the consequences of his own premises. No one could have\nseen more clearly, nor have said more lucidly, what should suffice to\nshow a sympathetic reader the conclusion he ought to come to. Even when\nironical, his irony is not the ill-natured irony of one who is merely\namusing himself at other people's expense, but the serious and\nlegitimate irony of one who must either limit the circle of those to\nwhom he appeals, or must know how to make the same language appeal\ndifferently to the different capacities of his readers, and who trusts\nto the good sense of the discerning to understand the difficulty of his\nposition, and make due allowance for it.\n\nThe compromise which he thought fit to put before the public was that\n\"Each species has a type of which the principal features are engraved in\nindelible and eternally permanent characters, while all accessory\ntouches vary.\"[48] It would be satisfactory to know where an accessory\ntouch is supposed to begin and end.\n\nAnd again:--\n\n\"The essential characteristics of every animal have been conserved\nwithout alteration in their most important parts.... The individuals of\neach genus still represent the same forms as they did in the earliest\nages, especially in the case of the larger animals\" (so that the generic\nforms even of the larger animals prove not to be the same, but only\n'especially' the same as in the earliest ages).[49]\n\nThis transparently illogical position is maintained ostensibly from\nfirst to last, much in the same spirit as in the two foregoing passages,\nwritten at intervals of thirteen years. But they are to be read by the\nlight of the earlier one--placed as a lantern to the wary upon the\nthreshold of his work in 1753--to the effect that a single, well\nsubstantiated case of degeneration would make it conceivable that all\nliving beings were descended from a single common ancestor. If after\nhaving led up to this by a remorseless logic, a man is found\nfive-and-twenty years later still substantiating cases of degeneration,\nas he has been substantiating them unceasingly in thirty quartos during\nthe whole interval, there should be little question how seriously we\nare to take him when he wishes us to stop short of the conclusions he\nhas told us we ought to draw from the premises that he has made it the\nbusiness of his life to establish--especially when we know that he has a\nSorbonne to keep a sharp eye upon him.\n\nI believe that if the reader will bear in mind the twofold, serious and\nironical, character of Buffon's work he will understand it, and feel an\nadmiration for it which will grow continually greater and greater the\nmore he studies it, otherwise he will miss the whole point.\n\nBuffon on one of the early pages of his first volume protested against\nthe introduction of either \"_plaisanterie_\" or \"_equivoque_\" (p. 25)\ninto a serious work. But I have observed that there is an unconscious\nirony in most disclaimers of this nature. When a writer begins by saying\nthat he has \"an ineradicable tendency to make things clear,\" we may\ninfer that we are going to be puzzled; so when he shows that he is\nhaunted by a sense of the impropriety of allowing humour to intrude into\nhis work, we may hope to be amused as well as interested. As showing how\nfar the objection to humour which he expressed upon his twenty-fifth\npage succeeded in carrying him safely over his twenty-sixth and\ntwenty-seventh, I will quote the following, which begins on page\ntwenty-six:--\n\n\"Aldrovandus is the most learned and laborious of all naturalists; after\nsixty years of work he has left an immense number of volumes behind him,\nwhich have been printed at various times, the greater number of them\nafter his death. It would be possible to reduce them to a tenth part if\nwe could rid them of all useless and foreign matter, and of a prolixity\nwhich I find almost overwhelming; were this only done, his books should\nbe regarded as among the best we have on the subject of natural history\nin its entirety. The plan of his work is good, his classification\ndistinguished for its good sense, his dividing lines well marked, his\ndescriptions sufficiently accurate--monotonous it is true, but\npainstaking; the historical part of his work is less good; it is often\nconfused and fabulous, and the author shows too manifestly the credulous\ntendencies of his mind.\n\n\"While going over his work, I have been struck with that defect, or\nrather excess, which we find in almost all the books of a hundred or a\ncouple of hundred years ago, and which prevails still among the\nGermans--I mean with that quantity of useless erudition with which they\nintentionally swell out their works, and the result of which is that\ntheir subject is overlaid with a mass of extraneous matter on which they\nenlarge with great complacency, but with no consideration whatever for\ntheir readers. They seem, in fact, to have forgotten what they have to\nsay in their endeavour to tell us what has been said by other people.\n\n\"I picture to myself a man like Aldrovandus, after he has once conceived\nthe design of writing a complete natural history. I see him in his\nlibrary reading, one after the other, ancients, moderns, philosophers,\ntheologians, jurisconsults, historians, travellers, poets, and reading\nwith no other end than with that of catching at all words and phrases\nwhich can be forced from far or near into some kind of relation with his\nsubject. I see him copying all these passages, or getting them copied\nfor him, and arranging them in alphabetical order. He fills many\nportfolios with all manner of notes, often taken without either\ndiscrimination or research, and at last sets himself to write with a\nresolve that not one of all these notes shall remain unused. The result\nis that when he comes to his account of the cow or of the hen, he will\ntell us all that has ever yet been said about cows or hens; all that the\nancients ever thought about them; all that has ever been imagined\nconcerning their virtues, characters, and courage; every purpose to\nwhich they have ever yet been put; every story of every old woman that\nhe can lay hold of; all the miracles which certain religions have\nascribed to them; all the superstitions they have given rise to; all the\nmetaphors and allegories which poets have drawn from them; the\nattributes that have been assigned to them; the representations that\nhave been made of them in hieroglyphics and armorial bearings, in a word\nall the histories and all fables in which there was ever yet any mention\neither of a cow or hen. How much natural history is likely to be found\nin such a lumber room? and how is one to lay one's hand upon the little\nthat there may actually be?\"[50]\n\nIt is hoped that the reader will see Buffon, much us Buffon saw the\nlearned Aldrovandus. He should see him going into his library, &c., and\nquietly chuckling to himself as he wrote such a passage as the one in\nwhich we lately found him saying that the larger animals had\n\"especially\" the same generic forms as they had always had. And the\nreader should probably see Daubenton chuckling also.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[39] Tom. i. p. 24, 1749.\n\n[40] Tom. i. p. 40, 1749.\n\n[41] Vol. i. p. 34, 1749.\n\n[42] Tom. i. p. 36.\n\n[43] See p. 88 of this volume; see also p. 155, and 164.\n\n[44] Tom. i. p. 33.\n\n[45] 'The Naturalist's Library,' vol. ii. p. 23, Edinburgh, 1843.\n\n[46] Tom. iv. p. 381, 1753.\n\n[47] Tom. iv. p. 383, 1753 (this was the first volume on the lower\nanimals).\n\n[48] Tom. xiii. p. ix. 1765.\n\n[49] Sup. tom. v. p. 27, 1778.\n\n[50] Tom. i. p. 28, 1749.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSUPPOSED FLUCTUATIONS OF OPINION--CAUSES OR MEANS OF THE TRANSFORMATION\nOF SPECIES.\n\n\nEnough, perhaps, has been already said to disabuse the reader's mind of\nthe common misconception of Buffon, namely, that he was more or less of\nan elegant trifler with science, who cared rather about the language in\nwhich his ideas were clothed than about the ideas themselves, and that\nhe did not hold the same opinions for long together; but the accusation\nof instability has been made in such high quarters that it is necessary\nto refute it still more completely.\n\nMr. Darwin, for example, in his \"Historical Sketch of the Recent\nProgress of Opinion on the Origin of Species\" prefixed to all the later\neditions of his own 'Origin of Species,' says of Buffon that he \"was the\nfirst author who, in modern times, has treated\" the origin of species\n\"in a scientific spirit. But,\" he continues, \"as his opinions fluctuated\ngreatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or\nmeans of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on\ndetails.\"[51]\n\nMr. Darwin seems to have followed the one half of Isidore Geoffroy St.\nHilaire's \"full account of Buffon's conclusions\" upon the subject of\ndescent with modification,[52] to which he refers with approval on the\nsecond page of his historical sketch.[53]\n\nTurning, then, to Isidore Geoffroy's work, I find that in like manner he\ntoo has been following the one half of what Buffon actually said. But\neven so, he awards Buffon very high praise.\n\n\"Buffon,\" he writes, \"is to the doctrine of the mutability of species\nwhat Linnaeus is to that of its fixity. It is only since the appearance\nof Buffon's 'Natural History,' and in consequence thereof, that the\nmutability of species has taken rank among scientific questions.\"[54]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Buffon, who comes next in chronological order after Bacon, follows him\nin no other respect than that of time. He is entirely original in\narriving at the doctrine of the variability of organic types, and in\nenouncing it after long hesitation, during which one can watch the\nlabour of a great intelligence freeing itself little by little from the\nyoke of orthodoxy.\n\n\"But from this source come difficulties in the interpretation of\nBuffon's work which have misled many writers. Buffon expresses\nabsolutely different opinions in different parts of his natural\nhistory--so much so that partisans and opponents of the doctrine of the\nfixity of species have alike believed and still believe themselves at\nliberty to claim Buffon as one of the great authorities upon their\nside.\"\n\nThen follow the quotations upon which M. Geoffroy relies--to which I\nwill return presently--after which the conclusion runs thus:--\n\n\"The dates, however, of the several passages in question are sufficient\nto explain the differences in their tenor, in a manner worthy of Buffon.\nWhere are the passages in which Buffon affirms the immutability of\nspecies? At the beginning of his work. His first volume on animals[55]\nis dated 1753. The two following are those in which Buffon still shares\nthe views of Linnaeus; they are dated 1755 and 1756. Of what date are\nthose in which Buffon declares for variability? From 1761 to 1766. And\nthose in which, after having admitted variability and declared in favour\nof it, he proceeds to limit it? From 1765 to 1778.\n\n\"The inference is sufficiently simple. Buffon does but correct himself.\nHe does not fluctuate. He goes once for all from one opinion to the\nother, from what he accepted at starting on the authority of another to\nwhat he recognized as true after twenty years of research. If while\ntrying to set himself free from the prevailing notions, he in the first\ninstance went, like all other innovators, somewhat to the opposite\nextreme, he essays as soon as may be to retrace his steps in some\nmeasure, and thenceforward to remain unchanged.\n\n\"Let the reader cast his eye over the general table of contents wherein\nBuffon, at the end of his 'Natural History,' gives a _resume_ of all of\nit that he is anxious to preserve. He passes over alike the passages in\nwhich he affirms and those in which he unreservedly denies the\nimmutability of species, and indicates only the doctrine of the\npermanence of essential features and the variability of details (toutes\nles touches accessoires); he repeats this eleven years later in his\n'Epoques de la Nature'\" (published 1778).[56]\n\nBut I think I can show that the passages which M. Geoffroy brings\nforward, to prove that Buffon was in the first instance a supporter of\ninvariability, do not bear him out in the deduction he has endeavoured\nto draw from them.\n\n\"What author,\" he asks, \"has ever pronounced more decidedly than Buffon\nin favour of the invariability of species? Where can we find a more\ndecided expression of opinion than the following?\n\n\"'The different species of animals are separated from one another by a\nspace which Nature cannot overstep.'\"\n\nOn turning, however, to Buffon himself, I find the passage to stand as\nfollows:--\n\n\"_Although_ the different species of animals are separated from one\nanother by a space which Nature cannot overstep--_yet some of them\napproach so nearly to one another in so many respects that there is only\nroom enough left for the getting in of a line of separation between\nthem_,\"[57] and on the following page he distinctly encourages the idea\nof the mutability of species in the following passage:--\n\n\"In place of regarding the ass as a degenerate horse, there would be\nmore reason in calling the horse a more perfect kind of ass (un ane\nperfectionne), and the sheep a more delicate kind of goat, that we have\ntended, perfected, and propagated for our use, and that the more perfect\nanimals in general--especially the domestic animals--_draw their origin\nfrom some less perfect species of that kind of wild animal which they\nmost resemble. Nature alone not being able to do as much as Nature and\nman can do in concert with one another_.\"[58]\n\nBut Buffon had long ago declared that if the horse and the ass could be\nconsidered as being blood relations there was no stopping short of the\nadmission that all animals might also be blood relations--that is to\nsay, descended from common ancestors--and now he tells us that the ass\nand horse _are_ in all probability descended from common ancestors. Will\na reader of any literary experience hold that so laborious, and yet so\nwitty a writer, and one so studious of artistic effect, could ignore the\nbroad lines he had laid down for himself, or forget how what he had said\nwould bear on subsequent passages, and subsequent passages on it? A less\npainstaking author than Buffon may yet be trusted to remember his own\nwork well enough to avoid such literary bad workmanship as this. If\nBuffon had seen reason to change his mind he would have said so, and\nwould have contradicted the inference he had originally pronounced to be\ndeducible from an admission of kinship between the ass and the horse.\nThis, it is hardly necessary to say, he never does, though he frequently\nthinks it well to remind his reader of the fact that the ass and the\nhorse are in all probability closely related. This is bringing two and\ntwo together with sufficient closeness for all practical purposes.\n\nShould not M. Geoffroy's question, then, have rather been \"Who has ever\npronounced more grudgingly, even in an early volume, &c., &c., and who\nhas more completely neutralized whatever concession he might appear to\nhave been making?\"\n\nNor does the only other passage which M. Geoffroy brings forward to\nprove that Buffon was originally a believer in the fixity of species\nbear him out much better. It is to be found on the opening page of a\nbrief introduction to the wild animals. M. Geoffroy quotes it thus: \"We\nshall see Nature dictating her laws, so simple yet so unchangeable, and\nimprinting her own immutable characters upon every species.\" But M.\nGeoffroy does not give the passage which, on the same page, admits\nmutability among domesticated animals, in the case of which he declares\nwe find Nature \"rarement perfectionnee, souvent alteree, defiguree;\" nor\nyet does he deem it necessary to show that the context proves that this\nunchangeableness of wild animals is only relative; and this he should\ncertainly have done, for two pages later on Buffon speaks of the\nAmerican tigers, lions, and panthers as being \"degenerated, if their\noriginal nature was cruel and ferocious; or, rather, they have\nexperienced the effect of climate, and under a milder sky have assumed a\nmilder nature, their excesses have become moderated, and by the changes\nwhich they have undergone they have become more in conformity with the\ncountry they inhabit.\"[59]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n\"If we consider each species in the different climates which it\ninhabits, we shall find perceptible varieties as regards size and form:\nthey all derive an impress to a greater or less extent from the climate\nin which they live. _These changes are only made slowly and\nimperceptibly._ Nature's great workman is Time. He marches ever with an\neven pace, and does nothing by leaps and bounds, but by degrees,\ngradations, and succession he does all things; and the changes which he\nworks--at first imperceptible--become little by little perceptible, and\nshow themselves eventually in results about which there can be no\nmistake.\n\n\"Nevertheless animals in a free, wild state are perhaps less subject\nthan any other living beings, man not excepted, to alterations, changes,\nand variations of all kinds. Being free to choose their own food and\nclimate, they vary less than domestic animals vary.\"[60] The conditions\nof their existence, in fact, remaining practically constant, the animals\nare no less constant themselves.\n\nThe writer of the above could hardly be claimed as a very thick and thin\npartisan of immutability, even though he had not shown from the first\nhow clearly he saw that there was no middle position between the denial\nof all mutability, and the admission that in the course of sufficient\ntime any conceivable amount of mutability is possible. I will give a\nconsiderable part of what I have found in the first six volumes of\nBuffon to bear one way or the other on his views concerning the\nmutability of species; and I think the reader, so far from agreeing with\nM. Isidore Geoffroy that Buffon began his work with a belief in the\nfixity of species, will find, that from the very first chapter onward,\nhe leant strongly to mutability, even if he did not openly avow his\nbelief in it.\n\nIn support of this assertion, one quotation must suffice:--\n\n\"Nature advances by gradations which pass unnoticed. She passes from one\nspecies, and often from one genus to another by imperceptible degrees,\nso that we meet with a great number of mean species and objects of such\ndoubtful characters that we know not where to place them.\"[61]\n\nThe reader who turns to Buffon himself will find the idea that Buffon\ntook a less advanced position in his old age than he had taken in middle\nlife is also without foundation.\n\nMr. Darwin has said that Buffon \"does not enter into the causes or means\nof the transformation of species.\" It is not easy to admit the justice\nof this. Independently of his frequently insisting on the effect of all\nkinds of changed surroundings, he has devoted a long chapter of over\nsixty quarto pages to this very subject; it is to be found in his\nfourteenth volume, and is headed \"De la Degeneration des Animaux,\" of\nwhich words \"On descent with modification\" will be hardly more than a\nliteral translation. I shall give a fuller but still too brief outline\nof the chapter later on, and will confine myself here to saying that the\nthree principal causes of modification which Buffon brings forward are\nchanges of climate, of food, and the effects of domestication. He may\nbe said to have attributed variation to the direct and specific action\nof changed conditions of life, and to have had but little conception of\nthe view which he was himself to suggest to Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and\nthrough him to Lamarck.\n\nIsidore Geoffroy, writing of Lamarck, and comparing his position with\nthat taken by Buffon, says, on the whole truly, that \"what Buffon\nascribes to the general effects of climate, Lamarck maintains to be\ncaused, especially in the case of animals, by the force of habits; _so\nthat, according to him, they are not, properly speaking, modified by the\nconditions of their existence, but are only induced by these conditions\nto set about modifying themselves_.\"[62] But it is very hard to say how\nmuch Buffon saw and how much he did not see. He may be trusted to have\nseen that if he once allowed the thin end of this wedge into his system,\nhe could no more assign limits to the effect which living forms might\nproduce upon their own organisms by effort and ingenuity in the course\nof long time, than he could set limits to what he had called the power\nof Nature if he was once to admit that an ass and a horse might, through\nthat power, have been descended from a common ancestor. Nevertheless, he\nshows no unwillingness or recalcitrancy about letting the wedge enter,\nfor he speaks of domestication as inducing modifications \"sufficiently\nprofound to become constant and hereditary in successive generations ...\n_by its action on bodily habits it influences also their natures,\ninstincts, and most inward qualities_.\"[63]\n\nThis is a very thick thin end to have been allowed to slip in unawares;\nbut it is astonishing how little Buffon can see when he likes. I hardly\ndoubt but he would have been well enough pleased to have let the wedge\nenter still farther, but this fluctuating writer had assigned himself\nhis limits some years before, and meant adhering to them. Again, in this\nvery chapter on Degeneration, to which M. Geoffroy has referred, there\nare passages on the callosities on a camel's knees, on the llama, and on\nthe haunches of pouched monkeys which might have been written by Dr.\nDarwin himself.[64] They will appear more fully presently. Buffon now\nprobably felt that he had said enough, and that others might be trusted\nto carry the principle farther when the time was riper for its\nenforcement.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[51] 'Origin of Species,' p. xiii. ed. 1876.\n\n[52] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 405, 1859.\n\n[53] 'Origin of Species,' p. xiv. 1876.\n\n[54] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 383.\n\n[55] Tom. iv.\n\n[56] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 391, 1859.\n\n[57] Tom. v. p. 59, 1755.\n\n[58] Tom. v. p. 60.\n\n[59] Tom. vi. p. 58, 1756.\n\n[60] Tom. vi. pp. 59-60, 1756.\n\n[61] Tom. i. p. 13, 1749.\n\n[62] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 411, 1859.\n\n[63] Tom. xi. p. 290, 1764 (misprinted on title-page 1754).\n\n[64] See tom. xiv. p. 326, 1766; and p. 162 of this volume.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nBUFFON--FULLER QUOTATIONS.\n\n\nLet us now proceed to those fuller quotations which may answer the\ndouble purpose of bearing me out in the view of Buffon's work which I\nhave taken in the foregoing pages, and of inducing the reader to turn to\nBuffon himself.\n\nI have already said that from the very commencement of his work Buffon\nshowed a proclivity towards considerations which were certain to lead\nhim to a theory of evolution, even though he had not, as I believe he\nhad, already taken a more comprehensive view of the subject than he\nthought fit to proclaim unreservedly.\n\nIn 1749, at the beginning of his first volume he writes:--\n\n\"The first truth that makes itself apparent on serious study of Nature,\nis one that man may perhaps find humiliating; it is this--that he, too,\nmust take his place in the ranks of animals, being, as he is, an animal\nin every material point. It is possible also that the instinct of the\nlower animals will strike him as more unerring, and their industry more\nmarvellous than his own. Then, running his eye over the different\nobjects of which the universe is composed, he will observe with\nastonishment that we can descend by almost imperceptible degrees from\nthe most perfect creature to the most formless matter--from the most\nhighly organized animal to the most entirely inorganic substance. He\nwill recognize this gradation as the great work of Nature; and he will\nobserve it not only as regards size and form, but also in respect of\nmovements, and in the successive generations of every species.[65]\n\n\"Hence,\" he continues, \"arises the difficulty of arriving at any perfect\nsystem or method in dealing either with Nature as a whole or even with\nany single one of her subdivisions. The gradations are so subtle that we\nare often obliged to make arbitrary divisions. Nature knows nothing\nabout our classifications, and does not choose to lend herself to them\nwithout reserve. We therefore see a number of intermediate species and\nobjects which it is very hard to classify, and which of necessity\nderange our system whatever it may be.\"[66]\n\n\"The attempt to form perfect systems has led to such disastrous results\nthat it is now more easy to learn botany than the terminology which has\nbeen adopted as its language.\"[67]\n\nAfter saying that \"_la marche de la Nature_\" has been misunderstood, and\nthat her progress has ever been by a succession of slow steps, he\nmaintains that the only proper course is to class together whatever\nobjects resemble one another, and to separate those which are unlike. If\nindividual specimens are absolutely alike, or differ so little that the\ndifferences can hardly be perceived, they must be classed as of the same\nspecies; if the differences begin to be perceptible, but if at the same\ntime there is more resemblance than difference, the individuals\npresenting these features should be classed as of a different species,\nbut as of the same genus; if the differences are still more marked, but\nnevertheless do not exceed the resemblances, then they must be taken as\nnot only specific but generic, though as not sufficient to warrant\nthe individuals in which they appear, being placed in different\nclasses. If they are still greater, then the individuals are not even\nof the same class; but it should be always understood that the\nresemblances and differences are to be considered in reference to the\nentirety of the plant or animal, and not in reference to any particular\npart only.[68] The two rocks which are equally to be avoided are, on\nthe one hand, absence of method, and, on the other, a tendency to\nover-systematize.[69]\n\nLike Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and more recently Mr. Francis Darwin, Buffon is\nmore struck with the resemblances than with the differences between\nanimals and plants, but he supposes the vegetable kingdom to be a\ncontinuation of the animal, extending lower down the scale, instead of\nholding as Dr. Darwin did, that animals and vegetables have been\ncontemporaneous in their degeneration from a common stock.\n\n\"We see,\" he writes, \"that there is no absolute and essential difference\nbetween animals and vegetables, but that Nature descends by subtle\ngradations from what we deem the most perfect animal to one which is\nless so, and again from this to the vegetable. The fresh-water polypus\nmay perhaps be considered as the lowest animal, and as at the same time\nthe highest plant.\"[70]\n\nLooking to the resemblances between animals and plants, he declares that\ntheir modes of reproduction and growth involve such close analogy that\nno difference of an essential nature can be admitted between them.[71]\n\nOn the other hand, Buffon appears, at first sight, to be more struck\nwith the points of difference between the mental powers of the lower\nanimals and man than with those which they present in common. It is\nimpossible, however, to accept this as Buffon's real opinion, on the\nstrength of isolated passages, and in face of a large number of others\nwhich point stealthily but irresistibly to an exactly opposite\nconclusion. We find passages which show a clear apprehension of facts\nthat the world is only now beginning to consider established, followed\nby others which no man who has kept a dog or cat will be inclined to\nagree with. I think I have already explained this sufficiently by\nreferring it to the impossibility of his taking any other course under\nthe circumstances of his own position and the times in which he lived.\nBuffon does not deal with such pregnant facts, as, for example, the\ngeometrical ratio of increase, in such manner as to suggest that he was\nonly half aware of their importance and bearing. On the contrary, in the\nvery middle of those passages which, if taken literally, should most\nshake confidence in his judgment, there comes a sustaining sentence, so\nquiet that it shall pass unnoticed by all who are not attentive\nlisteners, yet so encouraging to those who are taking pains to\nunderstand their author that their interest is revived at once.\n\nThus, he has insisted, and means insisting much further, on the many\npoints of resemblance between man and the lower animals, and it has now\nbecome necessary to neutralize the effect of what he has written upon\nthe minds of those who are not yet fitted to see instinct and reason as\ndifferentiations of a single faculty. He accordingly does this, and, as\nis his wont, he does it handsomely; so handsomely that even his most\nadmiring followers begin to be uncomfortable. Whereon he begins his next\nparagraph with \"Animals have excellent senses, but not _generally, all\nof them_, as good as man's.\"[72] We have heard of damning with faint\npraise. Is not this to praise with faint damnation? Yet we can lay hold\nof nothing. It was not Buffon's intention that we should. An ironical\nwriter, concerning whom we cannot at once say whether he is in earnest\nor not, is an actor who is continually interrupting his performance in\norder to remind the spectator that he is acting. Complaint, then,\nagainst an ironical writer on the score that he puzzles us, is a\ncomplaint against irony itself; for a writer is not ironical unless he\npuzzles. He should not puzzle unless he believes that this is the best\nmanner of making his reader understand him in the end, or without having\na _bonne bouche_ for those who will be at the pains to puzzle over him;\nand he should make it plain that for long parts of his work together he\nis to be taken according to the literal interpretation of his words;\nbut if he has observed the above duly, he is a successful or\nunsuccessful writer according as he puzzles or fails to do so, and\nshould be praised or blamed accordingly. To condemn irony entirely, is\nto say that there should be no people allowed to go about the world but\nthose to whom irony would be an impertinence.\n\nHaving already in some measure reassured us by the faintness with which\nhe disparages the senses of the lower animals, Buffon continues, that\nthese senses, whether in man or in animals, may be greatly developed by\nexercise: which we may suppose that a man of even less humour than\nBuffon must know to be great nonsense, unless it be taken to involve\nthat animals as well as man can reflect and remember; it now, therefore,\nbecomes necessary to reassure the other side, and to maintain that\nanimals cannot reflect, and have no memory. \"_Je crois_,\" he writes,\n\"_qu'on peut demontrer que les animaux n'ont aucune connaissance du\npasse, aucune idee du temps, et que par consequent ils n'ont pas la\nmemoire_.\"[73]\n\nI am ashamed of even arguing seriously against the supposition that this\nwas Buffon's real opinion. The very sweepingness of the assertion, the\nbaldness, and I might say brutality with which it is made, are\nconvincing in their suggestiveness of one who is laughing very quietly\nin his sleeve.\n\n\"Society,\" he continues, later on, \"considered even in the case of a\nsingle human family, involves the power of reason; it involves feeling\nin such of the lower animals as form themselves into societies freely\nand of their own accord, but it involves nothing whatever in the case of\nbees, who have found themselves thrown together through no effort of\ntheir own. Such societies can only be, and it is plain have only been,\nthe results--neither foreseen, nor ordained, nor conceived by those who\nachieve them--of the universal mechanism and of the laws of movement\nestablished by the Creator.\"[74] A hive of bees, in fact, is to be\nconsidered as composed of \"ten thousand animated automata.\"[75] Years\nlater he repeats these views with little if any modification.[76] A\nstill more remarkable passage is to be found a little farther on. \"If,\"\nhe asks, \"animals have neither understanding, mind, nor memory, if they\nare wholly without intelligence, and if they are limited to the exercise\nand experience of feeling only,\" and it must be remembered that Buffon\nhas denied all these powers to the inferior animals, \"whence comes that\nremarkable prescient instinct which so many of them exhibit? Is the mere\npower of feeling sensations sufficient to make them garner up food\nduring the summer, on which food they may subsist in winter? Does not\nthis involve the power of comparing dates, and the idea of a coming\nfuture, an '_inquietude raisonnee_'? Why do we find in the hole of the\nfield-mouse enough acorns to keep him until the following summer? Why do\nwe find such an abundant store of honey and wax within the bee-hive? Why\ndo ants store food? Why should birds make nests if they do not know that\nthey will have need of them? Whence arise the stories that we hear of\nthe wisdom of foxes, which hide their prey in different spots, that they\nmay find it at their need and live upon it for days together? Or of the\nsubtilty of owls, which husband their store of mice by biting off their\nfeet, so that they cannot run away? Or of the marvellous penetration of\nbees, which know beforehand that their queen should lay so many eggs in\nsuch and such a time, and that so many of these eggs should be of a kind\nwhich will develop into drones, and so many more of such another kind as\nshould become neuters; and who in consequence of this their\nforeknowledge build so many larger cells for the first, and so many\nsmaller for the second?\"[77]\n\nBuffon answers these questions thus:--\n\n\"Before replying to them,\" he says, \"we should make sure of the facts\nthemselves;--are they to be depended upon? Have they been narrated by\nmen of intelligence and philosophers, or are they popular fables only?\"\n(How many delightful stories of the same character does he not soon\nproceed to tell us himself). \"I am persuaded that all these pretended\nwonders will disappear, and the cause of each one of them be found upon\ndue examination. But admitting their truth for a moment, and granting to\nthe narrators of them that animals have a presentiment, a forethought,\nand even a certainty concerning coming events, does it therefore follow\nthat this should spring from intelligence? If so, theirs is assuredly\nmuch greater than our own. For our foreknowledge amounts to conjecture\nonly; the vaunted light of our reason doth but suffice to show us a\nlittle probability; whereas the forethought of animals is unerring, and\nmust spring from some principle far higher than any we know of through\nour own experience. Does not such a consequence, I ask, _prove repugnant\nalike to religion and common sense_?\"[78]\n\nThis is Buffon's way. Whenever he has shown us clearly what we ought to\nthink, he stops short suddenly on religious grounds. It is incredible\nthat the writer who at the very commencement of his work makes man take\nhis place among the animals, and who sees a subtle gradation extending\nover all living beings \"from the most perfect creature\"--who must be\nman--\"to the most entirely inorganic substance\"--I say it is incredible\nthat such a writer should not see that he had made out a stronger case\nin favour of the reason of animals than against it.\n\nAccording to him, the test whether a thing is to have such and such a\nname is whether it looks fairly like other things to which the same name\nis given; if it does, it is to have the name; if it does not, it is not.\nNo one accepted this lesson more heartily than Dr. Darwin, whose shrewd\nand homely mind, if not so great as Buffon's, was still one of no common\norder. Let us see the view he took of this matter. He writes:--\n\n\"If we were better acquainted with the histories of those insects which\nare formed into societies, as the bees, wasps, and ants, I make no doubt\nbut we should find that their arts and improvements are not so similar\nand uniform as they now appear to us, but that they arose in the same\nmanner from experience and tradition, as the arts of our own species;\nthough their reasoning is from fewer ideas, is busied about fewer\nobjects, and is executed with less energy.\"[79]\n\nAnd again, a little later:--\n\n\"According to the late observations of Mr. Hunter, it appears that\nbeeswax is not made from the dust of the anthers of flowers, which they\nbring home on their thighs, but that this makes what is termed\nbee-bread, and is used for the purpose of feeding the bee-maggots; in\nthe same way butterflies live on honey, but the previous caterpillar\nlives on vegetable leaves, while the maggots of large flies require\nflesh for their food. What induces the bee, who lives on honey, to lay\nup vegetable powder for its young? What induces the butterfly to lay its\neggs on leaves when itself feeds on honey?... If these are not\ndeductions from their own previous experience or observation, all the\nactions of mankind must be resolved into instincts.\"[80]\n\nOr again:--\n\n\"Common worms stop up their holes with leaves or straws to prevent the\nfrost from injuring them, or the centipes from devouring them. The\nhabits of peace or the stratagems of war of these subterranean nations\nare covered from our view; but a friend of mine prevailed on a\ndistressed worm to enter the hole of another worm on a bowling green,\nand he presently returned much wounded about the head, ... which\nevinces they have design in stopping the mouths of their\nhabitations.\"[81]\n\nDoes it not look as if Dr. Darwin had in his mind the very passage of\nBuffon which I have been last quoting? and is it likely that the facts\nwhich were accepted by Dr. Darwin without question, or the conclusions\nwhich were obvious to him, were any less accepted by or obvious to\nBuffon?\n\n\n_The Goat--Hybridism._\n\nIn his prefatory remarks upon the goat, Buffon complains of the want of\nsystematic and certified experiment as to what breeds and species will\nbe fertile _inter se_, and with what results. The passage is too long to\nquote, but is exceedingly good, and throughout involves belief in a very\nconsiderable amount of modification in the course of successive\ngenerations. I may give the following as an example:--\n\n\"We do not know whether or no the zebra would breed with the horse or\nass--whether the large-tailed Barbary sheep would be fertile if crossed\nwith our own--whether the chamois is not a wild goat; and whether it\nwould not form an intermediate breed if crossed with our domesticated\ngoats; we do not know whether the differences between apes are really\nspecific, or whether apes are not like dogs, one single species, of\nwhich there are many different breeds.... Our ignorance concerning all\nthese facts is almost inevitable, as the experiments which would decide\nthem require more time, pains, and money than can be spared from, the\nlife and fortune of an ordinary man. I have spent many years in\nexperiments of this kind, and will give my results when I come to my\nchapter on mules; but I may as well say at once that they have thrown\nbut little light upon the subject, and have been for the most part\nunsuccessful.\"[82]\n\n\"But these,\" he continues, \"are the very points which must determine our\nwhole knowledge concerning animals, their right division into species,\nand the true understanding of their history.\" He proposes therefore, in\nthe present lack of knowledge, \"to regard all animals as different\nspecies which do not breed together under our eyes,\" and to leave time\nand experiment to correct mistakes.[83]\n\n\n_The Pig--Doctrine of Final Causes._\n\nWe have seen that the doctrine of the mutability of species has been\nunfortunately entangled with that of final causes, or the belief that\nevery organ and every part of each animal or plant has been designed to\nserve some purpose useful to the animal, and this not only useful at\nsome past time, but useful now, and for all time to come. He who\nbelieves species to be mutable will see in many organs signs of the\nhistory of the individual, but nothing more. Buffon, as I have said, is\nexplicit in his denial of final causes in the sense expressed above.\nAfter pointing out that the pig is an animal whose relation to other\nanimals it is difficult to define, he says:--\n\n\"In a word, it is of a nature altogether equivocal and ambiguous, or,\nrather, it must appear so to those who believe the hypothetical order of\ntheir own ideas to be the real order of things, and who see nothing in\nthe infinite chain of existences but a few apparent points to which they\nwill refer everything.\n\n\"But we cannot know Nature by inclosing her action within the narrow\ncircle of our own thoughts.... Instead of limiting her action, we should\nextend it through immensity itself; we should regard nothing as\nimpossible, but should expect to find all things--supposing that all\nthings are possible--nay, _are_. Doubtful species, then, irregular\nproductions, anomalous existences will henceforth no longer surprise us,\nand will find their place in the infinite order of things as duly as any\nothers. They fill up the links of the chain; they form knots and\nintermediate points, and also they mark its extremities: they are of\nespecial value to human intelligence, as providing it with cases in\nwhich Nature, being less in conformity with herself, is taken more\nunawares, so that we can recognize singular characters and fleeting\ntraits which show us that her ends are much more general than are our\nown views of those ends, and that, though she does nothing in vain, yet\nshe does but little with the designs which we ascribe to her.\"[84]\n\n\"The pig,\" he continues, \"is not formed on an original, special, and\nperfect type; its type is compounded of that of many other animals. It\nhas parts which are evidently useless, or which at any rate it cannot\nuse--such as toes, all the bones of which are perfectly formed but\nwhich are yet of no service to it. Nature then is far from subjecting\nherself to final causes in the composition of her creatures. Why should\nshe not sometimes add superabundant parts, seeing she so often omits\nessential ones?\" \"How many animals are there not which lack sense and\nlimbs? Why is it considered so necessary that every part in an\nindividual should be useful to the other parts and to the whole animal?\nShould it not be enough that they do not injure each other nor stand in\nthe way of each other's fair development? All parts coexist which do not\ninjure each other enough to destroy each other, and perhaps in the\ngreater number of living beings the parts which must be considered as\nrelative, useful, or necessary, are fewer than those which are\nindifferent, useless, and superabundant. But we--ever on the look out to\nrefer all parts to a certain end--when we can see no apparent use for\nthem suppose them to have hidden uses, and imagine connections which are\nwithout foundation, and serve only to obscure our perception of Nature\nas she really is: we fail to see that we thus rob philosophy of her true\ncharacter, which is to inquire into the 'how' of things--into the manner\nin which Nature acts--and that we substitute for this true object a vain\nidea, seeking to divine the 'why'--the ends which she has proposed in\nacting.\"[85]\n\n\n_The Dog--Varieties in consequence of Man's Selection._\n\n\"Of all animals the dog is most susceptible of impressions, and becomes\nmost easily modified by moral causes. He is also the one whose nature\nis most subject to the variations and alterations caused by physical\ninfluences: he varies to a prodigious extent, in temperament, mental\npowers, and in habits: his very form is not constant;\" ... but presents\nso many differences that \"dogs have nothing in common but conformity of\ninterior organization, and the power of interbreeding freely.\"...\n\n... \"How then can we detect the characters of the original race? How\nrecognize the effects produced by climate, food, &c.? How, again,\ndistinguish these from those other effects which come from the\nintermixture of races, either when wild or in a state of domestication?\nAll these causes, in the course of time, alter even the most constant\nforms, so that the imprint of Nature does not preserve its sharpness in\nraces which man has dealt with largely. Those animals which are free to\nchoose climate and food for themselves can best conserve their original\ncharacter, ... but those which man has subjected to his own\ninfluence--which he has taken with him from clime to clime, whose food,\nhabits, and manner of life he has altered--must also have changed their\nform far more than others; and as a matter of fact we find much greater\nvariety in the species of domesticated animals than in those of wild\nones. Of all these, however, the dog is the one most closely attached to\nman, living like man the least regular manner of life; he is also the\none whose feelings so master him as to make him docile, obedient,\nsusceptible of every kind of impression, and even of every kind of\nconstraint; it is not surprising, then, that he should of all animals\npresent us with the greatest variety in shape, stature, colour, and all\nphysical and mental qualities.\"\n\nHere again the direct cause of modification is given as being the inner\nfeelings of the animal modified, change of conditions being the indirect\ncause as with Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck.\n\n\"Other circumstances, however, concur to produce these results. The dog\nis short-lived: he breeds often and freely: he is perpetually under the\neye of man; hence when--by some chance common enough with Nature--a\nvariation or special feature has made its appearance, man has tried to\nperpetuate it by uniting together the individuals in which it has\nappeared, as people do now who wish to form new breeds of dogs and other\nanimals. Moreover, though species were all formed at the same time, yet\nthe number of generations since the creation has been much greater in\nthe short-lived than in the long-lived species: hence variations,\nalterations, and departure from the original type, may be expected to\nhave become more perceptible in the case of animals which are so much\nfarther removed from their original stock.\n\n\"Man is now eight times nearer Adam than the dog is to the first\ndog--for man lives eighty years, while the dog lives but ten. If, then,\nthese species have an equal tendency to depart from their original type,\nthe departure should be eight times more apparent with the dog than with\nman.\"[86]\n\nHere follow remarks upon the great variability of ephemeral insects and\nof animal plants, on the impossibility of discovering the parent-stock\nof our wheat and of others of our domesticated plants,[87] and on the\ntendency of both plants and animals to resume feral characteristics on\nbecoming wild again after domestication.[88]\n\n\n_The Hare--Geometrical Ratio of Increase._\n\nWe have already seen that it was Buffon's pleasure to consider the hare\na rabbit for the time being, and to make it the text for a discourse\nupon fecundity. I have no doubt he enjoyed doing this, and would have\nfound comparatively little pleasure in preaching the same discourse upon\nthe rabbit. Speaking of the way in which even the races of mankind have\nstruggled and crowded each other out, Buffon says:--\n\n\"These great events--these well-marked epochs in the history of the\nhuman race--are yet but ripples, as it were, on the current of life;\nwhich, as a general rule, flows onward evenly and in equal volume.\n\n\"It may be said that the movement of Nature turns upon two immovable\npivots--one, the illimitable fecundity which she has given to all\nspecies; the other, the innumerable difficulties which reduce the\nresults of that fecundity, and leave throughout time nearly the same\nquantity of individuals in every species.[89]... Taking the earth as a\nwhole, and the human race in its entirety, the numbers of mankind, like\nthose of animals, should remain nearly constant throughout time; for\nthey depend upon an equilibrium of physical causes which has long since\nbeen reached, and which neither man's moral nor his physical efforts can\ndisturb, inasmuch as these moral efforts do but spring from physical\ncauses, of which they are the special effects. No matter what care man\nmay take of his own species, he can only make it more abundant in one\nplace by destroying it or diminishing its numbers in another. When one\npart of the globe is overpeopled, men emigrate, spread themselves over\nother countries, destroy one another, and establish laws and customs\nwhich sometimes only too surely prevent excess of population. In those\nclimates where fecundity is greatest, as in China, Egypt, and Guinea,\nthey banish, mutilate, sell, or drown infants. Here, we condemn them to\na perpetual celibacy. Those who are in being find it easy to assert\nrights over the unborn. Regarding themselves as the necessary, they\nannihilate the contingent, and suppress future generations for their own\npleasure and advantage. Man does for his own race, without perceiving\nit, what he does also for the inferior animals: that is to say, he\nprotects it and encourages it to increase, or neglects it according to\nhis sense of need--according as advantage or inconvenience is expected\nas the consequence of either course. And since all these moral effects\nthemselves depend upon physical causes, which have been in permanent\nequilibrium ever since the world was formed, it follows that the numbers\nof mankind, like those of animals, should remain constant.\n\n\"Nevertheless, this fixed state, this constant number, is not absolute,\nall physical and moral causes, and all the results which spring from\nthem, balance themselves, as though, upon a see-saw, which has a certain\nplay, but never so much as that equilibrium should be altogether lost.\nAs everything in the universe is in movement, and as all the forces\nwhich are contained in matter act one against the other and\ncounterbalance one another, all is done by a kind of oscillation; of\nwhich the mean points are those to which we refer as being the ordinary\ncourse of nature, while the extremes are the periods which deviate from\nthat course most widely. And, as a matter of fact, with animals as much\nas with plants, a time of unusual fecundity is commonly followed by one\nof sterility; abundance and dearth come alternately, and often at such\nshort intervals that we may foretell the production of a coming year by\nour knowledge of the past one. Our apples, pears, oaks, beeches, and the\ngreater number of our fruit and forest trees, bear freely but about one\nyear in two. Caterpillars, cockchafers, woodlice, which in one year may\nmultiply with great abundance, will appear but sparsely in the next.\nWhat indeed would become of all the good things of the earth, what would\nbecome of the useful animals, and indeed of man himself, if each\nindividual in these years of excess was to leave its quotum of\noffspring? This, however, does not happen, for destruction and sterility\nfollow closely upon excessive fecundity, and, independently of the\ncontagion which follows inevitably upon overcrowding, each species has\nits own special sources of death and destruction, which are of\nthemselves sufficient to compensate for excess in any past generation.\n\n\"Nevertheless the foregoing should not be taken in an absolute sense,\nnor yet too strictly,--especially in the case of those races which are\nnot left entirely to the care of Nature. Those which man takes care\nof--commencing with his own--are more abundant than they would be\nwithout his care, yet, as his power of taking this care is limited, the\nincrease which has taken place is also fixed, and has long been\nrestrained within impassable boundaries. Again, though in civilized\ncountries man, and all the animals useful to him, are more numerous than\nin other places, yet their numbers never become excessive, for the same\npower which brings them into being destroys them as soon as they are\nfound inconvenient.\"[90]\n\n\n_The Carnivora--Sensation._\n\nBuffon begins his seventh volume with some remarks on the _carnivora_ in\ngeneral, which I would gladly quote at fuller length than my space will\nallow. He dwells on the fact that the number, as well as the fecundity\nof the insect races is greater than that of the mammalia, and even than\nof plants; and he points out that \"violent death is almost as necessary\nan usage as is the law that we must all, in one way or another, die.\"\nThis leads him to the question whether animals can feel. \"To speak\nseriously,\" (au reel) he says (and why this, if he had always spoken\nseriously?[91]), \"can we doubt that those animals whose organization\nresembles our own, feel the same sensations as we do? They must feel,\nfor they have senses, and they must feel more and more in proportion as\ntheir senses are more active and more perfect.\" Those whose organ of any\nsense is imperfect, have but imperfect perception in respect of that\nsense; and those that are entirely without the organ want also all\ncorresponding sensation. \"Movement is the necessary consequence of acts\nof perception. I have already shown that in whatever manner a living\nbeing is organized, if it has perceptions at all, it cannot fail to show\nthat it has them by some kind of movement of its body. Hence plants,\nthough highly organized, have no feeling, any more than have those\nanimals which, like plants, manifest no power of motion. Among animals\nthere are those which, like the sensitive plant, have but a certain\npower of movement about their own parts, and which have no power of\nlocomotion; such animals have as yet but little perception. Those,\nagain, which have power of locomotion, but which, like automata, do but\na small number of things, and always after the same fashion, can have\nonly small powers of perception, and these limited to a small number of\nobjects. But in the case of man, what automata, indeed, have we not\nhere! How much do not education and the intercommunication of ideas\nincrease our powers and vivacity of perception. What difference can we\nnot see in this respect between civilized and uncivilized races, between\nthe peasant girl, and the woman of the world? And in like manner among\nanimals, those which live with us have their perceptions increased in\nrange, while those that are wild have but their natural instinct, which\nis often more certain but always more limited in range than is the\nintelligence of domesticated animals.\"[92]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"For perception to exist in its fullest development in any animal body,\nthat body must form a whole--an _ensemble_, which shall not only be\ncapable of feeling in all its parts, but shall be so arranged that all\nthese feeling parts shall have a close correspondence with one another,\nand that no one of them can be disturbed without communicating a portion\nof that disturbance to every other part. There must also be a single\nchief centre, with which all these different disturbances may be\nconnected, and from which, as from a common _point d'appui_, the\nreactions against them may take their rise. Hence man, and those animals\nwhose organization most resembles man's, will be the most capable of\nperceptions, while those whose unity is less complete, whose parts have\na less close correspondence with each other--which have several centres\nof sensation, and which seem, in consequence, less to envelope a single\nexistence in a single body than to contain many centres of existence\nseparated and different from one another--these will have fewer and\nduller perceptions. The polypus, which can be reproduced by fission; the\nwasp, whose head even after separation from the body still moves, lives,\nacts, and even eats as heretofore; the lizard which we deprive neither\nof sensation nor movement by cutting off part of its body; the lobster\nwhich can restore its amputated limbs; the turtle whose heart beats long\nafter it has been plucked out, in a word all the animals whose\norganization differs from our own, have but small powers of perception,\nand the smaller the more they differ from us.\"[93]\n\nThis is Buffon's way of satirizing our inability to bear in mind that we\nare compelled to judge all things by our own standards. He also wishes\nto reassure those who might be alarmed at the tendency of some of his\nforegoing remarks, and who he knew would find comfort in being told that\na thing which does not express itself as they do does not feel at all.\n\nThe diaphragm according to Buffon appears to be the centre of the powers\nof sensation; the slightest injury \"even to the attachments of the\ndiaphragm is followed by strong convulsions, and even by death. The\nbrain which has been called the seat of 'sensations' is yet not the\ncentre of 'perception,' since we can wound it, and even take\nconsiderable parts of it away, without death's ensuing, and without\npreventing an animal from living, moving and feeling in all its parts.\"\n\nBuffon thus distinguishes between \"sensation\" and \"perception.\"\n\"Sensation,\" he says, \"is simply the activity of a sense, but perception\nis the pleasantness or unpleasantness of this sensation,\" \"perceived by\nits being propagated and becoming active throughout the entire system.\"\nI have therefore several times, when translating from Buffon, rendered\nthe word \"_sentiment_\" by \"perception,\" and shall continue to do so. \"I\nsay,\" writes Buffon, \"the pleasantness or unpleasantness, because this\nis the very essence of perception; the one feature of perception\nconsists in perceiving either pain or pleasure; and though movements\nwhich do not affect us in either one or the other of these two ways may\nindeed take place within us, yet we are indifferent to them, and do not\nperceive that we are affected by them. All external movement, and all\nexercise of the animal powers, spring from perception; its action is\nproportionate to the extent of its excitation, to the extent of the\nfeeling which is being felt.[94] And this same part, which we regard as\nthe centre of sensation, will also be that of all the animal powers; or,\nif it is preferred to call it so, it will be the common _point d'appui_\nfrom which they all take rise. The diaphragm is to the animal what the\n'stock' is to the plant; both divide an organism transversely, both\nserve as the _point d'appui_ of opposing forces; for the forces which\npush upward those parts of a tree which should form its trunk and\nbranches, bear upon and are supported by the 'stock,' as do those\nopposing forces, which drive the roots downwards.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Even on a cursory examination we can see that all our innermost\naffections, our most lively emotions, our most expansive moments of\ndelight, and, on the other hand, our sudden starts, pains, sicknesses,\nand swoons--in fact, all our strong impressions concerning the pleasure\nor pain of any sensation--make themselves felt within the body, and\nabout the region of the diaphragm. The brain, on the contrary, shows no\nsign of being a seat of perception. In the head there are pure\nsensations and nothing else, or rather, there are but the\nrepresentations of sensations stripped of the character of perception;\nthat is to say, we can remember and call to mind whether such and such a\nsensation was pleasant to us or otherwise, and if this operation, which\ngoes on in the head, is followed by a vivid perception, then the\nimpression made is perceived in the interior of the body, and always in\nthe region of the diaphragm. Hence, in the foetus where this membrane\nis without use, there is no perception, or so little that nothing comes\nof it, the movements of the foetus, such as they are, being rather\nmechanical than dependent on sensation and will.\n\n\"Whatever the matter may be which serves as the vehicle of perception,\nand produces muscular movement, it is certain that it is propagated\nthrough the nerves, and that it communicates itself instantaneously from\none extremity of the system to the other. In whatever manner this\noperation is conducted, whether by the vibrations, as it were, of\nelastic cords or by a subtle fire, or by a matter resembling\nelectricity, which not only resides in animal as in all other bodies,\nbut is being continually renewed in them by the movements of the heart\nand lungs, by the friction of the blood within the arteries, and also by\nthe action of exterior causes upon our organs of sense--in whatever\nmanner, I say, the operation is conducted, it is nevertheless certain\nthat the nerves and membranes are the only parts in an animal body that\ncan feel. The blood, lymphs, and all other fluids, the fats, bone,\nflesh, and all other solids, are of themselves void of sensation. And\nso also is the brain; it is a soft and inelastic substance, incapable\ntherefore of producing or of propagating the movement, vibrations, or\nconcussions which, result in perception. The meninges, on the other\nhand, are exceedingly sensitive, and are the envelopes of all the\nnerves; like the nerves, they take rise in the head; and, dividing\nthemselves like the branches of the nerves, they extend even to their\nsmallest ramifications: they are, so to speak, flattened nerves; they\nare of the same substance as the nerves, are nearly of the same degree\nof elasticity, and form a necessary part of the system of sensation. If,\nthen, the seat of the sensations must be placed in the head, let it be\nplaced in the meninges, and not in the medullary part of the brain,\nwhich is of an entirely different substance.\"[95]\n\nIf this is so, it appears from what will follow as though the meninges\nmust be the \"stock\" rather than the diaphragm.\n\n\"What perhaps has given rise to the opinion that the seat of all\nsensations and the centre of all sensibility is in the brain, is the\nfact that the nerves, which are the organs of perception, all attach\nthemselves to the brain, which has hence come to be regarded as the one\ncommon centre which can receive all their vibrations and impressions.\nThis fact alone has sufficed to indicate the brain as the origin of\nperceptions--as the essential organ of sensations; in a word, as the\ncommon sensorium. This supposition has appeared so simple and natural\nthat its physical impossibility has been overlooked, an impossibility,\nhowever, which should be sufficiently apparent. For how can a part\nwhich cannot feel--a soft inactive substance like the brain--be the very\norgan of perception and movement? How can this soft and perceptionless\npart not only receive impressions, but preserve them for a length of\ntime, and transmit their undulatory movements (_en propage les\nebranlements_) throughout all the solid and feeling parts of the body?\nIt may perhaps be maintained with Descartes and M. de Peyronie that the\nprinciple of sensation does not reside in the brain, but in the pineal\ngland or in the _corpus callosum_; but a glance at the conformation of\nthe brain itself will suffice to show that these parts do not join on to\nthe nerves, but that they are entirely surrounded by those parts of the\nbrain which do not feel, and are so separated from the nerves that they\ncannot receive any movement from them; whence it follows that this\nsecond supposition is as groundless as the first.\"[96]\n\nWhat, then, asks Buffon, _is_ the use of the brain? Man, the quadrupeds,\nand birds all have larger brains, and at the same time more extended\nperceptions, than fishes, insects, and those other living beings whose\nbrains are smaller in proportion. \"When the brain is compressed, there\nis suspension of all power of movement. If this part is not the source\nof our powers of motion, why is it so necessary and so essential? Why,\nagain, does it seem so proportionate in each animal to the amount of\nperceiving power which that animal possesses?\n\n\"I think I can answer this question in a satisfactory manner, difficult\nthough it seems; but in order that I may do so, I would ask the reader\nto lend me his attention for a few moments while we regard the brain\nsimply _as brain_, and have no other idea concerning it than we can\nderive from inspection and reflection. The brain, as well as the\n_medulla oblongata_ and the spinal marrow, which are but prolongations\nof the brain itself, is only a kind of hardly organized mucilage; we\nfind in it nothing but the extremities of small arteries, which run into\nit in very great numbers, but which convey a white and nourishing lymph\ninstead of blood. When the parts of the brain are disunited by\nmaceration, these same small arteries, or lymphatic vessels, appear as\nvery delicate threads throughout their whole length. The nerves, on the\ncontrary, do not penetrate the substance of the brain; they abut upon\nits surface only; before reaching it they lose their elasticity and\nsolidity, and the extremities of the nerves which are nearest to the\nbrain are soft, and nearly mucilaginous. From this exposition, in which\nthere is nothing hypothetical, it appears that the brain, which is\nnourished by the lymphatic arteries, does in its turn provide\nnourishment for the nerves, and that we must regard these as a kind of\nvegetation which rises as trunks and branches from the brain, and become\nsubsequently subdivided into an infinite number, as it were, of twigs.\nThe brain is to the nerves what the earth is to plants: the last\nextremities of the nerves are the roots, which with every vegetable are\nmore soft and tender than the trunk or branches; they contain a ductile\nmatter fit for the growth and nourishment of the nervous tree or fibre;\nthey draw the ductile matter from the substance of the brain itself, to\nwhich the arteries are continually bringing the lymph that is necessary\nto supply it. The brain, then, instead of being the seat of the\nsensations, and the originator of perception, is an organ of secretion\nand nutrition only, though a very essential organ, without which the\nnerves could neither grow nor be maintained.\n\n\"This organ is greater in man, in quadrupeds, and in birds, because the\nnumber or bulk of the nerves is greater in these animals than in fishes\nor insects, whose power of perception is more feeble, for this very\nreason, that they have but a small brain; one, in fact, that is\nproportioned to the small quantity of nerves which that brain must\nsupport. Nor can I omit to state here that man has not, as has been\npretended by some, a larger brain than has any other animal; for there\nare apes and cetacea which have more brain than man in proportion to the\nvolume of their bodies--another fact which proves that the brain is\nneither the seat of sensations nor the originator of perception, since\nin that case these animals would have more sensations and perception\nthan man.\n\n\"If we consider the manner in which plants derive their nourishment, we\nshall find that they do not draw up the grosser parts either of earth or\nwater; these parts must be reduced by warmth into subtle vapours before\nthe roots can suck them up into the plant. In like manner the nutrition\nof the nerves is only effected by means of the more subtle parts of the\nhumidity of the brain, which are sucked up by the roots or extremities\nof the nerves, and are carried thence through all the branches of the\nsensory system. This system forms, as we have said, a whole, all whose\nparts are interconnected by so close a union that we cannot wound one\nwithout communicating a violent shock to all the others; the wounding or\nsimply pulling of the smallest nerve is sufficient to cause lively\nirritation to all the others, and to put the body in convulsion; nor can\nwe ease this pain and convulsion except by cutting the nerve higher up\nthan the injured part; but on this all the parts abutting on this nerve\nbecome thenceforward senseless and immovable for ever. The brain should\nnot be considered as of the same character, nor as an organic portion of\nthe nervous system, for it has not the same properties nor the same\nsubstance, being neither solid nor elastic, nor yet capable of feeling.\nI admit that on its compression perception ceases, but this very fact\nshows it to be a body foreign to the nervous system itself, which,\nacting by its weight, or pressure, against the extremities of the\nnerves, oppresses them and stupefies them in the same way as a weight\nplaced upon the arm, leg, or any other part of the body, stupefies the\nnerves and deadens the perceptions of that part. And it is evident that\nthis cessation of sensation on compression is but a suspension and\ntemporary stupefaction, for the moment the compression of the brain\nceases, perception and the power of movement returns. Again, I admit\nthat on tearing the medullary substance, and on wounding the brain till\nthe _corpus callosum_ is reached, convulsion, loss of sensation, and\ndeath ensue; but this is because the nerves are so entirely deranged\nthat they are, so to speak, torn up by the roots and wounded all\ntogether, and at their source.\n\n\"In further proof that the brain is neither the centre of perception nor\nthe seat of the sensations, I may remind the reader that animals and\neven children have been born without heads and brains, and have yet had\nfeeling, movement, and life. There are also whole classes of animals,\nlike insects and worms, with a brain that is by no means a distinct mass\nnor of sensible volume, but with only something which corresponds with\nthe _medulla oblongata_ and the spinal marrow. There would be more\nreason, then, in placing the seat of the feelings and perceptions in the\nspinal marrow, which no animal is without, than in the brain which is\nnot an organ common to all creatures that can feel.\"\n\nIf Buffon's ideas concerning the brain are as just as they appear to be,\nthe resemblance between plants and animals is more close than is\napparent, even to a superficial observer, on a first inspection of the\nphenomena. Such an observer, however, on looking but a little more\nintently, will see the higher _vertebrata_ as perambulating vegetables\nplanted upside down. So the man who had been born blind, on being made\nto see, and on looking at the objects before him with unsophisticated\neyes, said without hesitation that he saw \"men as trees walking,\" thus\nseeing with more prophetic insight than either he or the bystanders\ncould interpret. For our skull is as a kind of flower-pot, and holds the\nsoil from which we spring, that is to say the brain; our mouth and\nstomach are roots, in two stories or stages; our bones are the\ntrellis-work to which we cling while going about in search of\nsustenance for our roots; or they are as the woody trunk of a tree; _we_\nare the nerves which are rooted in the brain, and which draw thence the\nsustenance which is supplied it by the stomach; our lungs are leaves\nwhich are folded up within us, as the blossom of a fig is hidden within\nthe fruit itself.\n\nThis is what should follow if Buffon's theory of the brain is allowed to\nstand, which I hope will prove to be the case, for it is the only\ncomfortable thought concerning the brain that I have met with in any\nwriter. I have given it here at some length on account of its\nimportance, and for the illustration it affords of Buffon's hatred of\nmystery, rather than for its bearing upon evolution. The fact that our\nleading men of science have adopted other theories will weigh little\nwith those who have watched scientific orthodoxy with any closeness.\nWhat Buffon thought of that orthodoxy may be gathered from the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"The greatest obstacles to the advancement of human knowledge lie less\nin things themselves than in man's manner of considering them. However\ncomplicated a machine the human body may be, it is still less\ncomplicated than are our own ideas concerning it. It is less difficult\nto see Nature as she is, than as she is presented to us. She carries a\nveil only, while we would put a mask over her face; we load her with our\nown prejudices, and suppose her to act and to conduct her operations\neven after the same fashion as ourselves.[97]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"I am by no means speaking of those purely arbitrary systems which we\nare able at a glance to detect as chimeras that are being pretended to\nus as realities, but I refer to the methods whereby people have set\nthemselves seriously to study nature. Even the experimental method\nitself has been more fertile of error than of truth, for though it is\nindeed the surest, yet is it no surer than the hand of him who uses it.\nNo matter how little we incline out of the straight path, we soon find\nourselves wandering in a sterile wilderness, where we can see but a few\nobscure objects scattered sparsely; nevertheless we do violence to these\nfacts and to ourselves, and resemble them together on a conceit of\nanalogies and common properties amongst them. Then, passing and\nrepassing complaisantly over the tortuous path which we have ourselves\nbeaten, we deem the road a worn one, and though it leads no whither, the\nworld follows it, adopts it, and accepts its supposed consequences as\nfirst principles. I could show this by laying bare the origin of that\nwhich goes by the name of 'principle' in all the sciences, whether\nabstract or natural. In the case of the former, the basis of principle\nis abstraction--that is to say, one or more suppositions: in that of the\nsecond, principles are but the consequences, better or worse, of the\nmethods which may have been followed. And to speak here of anatomy only,\ndid not he who first surmounted his natural repugnance and set himself\nto work to open a human body--did he not believe that through going all\nover it, dissecting it, dividing it into all its parts, he would soon\nlearn its structure, mechanism, and functions? But he found the task\ngreater than he had expected, and renouncing such pretensions, was fain\nto content himself with a method--not for seeing and judging, but for\nseeing after an orderly fashion. This method ... is still the sole\nbusiness of our ablest anatomists, but it is not science. It is the road\nwhich should lead scienceward, and might perhaps have reached science\nitself, if instead of walking ever on a single narrow path men had set\nthe anatomy of man and that of animals face to face with one another.\nFor, what real knowledge can be drawn from an isolated pursuit? Is not\nthe foundation of all science seen to consist in the comparison which\nthe human mind can draw between different objects in the matter of their\nresemblances and differences--of their analogous or conflicting\nproperties, and of all the relations in which they stand to one another?\nThe absolute, if it exist at all, is but of the concurrence of man's own\nknowledge; we judge and can judge of things only by their bearings one\nupon another; hence whenever a method limits us to only a single\nsubject, whenever we consider it in its solitude and without regard to\nits resemblances or to its differences from other objects, we can attain\nto no real knowledge, nor yet, much less, reach any general principle.\nWe do but give names, and make descriptions of a thing, and of all its\nparts. Hence comes it that, after three thousand years of dissection,\nanatomy is still but a nomenclature, and has hardly advanced a step\ntowards its true object, which is the science of animal economy.\nFurthermore, what defects are there not in the method itself, which\nshould above all things else be simple and easy to be understood,\ndepending as it does upon inspection and having denominations only for\nits end! For seeing that nomenclature has been mistaken for knowledge,\nmen have made it their chief business to multiply names, instead of\nlimiting things; they have crushed themselves under the burden of\ndetails, and been on the look out for differences where there was no\ndistinction. When they had given a new name they conceived of it as a\nnew thing, and described the smallest parts with the most minutious\nexactness, while the description of some still smaller part, forgotten\nor neglected by previous anatomists, has been straightway hailed as a\ndiscovery. The denominations themselves being often taken from things\nwhich had no relation to the object that it was desired to denominate,\nhave served but to confound confusion. The part of the brain, for\nexample, which is called testes and nates, wherein does it so differ\nfrom the rest of the brain that it should deserve a name? These names,\ntaken at haphazard or springing from some preconceived opinion, have\nthemselves become the parents of new prejudices and speculations; other\nnames given to parts which have been ill observed, or which are even\nnon-existent, have been sources of new errors. What functions and uses\nhas it not been attempted to foist upon the pineal gland, and on the\nalleged empty space in the brain which is called the arch, the first of\nwhich is but a gland, while the very existence of the other is\ndoubtful,--the empty space being perhaps produced by the hand of the\nanatomist and the method of dissection.\"[98]\n\n\n_The Genus felis._\n\nIn his preliminary remarks upon the lion, Buffon while still professing\nto believe in some considerable mutability of species, seems very far\nfrom admitting that all living forms are capable of modification. But he\nhas shown us long since how clearly he saw the impossibility of limiting\nmutability, if he once admitted so much of the thin end of the wedge as\nthat a horse and an ass might be related. It is plain, therefore, that\nhe is not speaking \"_au reel_\" here, and we accordingly find him talking\nclap-trap about the nobleness of the lion in having no species\nimmediately allied to it. A few lines lower on he reminds us in a casual\nway that the ass and horse are related.\n\nHe writes:--\n\n\"Added to all these noble individual features the lion has also what may\nbe called a _specific_ nobility. For I call those species noble which\nare constant, invariable, and which are above suspicion of having\ndegenerated. These species are commonly isolated, and the only ones of\ntheir genus. They are distinguished by such well-marked features that\nthey cannot be mistaken, nor confounded with any other species. To begin\nfor example with man, the noblest of created beings; he is but of a\nsingle species, inasmuch as men and women will breed freely _inter se_\nin spite of all existing differences of race, climate and colour; and\nalso inasmuch as there is no other animal which can claim either a\ndistant or near relationship with him. The horse, on the other hand, is\nmore noble as an individual than as a species, for he has the ass as\nhis near neighbour, _and seems himself to be nearly enough related to\nit_; ... the dog is perhaps of even less noble species, approaching as\nhe does to the wolf, fox, and jackal, _which we can only consider to be\nthe degenerated species of a single family_\"[99]--all which may seem\nvery natural opinions for a French aristocrat in the days before the\nRevolution, but which cannot for a moment be believed to have been\nBuffon's own. I have not ascertained the date of Buffon's little quarrel\nwith the Sorbonne, but I cannot doubt that if we knew the inner history\nof the work we are considering, we should find this passage and others\nlike it explained by the necessity of quieting orthodox adversaries. He\nconcludes the paragraph from which I have just been quoting by saying,\n\"To class man and the ape together, or the lion with the cat, and to say\nthat the lion is a _cat with a mane and a long tail_--this were to\ndegrade and disfigure nature instead of describing her and denominating\nher species.\" Buffon very rarely uses italics, but those last given are\nhis, not mine; could words be better chosen to make us see the lion and\nthe cat as members of the same genus? No wonder the Sorbonne considered\nhim an infelicitous writer; why could he not have said \"cat,\" and have\ndone with it, instead of giving a couple of sly but telling touches,\nwhich make the cat as like a lion as possible, and then telling us that\nwe must not call her one? Sorbonnes never do like people who write in\nthis way.\n\n\"The lion, then, belongs to a most noble species, standing as he does\nalone, and incapable of being confounded with the tiger, leopard,\nounce, &c., while, on the contrary, those species, which appear to be\nleast distant from the lion, are very sufficiently indistinguishable, so\nthat travellers and nomenclators are continually confounding them.\"[100]\n\nIf this is not pure malice, never was a writer more persistently\nunfortunate in little ways. Why remind us here that the species which\ncome nearest to the lion are so hard to distinguish? Why not have said\nnothing about it? As it is, the case stands thus: we are required to\nadmit close resemblance between the leopard and the tiger, while we are\nto deny it between the tiger and the lion, in spite of there being no\ngreater outward difference between the first than between the second\npair, and in spite of the hurried whisper \"_cat with a mane and a long\ntail_\" still haunting our ears. Isidore Geoffroy and his followers may\nconsent to this arrangement, but I hope the majority of my readers will\nnot do so.\n\nI went on to the account of the tiger with some interest to see the line\nwhich Buffon would take concerning it. I anticipated that we should find\ncats, pumas, lynxes, &c., to be really very like tigers, and was\nsurprised to learn that the \"true\" tiger, though certainly not unlike\nthese animals, was still to be distinguished from \"many others which had\nsince been called tigers.\" He is on no account to be confounded with\nthese, in spite of the obvious temptation to confound him. He is \"a rare\nanimal, little known to the ancients, and badly described by the\nmoderns.\" He is a beast \"of great ferocity, of terrible swiftness, and\nsurpassing even the proportions of the lion.\" The effect of the\ndescription is that we no longer find the lion standing alone, but with\nthe tiger on a par with him if not above him; but at the same time we\nfall easy victims to the temptation to confound the tiger with \"the many\nother animals which are also called tigers.\" A surface stream has swept\nthe members of the cat family in different directions, but a stealthy\nundercurrent has seized them from beneath, and they are now happily\nreunited.\n\n\n_Animals of the Old and New World--Changed Geographical Distribution._\n\nWriting upon the animals of the old world,[101] and referring to the\nhumps of the camel and the bison, Buffon shows that very considerable\nmodification may be effected in some animals within even a few\ngenerations, but he attributes the effect produced to the direct\ninfluence of climate. Buffon concludes his sketch of the animals of the\nnew world by pointing out that the larger animals of the African torrid\nzone have been hindered by sea and desert from finding their way to\nAmerica, and by claiming to be the first \"even to have suspected\" that\nthere was not a single denizen of the torrid zone of one continent which\nwas common also to the other.[102]\n\nThe animals common to both continents are those which can stand the cold\nand which are generally suited for a temperate climate. These, Buffon\nbelieves, to have travelled either over some land still unknown, or\n\"more probably,\" over territory which has long since been submerged. The\nspecies of the old and new world are never without some well-marked\ndifference, which however should not be held sufficient for us to refuse\nto admit their practical identity. But he maintains, I imagine wilfully,\nthat there is a tendency in all the mammalia to become smaller on being\ntransported to the new world, and refers the fact to the quality of the\nearth, the condition of the climate, the degrees of heat and humidity,\nto the height of mountains, amounts of running or stagnant waters,\nextent of forest, and above all to the brutal condition of nature in a\nnew country, which he evidently regards with true aristocratic\nabhorrence.[103]\n\nThen follows a passage which I had better perhaps give in full:--\n\nThe mammoth \"was certainly the greatest and strongest of all quadrupeds;\nbut it has disappeared; and if so, how many smaller, feebler, and less\nremarkable species must have also perished without leaving us any traces\nor even hints of their having existed? How many other species have\nchanged their nature, that is to say, become perfected or degraded,\nthrough great changes in the distribution of land and ocean, through the\ncultivation or neglect of the country which they inhabit, through the\nlong-continued effects of climatic changes, so that they are no longer\nthe same animals that they once were? Yet of all living beings after\nman, the quadrupeds are the ones whose nature is most fixed and form\nmost constant: birds and fishes vary much more easily; insects still\nmore again than these, and if we descend to plants, which certainly\ncannot be excluded from animated nature, we shall be surprised at the\nreadiness with which species are seen to vary, and at the ease with\nwhich they change their forms and adopt new natures.\n\n\"It is probable then that all the animals of the new world are derived\nfrom congeners in the old, without any deviation from the ordinary\ncourse of nature. We may believe that having become separated in the\nlapse of ages, by vast oceans and countries which they could not\ntraverse, they have gradually been affected by, and derived impressions\nfrom, a climate which has itself been modified so as to become a new one\nthrough the operation of those same causes which dissociated the\nindividuals of the old and new world from one another; thus in the\ncourse of time they have grown smaller and changed their characters.\nThis, however, should not prevent our classifying them as different\nspecies now, for the difference is no less real whether it is caused by\ntime, climate and soil, or whether it dates from the creation. _Nature I\nmaintain is in a state of continual flux and movement. It is enough for\nman if he can grasp her as she is in his own time, and throw but a\nglance or two upon the past and future, so as to try and perceive what\nshe may have been in former times and what one day she may attain\nto._\"[104]\n\n\n_The Buffalo--Animals under Domestication._\n\n\"The bison and the aurochs,\" says Buffon, \"differ only in unessential\ncharacteristics, and are, by consequence, of the same species as our\ndomestic cattle, so that I believe all the pretended species of the ox,\nwhether ancient or modern, may be reduced to three--the bull, the\nbuffalo, and the bubalus.\n\n\"The case of animals under domestication is in many respects different\nfrom that of wild ones; they vary much more in disposition, size and\nshape, especially as regards the exterior parts of their bodies: the\neffects of climate, so powerful throughout nature, act with far greater\neffect upon captive animals than upon wild ones. Food prepared by man,\nand often ill chosen, combined with the inclemency of an uncongenial\nclimate--these eventuate in modifications sufficiently profound to\nbecome constant and hereditary in successive generations. I do not\npretend to say that this general cause of modification is so powerful as\nto change radically the nature of beings which have had their impress\nstamped upon them in that surest of moulds--heredity; but it\nnevertheless changes them in not a few respects; it masks and transforms\ntheir outward appearance; it suppresses some of their parts, and gives\nthem new ones; it paints them with various colours, and _by its action\non bodily habits influences also their natures, instincts, and most\ninward qualities_\" (and what is this but \"radically changing their\nnature\"?). \"The modification of but a single part, moreover, in a whole\nas perfect as an animal body, will necessitate a correlative\nmodification in every other part, and it is from this cause that our\ndomestic animals differ almost as much in nature and instinct, as in\nform, from those from which they originally sprung.\"[105]\n\nBuffon confirms this last assertion by quoting the sheep as an\nexample--an animal which can now no longer exist in a wild state. Then\nreturning to cattle, he repeats that many varieties have been formed by\nthe effects--\"diverse in themselves, and diverse in their\ncombinations--of climate, food, and treatment, whether under\ndomestication or in their wild state.\" These are the main causes of\nvariation (\"causes generales de variete\"),[106] among our domesticated\nanimals, but by far the greatest is changed climate in consequence of\ntheir accompanying man in his migrations. The effects of the foregoing\ncauses of modification, especially the last of them, are repeatedly\ninsisted on in the course of the forty pages which complete the\npreliminary account of the buffalo.\n\nWhat holds good for the buffalo does so also for the mouflon or wild\nsheep. This, Buffon declares to be the source of all our domesticated\nbreeds: of these there are in all some four or five, \"all of them being\nbut degenerations from a single stock, produced by man's agency, and\npropagated for his convenience.\"[107] At the same time that man has\nprotected them he has hunted out the original race which was \"less\nuseful to him,\"[108] so that it is now to be found only in a few\nsecluded spots, such as the mountains of Greece, Cyprus, and Sardinia.\nBuffon does not consider even the differences between sheep and goats to\nbe sufficiently characteristic to warrant their being classed as\ndifferent species.\n\n\"I shall never tire,\" he continues, \"of repeating--seeing how important\nthe matter is--that we must not form our opinions concerning nature, nor\ndifferentiate (differencier) her species, by a reference to minor\nspecial characteristics. And, again, that systems, far from having\nillustrated the history of animals, have, on the contrary, served rather\nto obscure it ... leading, as they do, to the creation of arbitrary\nspecies which nature knows nothing about; perpetually confounding real\nand hypothetical existences; giving us false ideas as to the very\nessence of species; uniting them and separating them without foundation\nor knowledge, and often without our having seen the animal with which we\nare dealing.\"[109]\n\n\n_First and Second Views of Nature._\n\nThe twelfth volume begins with a preface, entitled \"A First View of\nNature,\" from which I take the following:--\n\n\"What cannot Nature effect with such means at her disposal? She can do\nall except either create matter or destroy it. These two extremes of\npower the deity has reserved for himself only; creation and destruction\nare the attributes of his omnipotence. To alter and undo, to develop and\nto renew--these are powers which he has handed over to the charge of\nNature.\"[110]\n\nThe thirteenth volume opens with a second view of nature. After\ndescribing what a man would have observed if he could have lived during\nmany continuous ages, Buffon goes on to say:--\n\n\"And as the number, sustenance, and balance of power among species is\nconstant, Nature would present ever the same appearance, and would be in\nall times and under all climates absolutely and relatively the same, if\nit were not her fashion to vary her individual forms as much as\npossible. The type of each species is founded in a mould of which the\nprincipal features have been cut in characters that are ineffaceable and\neternally permanent, but all the accessory touches vary; no one\nindividual is the exact facsimile of any other, and no species exists\nwithout a large number of varieties. In the human race on which the\ndivine seal has been set most firmly, there are yet varieties of black\nand white, large and small races, the Patagonian, Hottentot, European,\nAmerican, Negro, which, though all descended from a common father,\nnevertheless exhibit no very brotherly resemblance to one another.\"[111]\n\nOn an earlier page there is a passage which I may quote as showing\nBuffon to have not been without some--though very imperfect--perception\nof the fact which evidently made so deep an impression upon his\nsuccessor, Dr. Erasmus Darwin. I refer to that continuity of life in\nsuccessive generations, and that oneness of personality between parents\nand offspring, which is the only key that will make the phenomena of\nheredity intelligible.\n\n\"Man,\" he says, \"and especially educated man, is no longer a single\nindividual, but represents no small part of the human race in its\nentirety. He was the first to receive from his fathers the knowledge\nwhich their own ancestors had handed down to them. These, having\ndiscovered the divine art of fixing their thoughts so that they can\ntransmit them to their posterity, become, as it were, one and the same\npeople with their descendants (_se sont, pour ainsi dire, identifies\navec leur neveux_); while our descendants will in their turn be one and\nthe same people with ourselves (_s'identifieront avec nous_). This\nreunion in a single person of the experience of many ages, throws back\nthe boundaries of man's existence to the utmost limits of the past; he\nis no longer a single individual, limited as other beings are to the\nsensations and experiences of to-day. In place of the individual we have\nto deal, as it were, with the whole species.\"[112]\n\n\"Differences in exterior are nothing in comparison with those in\ninterior parts. These last must be regarded as the causes, while the\nothers are but the effects. The interior parts of living beings are the\nfoundation of the plan of their design; this is their essential form,\ntheir real shape, their exterior is only the surface, or rather the\ndrapery in which their true figure is enveloped. How often does not the\nstudy of comparative anatomy show us that two exteriors which differ\nwidely conceal interiors absolutely like each other, and, on the\ncontrary, that the smallest internal difference is accompanied by the\nmost marked differences of outward appearance, changing as it does even\nthe natural habits, faculties and attributes of the animal?\"[113]\n\n\n_Apes and Monkeys._\n\nThe fourteenth volume is devoted to apes and monkeys, and to the chapter\nwith which the volumes on quadrupeds are brought to a conclusion--a\nchapter for which perhaps the most important position in the whole work\nis thus assigned. It is very long, and is headed \"On Descent with\nModification\" (\"De la Degeneration des Animaux\"). This is the chapter in\nwhich Buffon enters more fully into the \"causes or means\" of the\ntransformation of species.\n\nAt the opening of the chapter on the nomenclature of monkeys, the theory\nis broached that there is a certain fixed amount of life-substance as of\nmatter in nature; and that neither can be either augmented or\ndiminished. Buffon maintains this organic and living substance to be as\nreal and durable as inanimate matter; as permanent in its state of life\nas the other in that of death; it is spread over the whole of nature,\nand passes from vegetables to animals by way of nutrition, and from\nanimals back to vegetables through putrefaction, thus circulating\nincessantly to the animation of all that lives.\n\nAs might be expected, Buffon is loud in his protest against any real\nsimilarity between man and the apes--man has had the spirit of the Deity\nbreathed into his nostrils, and the lowest creature with this is higher\nthan the highest without it. Having settled this point, he makes it his\nbusiness to show how little difference in other respects there is\nbetween the apes and man.\n\n\"One who could view,\" he writes, \"Nature in her entirety, from first to\nlast, and then reflect upon the manner in which these two\nsubstances--the living and the inanimate--act and react upon one\nanother, would see that every living being is a mould which casts into\nits own shape those substances upon which it feeds; that it is this\nassimilation which constitutes the growth of the body, whose development\nis not simply an augmentation of volume, but an extension in all its\ndimensions, a penetration of new matter into all parts of its mass: he\nwould see that these parts augment proportionately with the whole, and\nthe whole proportionately with these parts, while general configuration\nremains the same until the full development is accomplished.... He would\nsee that man, the quadruped, the cetacean, the bird, reptile, insect,\ntree, plant, herb, all are nourished, grow, and reproduce themselves on\nthis same system, and that though their manner of feeding and of\nreproducing themselves may appear so different, this is only because the\ngeneral and common cause upon which these operations depend can only\noperate in the individual agreeably with the form of each species.\nTravelling onward (for it has taken the human mind ages to arrive at\nthese great truths, from which all others are derived), he would compare\nliving forms, give them names to distinguish them, and other names to\nconnect them with each other. Taking his own body as the model with\nwhich all living forms should be compared, and having measured them,\nexplained them thoroughly, and compared them in all their parts, he\nwould see that there is but small difference between the forms of living\nbeings; that by dissecting the ape he could arrive at the anatomy of\nman, and that taking some other animal we find always the same ultimate\nplan of organization, the same senses, the same viscera, the same bones,\nthe same flesh, the same movements of the fluids, the same play and\naction of the solids; he would find all of them with a heart, veins,\narteries, in all the same organs of circulation, respiration, digestion,\nnutrition, secretion; in all of them a solid frame, composed of pieces\nput together in nearly the same manner; and he would find this system\nalways the same, from man to the ape, from the ape to the quadrupeds,\nfrom the quadrupeds to the cetacea, birds, fishes, reptiles; this system\nor plan then, I say, if firmly laid hold of and comprehended by the\nhuman mind, is a true copy of nature; it is the simplest and most\ngeneral point of view from which we can consider her, and if we extend\nour view, and go on from what lives to what vegetates, we may see this\nplan--which originally did but vary almost imperceptibly--change its\nscope and descend gradually from reptiles to insects, from insects to\nworms, from worms to zoophytes, from zoophytes to plants, and yet\nkeeping ever the same fundamental unity in spite of differences of\ndetail, insomuch that nutrition, development, and reproduction remain\nthe common traits of all organic bodies; traits eternally essential and\ndivinely implanted; which time, far from effacing or destroying, does\nbut make plainer and plainer continually.\"\n\nThis is the writer who can see nothing in common between the horse and\nthe zebra except that each has a solid hoof.[114] He continues:--\n\n\"If from this grand tableau of resemblances, in which the living\nuniverse presents itself to our eyes as though it were a single family,\nwe pass to a tableau rather of the differences between living forms, we\nshall see that, with the exception of some of the greater species, such\nas the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, tiger, lion, which must each\nhave their separate place, the other races seem all to blend with\nneighbouring forms, and to fall into groups of likenesses, greater or\nlesser, and of genera which our nomenclators represent to us by a\nnetwork of shapes, of which some are held together by the feet, others\nby the teeth, horns, and skin, and others by points of still minor\nimportance. And even those whose form strikes us as most perfect, as\napproaching most nearly to our own--even the apes--require some\nattention before they can be distinguished from one another, for the\nprivilege of being an isolated species has been assigned less to form\nthan to size; and man himself, though of a separate species and\ndiffering infinitely from all or any others, has but a medium size, and\nis less isolated and has nearer neighbours than have the greater\nanimals. If we study the Orang-outang with regard only to his\nconfiguration, we might regard him, with equal justice, as either the\nhighest of the apes or as the lowest of mankind, because, with the\nexception of the soul, he wants nothing of what we have ourselves, and\nbecause, as regards his body, he differs less from man than he does from\nother animals which are still called apes.\"[115]\n\nThe want of a soul Buffon maintains to be the only essential difference\nbetween the Orang-outang and man--\"his body, limbs, senses, brain and\ntongue are the same as ours. He can execute whatever movements man can\nexecute; yet he can neither think nor speak, nor do any action of a\ndistinctly human character. Is this merely through want of training? or\nmay it not be through wrong comparison on our own parts? We compare the\nwild ape in the woods to the civilized citizen of our great towns. No\nwonder the ape shows to disadvantage. He should be compared with the\nhideous Hottentot rather, who is himself almost as much above the lowest\nman, as the lowest man is above the Orang-outang.\"[116]\n\nThe passage is a much stronger one than I have thought it fit to quote.\nThe reader can refer to it for himself. After reading it I entertain no\nfurther doubt that Buffon intended to convey the impression that men and\napes are descended from common ancestors. He was not, however, going to\navow this conclusion openly.\n\n\"I admit,\" he continues, \"that if we go by mere structure the ape might\nbe taken for a variety of the human race; the Creator did not choose to\nmodel mankind upon an entirely distinct system from the other animals:\nHe comprised their form and man's under a plan which is in the main\nuniform.\"[117] Buffon then dwells upon the possession of a soul by man;\n\"even the lowest creature,\" he avers, \"which had this, would have become\nman's rival.\"\n\n\"The ape then is purely an animal, far from being a variety of our own\nspecies, he does not even come first in the order of animals, since he\nis not the most intelligent: the high opinion which men have of the\nintelligence of apes is a prejudice based only upon the resemblance\nbetween their outward appearance and our own.\"[118] But the undiscerning\nwere not only to be kept quiet, they were to be made happy. With this\nend, if I am not much mistaken, Buffon brings his chapter on the\nnomenclature of apes to the following conclusion:--\n\n\"The ape, which the philosopher and the uneducated have alike regarded\nas difficult to define, and as being at best equivocal, and midway\nbetween man and the lower animals, proves in fact to be an animal and\nnothing more; he is masked externally in the shape of man, but\ninternally he is found incapable of thought, and of all that constitutes\nman; apes are below several of the other animals in respect of qualities\ncorresponding to their own, and differ essentially from man, in nature,\ntemperament, the time which must be spent upon their gestation and\neducation, in their period of growth, duration of life, and in fact in\nall those profounder habits which constitute what is called the 'nature'\nof any individual existence.\"[119] This is handsome, and leaves the more\ntimorous reader in full possession of the field.\n\nBuffon is accordingly at liberty in the following chapter to bring\ntogether every fact he can lay his hands on which may point the\nresemblance between man and the Orang-outang most strongly; but he is\ncareful to use inverted commas here much more freely than is his wont.\nHaving thus made out a strong case for the near affinity between man and\nthe Orang-outang, and having thrown the responsibility on the original\nauthors of the passages he quotes, he excuses himself for having quoted\nthem on the ground that \"everything may seem important in the history of\na brute which resembles man so nearly,\" and then insists upon the points\nof difference between the Orang-outang and ourselves. They do not,\nhowever, in Buffon's hands come to much, until the end of the chapter,\nwhen, after a _resume_ dwelling on the points of resemblance, the\ndifferences are again emphatically declared to have the best of it.\n\nI need not follow Buffon through his description of the remaining\nmonkeys. It comprises 250 pp., and is confined to details with which we\nhave no concern; but the last chapter--\"De la Degeneration des\nAnimaux\"--deserves much fuller quotation than my space will allow me to\nmake from it. The chapter is very long, comprising, as I have said, over\nsixty quarto pages. It is impossible, therefore, for me to give more\nthan an outline of its contents.\n\n\n_Causes or Means of the Transformation of Species._\n\nThe human race is declared to be the one most capable of modification,\nall its different varieties being descended from a common stock, and\nowing their more superficial differences to changes of climate, while\ntheir profounder ones, such as woolly hair, flat noses, and thick lips,\nare due to differences of diet, which again will vary with the nature of\nthe country inhabited by any race. Changes will be exceedingly gradual;\nit will take centuries of unbroken habit to bring about modifications\nwhich can be transmitted with certainty so as to eventuate in national\ncharacteristics.[120] It is a pleasure to find that here, too, habit is\nassigned as the main cause which underlies heredity.\n\nModification will be much prompter with animals. When compelled to\nabandon their native land, they undergo such rapid and profound\nmodification, that at first sight they can hardly be recognized as the\nsame race, and cannot be detected in their disguise till after the most\ncareful inspection, and on grounds of analogy only. Domestication will\nproduce still more surprising results; the stigmata of their captivity,\nthe marks of their chains, can be seen upon all those animals which man\nhas enslaved; the older and more confirmed the servitude, the deeper\nwill be its scars, until at length it will be found impossible to\nrehabilitate the creature and restore to it its lost attributes.\n\n\"Temperature of climate, quality of food, and the ills of slavery--here\nare the three main causes of the alteration and degeneration of animals.\nThe consequences of each of these should be particularly considered, so\nthat by examining Nature as she is to-day we may thus perceive what she\nwas in her original condition.\"[121]\n\nI have more than once admitted that there is a wide difference between\nthis opinion, which assigns modification to the direct influence of\nclimate, food, and other changed conditions of life, and that of Dr.\nErasmus Darwin, which assigns only an indirect effect to these, while\nthe direct effect is given to changed actions in consequence of changed\ndesires; but it is surprising how nearly Buffon has approached the later\nand truer theory, which may perhaps have been suggested to Dr. Darwin by\nthe following pregnant passage--as pregnant, probably, to Buffon himself\nas to another:--\n\n\"The camel is the animal which seems to me to have felt the weight of\nslavery most profoundly. He is born with wens upon his back and\ncallosities upon his knees and chest; these callosities are the\nunmistakable results of rubbing, for they are full of pus and of\ncorrupted blood. The camel never walks without carrying a heavy burden,\nand the pressure of this has hindered, for generations, the free\nextension and uniform growth of the muscular parts of the back; whenever\nhe reposes or sleeps his driver compels him to do so upon his folded\nlegs, so that little by little this position becomes habitual with him.\nAll the weight of his body bears, during several hours of the day\ncontinuously, upon his chest and knees, so that the skin of these parts,\npressed and rubbed against the earth, loses its hair, becomes bruised,\nhardened, and disorganized.\n\n\"The llama, which like the camel passes its life beneath burdens, and\nalso reposes only by resting its weight upon its chest, has similar\ncallosities, which again are perpetuated in successive generations.\nBaboons, and pouched monkeys, whose ordinary position is a sitting one,\nwhether waking or sleeping, have callosities under the region of the\nhaunches, and this hard skin has even become inseparable from the bone\nagainst which it is being continually pressed by the weight of the body;\nin the case, however, of these animals the callosities are dry and\nhealthy, for they do not come from the constraint of trammels, nor from\nthe burden of a foreign weight, but are the effects only of the natural\nhabits of the animal, which cause it to continue longer seated than in\nany other position. There are callosities of these pouched monkeys which\nresemble the double sole of skin which we have ourselves under our feet;\nthis sole is a natural hardness which our continued habit of walking or\nstanding upright will make thicker or thinner according to the greater\nor less degree of friction to which we subject our feet.\"[122]\n\nThis involves the whole theory of Dr. Darwin.\n\nWild animals would not change either their food or climate if left to\nthemselves, and in this case they would not vary, but either man or some\nother enemies have harassed most of them into migrations; \"those whose\nnature was sufficiently flexible to lend itself to the new situation\nspread far and wide, while others have had no resource but the deserts\nin the neighbourhood of their own countries.\"[123]\n\nSince food and climate, and still less man's empire over them, can have\nbut little effect upon wild animals, Buffon refers their principal\nvarieties in great measure to their sexual habits, variations being much\nless frequent among animals that pair and breed slowly, than among those\nwhich do not mate and breed more freely. After running rapidly over\nseveral animals, and discussing the flexibility or inflexibility of\ntheir organizations, he declares the elephant to be the only one on\nwhich a state of domestication has produced no effect, inasmuch as \"it\nrefuses to breed under confinement, and cannot therefore transmit the\nbadges of its servitude to its descendants.\"[124]\n\nHere is an example of Buffon's covert manner, in the way he maintains\nthat descent with modification may account not only for specific but for\ngeneric differences.\n\n\"But after having taken a rapid survey of the varieties which indicate\nto us the alterations that each species has undergone, there arises a\nbroader and more important question, how far, namely, species themselves\ncan change--how far there has been an older degeneration, immemorial\nfrom all antiquity, which has taken place in every family, or, if the\nterm is preferred, _in all the genera_ under which those species are\ncomprehended which neighbour one another without presenting points of\nany very profound dissimilarity? We have only a few isolated species,\nsuch as man, which form at once the species and the whole genus; the\nelephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the giraffe form genera,\nor simple species, which go down in a single line, with no collateral\nbranches. All other races appear to form families, in which we may\nperceive a common source or stock from which the different branches seem\nto have sprung in greater or less numbers according as the individuals\nof each species are smaller and more fecund.\"[125]\n\nI can see no explanation of the introduction of this passage unless that\nit is intended to raise the question whether modification may be not\nonly specific but generic, the point of the paragraph lying in the\nwords \"dans chaque famille, _ou si l'on veut, dans chacun des genres_.\"\nWe are told in the next paragraph, that if we choose to look at the\nmatter in this light, well--in that case--we ought to see not only the\nass and the horse, but _the zebra too_, as members of the same family;\n\"the number of their points of resemblance being infinitely greater than\nthose in respect of which they differ.\"[126] Thus, at the close of his\nwork on the quadrupeds, he thinks it well, as at the commencement\nseventeen years earlier, to emphasize--in his own quiet way--his\nperception that the principles on which he has been insisting should be\ncarried much farther than he has chosen to carry them.\n\nHis conclusion is, that \"after comparing all the animals and bringing\nthem each under their proper genus, we shall find the two hundred\nspecies we have already described to be reducible into a sufficiently\nsmall number of families or main stocks from which it is not impossible\nthat all the others may be derived.\"[127]\n\nThe chapter closes thus:--\n\n\"To account for the origin of these animals\" (certain of those peculiar\nto America), \"we must go back to the time when the two continents were\nnot yet separated, and call to mind the earliest geological changes. At\nthe same time, we must consider the two hundred existing species of\nquadrupeds as reduced to thirty-eight families. And though this is not\nat all the state of Nature as she is in our time, and as she has been\nrepresented in this volume, and though, in fact, it is a condition which\nwe can only arrive at by induction, and by analogies almost as\ndifficult to lay hold of as is the time which has effaced the greater\nnumber of their traces, I shall, nevertheless, endeavour to ascend to\nthese first ages of Nature by the aid of facts and monuments which yet\nremain to us, and to represent the epochs which these facts seem to\nindicate.\"[128]\n\nThe fifteenth volume contains a description of a few more monkeys, as\nalso of some animals which Buffon had never actually seen, a great part\nbeing devoted to indices.\n\n\n_Supplement._\n\nThe first four volumes of the Supplement to Buffon's 'Natural History,'\n1774-1789, contain little which throws additional light upon his\nopinions concerning the mutability of species. At the beginning,\nhowever, of the fifth volume I find the following:--\n\n\"On comparing these ancient records of the first ages of life [fossils]\nwith the productions of to-day, we see with sufficient clearness that\nthe essential form has been preserved without alteration in its\nprincipal parts: there has been no change whatever in the general type\nof each species; the plan of the inner parts has been preserved without\nvariation. However long a time we may imagine for the succession of\nages, whatever number of generations we may suppose, the individuals of\nto-day present to us in each genus the same forms as they did in the\nearliest ages; and this is more especially true of the greater species,\nwhose characters are more invariable and nature more fixed; for the\ninferior species have, as we have said, experienced in a perceptible\nmanner all the effects of different causes of degeneration. Only it\nshould be remarked in regard to these greater species, such as the\nelephant and hippopotamus, that in comparing their fossil remains with\nthe existing forms we find the earlier ones to have been larger. Nature\nwas then in the full vigour of her youth, and the interior heat of the\nearth gave to her productions all the force and all the extent of which\nthey were capable ... if there have been lost species, that is to say\nanimals which existed once, but no longer do so, these can only have\nbeen animals which required a heat greater than that of our present\ntorrid zone.\"[129]\n\nThe context proves Buffon to have been thinking of such huge creatures\nas the megatherium and mastodon, but his words seem to limit the\nextinction of species to the denizens of a hot climate which had turned\ncolder. It is not at all likely that Buffon meant this, as the passage\nquoted at p. 146 of this work will suffice to show. The whole paragraph\nis ironical.\n\nI can see nothing to justify the conclusion drawn from this passage by\nIsidore Geoffroy, that Buffon had modified his opinions, and was\ninclined to believe in a more limited mutability than he had done a few\nyears earlier. His exoteric position is still identical with what it was\nin the outset, and his esoteric may be seen from the spirit which is\nhardly concealed under the following:--\n\n\"I shall be told that analogy points towards the belief that our own\nrace has followed the same path, and dates from the same period as\nother species; that it has spread itself even more widely than they; and\nthat if man's creation has a later date than that of the other animals,\nnothing shows that he has not been subjected to the same laws of nature,\nthe same alterations, and the same changes as they. We will grant that\nthe human species does not differ essentially from others in the matter\nof bodily organs, and that, in respect of these, our lot has been much\nthe same as that of other animals.\"[130]\n\n\n_Plants under Domestication._\n\n\"If more modern and even recent examples are required in order to prove\nman's power over the vegetable kingdom, it is only necessary to compare\nour vegetables, flowers, and fruits with the same species such as they\nwere a hundred and fifty years ago; this can be done with much ease and\ncertainty by running the eye over the great collection of coloured\ndrawings begun in the time of Gaston of Orleans, and continued to the\npresent day at the Jardin du Roi. We find with surprise that the finest\nflowers of that date, as the ranunculuses, pinks, tulips, bear's ears,\n&c., would be rejected now, I do not say by our florists, but by our\nvillage gardeners. These flowers, though then already cultivated, were\nstill not far above their wild condition. They had a single row of\npetals only, long pistils, colours hard and false; they had little\nvelvety texture, variety, or gradation of tints, and, in fact, presented\nall the characteristics of untamed nature. Of herbs there was a single\nkind of endive, and two of lettuce--both bad--while we can now reckon\nmore than fifty lettuces and endives, all excellent. We can even name\nthe very recent dates of our best pippins and kernel fruits--all of them\ndiffering from those of our forefathers, which they resemble in name\nonly. In most cases things remain while names change; here, on the\ncontrary, it is the names that have been constant while the things have\nvaried.[131]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"It is not that every one of these good varieties did not arise from the\nsame wild stock; but how many attempts has not man made on Nature before\nhe succeeded in getting them. How many millions of germs has he not\ncommitted to the earth, before she has rewarded him by producing them?\nIt was only by sowing, tending, and bringing to maturity an almost\ninfinite number of plants of the same kind that he was able to recognize\nsome individuals with fruits sweeter and better than others; and this\nfirst discovery, which itself involves so much care, would have remained\nfor ever fruitless if he had not made a second, which required as much\ngenius as the first required patience--I mean the art of grafting those\nprecious individuals, which, unfortunately, cannot continue a line as\nnoble as their own, nor themselves propagate their rare and admirable\nqualities? And this alone proves that these qualities are purely\nindividual, and not specific, for the pips or stones of these excellent\nfruits bring forth the original wild stock, so that they do not form\nspecies essentially different from this. Man, however, by means of\ngrafting, produces what may be called secondary species, which he can\npropagate at will; for the bud or small branch which he engrafts upon\nthe stock contains within itself the individual quality which cannot be\ntransmitted by seed, but which needs only to be developed in order to\nbring forth the same fruits as the individual from which it was taken in\norder to be grafted on to the wild stock. The wild stock imparts none of\nits bad qualities to the bud, for it did not contribute to the forming\nthereof, being, as it were, a wet nurse, and no true mother.\n\n\"In the case of animals, the greater number of those features which\nappear individual, do not fail to be transmitted to offspring, in the\nsame way as specific characters. It was easier then for man to produce\nan effect upon the natures of animals than of plants. The different\nbreeds in each animal species are variations that have become constant\nand hereditary, while vegetable species on the other hand present no\nvariations that can be depended on to be transmitted with certainty.\n\n\"In the species of the fowl and the pigeon alone, a large number of\nbreeds have been formed quite recently, which are all constant, and in\nother species we daily improve breeds by crossing them. From time to\ntime we acclimatize and domesticate some foreign and wild species. All\nthese examples of modern times prove that man has but tardily discovered\nthe extent of his own power, and that he is not even yet sufficiently\naware of it. It depends entirely upon the exercise of his intelligence;\nthe more, therefore, he observes and cultivates nature the more means he\nwill find of making her subservient to him, and of drawing new riches\nfrom her bosom without diminishing the treasures of her inexhaustible\nfecundity.\"[132]\n\n\n_Birds._\n\nIn the preface to his volumes upon birds, Buffon says that these are not\nonly much more numerous than quadrupeds, but that they also exhibit a\nfar larger number of varieties, and individual variations.\n\n\"The diversities,\" he declares, \"which arise from the effects of climate\nand food, of domestication, captivity, transportation, voluntary and\ncompulsory migration--all the causes in fact of alteration and\ndegeneration--unite to throw difficulties in the way of the\nornithologist.\"[133]\n\nHe points out the infinitely keener vision of birds than that of man and\nquadrupeds, and connects it with their habits and requirements.[134] He\ndoes not appear to consider it as caused by those requirements, though\nit is quite conceivable that he saw this, but thought he had already\nsaid enough. He repeatedly refers to the effects of changed climate and\nof domestication, but I find nothing in the first volume which modifies\nthe position already taken by him in regard to descent with\nmodification: it is needless, therefore, to repeat the few passages\nwhich are to be found bearing at all upon the subject. The chapter on\nthe birds that cannot fly, contains a sentence which seems to be the\ngerm that has been developed, in the hands of Lamarck, into the\ncomparison between nature and a tree. Buffon says that the chain of\nnature is not a single long chain, but is comparable rather to something\nwoven, \"which at certain intervals throws out a branch sideways that\nunites it with the strands of some other weft.\"[135] On the following\npage there is a passage which has been quoted as an example of Buffon's\ncontempt for the men of science of his time. The writer maintains that\nthe most lucid arrangement of birds, would have been to begin with those\nwhich most resembled quadrupeds. \"The ostrich, which approaches the\ncamel in the shape of its legs, and the porcupine in the quills with\nwhich its wings are armed, should have immediately followed the\nquadrupeds, but philosophy is often obliged to make a show of yielding\nto popular opinions, and _the tribe of naturalists_ is both numerous and\nimpatient of any disturbance of its methods. It would only, then, have\nregarded this arrangement as an unreasonable innovation caused by a\ndesire to contradict and to be singular.\"[136]\n\nIt is, I believe, held not only by \"_le peuple des naturalistes_,\" but\nby most sensible persons, that the proposed arrangement would not have\nbeen an improvement. I find, however, in the preface to the third volume\non birds that M. Gueneau de Montbeillard described all the birds from\nthe ostrich to the quail, so the foregoing passage is perhaps his and\nnot Buffon's. If so, the imitation is fair, but when we reflect upon it\nwe feel uncertain whether it is or is not beneath Buffon's dignity.\n\nHere, as often with pictures and music, we cannot criticise justly\nwithout taking more into consideration than is actually before us. We\nfeel almost inclined to say that if the passage is by Buffon it is\nprobably right, and if by M. Gueneau de Montbeillard, probably wrong. It\nmust also be remembered that, as we learn from the preface already\nreferred to, Buffon was seized at this point in his work with a long and\npainful illness, which continued for two years; a single hasty passage\nin so great a writer may well be pardoned under such circumstances.\n\nLooking through the third and remaining volumes on birds, the greater\npart of which was by Gueneau de Montbeillard, and bearing in mind that\nin point of date they are synchronous with some of those upon quadrupeds\nfrom which I have already extracted as much as my space will allow, and\nnot seeing anything on a rapid survey which promises to throw new light\nupon the author's opinions, I forbear to quote further. I therefore\nleave Buffon with the hope that I have seen him more justly than some\nothers have done, but with the certainty that the points I have caught\nand understood are few in comparison with those that I have missed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[65] 'Hist. Nat.,' tom. i. p. 13, 1749.\n\n[66] Ibid.\n\n[67] Ibid. p. 16.\n\n[68] Tom. i. p. 21.\n\n[69] Ibid. p. 23.\n\n[70] Tom. ii. p. 9, 1749.\n\n[71] Ibid. p. 10.\n\n[72] Tom. iv. p. 31, 1753.\n\n[73] Tom. iv. p. 55.\n\n[74] Tom. iv. p. 98, 1753.\n\n[75] Ibid.\n\n[76] Tom. viii. p. 283, &c., 1760.\n\n[77] Tom. iv. p. 102, 1760.\n\n[78] Tom. iv. p. 103, 1753.\n\n[79] Dr. Darwin, 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 183, 1796.\n\n[80] Ibid. p. 184.\n\n[81] Dr. Darwin,'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 186.\n\n[82] Tom. v. p. 63, 1755.\n\n[83] Ibid. p. 64.\n\n[84] Tom. v. p. 103, 1755.\n\n[85] Tom. v. p. 104, 1755.\n\n[86] Tom. v. pp. 192-195, 1755.\n\n[87] Tom. v. p. 195.\n\n[88] Tom. v. pp. 196, 197.\n\n[89] This passage would seem to be the one which has suggested the\nfollowing to the author of 'The Vestiges of Creation':--\n\n\"He [the Deity] has endowed the families which enjoy His bounty with an\nalmost infinite fecundity, ... but the limitation of the results of this\nfecundity ... is accomplished in a befitting manner by His ordaining\nthat certain other animals shall have endowments sure so to act as to\nbring the rest of animated beings to a proper balance\" (p. 317, ed.\n1853).\n\n[90] Tom. vi. p. 252, 1756.\n\n[91] 'Discours sur la Nature des Animaux,' vol. iv. and p. 113 of\nthis vol.\n\n[92] Tom. vii. p. 9, 1758.\n\n[93] Tom. vii. p. 10, 1758.\n\n[94] Tom. vii. p. 12, 1758.\n\n[95] Tom. vii. p. 14, 1758\n\n[96] Tom. vii. p. 15, 1758.\n\n[97] Tom. vii. p. 19, 1758.\n\n[98] Tom. vii. p. 23, 1758. See Stenon's Discourse upon this subject.\n\n[99] Tom. ix. p. 10, 1761.\n\n[100] Tom. ix. p. 11, 1761.\n\n[101] Tom. ix. p. 68, 1761.\n\n[102] Ibid. p. 96, 1761.\n\n[103] Tom. ix. p. 107 and following pages (during which he rails at the\nnew world generally), 1761.\n\n[104] Tom. ix. p. 127, 1761.\n\n[105] Tom. xi. p. 290, 1764 (misprinted on title-page 1754).\n\n[106] Ibid. p. 296.\n\n[107] Ibid. p. 363.\n\n[108] Ibid. p. 363.\n\n[109] Tom. xi. p. 370, 1764.\n\n[110] Ibid. xii., preface, iv. 1764.\n\n[111] Tom. xiii., preface, x. 1765.\n\n[112] Tom. xiii., preface, iv. 1765.\n\n[113] Ibid. xiii. p. 37.\n\n[114] See p. 80 of this volume.\n\n[115] Tom. xiv. p. 30, 1766.\n\n[116] Tom. xiv. p. 31, 1766.\n\n[117] Ibid. p. 32, 1766.\n\n[118] Tom. xiv. p. 38, 1766.\n\n[119] Ibid. p. 42, 1766.\n\n[120] Tom. xiv. p. 316, 1766.\n\n[121] Ibid. p. 317.\n\n[122] Tom. xiv. p. 326, 1766.\n\n[123] Ibid. p. 327.\n\n[124] Tom. xiv. p. 333.\n\n[125] Ibid. p. 335, 1766.\n\n[126] See p. 80 of this volume.\n\n[127] Tom. xiv. p. 358, 1766.\n\n[128] Tom. xiv. p. 374, 1766.\n\n[129] 'Hist. Nat.,' Sup. tom. v. p. 27, 1778.\n\n[130] Sup. tom. v. p. 187, 1778.\n\n[131] Sup. tom. v. p. 250, 1778.\n\n[132] Sup. tom. v. p. 253, 1778.\n\n[133] 'Oiseaux,' tom. i., preface, v. 1770.\n\n[134] Ibid. pp. 9-11.\n\n[135] 'Oiseaux,' tom. i. pp. 394, 395.\n\n[136] Ibid. p. 396, 1771.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nSKETCH OF DR. ERASMUS DARWIN'S LIFE.\n\n\nProceeding now to the second of the three founders of the theory of\nevolution, I find, from a memoir by Dr. Dowson, that Dr. Erasmus Darwin\nwas born at Elston, near Newark, in Nottinghamshire, on the 12th of\nDecember, 1731, being the seventh child and fourth son of Robert Darwin,\n\"a private gentleman, who had a taste for literature and science, which\nhe endeavoured to impart to his sons. Erasmus received his early\neducation at Chesterfield School, and later on was entered at St. John's\nCollege, Cambridge, where he obtained a scholarship of about 16_l._ a\nyear, and distinguished himself by his poetical exercises, which he\ncomposed with uncommon facility. He took the degree of M.B. there in\n1755, and afterwards prepared himself for the practice of medicine by\nattendance on the lectures of Dr. Hunter in London, and a course of\nstudies in Edinburgh.\n\n\"He first settled as a physician at Nottingham; but meeting with no\nsuccess there, he removed in the autumn of 1756, his twenty-fifth year,\nto Lichfield, where he was more fortunate; for a few weeks after his\narrival, to use the words of Miss Seward, 'he brilliantly opened his\ncareer of fame.' A young gentleman of family and fortune lay sick of a\ndangerous fever. A physician who had for many years possessed the\nconfidence of Lichfield and the neighbourhood attended, but at length\npronounced the case hopeless, and took his leave. Dr. Darwin was then\ncalled in, and by 'a reverse and entirely novel kind of treatment' the\npatient recovered.\"[137]\n\nOf Dr. Darwin's personal appearance Miss Seward says:--\n\n\"He was somewhat above the middle size; his form athletic, and inclined\nto corpulence; his limbs were too heavy for exact proportion; the traces\nof a severe smallpox disfigured features and a countenance which, when\nthey were not animated by social pleasure, were rather saturnine than\nsprightly; a stoop in the shoulders, and the then professional\nappendage--a large full-bottomed wig--gave at that early period of life\nan appearance of nearly twice the years he bore. Florid health and the\nearnest of good humour, a funny smile on entering a room and on first\naccosting his friends, rendered in his youth that exterior agreeable, to\nwhich beauty and symmetry had not been propitious.\n\n\"He stammered extremely, but whatever he said, whether gravely or in\njest, was always well worth waiting for, though the inevitable\nimpression it made might not be always pleasant to individual self-love.\nConscious of great native elevation above the general standard of\nintellect, he became early in life sore upon opposition, whether in\nargument or conduct, and always resented it by sarcasm of very keen\nedge. Nor was he less impatient of the sallies of egotism and vanity,\neven when they were in so slight a degree that strict politeness would\nrather tolerate than ridicule them. Dr. Darwin seldom failed to present\ntheir caricature in jocose but wounding irony. If these ingredients of\ncolloquial despotism were discernible in _unworn_ existence, they\nincreased as it advanced, fed by an ever growing reputation within and\nwithout the pale of medicine.\"[138]\n\nI imagine that this portrait is somewhat too harshly drawn. Dr. Darwin's\ntaste for English wines is the worst trait which I have been able to\ndiscover in his character. On this head Miss Seward tells us that \"he\ndespised the prejudice which deems foreign wines more wholesome than the\nwines of the country. 'If you must drink wine,' said he, 'let it be\nhome-made.'\" \"It is well known,\" she continues, \"that Dr. Darwin's\ninfluence and example have sobered the county of Derby; that\nintemperance in fermented fluid of every species is almost unknown among\nits gentlemen,\"[139] which, if he limited them to cowslip wine, is\nhardly to be wondered at.\n\nDr. Dowson, quoting Miss Edgeworth, says that Dr. Darwin attributed\nalmost all the diseases of the upper classes to the too great use of\nfermented liquors. \"This opinion he supported in his writings with the\nforce of his eloquence and reason; and still more in conversation by all\nthose powers of wit, satire, and peculiar humour, which never appeared\nfully to the public in his works, but which gained him strong\nascendancy in private society.... When he heard that my father was\nbilious, he suspected that this must be the consequence of his having,\nsince his residence in Ireland, and in compliance with the fashion of\nthe country, indulged too freely in drinking. His letter, I remember,\nconcluded with, 'Farewell, my dear friend; God keep you from whisky--if\nHe can.'\"[140]\n\nOn the other hand, Dr. Darwin seems to have been a very large eater.\n\"Acid fruits with sugar, and all sorts of creams and butter were his\nluxuries; but he always ate plentifully of animal food. This liberal\nalimentary regimen he prescribed to people of every age where unvitiated\nappetite rendered them capable of following it; even to infants.\"\n\nDr. Dowson writes:--\n\n\"I have mentioned already that he had in his carriage a receptacle for\npaper and pencils, with which he wrote as he travelled, and in one\ncorner a pile of books; but he had also a receptacle for a knife, fork,\nand spoon, and in the other corner a hamper, containing fruit and\nsweetmeats, cream and sugar. He provided also for his horses by having a\nlarge pail lashed to his carriage for watering them, as well as hay and\noats to be eaten on the road. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck says that when he\ncame on a professional visit to her father's house they had, as was the\ncustom whenever he came, 'a luncheon-table set out with hothouse fruits\nand West India sweetmeats, clotted cream, stilton cheese, &c. While the\nconversation went on, the dishes in his vicinity were rapidly emptied,\nand what,' she adds, 'was my astonishment when, at the end of the three\nhours during which the meal had lasted, he expressed his joy at hearing\nthe dressing bell, and hoped dinner would soon be announced.' This was\nnot mere gluttony; he thought an abundance, or what most people would\nconsider a superabundance of food, conducive to health. '_Eat or be\neaten_' is said to have been often his medical advice. He had especially\na very high opinion of the nutritive value of sugar, and said 'that if\never our improved chemistry should discover the art of making sugar from\nfossil or aerial matter without the assistance of vegetation, food for\nanimals would then become as plentiful as water, and mankind might live\nupon the earth as thick as blades of grass, with no restraint to their\nnumbers but want of room.'--Botanic Garden, vol. i. p. 470.\"[141]\n\n\"Professional generosity,\" says Miss Seward, \"distinguished Dr. Darwin's\npractice. Whilst resident in Lichfield he always cheerfully gave to the\npriest and lay vicars of its cathedral and their families _his advice_,\nbut never took fees from any of them. Diligently also did he attend the\nhealth of the poor in that city, and afterwards at Derby, and supplied\ntheir necessities by food, and all sort of charitable assistance. In\neach of those towns _his_ was the cheerful board of almost open-housed\nhospitality, without extravagance or parade; generosity, wit, and\nscience were his household gods.\"[142]\n\nOf his first marriage the following account is given:--\n\n\"In 1757 he married Miss Howard, of the Close of Lichfield, a blooming\nand lovely young lady of eighteen.... Mrs. Darwin's own mind, by nature\nso well endowed, strengthened and expanded in the friendship,\nconversation, and confidence of so beloved a preceptor. But alas! upon\nher too early youth, and too delicate constitution, the frequency of her\nmaternal situation, during the first five years of her marriage, had\nprobably a baneful effect. The potent skill and assiduous cares of _him_\nbefore whom disease daily vanished from the frame of _others_, could not\nexpel it radically from that of her he loved. It was, however, kept at\nbay during thirteen years.\n\n\"Upon the distinguished happiness of those years she spoke with fervour\nto two intimate female friends in the last week of her existence, which\nclosed at the latter end of the summer 1770. 'Do not weep for my\nimpending fate,' said the dying angel with a smile of unaffected\ncheerfulness. 'In the short term of my life a great deal of happiness\nhas been comprised. The maladies of my frame were peculiar; those of my\nhead and stomach which no medicine could eradicate, were spasmodic and\nviolent; and required stronger measures to render them supportable while\nthey lasted than my constitution could sustain without injury. The\nperiods of exemption from those pains were frequently of several days'\nduration, and in my intermissions I felt no indications of malady. Pain\ntaught me the value of ease, and I enjoyed it with a glow of spirit,\nseldom, perhaps, felt by the habitually healthy. While Dr. Darwin\ncombated and assuaged my disease from time to time, his indulgence to\nall my wishes, his active desire to see me amused and happy, proved\nincessant. His house, as you know, has ever been the resort of people of\nscience and merit. If, from my husband's great and extensive practice, I\nhad much less of his society than I wished, yet the conversation of his\nfriends, and of my own, was ever ready to enliven the hours of his\nabsence. As occasional malady made me doubly enjoy health, so did those\nfrequent absences give a zest even to delight, when I could be indulged\nwith his company. My three boys have ever been docile and affectionate.\nChildren as they are, I could trust them with important secrets, so\nsacred do they hold every promise they make. They scorn deceit and\nfalsehood of every kind, and have less selfishness than generally\nbelongs to childhood. Married to any other man, I do not suppose I could\nhave lived a third part of the years which I have passed with Dr.\nDarwin; he has prolonged my days, and he has blessed them.'\n\n\"Thus died this superior woman, in the bloom of life, sincerely\nregretted by all who knew how to value her excellence, and\n_passionately_ regretted by the selected few whom she honoured with her\npersonal and confidential friendship.\"[143]\n\nI find Miss Seward's pages so fascinating, that I am in danger of\nfollowing her even in those parts of her work which have no bearing on\nDr. Darwin. I must, however, pass over her account of Mr. Edgeworth and\nof his friend Mr. Day, the author of 'Sandford and Merton,' \"which, by\nwise parents, is put into every youthful hand,\" but the description of\nMr. Day's portrait cannot be omitted.\n\n\"In the course of the year 1770, Mr. Day stood for a full-length picture\nto Mr. Wright, of Derby. A strong likeness and a dignified portrait were\nthe result. Drawn in the open air, the surrounding sky is tempestuous,\nlurid, dark. He stands leaning his left arm against a column inscribed\nto Hambden (_sic_). Mr. Day looks upwards, as enthusiastically\nmeditating on the contents of a book held in his dropped right hand. The\nopen leaf is the oration of that virtuous patriot in the senate, against\nthe grant of ship money, demanded by King Charles I. A flash of\nlightning plays in Mr. Day's hair, and illuminates the contents of the\nvolume. The poetic fancy and what were _then_ the politics of the\noriginal, appear in the choice of subject and attitude. Dr. Darwin sat\nto Mr. Wright about the same period. _That_ was a simply contemplative\nportrait, of the most perfect resemblance.\"[144]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"In the year 1768, Dr. Darwin met with an accident of irretrievable\ninjury to the human frame. His propensity to mechanics had unfortunately\nled him to construct a very singular carriage. It was a platform with a\nseat fixed upon a very high pair of wheels, and supported in the front\nupon the back of the horse, by means of a kind of proboscis which,\nforming an arch, reached over the hind-quarters of the horse, and passed\nthrough a ring, placed on an upright piece of iron, which worked in a\nsocket fixed in the saddle. The horse could thus move from one side of\nthe road to the other, quartering, as it is called, at the will of the\ndriver, whose constant attention was necessarily employed to regulate a\npiece of machinery contrived, but _not well_ contrived, for that\npurpose.\"\n\nI cannot help the reader to understand the foregoing description. \"From\nthis whimsical carriage, however, the doctor was several times thrown,\nand the last time he used it had the misfortune, from a similar\naccident, to break the patella of his right knee, which caused, as it\nmust always cause, an incurable weakness in the fractured part, and a\nlameness not very discernible, indeed, when walking on even\nground.\"[145]\n\nMiss Seward presently tells a story which reads as though it might have\nbeen told by Plutarch of some Greek or Roman sage. Much as we must\napprove of Dr. Darwin's habitual sobriety, we shall most of us be agreed\nthat a few more such stories would have been cheaply purchased by a\ncorresponding number of lapses on the doctor's part.\n\nMiss Seward writes:--\n\n\"Since these memoirs commenced, an odd anecdote of Dr. Darwin's early\nresidence at Lichfield, was narrated to a friend of the author by a\ngentleman, who was of the party in which it happened. Mr. Sneyd, then of\nBishton, and a few more gentlemen of Staffordshire, prevailed upon the\ndoctor to join them in an expedition by water from Burton to Nottingham,\nand on to Newark. They had cold provisions on board, and plenty of wine.\nIt was midsummer; the day ardent and sultry. The noon-tide meal had\nbeen made, and the glass had gone gaily round. It was one of those _few_\ninstances in which the medical votary of the Naiads transgressed his\ngeneral and strict sobriety,\" in which, in fact, he may be said to\nhave--remembered himself.\n\n\"If not absolutely intoxicated, his spirits were in a high state of\nvinous exhilaration. On the boat approaching Nottingham, within the\ndistance of a few fields, he surprised his companions by stepping,\nwithout any previous notice, from the boat into the middle of the river,\nand swimming to shore. They saw him get upon the bank, and walk coolly\nover the meadows towards the town: they called to him in vain, but he\ndid not once turn his head.\n\n\"Anxious lest he should take a dangerous cold by remaining in his wet\nclothes, and uncertain whether or not he intended to desert the party,\nthey rowed instantly to the town at which they had not designed to have\ntouched, and went in search of their river-god.\n\n\"In passing through the market-place they saw him standing upon a tub,\nencircled by a crowd of people, and resisting the entreaties of an\napothecary of the place, one of his old acquaintances, who was\nimportuning him to his house, and to accept other raiments till his own\ncould be dried.\n\n\"The party on pressing through the crowd were surprised to hear him\nspeaking without any degree of his usual stammer:--'Have I not told you,\nmy friend, that I had drank a considerable quantity of wine before I\ncommitted myself to the river. You know my general sobriety, and as a\nprofessional man you _ought_ to know that the _unusual_ existence of\ninternal stimulus would, in its effects upon the system, counteract the\n_external_ cold and moisture.'\"\n\n\"Then perceiving his companions near him, he nodded, smiled, and waived\nhis hand, as enjoining them silence, thus, without hesitation,\naddressing the populace:--\n\n\"'Ye men of Nottingham, listen to me. You are ingenious and industrious\nmechanics. By your industry life's comforts are procured for yourselves\nand families. If you lose your health the power of being industrious\nwill forsake you. _That_ you know, but you may _not_ know that to\nbreathe fresh and changed air constantly, is not less necessary to\npreserve health than sobriety itself. Air becomes unwholesome in a few\nhours if the windows are shut. Open those of your sleeping rooms\nwhenever you quit them to go to your workshops. Keep the windows of your\nworkshops open whenever the weather is not insupportably cold. I have no\n_interest_ in giving you this advice; remember what I, your countryman\nand a physician, tell you. If you would not bring infection and disease\nupon yourselves, and to your wives and little ones, change the air you\nbreathe, change it many times a day, by opening your windows.'\n\n\"So saying, he stepped down from the tub, and, returning with his party\nto their boat, they pursued their voyage.\"[146]\n\nCould any missionary be more perfectly sober and sensible, or more alive\nto the immorality of trying to effect too sudden a modification in the\norganisms he was endeavouring to influence? If the men of Nottingham\nwant a statue in their market-place, I would respectfully suggest that a\nsubject is here afforded them.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\n\"Dr. Johnson was several times at Lichfield on visits to Mrs. Lucy\nPorter, his daughter-in-law, while Dr. Darwin was one of the\ninhabitants. They had one or two interviews, but never afterwards sought\neach other. Mutual and strong dislike subsisted between them. It is\ncurious that in Johnson's various letters to Mrs. Thrale, now Mrs.\nPiozzi, published by that lady after his death, many of them dated from\nLichfield, the name of Darwin cannot be found, nor, indeed, that of any\nof the ingenious and lettered people who lived there; while of its mere\ncommon-life characters there is frequent mention, with many hints of\nLichfield's intellectual barrenness, while it could boast a Darwin and\nother men of classical learning, poetic talents, and liberal\ninformation.\"[147]\n\nHere there follows a pleasant sketch of the principal Lichfield\nnotabilities, which I am compelled to omit.\n\n\"_These_ were the men,\" exclaims Miss Seward, \"whose intellectual\nexistence passed unnoticed by Dr. Johnson in his depreciating estimate\nof Lichfield talents. But Johnson liked only _worshippers_. Archdeacon\nVyse, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Robinson paid all the respect and attention to\nDr. Johnson, on these his visits to their town, due to his great\nabilities, his high reputation, and to whatever was estimable in his\n_mixed_ character; but they were not in the herd that 'paged his heels,'\nand sunk in servile silence under the force of his dogmas, when their\nhearts and their judgments bore _contrary_ testimony.\n\n\"Certainly, however, it was an arduous hazard to the feelings of the\ncompany to oppose in the slightest degree Dr. Johnson's opinions. His\nstentor lungs; that combination of wit, humour, and eloquence, which\n'could make the _worse_ appear the _better_ reason,' that sarcastic\ncontempt of his antagonist, never suppressed or even softened by the due\nrestraints of good breeding, were sufficient to close the lips in his\npresence, of men who could have met him in fair argument, on _any_\nground, literary or political, moral or characteristic.\n\n\"Where Dr. Johnson was, Dr. Darwin had no chance of being heard, though\nat least his equal in genius, his superior in science; nor, indeed, from\nhis impeded utterance, in the company of any overbearing declaimer; and\nhe was too intellectually great to be an humble listener to Johnson.\nTherefore he shunned him on having experienced what manner of man he\nwas. The surly dictator felt the mortification, and revenged it by\n_affecting_ to avow his disdain of powers too distinguished to be\nobjects of _genuine_ scorn.\n\n\"Dr. Darwin, in his turn, was not much more just to Dr. Johnson's\ngenius. He uniformly spoke of him in terms which, had they been\ndeserved, would have justified Churchill's 'immane Pomposo' as an\nappellation of _scorn_; since if his person was huge, and his manners\npompous and violent, so were his talents vast and powerful, in a degree\nfrom which only prejudice and resentment could withhold respect.\n\n\"Though Dr. Darwin's hesitation in speaking precluded his flow of\ncolloquial eloquence, it did not impede, or at all lessen, the force of\nthat conciser quality, _wit_. Of satiric wit he possessed a very\npeculiar species. It was neither the dead-doing broadside of Dr.\nJohnson's satire, nor the aurora borealis of Gray ... whose arch yet coy\nand quiet fastidiousness of taste and feeling, as recorded by Mason,\nglanced bright and cold through his conversation, while it seemed\ndifficult to define its nature; and while its effects were rather\n_perceived_ than _felt_, exciting surprise more than mirth, and never\nawakening the pained sense of being the object of its ridicule. That\nunique in humorous verse, the Long Story, is a complete and beautiful\nspecimen of Gray's singular vein.\n\n\"Darwinian wit is not more easy to be defined; instances will best\nconvey an idea of its character to those who never conversed with its\npossessor.\n\n\"Dr. Darwin was conversing with a brother botanist concerning the plant\nkalmia, then a just imported stranger in our greenhouses and gardens. A\nlady who was present, concluding he had seen it, which in fact he had\nnot, asked the doctor what were the colours of the plant. He replied,\n'Madam, the kalmia has precisely the colours of a seraph's wing.' So\nfancifully did he express his want of consciousness concerning the\nappearance of a flower, whose name and rareness were all he knew of the\nmatter.\n\n\"Dr. Darwin had a large company at tea. His servant announced a\nstranger, lady and gentleman. The female was a conspicuous figure,\nruddy, corpulent, and tall. She held by the arm a little, meek-looking,\npale, effeminate man, who, from his close adherence to the side of the\nlady, seemed to consider himself as under her protection.\n\n\"'Dr. Darwin, I seek you not as a physician, but as a _Belle Esprit_. I\nmake this husband of mine,' and she looked down with a side glance upon\nthe animal, 'treat me every summer with a tour through one of the\nBritish counties, to explore whatever it contains worth the attention of\ningenious people. On arriving at the several inns in our route I always\nsearch out the man of the vicinity most distinguished for his genius and\ntaste, and introduce myself, that he may direct as the objects of our\nexamination, whatever is curious in nature, art, or science. Lichfield\nwill be our headquarters during several days. Come, doctor, whither must\nwe go; what must we investigate to-morrow, and the next day, and the\nnext? Here are my tablets and pencil.'\n\n\"'You arrive, madam, at a fortunate juncture. To-morrow you will have an\nopportunity of surveying an annual exhibition perfectly worthy your\nattention. To-morrow, madam, you will go to Tutbury bull-running.'\n\n\"The satiric laugh with which he stammered out the last word more keenly\npointed this sly, yet broad rebuke to the vanity and arrogance of her\nspeech. She had been up amongst the boughs, and little expected they\nwould break under her so suddenly, and with so little mercy. Her large\nfeatures swelled, and her eyes flashed with anger--'I was recommended to\na man of genius, and I find him insolent and ill-bred.' Then, gathering\nup her meek and alarmed husband, whom she had loosed when she first\nspoke, under the shadow of her broad arm and shoulder, she strutted out\nof the room.\n\n\"After the departure of this curious couple, his guests told their host\nhe had been very unmerciful. 'I chose,' replied he, 'to avenge the cause\nof the little man, whose nothingness was so ostentatiously displayed by\nhis lady-wife. Her vanity has had a smart emetic. If it abates the\nsymptoms, she will have reason to thank her physician who administered\nwithout hope of a fee.'\"[148]\n\n\"In the spring of 1778 the children of Colonel and Mrs. Pole of Radburn,\nin Derbyshire, had been injured by a dangerous quantity of the cicuta,\ninjudiciously administered to them in the hooping-cough by a physician\nof the neighbourhood. Mrs. Pole brought them to the house of Dr. Darwin\nin Lichfield, remaining with them there a few weeks, till by his art the\npoison was expelled from their constitutions and their health restored.\n\n\"Mrs. Pole was then in the full bloom of her youth and beauty. Agreeable\nfeatures; the glow of health; a fine form, tall and graceful; playful\nsprightliness of manner; a benevolent heart, and maternal affection, in\nall its unwearied cares and touching tenderness, contributed to inspire\nDr. Darwin's admiration, and to secure his esteem.\"[149]\n\n\"In the autumn of this year\" (1778) \"Mrs. Pole of Radburn was taken ill;\nher disorder a violent fever. Dr. Darwin was called in, and never\nperhaps since the death of Mrs. Darwin, prescribed with such deep\nanxiety. Not being requested to continue in the house during the ensuing\nnight, which he apprehended might prove critical, he passed the\nremaining hours till day-dawn beneath a tree opposite her apartment,\nwatching the passing and repassing lights in the chamber. During the\nperiod in which a life so passionately valued was in danger, he\nparaphrased Petrarch's celebrated sonnet, narrating a dream whose\nprophecy was accomplished by the death of Laura. It took place the night\non which the vision arose amid his slumber. Dr. Darwin extended the\nthought of that sonnet into the following elegy:--\n\n    \"Dread dream, that, hovering in the midnight air,\n      Clasp'd with thy dusky wing my aching head,\n    While to imagination's startled ear\n      Toll'd the slow bell, for bright Eliza dead.\n\n    \"Stretched on her sable bier, the grave beside,\n      A snow-white shroud her breathless bosom bound,\n    O'er her wan brow the mimic lace was tied,\n      And loves and virtues hung their garlands round.\n\n    \"From those cold lips did softest accents flow?\n      Round that pale mouth did sweetest dimples play?\n    On this dull cheek the rose of beauty blow,\n      And those dim eyes diffuse celestial day?\n\n    \"Did this cold hand, unasking Want relieve,\n      Or wake the lyre to every rapturous sound?\n    How sad for other's woe this breast would heave!\n      How light this heart for other's transport bound!\n\n    \"Beats not the bell again?--Heavens, do I wake?\n      Why heave my sighs, why gush my tears anew?\n    Unreal forms my trembling doubts mistake,\n      And frantic sorrow fears the vision true.\n\n    \"Dreams to Eliza bend thy airy flight,\n      Go, tell my charmer all my tender fears,\n    How love's fond woes alarm the silent night,\n      And steep my pillow in unpitied tears.\"\n\nUnwilling as I am to extend this memoir, I must give Miss Seward's\ncriticism on the foregoing.\n\n\"The second verse of this charming elegy affords an instance of Dr.\nDarwin's too exclusive devotion to distinct picture in poetry; that it\nsometimes betrayed him into bringing objects so precisely to the eye as\nto lose in such precision their power of striking forcibly on the heart.\nThe pathos in the second verse is much injured by the words 'mimic\nlace,' which allude to the perforated borders on the shroud. The\nexpression is too minute for the solemnity of the subject. Certainly it\ncannot be natural for a shocked and agitated mind to observe, or to\ndescribe with such petty accuracy. Besides, the allusion is not\nsufficiently obvious. The reader pauses to consider what the poet means\nby 'mimic lace.' Such pauses deaden sensation and break the course of\nattention. A friend of the doctor's pleaded greatly that the line might\nrun thus:--\n\n    \"On her wan brow the _shadowy crape_ was tied;\"\n\nbut the alteration was rejected. Inattention to the rules of grammar in\nthe first verse was also pointed out to him at the same time. The dream\nis addressed:\n\n    \"Dread dream, that clasped my aching head,\"\n\nbut nothing is said to it, and therefore the sense is left unfinished,\nwhile the elegy proceeds to give a picture of the lifeless beauty. The\nsame friend suggested a change which would have remedied the defect.\nThus:--\n\n    \"Dread _was the dream_ that in the midnight air\n      Clasped with its dusky wing my aching head,\n    While to\" &c., &c.\n\n\"Hence not only the grammatic error would have been done away, but the\ngrating sound produced by the near alliteration of the harsh _dr_ in\n'_dr_ead _dr_eam' removed, by placing those words at a greater distance\nfrom each other.\n\n\"This alteration was, for the same reason, rejected. The doctor would\nnot spare the word _hovering_, which he said strengthened the picture;\nbut surely the image ought not to be elaborately precise, by which a\ndream is transformed into an animal with black wings.\"[150]\n\nThen Mrs. Pole got well, and the doctor wrote more verses and Miss\nSeward more criticism. It was not for nothing that Dr. Johnson came down\nto Lichfield.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nIn 1780 Colonel Pole died, and his widow, still young, handsome, witty,\nand--for those days--rich, was in no want of suitors.\n\n\"Colonel Pole,\" says Miss Seward, \"had numbered twice the years of his\nfair wife. His temper was said to have been peevish and suspicious; yet\nnot beneath those circumstances had her kind and cheerful attentions to\nhim grown cold or remiss. He left her a jointure of 600_l._ per annum, a\nson to inherit his estate, and two female children amply portioned.\n\n\"Mrs. Pole, it has already been remarked, had much vivacity and sportive\nhumour, with very engaging frankness of temper and manners. Early in her\nwidowhood she was rallied in a large company upon Dr. Darwin's passion\nfor her, and was asked what she would do with her captive philosopher.\n'He is not very fond of churches, I believe,' said she, 'and even if he\nwould go there for my sake, I shall scarcely follow him. He is too old\nfor me.' 'Nay, Madam,' was the answer, 'what are fifteen years on the\nright side?' She replied, with an arch smile, 'I have had so _much_ of\nthat right side.'\n\n\"This confession was thought inauspicious for the doctor's hopes, but it\ndid not prove so. The triumph of intellect was complete.\"[151]\n\nMrs. Pole had taken a strong dislike to Lichfield, and had made it a\ncondition of her marriage that Dr. Darwin should not reside there after\nhe had married her. In 1781, therefore, immediately after his marriage,\nhe removed to Derby, and continued to live there till a fortnight before\nhis death.\n\nHere he wrote 'The Botanic Garden' and a great part of the 'Zoonomia.'\nThose who wish for a detailed analysis of 'The Botanic Garden' can\nhardly do better than turn to Miss Seward's pages. Opening them at\nrandom, I find the following:--\n\n\"The mention of Brindley, the father of commercial canals, has propriety\nas well as happiness. Similitude for their course to the sinuous track\nof a serpent, produces a fine picture of a gliding animal of that\nspecies, and it is succeeded by these supremely happy lines:--\n\n    \"'So with strong arms immortal Brindley leads\n    His long canals, and parts the velvet meads;\n    Winding in lucid lines, the watery mass\n    Mines the firm rock, or loads the deep morass;'[152]\n      &c. &c. &c.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The mechanism of the pump is next described with curious ingenuity.\nCommon as is the machine, it is not unworthy a place in this splendid\ncomposition, as being, after the sinking of wells, the earliest of those\ninventions, which in situations of exterior aridness gave ready\naccession to water. This familiar object is illustrated by a picture of\nMaternal Beauty administering sustenance to her infant.\"[153]\n\nHere we will leave the poetical part of the 'Botanic Garden.' The notes,\nhowever, to which are \"still,\" as Dr. Dowson says, \"instructive and\namusing,\" and contain matter which, at the time they were written, was\nfor the most part new.\n\nOf the 'Zoonomia' there is no occasion to speak here, as a sufficient\nnumber of extracts from those parts that concern us as bearing upon\nevolution will be given presently.\n\nOn the 18th of April, 1802, Dr. Darwin had written \"one page of a very\nsprightly letter to Mr. Edgeworth, describing the Priory and his\npurposed alterations there, when the fatal signal was given. He rang the\nbell and ordered the servant to send Mrs. Darwin to him. She came\nimmediately, with his daughter, Miss Emma Darwin. They saw him shivering\nand pale. He desired them to send to Derby for his surgeon, Mr. Hadley.\nThey did so, but all was over before he could arrive.\n\n\"It was reported at Lichfield that, perceiving himself growing rapidly\nworse, he said to Mrs. Darwin, 'My dear, you must bleed me instantly.'\n'Alas! I dare not, lest--' 'Emma, will you? There is no time to be\nlost.' 'Yes, my dear father, if you will direct me.' At that moment he\nsank into his chair and expired.\"[154]\n\nDr. Dowson gives the letter to Mr. Edgeworth, which is as follows:--\n\n     \"Dear Edgeworth,\n\n     \"I am glad to find that you still amuse yourself with mechanism, in\n     spite of the troubles of Ireland.\n\n     \"The _use_ of turning aside or downwards the claw of a table, I\n     don't see; as it must then be reared against a wall, for it will\n     not stand alone. If the use be for carriage, the feet may shut up,\n     like the usual brass feet of a reflecting telescope.\n\n     \"We have all been now removed from Derby about a fortnight, to the\n     Priory, and all of us like our change of situation. We have a\n     pleasant house, a good garden, ponds full of fish, and a pleasing\n     valley, somewhat like Shenstone's--deep, umbrageous, and with a\n     talkative stream running down it. Our house is near the top of the\n     valley, well screened by hills from the east and north, and open to\n     the south, where at four miles distance we see Derby tower.\n\n     \"Four or more strong springs rise near the house, and have formed\n     the valley which, like that of Petrarch, may be called Val Chiusa,\n     as it begins, or is shut at the situation of the house. I hope you\n     like the description, and hope farther that yourself and any part\n     of your family will sometimes do us the pleasure of a visit.\n\n     \"Pray tell the authoress\" (Miss Maria Edgeworth) \"that the\n     water-nymphs of our valley will be happy to assist her next novel.\n\n     \"My bookseller, Mr. Johnson, will not begin to print the 'Temple of\n     Nature' till the price of paper is fixed by Parliament. I suppose\n     the present duty is paid....\"\n\nAt these words Dr. Darwin's pen stopped. What followed was written on\nthe opposite side of the paper by another hand.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[137] 'Sketch, &c., of Erasmus Darwin,' pp. 3, 4.\n\n[138] Miss Seward's 'Memoirs of Dr. Darwin,' p. 3.\n\n[139] Ibid.\n\n[140] Dr. Dowson's 'Sketch of Dr. Erasmus Darwin,' p. 50.\n\n[141] Dr. Dowson's 'Sketch of Dr. Darwin,' p. 53.\n\n[142] Miss Seward's 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 6.\n\n[143] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 14.\n\n[144] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 21.\n\n[145] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 62.\n\n[146] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 68.\n\n[147] Miss Seward's 'Memoirs,' p. 69.\n\n[148] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 84.\n\n[149] Ibid., p. 105.\n\n[150] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 120.\n\n[151] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 149.\n\n[152] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 249.\n\n[153] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 250.\n\n[154] 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 426.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nPHILOSOPHY OF DR. ERASMUS DARWIN.\n\n\nConsidering the wide reputation enjoyed by Dr. Darwin at the beginning\nof this century, it is surprising how completely he has been lost sight\nof. The 'Botanic Garden' was translated into Portuguese in 1803; the\n'Loves of the Plants' into French and Italian in 1800 and 1805; while,\nas I have already said, the 'Zoonomia' had appeared some years earlier\nin Germany. Paley's 'Natural Theology' is written throughout at the\n'Zoonomia,' though he is careful, _more suo_, never to mention this work\nby name. Paley's success was probably one of the chief causes of the\nneglect into which the Buffonian and Darwinian systems fell in this\ncountry. Dr. Darwin is as reticent about teleology as Buffon, and\npresumably for the same reason, but the evidence in favour of design was\ntoo obvious; Paley, therefore, with his usual keen-sightedness seized\nupon this weak point, and had the battle all his own way, for Dr. Darwin\ndied the same year as that in which the 'Natural Theology' appeared. The\nunfortunate failure to see that evolution involves design and purpose as\nnecessarily and far more intelligibly than the theological view of\ncreation, has retarded our perception of many important facts for\nthree-quarters of a century.\n\nHowever this may be, Dr. Darwin's name has been but little before the\npublic during the controversies of the last thirty years. Mr. Charles\nDarwin, indeed, in the \"historical sketch\" which he has prefixed to the\nlater editions of his 'Origin of Species,' says, \"It is curious how\nlargely my grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and\nerroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. pp.\n500-510, published in 1794.\"[155] And a few lines lower Mr. Darwin adds,\n\"It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views\narise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, and Geoffroy St.\nHilaire (as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the same\nconclusion on the 'Origin of Species' in the years 1794-1796.\"\nAcquaintance with Buffon's work will explain much of the singularity,\nwhile those who have any knowledge of the writings of Dr. Darwin and\nEtienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire will be aware that neither would admit the\nother as \"coming to the same conclusion,\" or even nearly so, as himself.\nDr. Darwin goes beyond his successor, Lamarck, while Etienne Geoffroy\ndoes not even go so far as Dr. Darwin's predecessor, Buffon, had thought\nfit to let himself be known as going. I have found no other reference to\nDr. Darwin in the 'Origin of Species,' except the two just given from\nthe same note. In the first edition I find no mention of him.\n\nThe chief fault to be found with Dr. Darwin's treatise on evolution is\nthat there is not enough of it; what there is, so far from being\n\"erroneous,\" is admirable. But so great a subject should have had a book\nto itself, and not a mere fraction of a book. If his opponents, not\nventuring to dispute with him, passed over one book in silence, he\nshould have followed it up with another, and another, and another, year\nby year, as Buffon and Lamarck did; it is only thus that men can expect\nto succeed against vested interests. Dr. Darwin could speak with a\nfreedom that was denied to Buffon. He took Buffon at his word as well as\nhe could, and carried out his principles to what he conceived to be\ntheir logical conclusion. This was doubtless what Buffon had desired and\nreckoned on, but, as I have said already, I question how far Dr. Darwin\nunderstood Buffon's humour; he does not present any of the phenomena of\nhaving done so, and therefore I am afraid he must be said to have missed\nit.\n\nLike Buffon, Dr. Darwin had no wish to see far beyond the obvious; he\nmissed good things sometimes, but he gained more than he lost; he knew\nthat it is always on the margin, as it were, of the self-evident that\nthe greatest purchase against the nearest difficulty is obtainable. His\nlife was not one of Herculean effort, but, like the lives of all those\norganisms that are most likely to develop and transmit a useful\nmodification, it was one of well-sustained activity; it was a\nlong-continued keeping open of the windows of his own mind, much after\nthe advice he gave to the Nottingham weavers. Dr. Darwin knew, and, I\nimagine, quite instinctively, that nothing tends to oversight like\noverseeing. He does not trouble himself about the origin of life; as\nfor the perceptions and reasoning faculties of animals and plants, it is\nenough for him that animals and plants do things which we say involve\nsensation and consciousness when we do them ourselves or see others do\nthem. If, then, plants and animals appear as if they felt and\nunderstood, let the matter rest there, and let us say they feel and\nunderstand--being guided by the common use of language, rather than by\nany theories concerning brain and nervous system. If any young writer\nhappens to be in want of a subject, I beg to suggest that he may find\nhis opportunity in a 'Philosophy of the Superficial.'\n\nThough Dr. Darwin was more deeply impressed than Buffon with the oneness\nof personality between parents and offspring, so that these latter are\nnot \"new\" creatures, but \"elongations of the parents,\" and hence \"may\nretain some of the habits of the parent system,\" he did not go on to\ninfer definitely all that he might easily have inferred from such a\npregnant premiss. He did not refer the repetition by offspring, of\nactions which their parents have done for many generations, but which\nthey can never have seen those parents do, to the memory (in the strict\nsense of the word) of their having done those actions when they were in\nthe persons of their parents; which memory, though dormant until\nawakened by the presence of associated ideas, becomes promptly kindled\ninto activity when a sufficient number of these ideas are reproduced.\n\nThis, I gather, is the theory put forward by Professor Hering, of whose\nwork, however, I know no more than is told us by Professor Ray\nLankester in an article which, appeared in 'Nature,' July 13th, 1876.\nThis theory seems to be adopted by Professor Haeckel, and to receive\nsupport from Professor Ray Lankester himself. Knowing no German, I have\nbeen unable to make myself acquainted with Professor Hering's position\nin detail, but its similarity to, if not identity with, that taken by\nmyself subsequently, but independently, in 'Life and Habit,' seems\nsufficiently established by the following extracts; it is to be wished,\nhowever, that a full account of this lecture were accessible to English\nreaders. The extracts are as follows:--\n\n\"Professor Hering has the merit of introducing some striking phraseology\ninto his treatment of the subject which serves to emphasize the leading\nidea. He points out that since all transmission of 'qualities' from cell\nto cell in the growth and repair of one and the same organ, or from\nparent to offspring, is a transmission of vibrations or affections of\nmaterial particles, whether these qualities manifest themselves as form,\nor as a facility for entering on a given series of vibrations, we may\nspeak of all such phenomena as 'memory,' whether it be the conscious\nmemory exhibited by the nerve cells of the brain or the unconscious\nmemory we call habit, or the inherited memory we call instinct; or\nwhether, again, it be the reproduction of parental form and minute\nstructure. All equally may be called the 'memory of living matter.' From\nthe earliest existence of protoplasm to the present day the memory of\nliving matter is continuous. Though individuals die, the universal\nmemory of living matter is carried on.\n\n\"Professor Hering, in short, helps us to a comprehensive conception of\nthe nature of heredity and adaptation, by giving us the term 'memory'\nconscious or unconscious, for the continuity of Mr. Herbert Spencer's\npolar forces, or polarities of physiological units.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The undulatory movement of the plastidules is the key to the mechanical\nexplanation of all the essential phenomena of life. The plastidules are\nliable to have their undulations affected by every external force, and,\nonce modified, the movement does not return to its pristine condition.\nBy assimilation they continually increase to a certain point in size,\nand then divide, and thus perpetuate in the undulatory movement of\nsuccessive generations, the impressions or resultants due to the action\nof external agencies on individual plastidules. This is Memory. All\nplastidules possess memory; and Memory which we see in its ultimate\nanalysis is identical with reproduction, is the distinguishing feature\nof the plastidule; is that which it alone of all molecules possesses, in\naddition to the ordinary properties of the physicist's molecule; is, in\nfact, that which distinguishes it as vital. To the sensitiveness of the\nmovement of plastidules is due Variability--to their unconscious Memory\nthe power of Hereditary Transmission. As we know them to-day they may\n'have learnt little, and forgotten nothing' in one organism, and 'have\nlearnt much, and forgotten much' in another; but in all, their memory if\nsometimes fragmentary, yet reaches back to the dawn of life upon the\nearth.--E. Ray Lankester.\"\n\nNothing can well be plainer and more uncompromising than the above.\nProfessor Hering would, I gather, no less than myself, refer the\nbuilding of its nest by a bird to the intense--but unconscious, owing to\nits very perfection and intensity--recollection by the bird of the nests\nit built when it was in the persons of its ancestors; this memory would\nbegin to stimulate action when the surrounding associations, such as\ntemperature, state of vegetation, &c., reminded it of the time when it\nhad been in the habit of beginning to build in countless past\ngenerations. Dr. Darwin does not go so far as this. He says that wild\nbirds choose spring as their building time \"from their _acquired_\nknowledge that the mild temperature of the air is more convenient for\nhatching their eggs,\" and a little lower down he speaks of the fact that\ngraminivorous animals generally produce their young in spring, as \"part\nof the traditional knowledge which they learn _from the example_ of\ntheir parents.\"[156]\n\nAgain he says, that birds \"seem to be instructed how to build their\nnests _from their observation_ of that in which they were educated, and\nfrom their knowledge of those things that are most agreeable to their\ntouch in respect to warmth, cleanliness, and stability.\"\n\nHad Dr. Darwin laid firmly hold of two superficial facts concerning\nmemory which we can all of us test for ourselves--I mean its dormancy\nuntil kindled by the return of a sufficient number of associated ideas,\nand its unselfconsciousness upon becoming intense and perfect--and had\nhe connected these two facts with the unity of life through successive\ngenerations--an idea which plainly haunted him--he would have been\nsaved from having to refer instinct to imitation, in the face of the\nfact that in a thousand instances the creature imitating can never have\nseen its model, save when it was a part of its parents,--seeing what\nthey saw, doing what they did, feeling as they felt, and remembering\nwhat they remembered.\n\nMiss Seward tells us that Dr. Darwin read his chapter on instinct \"to a\nlady who was in the habit of rearing canary birds. She observed that the\npair which he then saw building their nest in her cage, were a male and\nfemale, who had been hatched and reared in that very _cage_, and were\nnot in existence when the mossy cradle was fabricated in which _they_\nfirst saw light.\" She asked him, and quite reasonably, \"how, upon his\nprinciple of imitation, he could account for the nest he then saw\nbuilding, being constructed even to the precise disposal of every hair\nand shred of wool upon the model of _that_ in which the pair were born,\nand on which every other canary bird's nest is constructed, when the\nproper materials are furnished. That of the pyefinch,\" she added, \"is of\nmuch compacter form, warmer, and more comfortable. Pull one of these\nnests to pieces for its materials; and place another nest before these\ncanary birds as a pattern, and see if they will make the slightest\nattempt to imitate their model! No, the result of their labour will,\nupon instinctive hereditary impulse, be exactly the slovenly little\nmansion of their race, the same with that which their parents built\nbefore themselves were hatched. The Doctor could not do away the force\nof that single fact, with which his system was incompatible, yet he\nmaintained that system with philosophic sturdiness, though experience\nbrought confutation from a thousand sources.\"[157]\n\nAs commonly happens in such disputes, both were right and both were\nwrong. The lady was right in refusing to refer instinct to imitation,\nand the Doctor was right in maintaining reason and instinct to be but\ndifferent degrees of perfection of the same mental processes. Had he\nsubstituted \"memory\" for \"imitation,\" and asked the lady to define\n\"sameness\" or \"personal identity,\" he would have soon secured his\nvictory.\n\nThe main fact, compared with which all else is a matter of detail, is\nthe admission that instinct is only reason become habitual. This\nadmission involves, consciously or unconsciously, the admission of all\nthe principles contended for in 'Life and Habit'; principles which, if\nadmitted, make the facts of heredity intelligible by showing that they\nare of the same character as other facts which we call intelligible, but\ndenial of which makes nonsense of half the terms in common use\nconcerning it. For the view that instinct is habitual reason involves\nsameness of personality and memory as common to parents and offspring;\nit involves also the latency of that memory till rekindled by the return\nof a sufficient number of its associated ideas, and points the\nunconsciousness with which habitual actions are performed. These\nprinciples being grasped, the infertility _inter se_ of widely distant\nspecies, the commonly observed sterility of hybrids, the sterility of\ncertain animals and plants under confinement, the phenomena of old age\nas well as those of growth, and the principle which underlies longevity\nand alternate generations, follow logically and coherently, as I showed\nin 'Life and Habit.' Moreover, we find that the terms in common use show\nan unconscious sense that some such view as I have insisted on was\nwanted and would come, for we find them made and to hand already; few if\nany will require altering; all that is necessary is to take common words\naccording to their common meanings.\n\nDr. Darwin is very good on this head. Here, as everywhere throughout his\nwork, if things or qualities appear to resemble one another sufficiently\nand without such traits of unlikeness, on closer inspection, as shall\ndestroy the likeness which was apparent at first, he connects them, all\ntheories notwithstanding. I have given two instances of his manner of\nlooking at instinct and reason.[158] \"If these are not,\" he concludes,\n\"deductions _from their own previous experience, or observation_, all\nthe actions of mankind must be resolved into instincts.\"[159]\n\nIf by \"previous experience\" we could be sure that Dr. Darwin\npersistently meant \"previous experience in the persons of their\nancestors,\" he would be in an impregnable position. As it is, we feel\nthat though he had caught sight of the truth, and had even held it in\nhis hands, yet somehow or other it just managed to slip through his\nfingers.\n\nAgain he writes:--\n\n\"So flies burn themselves in candles, deceived like mankind by the\nmisapplication of their knowledge.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n\"An ingenious philosopher has lately denied that animals can enter into\ncontracts, and thinks this an essential difference between them and the\nhuman creature: but does not daily observation convince us that they\nform contracts of friendship with each other and with mankind? When\npuppies and kittens play together is there not a tacit contract that\nthey will not hurt each other? And does not your favourite dog expect\nyou should give him his daily food for his services and attention to\nyou? And thus barters his love for your protection? In the same manner\nthat all contracts are made among men that do not understand each\nother's arbitrary language.\"[160]\n\nOne more extract from a chapter full of excellent passages must suffice.\n\n\"One circumstance I shall relate which fell under my own eye, and showed\nthe power of reason in a wasp, as it is exercised among men. A wasp on a\ngravel walk had caught a fly nearly as large as himself; kneeling on the\nground, I observed him separate the tail and the head from the body\npart, to which the wings were attached. He then took the body part in\nhis paws, and rose about two feet from the ground with it; but a gentle\nbreeze wafting the wings of the fly turned him round in the air, and he\nsettled again with his prey upon the gravel. I then distinctly observed\nhim cut off with his mouth first one of the wings and then the other,\nafter which he flew away with it, unmolested by the wind.\n\n\"Go, proud reasoner, and call the worm thy sister!\"[161]\n\nDr. Darwin's views on the essential unity of animal and vegetable life\nare put forward in the following admirable chapter on \"Vegetable\nAnimation,\" which I will give in full, and which is confirmed in all\nimportant respects by the latest conclusions of our best modern\nscientists, so, at least, I gather from Mr. Francis Darwin's interesting\nlecture.[162]\n\n\"I. 1. The fibres of the vegetable world, as well as those of the\nanimal, are excitable into a variety of motion by irritations of\nexternal objects. This appears particularly in the mimosa or sensitive\nplant, whose leaves contract on the slightest injury: the _Dionaea\nmuscipula_, which was lately brought over from the marshes of America,\npresents us with another curious instance of vegetable irritability; its\nleaves are armed with spines on their upper edge, and are spread on the\nground around the stem; when an insect creeps on any of them in its\npassage to the flower or seed, the leaf shuts up like a steel rat-trap,\nand destroys its enemy.[163]\n\n\"The various secretions of vegetables as of odour, fruit, gum, resin,\nwax, honey, seem brought about in the same manner as in the glands of\nanimals; the tasteless moisture of the earth is converted by the hop\nplant into a bitter juice; as by the caterpillar in the nutshell, the\nsweet powder is converted into a bitter powder. While the power of\nabsorption in the roots and barks of vegetables is excited into action\nby the fluids applied to their mouths like the lacteals and lymphatics\nof animals.\n\n\"2. The individuals of the vegetable world may be considered as inferior\nor less perfect animals; a tree is a congeries of many living buds, and\nin this respect resembles the branches of the coralline, which are a\ncongeries of a multitude of animals. Each of these buds of a tree has\nits proper leaves or petals for lungs, produces its viviparous or its\noviparous offspring in buds or seeds; has its own roots, which,\nextending down the stem of the tree, are interwoven with the roots of\nthe other buds, and form the bark, which is the only living part of the\nstem, is annually renewed and is superinduced upon the former bark,\nwhich then dies, and, with its stagnated juices gradually hardening into\nwood, forms the concentric circles which we see in blocks of timber.\n\n\"The following circumstances evince the individuality of the buds of\ntrees. First, there are many trees whose whole internal wood is\nperished, and yet the branches are vegete and healthy. Secondly, the\nfibres of the bark of trees are chiefly longitudinal, resembling roots,\nas is beautifully seen in those prepared barks that were lately brought\nfrom Otaheita. Thirdly, in horizontal wounds of the bark of trees, the\nfibres of the upper lip are always elongated downwards like roots, but\nthose of the lower lip do not approach to meet them. Fourthly, if you\nwrap wet moss round any joint of a vine, or cover it with moist earth,\nroots will shoot out from it. Fifthly, by the inoculation or engrafting\nof trees many fruits are produced from one stem. Sixthly, a new tree is\nproduced from a branch plucked from an old one and set in the ground.\nWhence it appears that the buds of deciduous trees are so many annual\nplants, that the bark is a contexture of the roots of each individual\nbud, and that the internal wood is of no other use but to support them\nin the air, and that thus they resemble the animal world in their\nindividuality.\n\n\"The irritability of plants, like that of animals, appears liable to be\nincreased or decreased by habit; for those trees or shrubs which are\nbrought from a colder climate to a warmer, put out their leaves and\nblossoms a fortnight sooner than the indigenous ones.\n\n\"Professor Kalm, in his travels in New York, observes that the apple\ntrees brought from England blossom a fortnight sooner than the native\nones. In our country, the shrubs that are brought a degree or two from\nthe north are observed to flourish better than those which come from the\nsouth. The Siberian barley and cabbage are said to grow larger in this\nclimate than the similar more southern vegetables; and our hoards of\nroots, as of potatoes and onions, germinate with less heat in spring,\nafter they have been accustomed to the winter's cold, than in autumn,\nafter the summer's heat.\n\n\"II. The stamens and pistils of flowers show evident marks of\nsensibility, not only from many of the stamens and some pistils\napproaching towards each other at the season of impregnation, but from\nmany of them closing their petals and calyxes during the cold part of\nthe day. For this cannot be ascribed to irritation, because cold means\na defect of the stimulus of heat; but as the want of accustomed stimuli\nproduces pain, as in coldness, hunger, and thirst of animals, these\nmotions of vegetables in closing up their flowers must be ascribed to\nthe disagreeable sensation, and not to the irritation of cold. Others\nclose up their leaves during darkness, which, like the former, cannot be\nowing to irritation, as the irritating material is withdrawn.\n\n\"The approach of the anthers in many flowers to the stigmas, and of the\npistils of some flowers to the anthers, must be ascribed to the passion\nof love, and hence belongs to sensation, not to irritation.\n\n\"III. That the vegetable world possesses some degree of voluntary powers\nappears from their necessity to sleep, which we have shown in Section\nXVIII. to consist in the temporary abolition of voluntary power. This\nvoluntary power seems to be exerted in the circular movement of the\ntendrils of the vines, and other climbing vegetables; or in the efforts\nto turn the upper surfaces of their leaves, or their flowers, to the\nlight.\n\n\"IV. The associations of fibrous motions are observable in the vegetable\nworld as well as in the animal. The divisions of the leaves of the\nsensitive plant have been accustomed to contract at the same time from\nthe absence of light; hence, if by any other circumstance, as a slight\nstroke or injury, one division is irritated into contraction, the\nneighbouring ones contract also from their motions being associated with\nthose of the irritated part. So the various stamina of the class of\nsyngenesia have been accustomed to contract together in the evening, and\nthence if you stimulate any one of them with a pin, according to the\nexperiment of M. Colvolo, they all contract from their acquired\nassociations.\n\n\"To evince that the collapsing of the sensitive plant is not owing to\nany mechanical vibrations propagated along the whole branch when a\nsingle leaf is struck with the finger, a leaf of it was slit with sharp\nscissors, with as little disturbance as possible, and some seconds of\ntime passed before the plant seemed sensible of the injury, and then the\nwhole branch collapsed as far as the principal stem. This experiment was\nrepeated several times with the least possible impulse to the plant.\n\n\"V. 1. For the numerous circumstances in which vegetable buds are\nanalogous to animals, the reader is referred to the additional notes at\nthe end of 'Botanic Garden,' Part I. It is there shown that the roots of\nvegetables resemble the lacteal system of animals; the sap vessels in\nthe early spring, before their leaves expand, are analogous to the\nplacental vessels of the foetus; that the leaves of land plants\nresemble lungs, and those of aquatic plants the gills of fish; that\nthere are other systems of vessels resembling the vena portarum of\nquadrupeds, or the aorta of fish; that the digestive power of vegetables\nis similar to that of animals converting the fluids which they absorb\ninto sugar;[164] that their seeds resemble the eggs of animals, and\ntheir buds and bulbs their viviparous offspring; and lastly, that the\nanthers and stigmas are real animals attached to their parent tree like\npolypi or coral insects, but capable of spontaneous motion; that they\nare affected with the passion of love, and furnished with powers of\nreproducing their species, and are fed with honey like the moths and\nbutterflies which plunder their nectaries.[165]\n\n\"The male flowers of Vallisneria approach still nearer to apparent\nanimality, as they detach themselves from the parent plant, and float on\nthe surface of the water to the female ones.[166] Other flowers of the\nclasses of monoecia and dioecia, and polygamia discharge the\nfecundating farina, which, floating in the air, is carried to the stigma\nof the female flowers, and that at considerable distances. Can this be\neffected by any specific attraction? Or, like the diffusion of the\nodorous particles of flowers, is it left to the currents of the winds,\nand the accidental miscarriages of it counteracted by the quantity of\nits production?\n\n\"2. This leads us to a curious inquiry, whether vegetables have ideas of\nexternal things? As all our ideas are originally received by our senses,\nthe question may be changed to whether vegetables possess any organs of\nsense? Certain it is that they possess a sense of heat and cold, another\nof moisture and dryness, and another of light and darkness, for they\nclose their petals occasionally from the presence of cold, moisture, or\ndarkness. And it has been already shown that these actions cannot be\nperformed simply from irritation, because cold and darkness are negative\nquantities, and on that account sensation, or volition are implied, and\nin consequence a sensorium or union of their nerves. So when we go into\nthe light we contract the iris; not from any stimulus of the light on\nthe fine muscles of the iris, but from its motions being associated with\nthe sensation of too much light upon the retina, which could not take\nplace without a sensorium or centre of union of the nerves of the iris,\nwith those of vision.[167]\n\n\"Besides these organs of sense, which distinguish cold, moisture, and\ndarkness, the leaves of mimosa, and of dionaea, and of drosera, and the\nstamens of many flowers, as of the berbery, and the numerous class of\nsyngenesia, are sensible to mechanic impact, that is, they possess a\nsense of touch, as well as a common sensorium, by the medium of which\ntheir muscles are excited into action. Lastly, in many flowers the\nanthers, when mature, approach the stigma, in others the female organ\napproaches to the male. In a plant of collinsonia, a branch of which is\nnow before me, the two yellow stamens are about three-eighths of an inch\nhigh, and diverge from each other at an angle of about fifteen degrees,\nthe purple style is half an inch high, and in some flowers is now\napplied to the stamen on the right hand, and in others to that of the\nleft; and will, I suppose, change place to-morrow in those, where the\nanthers have not yet effused their powder.\n\n\"I ask by what means are the anthers in many flowers and stigmas in\nother flowers directed to find their paramours? How do either of them\nknow that the other exists in their vicinity? Is this curious kind of\nstorge produced by mechanic attraction, or by the sensation of love? The\nlatter opinion is supported by the strongest analogy, because a\nreproduction of the species is the consequence; and then another organ\nof sense must be wanted to direct these vegetable amourettes to find\neach other, one probably analogous to our sense of smell, which in the\nanimal world directs the new-born infant to its source of nourishment,\nand they may thus possess a faculty of perceiving as well as of\nproducing odours.\n\n\"Thus, besides a kind of taste at the extremity of their roots, similar\nto that of the extremities of our lacteal vessels, for the purpose of\nselecting their proper food, and besides different kinds of irritability\nresiding in the various glands, which separate honey, wax, resin, and\nother juices from their blood; vegetable life seems to possess an organ\nof sense to distinguish the variations of heat, another to distinguish\nthe varying degrees of moisture, another of light, another of touch, and\nprobably another analogous to our sense of smell. To these must be added\nthe indubitable evidence of their passion of love, and I think we may\ntruly conclude that they are furnished with a common sensorium for each\nbud, and that they must occasionally repeat those perceptions, either in\ntheir dreams or waking hours, and consequently possess ideas of so many\nof the properties of the external world, and of their own\nexistence.\"[168]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[155] 'Origin of Species,' note on p. xiv.\n\n[156] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 170.\n\n[157] Miss Seward's 'Memoirs,' &c., p. 491.\n\n[158] See p. 116 of this volume.\n\n[159] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 184.\n\n[160] 'Zoonomia,' p. 171.\n\n[161] 'Zoonomia,' p. 187.\n\n[162] 'Nature,' March 14 and 21, 1878.\n\n[163] See 'Botanic Garden,' part ii., note on Silene.\n\n[164] 'On the Digestive Powers of Plants.' See Mr. Francis Darwin's\nlecture, already referred to.\n\n[165] See 'Botanic Garden, part i., add. note, p. xxxix.\n\n[166] Ibid., part ii., art. \"Vallisneria.\"\n\n[167] See 'Botanic Garden,' part i. cant 3, l. 440.\n\n[168] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 107.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nFULLER QUOTATIONS FROM THE 'ZOONOMIA.'\n\n\nThe following are the passages in the 'Zoonomia' which have the most\nimportant bearing on evolution:--\n\n\"The ingenious Dr. Hartley, in his work on man, and some other\nphilosophers have been of opinion, that our immortal part acquires\nduring this life certain habits of action or of sentiment which become\nfor ever indissoluble, continuing after death in a future state of\nexistence; and add that if these habits are of the malevolent kind, they\nmust render their possessor miserable even in Heaven. I would apply this\ningenious idea to the generation or production of the embryon or new\nanimal, which partakes so much of the form and propensities of its\nparent.\n\n\"_Owing to the imperfection of language the offspring is termed a new\nanimal, but is in truth a branch or elongation of the parent, since a\npart of the embryon-animal is, or was, a part of the parent, and\ntherefore in strict language, cannot be said to be entirely new at the\ntime of its production; and, therefore, it may retain some of the habits\nof the parent system._\n\n\"At the earliest period of its existence the embryon would seem to\nconsist of a living filament with certain capabilities of irritation,\nsensation, volition, and association, and also with some acquired\nhabits or propensities peculiar to the parents; the former of these are\nin common with other animals; the latter seem to distinguish or produce\nthe kind of animal, whether man or quadruped, with the similarity of\nfeature or form to the parent.\"[169]\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nGoing on to describe the gradual development of the embryo, Dr. Darwin\ncontinues:--\n\n\"As the want of this oxygenation of the blood is perpetual (as appears\nfrom the incessant necessity of breathing by lungs or gills), the\nvessels become extended by the efforts of pain or desire to seek this\nnecessary object of oxygenation, and to remove the disagreeable\nsensations which this want occasions.\"[170]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The lateral production of plants by wires, while each new plant is thus\nchained to its parent, and continues to put forth another and another as\nthe wire creeps onward on the ground, is exactly resembled by the\ntape-worm or taenia, so often found in the bowels, stretching itself in a\nchain quite from the stomach to the rectum. Linnaeus asserts 'that it\ngrows old at one extremity, while it continues to generate younger ones\nat the other, proceeding _ad infinitum_ like a sort of grass; the\nseparate joints are called gourd worms, and propagate new joints like\nthe parent without end, each joint being furnished with its proper mouth\nand organs of digestion.'\"[171]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Many ingenious philosophers have found so great difficulty in\nconceiving the manner of the reproduction of animals, that they have\nsupposed all the numerous progeny to have existed in miniature in the\nanimal originally created; and that these infinitely minute forms are\nonly evolved or distended, as the embryon increases in the womb. This\nidea, besides its being unsupported by any analogy we are acquainted\nwith, ascribes a greater tenuity to organized matter than we can readily\nadmit; as these included embryons are supposed each of them to consist\nof the various and complicate parts of animal bodies, they must possess\na much greater degree of minuteness than that which was ascribed to the\ndevils which tempted St. Anthony, of whom 20,000 were said to have been\nable to dance a saraband on the point of the finest needle without\nincommoding one another.\"[172]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"I conceive the primordium or rudiment of the embryon as secreted from\nthe blood of the parent to consist of a simple living filament as a\nmuscular fibre; which I suppose to be an extremity of a nerve of\nlocomotion, as a fibre of the retina is an extremity of a nerve of\nsensation; as, for instance, one of the fibrils which compose the mouth\nof an absorbent vessel. I suppose this living filament of whatever form\nit may be, whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the\ncapability of being excited into action by certain kinds of stimulus. By\nthe stimulus of the surrounding fluid in which it is received from the\nmale it may bend into a ring, and thus form the beginning of a tube.\nSuch moving filaments and such rings are described by those who have\nattended to microscopic animalculae. This living ring may now embrace or\nabsorb a nutritive particle of the fluid in which it swims; and by\ndrawing it into its pores, or joining it by compression to its\nextremities, may increase its own length or crassitude, and by degrees\nthe living ring may become a living tube.\n\n\"With this new organization, or accretion of parts, new kinds of\nirritability may commence; for so long as there was but one living organ\nit could only be supposed to possess irritability; since sensibility may\nbe conceived to be an extension of the effect of irritability over the\nrest of the system. These new kinds of irritability and of sensibility\nin consequence of new organization appear from variety of facts in the\nmore mature animals; thus ... the lungs must be previously formed before\ntheir exertions to obtain fresh air can exist; the throat, or\noesophagus, must be formed previous to the sensation or appetites of\nhunger and thirst, one of which seems to reside at the upper end and the\nother at the lower end of that canal.\"[173]\n\nIt seems to me Dr. Darwin is wrong in supposing that the organ must have\npreceded the power to use it. The organ and its use--the desire to do\nand the power to do--have always gone hand in hand, the organism finding\nitself able to do more according as it advanced its desires, and\ndesiring to do more simultaneously with any increase in power, so that\nneither appetency nor organism can claim precedence, but power and\ndesire must be considered as Siamese twins begotten together, conceived\ntogether, born together, and inseparable always from each other. At the\nsame time they are torn by mutual jealousy; each claims, with some vain\nshow of reason, to have been the elder brother; each intrigues\nincessantly from the beginning to the end of time to prevent the other\nfrom outstripping him; each is in turn successful, but each is doomed to\ndeath with the extinction of the other.\n\n\"So inflamed tendons and membranes, and even bones, acquire new\nsensations; and the parts of mutilated animals, as of wounded snails and\npolypi and crabs, are reproduced; and at the same time acquire\nsensations adapted to their situation. Thus when the head of a snail is\nreproduced after decollation with a sharp razor, those curious\ntelescopic eyes are also reproduced, and acquire their sensibility to\nlight, as well as their adapted muscles for retraction on the approach\nof injury.\n\n\"With every change, therefore, of organic form or addition of organic\nparts, I suppose a new kind of irritability or of sensibility to be\nproduced; such varieties of irritability or of sensibility exist in our\nadult state in the glands; every one of which is furnished with an\nirritability or a taste or appetency, and a consequent mode of action\npeculiar to itself.\n\n\"In this manner I conceive the vessels of the jaws to produce those of\nthe teeth; those of the fingers to produce the nails; those of the skin\nto produce the hair; in the same manner as afterwards, about the age of\npuberty, the beard and other great changes in the form of the body and\ndisposition of the mind are produced in consequence of new developments;\nfor, if the animal is deprived of these developments, those changes do\nnot take place. These changes I believe to be formed not by elongation\nor distension of primeval stamina, but by apposition of parts; as the\nmature crab fish when deprived of a limb, in a certain space of time,\nhas power to regenerate it; and the tadpole puts forth its feet after\nits long exclusion from the spawn, and the caterpillar in changing into\na butterfly acquires a new form with new powers, new sensations, and new\ndesires.\"[174]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"From hence I conclude that with the acquisition of new parts, new\nsensations and new desires, as well as new powers are produced; and this\nby accretion to the old ones and not by distension of them. And finally,\nthat the most essential parts of the system, as the brain for the\npurpose of distributing the powers of life, and the placenta for the\npurpose of oxygenating the blood, and the additional absorbent vessels,\nfor the purpose of acquiring aliment, are first formed by the\nirritations above mentioned, and by the pleasurable sensations attending\nthose irritations, and by the exertions in consequence of painful\nsensations similar to those of hunger and suffocation. After these an\napparatus of limbs for future uses, or for the purpose of moving the\nbody in its present natant state, and of lungs for future respiration,\nand of _testes_ for future reproduction, are formed by the irritations\nand sensations and consequent exertions of the parts previously\nexisting, and to which the new parts are to be attached.[175]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The embryon\" must \"be supposed to be a living filament, which acquires\nor makes new parts, with new irritabilities as it advances in its\ngrowth.\"[176]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"From this account of reproduction it appears that all animals have a\nsimilar origin, viz. a single living filament; and that the difference\nof their forms and qualities has arisen only from the different\nirritabilities and sensibilities, or voluntarities, or associabilities,\nof this original living filament, and perhaps in some degree from the\ndifferent forms of the particles of the fluids by which it has at first\nbeen stimulated into activity.\"[177]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"All animals, therefore, I contend, have a similar cause of their\norganization, originating from a single living filament, endued with\ndifferent kinds of irritabilities and sensibilities, or of animal\nappetencies, which exist in every gland, and in every moving organ of\nthe body, and are as essential to living organism as chemical affinities\nare to certain combinations of inanimate matter.\n\n\"If I might be indulged to make a simile in a philosophical work, I\nshould say that the animal appetencies are not only perhaps less\nnumerous originally than the chemical affinities, but that, like these\nlatter, they change with every fresh combination; thus vital air and\nazote, when combined, produce nitrous acid, which now acquires the\nproperty of dissolving silver; so that with every new additional part to\nthe embryon, as of the throat or lungs, I suppose a new animal appetency\nto be produced.\"[178]\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nHere, again, it should be insisted on that neither can the \"additional\npart\" precede \"the appetency,\" nor the appetency precede the additional\npart for long together--the two advance nearly _pari passu_; sometimes\nthe power a little ahead of the desire, stimulates the desire to an\nactivity it would not otherwise have known; as those who have more money\nthan they once had, feel new wants which they would not have known if\nthey had not obtained the power to gratify them; sometimes, on the other\nhand, the desire is a little more active than the power, and pulls the\npower up to itself by means of the effort made to gratify the desire--as\nthose who want a little more of this or that than they have money to pay\nfor, will try all manner of shifts to earn the additional money they\nwant, unless it is so much in excess of their present means that they\ngive up the endeavour as hopeless; but whichever gets ahead, immediately\nsets to work to pull the other level with it, the getting ahead either\nof power or desire being exclusively the work of external agencies,\nwhile the coming up level of the other is due to agencies that are\nincorporate with the organism itself. Thus an unusually abundant supply\nof food, due to causes entirely beyond the control of the individual, is\nan external agency; it will immediately set power a little ahead of\ndesire. On this the individual will eat as much as it can--thus learning\n_pro tanto_ to be able to eat more, and to want more under ordinary\ncircumstances--and will also breed rapidly up to the balance of the\nabundance. This is the work of the agencies incorporate in the organism,\nand will bring desire level with power again. Famine, on the other hand,\nputs desire ahead of power, and the incorporate agencies must either\nbring power up by resource and invention, or must pull desire back by\neating less, both as individuals, and as the race, that is to say, by\nbreeding less freely; for breeding is an assimilation of outside matter\nso closely akin to feeding, that it is only the feeding of the race, as\nagainst that of the individual.\n\nI do not think the reader will find any clearer manner of picturing to\nhimself the development of organism than by keeping the normal growth of\nwealth continually in his mind. He will find few of the phenomena of\norganic development which have not their counterpart in the acquisition\nof wealth. Thus a too sudden acquisition, owing to accidental and\nexternal circumstances and due to no internal source of energy, will be\ncommonly lost in the next few generations. So a sudden sport due to a\nlucky accident of soil will not generally be perpetuated if the\noffspring plant be restored to its normal soil. Again, if the advance in\npower carry power suddenly far beyond any past desire, or be far greater\nthan any past-remembered advance of power beyond desire--then desire\nwill not come up level easily, but only with difficulty and all manner\nof extravagance, such as is likely to destroy the power itself. Demand\nand Supply are also good illustrations.\n\nBut to return to Dr. Darwin.\n\n\"When we revolve in our minds,\" he writes, \"first the great changes\nwhich we see naturally produced in animals after their nativity, as in\nthe production of the butterfly with painted wings from the crawling\ncaterpillar; or of the respiring frog from the subnatant tadpole; from\nthe boy to the bearded man, from the infant girl to the woman,--in both\nwhich cases mutilation will prevent due development.\n\n\"Secondly, when we think over the great changes introduced into various\nanimals by artificial or accidental cultivation, as in horses, which we\nhave exercised for the different purposes of strength or swiftness, in\ncarrying burthens or in running races, or in dogs which have been\ncultivated for strength and courage, as the bull-dog; or for acuteness\nof his sense of smell, as the hound or spaniel; or for the swiftness of\nhis foot, as the greyhound; or for his swimming in the water or for\ndrawing snow sledges, as the rough-haired dogs of the north; or, lastly,\nas a play dog for children, as the lapdog; with the changes of the forms\nof the cattle which have been domesticated from the greatest antiquity,\nas camels and sheep, which have undergone so total a transformation that\nwe are now ignorant from what species of wild animal they had their\norigin. Add to these the great changes of shape and colour which we\ndaily see produced in smaller animals from our domestication of them, as\nrabbits or pigeons, or from the difference of climates and even of\nseasons; thus the sheep of warm climates are covered with hair instead\nof wool; and the hares and partridges of the latitudes which are long\nburied in snow become white during the winter months; add to these the\nvarious changes produced in the forms of mankind by their early modes of\nexertion, or by the diseases occasioned by their habits of life, both of\nwhich become hereditary, and that through many generations. Those who\nlabour at the anvil, the oar, or the loom, as well as those who carry\nsedan chairs or who have been educated to dance upon the rope, are\ndistinguishable by the shape of their limbs; and the diseases occasioned\nby intoxication deform the countenance with leprous eruptions, or the\nbody with tumid viscera, or the joints with knots and distortions.\n\n\"Thirdly, when we enumerate the great changes produced in the species of\nanimals before their nativity, as, for example, when the offspring\nreproduces the effects produced upon the parent by accident or\ncultivation; or the changes produced by the mixture of species, as in\nmules; or the changes produced probably by the exuberance of nourishment\nsupplied to the fetus, as in monstrous births with additional limbs;\nmany of these enormities of shape are propagated and continued as a\nvariety at least, if not as a new species of animal. I have seen a breed\nof cats with an additional claw on every foot; of poultry also with an\nadditional claw, and with wings to their feet; and of others without\nrumps. Mr. Buffon mentions a breed of dogs without tails which are\ncommon at Rome and Naples--which he supposes to have been produced by a\ncustom long established of cutting their tails close off. There are many\nkinds of pigeons admired for their peculiarities which are more or less\nthus produced and propagated.[179]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"When we consider all these changes of animal form and innumerable\nothers which may be collected from the books of natural history, we\ncannot but be convinced that the fetus or embryon is formed by\napposition of new parts, and not by the distention of a primordial nest\nof germs included one within another like the cups of a conjurer.\n\n\"Fourthly, when we revolve in our minds the great similarity of\nstructure which obtains in all the warm-blooded animals, as well\nquadrupeds, birds, and amphibious animals, as in mankind; from the mouse\nand bat to the elephant and whale; one is led to conclude that they have\nalike been produced from a similar living filament. In some this\nfilament in its advance to maturity has acquired hands and fingers with\na fine sense of touch, as in mankind. In others it has acquired claws or\ntalons, as in tigers and eagles. In others, toes with an intervening web\nor membrane, as in seals and geese. In others it has acquired cloven\nhoofs, as in cows and swine; and whole hoofs in others, as in the horse:\nwhile in the bird kind this original living filament has put forth wings\ninstead of arms or legs, and feathers instead of hair. In some it has\nprotruded horns on the forehead instead of teeth in the fore part of the\nupper jaw; in others, tusks instead of horns; and in the others, beaks\ninstead of either. And all this exactly as is seen daily in the\ntransmutation of the tadpole, which acquires legs and lungs when he\nwants them, and loses his tail when it is no longer of service to him.\n\n\"Fifthly, from their first rudiment or primordium to the termination of\ntheir lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations; _which are\nin part produced by their own exertions in consequence of their desires\nand aversions, of their pleasures and their pains, or of irritations or\nof associations; and many of these acquired forms or propensities are\ntransmitted to their posterity_.\n\n\"As air and water are supplied to animals in sufficient profusion, the\nthree great objects of desire which have changed the forms of many\nanimals by their desires to gratify them are those of lust, hunger, and\nsecurity. A great want of one part of the animal world has consisted in\nthe desire of the exclusive possession of the females; and these have\nacquired weapons to combat each other for this purpose, as the very\nthick, shield-like, horny skin on the shoulder of the boar is a defence\nonly against animals of his own species who strike obliquely upwards,\nnor are his tusks for other purposes except to defend himself, as he is\nnot naturally a carnivorous animal. So the horns of the stag are sharp\nto offend his adversary, but are branched for the purpose of parrying or\nreceiving the thrust of horns similar to his own, and have therefore\nbeen formed for the purpose of combating other stags, for the exclusive\npossession of the females; who are observed like the ladies in the times\nof chivalry to attend the car of the victor.\n\n\"The birds which do not carry food to their young, and do not therefore\nmarry, are armed with spurs for the purpose of fighting for the\nexclusive possession of the females, as cocks and quails. It is certain\nthat these weapons are not provided for their defence against other\nadversaries, because the females of these species are without this\narmour. The final cause of this contest among the males seems to be\n_that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species,\nwhich should thence become improved_.\"[180]\n\nDr. Darwin would have been on stronger ground if he had said that the\n_effect_ of the contest among the males was that the fittest should\nsurvive, and hence transmit any fit modifications which had occurred to\nthem as vitally true, rather than that the desire to attain this end had\ncaused the contest; but either way the sentence just given is sufficient\nto show that he was not blind to the fact that the fittest commonly\nsurvive, and to the consequences of this fact. The use, however, of the\nword \"thence,\" as well as of the expression \"final cause,\" is loose, as\nDr. Darwin would no doubt readily have admitted. Improvement in the\nspecies is due quite as much, by Dr. Darwin's own showing, to the causes\nwhich have led to such and such an animal's making itself the fittest,\nas to the fact that if fittest it will be more likely to survive and\ntransmit its improvement. There have been two factors in modification;\nthe one provides variations, the other accumulates them; neither can\nclaim exclusive right to the word \"thence,\" as though the modification\nwas due to it and to it only. Dr. Darwin's use of the word \"thence\"\nhere is clearly a slip, and nothing else; but it is one which brings him\nfor the moment into the very error into which his grandson has fallen\nmore disastrously.\n\n\"Another great want,\" he continues, \"consists in the means of procuring\nfood, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals. Thus\nthe nose of the swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the\nsoil in search of insects and of roots. The trunk of the elephant is an\nelongation of the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of\ntrees for his food, and for taking up water without bending his knees.\nBeasts of prey have acquired strong jaws or talons. Cattle have acquired\na rough tongue and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as\ncows and sheep. Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as\nthe parrot. Others have acquired beaks to break the harder seeds, as\nsparrows. Others for the softer kinds of flowers, or the buds of trees,\nas the finches. Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the\nmoister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks, and others\nbroad ones to filtrate the water of lakes and to retain aquatic insects.\nAll which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations\n_by the perpetual endeavour of the creature to supply the want of food,\nand to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement\nof them for the purposes required_.\n\n\"The third great want among animals is that of security, which seems to\nhave diversified the forms of their bodies and the colour of them; these\nconsist in the means of escaping other animals more powerful than\nthemselves. Hence some animals have acquired wings instead of legs, as\nthe smaller birds, for purposes of escape. Others, great length of fin\nor of membrane, as the flying fish and the bat. Others have acquired\nhard or armed shells, as the tortoise and the _Echinus marinus_.\n\n\"Mr. Osbeck, a pupil of Linnaeus, mentions the American frog-fish,\n_Lophius Histrio_, which inhabits the large floating islands of sea-weed\nabout the Cape of Good Hope, and has fulcra resembling leaves, that the\nfishes of prey may mistake it for the sea-weed, which it inhabits.[181]\n\n\"The contrivances for the purposes of security extend even to\nvegetables, as is seen in the wonderful and various means of their\nconcealing or defending their honey from insects and their seeds from\nbirds. On the other hand, swiftness of wing has been acquired by hawks\nand swallows to pursue their prey; and a proboscis of admirable\nstructure has been acquired by the bee, the moth, and the humming bird\nfor the purpose of plundering the nectaries of flowers. _All which seem\nto have been formed by the original living filament, excited into action\nby the necessities of the creatures which possess them_, and on which\ntheir existence depends.\n\n\"From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the\nwarm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they\nundergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how\nminute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described\nhave been produced; would it be too bold to imagine that in the great\nlength of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages\nbefore the commencement of the history of mankind--would it be too bold\nto imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living\nfilament, which the Great First Cause endued with animality, with the\npower of attaining new parts, attended with new propensities, directed\nby irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus\npossessing the faculty of continuing to improve, by its own inherent\nactivity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its\nposterity world without end!\n\n\"Sixthly, the cold-blooded animals, as the fish tribes, which are\nfurnished with but one ventricle of the heart, and with gills instead of\nlungs, and with fins instead of feet or wings, bear a great similarity\nto each other; but they differ nevertheless so much in their general\nstructure from the warm-blooded animals, that it may not seem probable\nat first view that the same living filament could have given origin to\nthis kingdom of animals, as to the former. Yet are there some creatures\nwhich unite or partake of both these orders of animation, as the whales\nand seals; and more particularly the frog, who changes from an aquatic\nanimal furnished with gills to an aerial one furnished with lungs.\n\n\"The numerous tribes of insects without wings, from the spider to the\nscorpion, from the flea to the lobster; or with wings, from the gnat or\nthe ant to the wasp and the dragon-fly, differ so totally from each\nother, and from the red-blooded classes above described, both in the\nforms of their bodies and in their modes of life; besides the organ of\nsense, which they seem to possess in their antennae or horns, to which\nit has been thought by some naturalists that other creatures have\nnothing similar; that it can scarcely be supposed that this nature of\nanimals could have been produced by the same kind of living filament as\nthe red-blooded classes above mentioned. And yet the changes which many\nof them undergo in their early state to that of their maturity, are as\ndifferent as one animal can be from another. As those of the gnat, which\npasses his early state in water, and then stretching out his new wings\nand expanding his new lungs, rises in the air; as of the caterpillar and\nbee-nymph, which feed on vegetable leaves or farina, and at length\nbursting from their self-formed graves, become beautiful winged\ninhabitants of the skies, journeying from flower to flower, and\nnourished by the ambrosial food of honey.\n\n\"There is still another class of animals which are termed vermes by\nLinnaeus, which are without feet or brain, and are hermaphrodites, as\nworms, leeches, snails, shell-fish, coralline insects, and sponges,\nwhich possess the simplest structure of all animals, and appear totally\ndifferent from those already described. The simplicity of their\nstructure, however, can afford no argument against their having been\nproduced from a single living filament, as above contended.\n\n\"Last of all, the various tribes of vegetables are to be enumerated\namongst the inferior orders of animals. Of these the anthers and stigmas\nhave already been shown to possess some organs of sense, to be nourished\nby honey, and to have the power of generation like insects, and have\nthence been announced amongst the animal kingdom in Section XIII.; and\nto these must be added the buds and bulbs, which constitute the\nviviparous offspring of vegetation. The former I suppose to be beholden\nto a single living filament for their seminal or amatorial procreation;\nand the latter to the same cause for their lateral or branching\ngeneration, which they possess in common with the polypus, taenia, and\nvolvox, and the simplicity of which is an argument in favour of the\nsimilarity of its cause.\n\n\"Linnaeus supposes, in the introduction to his natural orders, that very\nfew vegetables were at first created, and that their numbers were\nincreased by their intermarriages, and adds, 'Suaderet haec Creatoris\nleges a simplicibus ad composita.' Many other changes appear to have\narisen in them by their perpetual contest for light and air above\nground, and for food or moisture beneath the soil. As noted in the\n'Botanic Garden,' Part II., note on Cuscuta. Other changes of vegetables\nfrom climate or other causes are remarked in the note on Curcuma in the\nsame work. From these one might be led to imagine that each plant at\nfirst consisted of a single bulb or flower to each root, as the\ngentianella and daisy, and that in the contest for air and light, new\nbuds grew on the old decaying flower-stem, shooting down their elongated\nroots to the ground, and that in process of ages tall trees were thus\nformed, and an individual bulb became a swarm of vegetables. Other\nplants which in this contest for light and air were too slender to rise\nby their own strength, learned by degrees to adhere to their neighbours,\neither by putting forth roots like the ivy, or by tendrils like the\nvine, or by spiral contortions like the honeysuckle, or by growing upon\nthem like the mistleto, and taking nourishment from their barks, or by\nonly lodging or adhering on them and deriving nourishment from the air\nas tillandsia.\n\n\"Shall we then say that the vegetable living filament was originally\ndifferent from that of each tribe of animals above described? And that\nthe productive living filament of each of those tribes was different\nfrom the other? Or as the earth and ocean were probably peopled with\nvegetable productions long before the existence of animals; and many\nfamilies of these animals, long before other families of them, shall we\nconjecture _that one and the same kind of living filament is and has\nbeen the cause of all organic life_?[182]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The late Mr. David Hume in his posthumous works places the powers of\ngeneration much above those of our boasted reason, and adds, that reason\ncan only make a machine, as a clock or a ship, but the power of\ngeneration makes the maker of the machine; and probably from having\nobserved that the greatest part of the earth has been formed out of\norganic recrements, as the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble,\nfrom the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone,\nironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables; all of which have been\nfirst produced by generation, or by the secretion of organic life; he\nconcludes that the world itself might have been generated rather than\ncreated; that it might have been gradually produced from very small\nbeginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles,\nrather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighty fire.\nWhat a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great Architect!\nThe Cause of causes! Parent of parents! Ens entium!\"[183]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[169] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 484.\n\n[170] Ibid. p. 485.\n\n[171] Ibid. p. 493.\n\n[172] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 494.\n\n[173] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 497.\n\n[174] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 498.\n\n[175] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 500.\n\n[176] Ibid. p. 501.\n\n[177] Ibid. p. 502.\n\n[178] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 503.\n\n[179] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 505.\n\n[180] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 507.\n\n[181] 'Voyage to China,' p. 113.\n\n[182] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 511.\n\n[183] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 513.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nMEMOIR OF LAMARCK.\n\n\nI take the following memoir of Lamarck entirely from the biographical\nsketch prefixed by M. Martins to his excellent edition of the\n'Philosophie Zoologique.'[184] From this sketch I find that \"Lamarck was\nborn August 1, 1744, at Barenton, in Picardy, being the eleventh child\nof Pierre de Monet, squire of the place, a man of old family, but poor.\nHis father intended him for the Church, the ordinary resource of younger\nsons at that time, and accordingly placed him under the care of the\nJesuits at Amiens. But this was not his vocation: the annals of his\nfamily spoke all to him of military glory; his eldest brother had died\nin the breaches at the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom; two others were still\nserving in the army, and France was exhausting her energies in an\nunequal struggle. His father would not yield to his wishes, but on his\ndeath, in 1760, Lamarck was left free to take his own line, and made his\nway at once--upon a very bad horse--to the army of Germany, then\nencamped at Lippstadt in Westphalia.\n\n\"He was the bearer of a letter written by Madame de Lameth, one of his\nneighbours in the country, and recommending him to M. de Lastic, colonel\nof the regiment of Beaujolais. This gentleman, on seeing before him a\nlad of seventeen, whose somewhat stunted growth made him look still\nyounger than he really was, sent the youth immediately to his own\nquarters. The next day a battle was immediately impending, and M. de\nLastic, on passing his regiment in review, saw his protege in the first\nrank of a company of grenadiers. The French army was under the orders of\nthe Marshal de Broglie and of the Prince de Soubise; the allied troops\nwere commanded by Ferdinand of Brunswick. The two French generals were\nbeaten owing to their divided counsels, and Lamarck's company, almost\nannihilated by the enemy's fire, was forgotten in the confusion of the\nretreat. All the officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, were\nkilled, and only fourteen men out of the whole company remained alive:\nthe eldest proposed to retreat, but Lamarck, improvising himself as\ncommander, declared that they ought not to retire without orders.\nPresently the colonel seeing that this company did not rally sent an\norderly officer who made his way up to it by protected paths. Next day\nLamarck was made an officer, and shortly afterwards lieutenant.\n\n\"Fortunately for science,\" continues M. Martins, \"this brilliant _debut_\nwas not to decide his career. After peace had been signed he was sent\ninto garrison at Toulon and Monaco, where an inflammation of the\nlymphatic ganglions of the neck necessitated an operation which left him\ndeeply scarred for life.\n\n\"The vegetation in the neighbourhood of Toulon and Monaco now arrested\nthe young officer's attention. He had already derived some little\nknowledge of botany from the '_Traite des Plantes usuelles_' of Chomel.\nHaving retired from the service, and having nothing beyond his modest\npension of four hundred francs a year, he took a situation at Paris with\na banker; but drawn irresistibly to the study of nature, he used to\nstudy from his attic window the forms and movements of clouds, and made\nhimself familiar with the plants in the Jardin du Roi or in the public\ngardens. He began to feel that he was on his right path, and understood,\nas Voltaire said of Condorcet, that discoveries of permanent value could\nmake him no less illustrious than military glory.\n\n\"Dissatisfied with the botanical systems of his time, in six months he\nwrote his '_Flore francaise_,' preceded by the '_Cle dichotomique_,'\nwith the help of which it is easy even for a beginner to arrive with\ncertainty at the name of the plant before him.\" Of this work, M. Martins\ntells us in a note, that the second edition, published by Candolle in\n1815, is still the standard work on French plants.\n\n\"In 1778 Rousseau had brought botany into vogue. Women and men of\nfashion took to it. Buffon had the three volumes of '_Flore francaise_'\nprinted at the royal press, and in the following year Lamarck entered\nthe Academy of Sciences. Buffon being anxious that his son should\ntravel, gave him Lamarck for his companion and tutor. He thus made a\ntrip through Holland, Germany, and Hungary, and became acquainted with\nGleditsch at Berlin, with Jacquin at Vienna, and with Murray at\nGottingen.\n\n\"The '_Encyclopedie methodique_,' begun by Diderot and D'Alembert, was\nnot yet completed. For this work Lamarck wrote four volumes, describing\nall the then known plants whose names began with the letters from A to\nP. This great work was completed by Poiret, and comprises twelve\nvolumes, which appeared between the years 1783 and 1817. A still more\nimportant work, also part of the Encyclopedia, and continually quoted by\nbotanists, is the '_Illustration des Genres_.' In this work Lamarck\ndescribes two thousand _genera_, and illustrates them, according to the\ntitle-page, with nine hundred engravings. Only a botanist can form any\nidea of the research in collections, gardens, and books, which such a\nwork must have involved. But Lamarck's activity was inexhaustible.\nSonnerat returned from India in 1781 with a very large number of dried\nplants; no one except Lamarck thought it worth while to inspect them,\nand Sonnerat, charmed with his enthusiasm, gave him the whole\nmagnificent collection.\n\n\"In spite, however, of his incessant toil, Lamarck's position continued\nto be most precarious. He lived by his pen, as a publisher's hack, and\nit was with difficulty that he obtained even the poorly paid post of\nkeeper of the king's cabinet of dried plants. Like most other\nnaturalists he had thus to contend with incessant difficulties during a\nperiod of fifteen years.\n\n\"At length fortune bettered his condition while changing the direction\nof his labours. France was now under the Convention; what Carnot had\ndone for the army Lakanal undertook to do for the natural sciences. At\nhis suggestion a museum of natural history was established. Professors\nhad been found for all the chairs save that of Zoology; but in that time\nof enthusiasm, so different from the present, France could find men of\nwar and men of science wherever and whenever she had need of them.\nEtienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire was twenty-one years old, and was engaged\nin the study of mineralogy under Hauey. Daubenton said to him, 'I will\nundertake the responsibility for your inexperience. I have a father's\nauthority over you. Take this professorship, and let us one day say that\nyou have made zoology a French science.' Geoffroy accepted, and\nundertook the higher animals. Lakanal knew that a single professor could\nnot suffice for the task of arranging the collections of the entire\nanimal kingdom, and as Geoffroy was to class the vertebrate animals\nonly, there remained the invertebrata--that is to say, insects,\nmolluscs, worms, zoophytes--in a word, what was then the chaos of the\nunknown. 'Lamarck,' says M. Michelet, 'accepted the unknown.' He had\ndevoted some attention to the study of shells with Bruguieres, but he\nhad still everything to learn, or I should perhaps say rather,\neverything to create in that unexplored territory into which Linnaeus had\ndeclined to enter, and into which he had thus introduced none of the\norder he had so well known how to establish among the higher animals.\n\n\"Lamarck began his course of lectures at the museum in 1794, after a\nyear's preparation, and at once established that great division of\nanimals into vertebrate and invertebrate, which science has ever since\nrecognized.\n\n\"Dividing the vertebrate animals--as Linnaeus had already divided\nthem--into mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes, he divided the\ninvertebrates into molluscs, insects, worms, echinoderms, and polyps. In\n1799 he separated the crustacea from the insects, with which they had\nbeen classed hitherto; in 1800 he established the arachnids as a class\ndistinct from the insects; in 1802 that of the annelids, a subdivision\nof the worms, and that of the radiata as distinct from the polyps. Time\nhas approved the wisdom of these divisions, founded all of them upon the\norganic type of the creatures themselves--that is to say, upon the\nrational method introduced into zoology by Cuvier, Lamarck, and Geoffroy\nSt. Hilaire.\n\n\"This introduction being devoted only to Lamarck's labours as a\nnaturalist, we will pass over certain works in which he treats of\nphysics and chemistry. These attempts--errors of a powerful mind which\nthought itself able by the help of pure reason to establish truths which\nrest only upon experience--attempts, moreover, which were some of them\nbut resuscitations of exploded theories, such as that of\n'phlogistic'--had not even the honour of being refuted: they did not\ndeserve to be so, and should be a warning to all those who would write\nupon a subject without the necessary practical knowledge.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"At the beginning of this century there was not yet any such science as\ngeology. People observed but little, and in lieu of observation made\ntheories to embrace the entire globe. Lamarck made his in 1802, and\ntwenty-three years later the judicious Cuvier still yielded to the\nprevailing custom in publishing his 'Discoveries on the Earth's\nRevolutions.'\n\n\"Lamarck's merit was to have discovered that there had been no\ncatastrophes, but that the gradual action of forces during thousands of\nages accounted for the changes observable upon the face of the earth,\nbetter than any sudden and violent perturbations. 'Nature,' he writes,\n'has no difficulty on the score of time; she has it always at command;\nit is with her a boundless space in which she has room for the greatest\nas for the smallest operations.'\"\n\nHere we must not forget Buffon's fine passage, \"Nature's great workman\nis Time,\" &c. See page 103.\n\n\"Lamarck,\" continues M. Martins, \"was the first to distinguish littoral\nfrom ocean fossils, but no one accepts his theory that oceans make their\nbeds deeper owing to the action of the tides, and distribute themselves\ndifferently over the earth's surface without any change of level of the\ndifferent parts of that surface.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Settling down to a single branch of science, in consequence of his\nprofessorship, Lamarck now devoted himself to the twofold labour of\nlecturing and classifying the collections at the museum. In 1802 he\npublished his 'Considerations on the Organization of Living Bodies'; in\n1809 his '_Philosophie Zoologique_,' a development of the\n'Considerations'; and from 1816 to 1822 his Natural History of the\ninvertebrate animals, in seven volumes. This is his great work, and,\nbeing entirely a work of description and classification, was received\nwith the unanimous approbation of the scientific world. His 'Fossil\nShells of the Neighbourhood of Paris'--a work in which his profound\nknowledge of existing shells enabled him to class with certainty the\nremains of forms that had disappeared thousands of ages ago--met also\nwith a favourable reception.\n\n\"Lamarck was fifty years old before he began to study zoology; and\nprolonged microscopic examinations first fatigued and at length\nenfeebled his eyesight. The clouds which obscured it gradually\nthickened, and he became quite blind. Married four times, the father of\nseven children, he saw his small patrimony and even his earlier savings\nswallowed up by one of those hazardous investments with which promoters\nimpose on the credulity of the public. His small endowment as professor\nalone protected him from destitution. Men of science whom his reputation\nas a botanist and zoologist had attracted near him, wondered at the\nmanner in which he was neglected.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"He passed the last ten years of his laborious life in darkness, tended\nonly by the affectionate care of his two daughters. The eldest wrote\nfrom his dictation part of the sixth and seventh volumes of his work on\nthe invertebrate animals. From the time her father became confined to\nhis room his daughter never left the house; and when first she did so\nafter his death, she was distressed by the fresh air to which she had\nbeen so long a stranger.\n\n\"Lamarck died December 18, 1829, at the age of eighty-five. Latreille\nand Blainville were his successors at the museum. The incredible\nactivity of the first professor had so greatly increased the number of\nthe known invertebrata that it was found necessary to endow two\nprofessors, where one had originally been sufficient.\n\n\"His two daughters were left penniless. In the year 1832 I myself saw\nMlle. Cornelie de Lamarck earning a scanty pittance by fastening dried\nplants on to paper, in the museum of which her father had been a\nprofessor. Many a species named and described by him must have passed\nunder her eyes and increased the bitterness of her regret.\"[185]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[184] Paris, 1873.\n\n[185] Introduction Biographique to M. Martins' edition of the 'Phil.\nZool.,' pp. ix-xx.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nGENERAL MISCONCEPTION CONCERNING LAMARCK--HIS PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.\n\n\n\"If Cuvier,\" says M. Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire,[186] \"is the modern\nsuccessor of Linnaeus, so is Lamarck of Buffon. But Cuvier does not go so\nfar as Linnaeus, and Lamarck goes much farther than Buffon. Lamarck,\nmoreover, took his own line, and his conjectures are not only much\nbolder, or rather more hazardous, but they are profoundly different from\nBuffon's.\n\n\"It is well known that the vast labours of Lamarck were divided between\nbotany and physical science in the eighteenth century, and between\nzoology and natural philosophy in the nineteenth; it is, however, less\ngenerally known that Lamarck was long a partisan of the immutability of\nspecies. It was not till 1801, when he was already old, that he freed\nhimself from the ideas then generally prevailing. But Lamarck, having\nonce made up his mind, never changed it; in his ripe age he exhibits all\nthe ardour of youth in propagating and defending his new convictions.\n\n\"In the three years, 1801, 1802, 1803, he enounced them twice in his\nlectures, and three times in his writings.[187] He returns to the\nsubject and states his views precisely in 1806,[188] and in 1809 he\ndevotes a great part of his principal work, the 'Philosophie\nZoologique,' to their demonstration.[189] Here he might have rested and\nhave quietly awaited the judgment of his peers; but he is too much\nconvinced; he believes the future of science to depend so much upon his\ndoctrine that to his dying day he feels compelled to explain it further\nand insist upon it. When already over seventy years of age he enounces\nit again, and maintains it as firmly as ever in 1815, in his 'Histoire\ndes Animaux sans Vertebres,' and in 1820 in his 'Systeme des\nConnaissances Positives.'[190]\n\n\"This doctrine, so dearly cherished by its author, and the conception,\nexposition, and defence of which so laboriously occupied the second half\nof his scientific career, has been assuredly too much admired by some,\nwho have forgotten that Lamarck had a precursor, and that that precursor\nwas Buffon. It has, on the other hand, been too severely condemned by\nothers who have involved it in its entirety in broad and sweeping\ncondemnation. As if it were possible that so great labour on the part of\nso great a naturalist should have led him to 'a fantastic conclusion'\nonly--to a 'flighty error,' and, as has been often said, though not\nwritten, to 'one absurdity the more.' Such was the language which\nLamarck heard during his protracted old age, saddened alike by the\nweight of years and blindness; this was what people did not hesitate to\nutter over his grave yet barely closed, and what, indeed, they are still\nsaying--commonly, too, without any knowledge of what Lamarck maintained,\nbut merely repeating at second hand bad caricatures of his teaching.\n\n\"When will the time come when we may see Lamarck's theory\ndiscussed--and, I may as well at once say, refuted in some important\npoints--with at any rate the respect due to one of the most illustrious\nmasters of our science? And when will this theory, the hardihood of\nwhich has been greatly exaggerated, become freed from the\ninterpretations and commentaries by the false light of which so many\nnaturalists have formed their opinion concerning it? If its author is to\nbe condemned, let it be, at any rate, not before he has been\nheard.\"[191]\n\nIt is not necessary for me to give the extracts from Lamarck which M.\nIsidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire quotes in order to show what he really\nmaintained, inasmuch as they will be given at greater length in the\nfollowing chapter; but I may perhaps say that I have not found M.\nGeoffroy refuting Lamarck in any essential point.\n\nProfessor Haeckel says that to Lamarck \"will always belong the immortal\nglory of having for the first time worked out the theory of descent as\nan independent scientific theory of the first order, and as the\nphilosophical foundation of the whole science of Biology.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The 'Philosophie Zoologique,'\" continues Professor Haeckel, \"is the\nfirst connected exposition of the theory of descent carried out strictly\ninto all its consequences; ... and with the exception of Darwin's work,\nwhich appeared exactly half a century later, we know of none which we\ncould in this respect place by the side of the 'Philosophie Zoologique.'\nHow far it was in advance of its time is perhaps best seen from the\ncircumstance that it was not understood by most men, and for fifty years\nwas not spoken of at all.\"[192]\n\nThis is an exaggeration, both as regards the originality of Lamarck's\nwork and the reception it has met with. It is probably more accurate to\nsay with M. Martins that Lamarck's theory has \"never yet had the honour\nof being discussed seriously,\"[193] not, at least, in connection with\nthe name of its originators.\n\nSo completely has this been so that the author of the 'Vestiges of\nCreation,' even in the edition of 1860, in which he unreservedly\nacknowledges the adoption of Lamarck's views, not unfrequently speaks\ndisparagingly of Lamarck himself, and never gives him his due meed of\nrecognition. I am not, therefore, wholly displeased to find this author\nconceiving himself to have been treated by Mr. Charles Darwin with some\nof the injustice which he has himself inflicted on Lamarck.\n\nIn the 1859 edition of the 'Origin of Species,' and in a very prominent\nplace, Mr. Darwin says:--\"The author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' would\nI presume say, that after a certain number of unknown generations, some\nbird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to a misseltoe, and\nthat these had been produced perfect as we now see them.\"[194] This is\nthe only allusion to the 'Vestiges' which I have found in the first\nedition of the 'Origin of Species.'\n\nThose who have read the 1853 edition of the 'Vestiges' will not be\nsurprised to find the author rejoining, in his edition of 1860, that it\nwas to be regretted Mr. Darwin should have read the 'Vestiges' \"nearly\nas much amiss as though, like its declared opponents, he had an interest\nin misunderstanding it.\" And a little lower he adds that Mr. Darwin's\nbook in no essential respect contradicts the 'Vestiges'; \"on the\ncontrary, while adding to its explanations of nature, it expresses\nsubstantially the same general ideas.\"[195] It is right to say that the\npassage thus objected to is not to be found in later editions of the\n'Origin of Species,' while in the historical sketch we now read as\nfollows:--\"In my opinion it (the 'Vestiges of Creation') has done\nexcellent service in this country by calling attention to the subject,\nremoving prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception\nof analogous views.\"\n\nMr. Darwin, the main part of whose work on the 'Origin of Species' is\ntaken up with supporting the theory of descent with modification (which\nfrequently in the recapitulation chapter of the 'Origin of Species' he\nseems to treat as synonymous with natural selection), has fallen into\nthe common error of thinking that Lamarck can be ignored or passed over\nin a couple of sentences. I only find Lamarck's name twice in the 1859\nedition of the 'Origin,' once on p. 242, where Mr. Darwin writes: \"I am\nsurprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative case of neuter\ninsects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck;\" and again, p. 427,\nwhere Lamarck is stated to have been the first to call attention to the\n\"very important distinction between real affinities and analogical or\nadaptive resemblances.\" How far from demonstrative is the particular\ncase which in 1859 Mr. Darwin considered so fatal to \"the well-known\ndoctrine of Lamarck\"--which should surely, one would have thought,\ninclude the doctrine of descent with modification, which Mr. Darwin is\nhimself supporting--I have attempted to show in 'Life and Habit,' but\nhad perhaps better recapitulate briefly here.\n\nMr. Darwin writes: \"In the simpler case of neuter insects all of one\ncaste, _which, as I believe, have been rendered different from the\nfertile males and females through natural selection_....\"[196] He thus\nattributes the sterility and peculiar characteristics, we will say, of\nthe common hive working bees--\"neuter insects all of one caste\"--to\nnatural selection. Now, nothing is more certain than that these\ncharacteristics--sterility, a cavity in the thigh for collecting wax, a\nproboscis for gathering honey, &c.--are due to the treatment which the\neggs laid by the queen bee receive after they have left her body. Take\nan egg and treat it in a certain way, and it becomes a working bee;\ntreat the same egg in a certain other way, and it becomes a queen. If\nthe bees are in danger of becoming queenless they take eggs which were\nin the way of being developed into working bees, and change their food\nand cells, whereon they develop into queens instead. How Mr. Darwin\ncould attribute the neutralization of the working bees--an act which is\nobviously one of abortion committed by the body politic of the hive on a\nbalance of considerations--to the action of what he calls \"natural\nselection,\" and how, again, he could suppose that what he was advancing\nhad any but a confirmatory bearing upon Lamarck's position, is\nincomprehensible, unless the passage in question be taken as a mere\nslip. That attention has been called to it is plain, for the words \"the\nwell-known doctrine of Lamarck\" have been changed in later editions into\n\"the well-known doctrine of inherited habit as advanced by\nLamarck,\"[197] but this correction, though some apparent improvement on\nthe original text, does little indeed in comparison with what is wanted.\n\nMr. Darwin has since introduced a paragraph concerning Lamarck into the\n\"historical sketch,\" already more than once referred to in these pages.\nIn this he summarises the theory which I am about to lay before the\nreader, by saying that Lamarck \"upheld the doctrine that all species,\nincluding man, are descended from other species.\" If Lamarck had been\nalive he would probably have preferred to see Mr. Darwin write that he\nupheld \"the doctrine of descent with modification as the explanation of\nall differentiations of structure and instinct.\" Mr. Darwin continues,\nthat Lamarck \"seems\" to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the\ngradual change of species, \"by the difficulty of distinguishing species\nand varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain\ngroups, and by the analogy of domestic productions.\"\n\nLamarck would probably have said that though he did indeed turn--as Mr.\nDarwin has done, and as Buffon and Dr. Darwin had done before him--to\nanimals and plants under domestication, in illustration and support of\nthe theory of descent with modification; and that though he did also\ninsist, as so many other writers have done, on the arbitrary and\nartificial nature of the distinction between species and varieties, he\nwas mainly led to agree with Buffon and Dr. Darwin by a broad survey of\nthe animal kingdom, with the details also of which few naturalists have\never been better acquainted.\n\n\"Great,\" says Mr. Darwin, \"is the power of steady\nmisrepresentation,\"--and greatly indeed has the just fame of Lamarck\nbeen eclipsed in consequence; \"but,\" as Mr. Darwin finely continues,\n\"the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long\nendure.\"[198]\n\nThat Lamarck anticipated it, was prepared to face it, and even felt that\nthings were thus, after all, as they should be, will appear from the\nshrewd and pleasant passage which is to be found near the close of his\npreface:--\n\n\"So great is the power of preconceived opinion, especially when any\npersonal interest is enlisted on the same side as itself, that though\nit is hard to deduce new truths from the study of nature, it is still\nharder to get them recognized by other people.\n\n\"These difficulties, however, are on the whole more beneficial than\nhurtful to the cause of science; for it is through them that a number of\neccentric, though perhaps plausible speculations, perish in their\ninfancy, and are never again heard of. Sometimes, indeed, valuable ideas\nare thus lost; but it is better that a truth, when once caught sight of,\nshould have to struggle for a long time without meeting the attention it\ndeserves, than that every outcome of a heated imagination should be\nreadily received.\n\n\"The more I reflect upon the numerous causes which affect our judgments,\nthe more convinced I am that, with the exception of such physical and\nmoral facts as no one can now throw doubt upon, all else is matter of\nopinion and argument; and we know well that there is hardly an argument\nto be found anywhere, against which another argument cannot plausibly be\nadduced. Hence, though it is plain that the various opinions of men\ndiffer greatly in probability and in the weight which should be attached\nto them, it seems to me that we are wrong when we blame those who differ\nfrom us.\n\n\"Are we then to recognize no opinions as well founded but those which\nare generally received? Nay--experience teaches us plainly that the\nhighest and most cultivated minds must be at all times in an exceedingly\nsmall minority. No one can dispute this. Authority should be told by\nweight and not by number--but in good truth authority is a hard thing\nto weigh.\n\n\"Nor again--in spite of the many and severe conditions which a judgment\nmust fulfil before it can be declared good--is it quite certain that\nthose whom public opinion has declared to be authorities, are always\nright in the conclusions they arrive at.\n\n\"Positive facts are the only solid ground for man; the deductions he\ndraws from them are a very different matter. Outside the facts of nature\nall is a question of probabilities, and the most that can be said is\nthat some conclusions are more probable than others.\"\n\nLamarck's poverty was perhaps one main reason of the ease with which it\nwas found possible to neglect his philosophical opinions. Science is not\na kingdom into which a poor man can enter easily, if he happens to\ndiffer from a philosopher who gives good dinners, and has \"his sisters\nand his cousins and his aunts\" to play the part of chorus to him.\nLamarck's two daughters do not appear to have been the kind of persons\nwho could make effective sisters or cousins or aunts. Men of science are\nof like passions even with the other holy ones who have set themselves\nup in all ages as the pastors and prophets of mankind. The saint has\ncommonly deemed it to be for the interests of saintliness that he should\nstrain a point or two in his own favour--and the more so according as\nhis reputation for an appearance of candour has been the better earned.\nIf, then, Lamarck's opponents could keep choruses, while Lamarck had\nnothing to fall back upon but the merits of his case only, it is not\nsurprising that he should have found himself neglected by the\nscientists of his own time. Moreover he was too old to have undertaken\nsuch an unequal contest. If he had been twenty years younger when he\nbegan it, he would probably have enjoyed his full measure of success\nbefore he died.\n\nNot that Lamarck can claim, as a thinker, to stand on the same level\nwith Dr. Darwin, and still less so with Buffon. He attempted to go too\nfast and too far. Seeing that if we accept descent with modification,\nthe question arises whether what we call life and consciousness may not\nthemselves be evolved from some thing or things which looked at one time\nso little living and conscious that we call them inanimate--and being\nanxious to see his theory reach, and to follow it, as far back as\npossible, he speculates about the origin of life; having formed a theory\nthereon, he is more inclined to interpret the phenomena of lower animal\nlife so as to make them fit in with his theory, than as he would have\ninterpreted them if there had been no theory at stake.\n\nThus his denial that sensation, and much more, intelligence and\ndeliberate action, can exist without a brain and a nervous system, has\nled him to deny sensation, consciousness, and intelligence to many\nanimals which act in such manner as would certainly have made him say\nthat they feel and know what they are about, if he had formed no theory\nabout brains and nervous systems.\n\nNothing can be more different than the manners in which Lamarck and Dr.\nDarwin wrote on this head. Lamarck over and over again maintains that\nwhere there is no nervous system there can be no sensation. Combating,\nfor example, the assertion of Cabanis, that to live is to feel, he says\nthat \"the greater number of the polypi and all the infusoria, having no\nnervous system, it must be said of them as also of worms, that to live\nis still not to feel; and so again of plants.\"[199]\n\nHow different from this is the un-theory-ridden language of Dr. Darwin,\nquoted on p. 116 of this work.\n\nLamarck again writes:--\n\n\"The very imperfect animals of the lowest classes, having no nervous\nsystem, are simply irritable, have nothing but certain habits,\nexperience no sensations, and never conceive ideas.\"\n\nThis, in the face of the performances of the amoeba--a minute jelly\nspeck, without any special organ whatever--in making its tests, cannot\nbe admitted. Is it possible that Lamarck was in some measure misled by\nbelieving Buffon to be in earnest when he advanced propositions little\nless monstrous?\n\n\"But,\" continues Lamarck, \"the less imperfect animals which have a\nnervous system, though they have not the organ of intelligence, have\ninstinct, habits, and proclivities; they feel sensations, and yet form\nno ideas whatever. I venture to say that where there is no organ for a\nfaculty that faculty cannot exist.\"[200]\n\nWho can tell what ideas a worm does or does not form? We can watch its\nactions, and see that they are such as involve what we call design and a\nperception of its own interest. Under these circumstances it seems\nbetter to call the worm a reasonable creature with Dr. Darwin than to\nsay with Lamarck that because worms do not appear to have that organ\nwhich he assumes to be the sole means of causing sensation and ideas,\ntherefore they can neither feel nor think. Doubtless they cannot feel\nand think as many sensations and thoughts as we can, but our ideas of\nwhat they can and cannot feel must be formed through consideration of\nwhat we see them do, and must be biassed by no theories of what they\nought to be able to feel or not feel.\n\nAgain Lamarck, shortly after an excellent passage in which he points out\nthat the lower animals gain by experience just as man does (and here\nprobably he had in his mind the passage of Buffon referred to at p. 112\nof this work), nevertheless writes:--\n\n\"If the facts and considerations put forward in this volume be held\nworthy of attention, it will follow necessarily that there are some\nanimals which have neither reason nor instinct\" (I should be glad to see\none of these animals and to watch its movements), \"such as those which\nhave no power of feeling; that there are others which have instinct but\nno degree whatever of reason\" (whereas from Dr. Darwin's premises it\nshould follow, and would doubtless be readily admitted by him, that\ninstinct is reason, but reason many times repeated made perfect, and\nfinally repeated by rote; so that far from being prior to reason, as\nLamarck here implies, it can only come long afterwards), \"such as those\nwhich have a system enabling them to feel, but which still lack the\norgan of intelligence; and finally, that there are those which have not\nonly instinct, but over and above this a certain degree of reasoning\npower, such as those creatures which have one system for sensations and\nanother for acts involving intelligence. Instinct is with these last\nanimals the motive power of almost all their actions, and they rarely\nuse what little reason they have. Man, who comes next above them, is\nalso possessed of instincts which inspire some of his actions, but he\ncan acquire much reason, and can use it so as to direct the greater part\nof his actions.\"[201]\n\nAll this will be felt to be less satisfactory than the simple directness\nof Dr. Darwin. It comes in great measure from following Buffon without\nbeing _en rapport_ with him. On the other hand, Lamarck must be admitted\nto have elaborated the theory of \"descent with modification\" with no\nless clearness than Dr. Darwin, and with much greater fulness of detail.\nThere is no substantial difference between the points they wish to\nestablish; Dr. Darwin has the advantage in that not content with\nmaintaining that there will be a power of adaptation to the conditions\nof an animal's existence which will determine its organism, he goes on\nto say what the principal conditions are, and shows more lucidly than\nLamarck has done (though Lamarck adopts the same three causes in a\npassage which will follow), that struggle, and consequently\nmodification, will be chiefly conversant about the means of subsistence,\nof reproduction, and of self-protection. Nevertheless, though Dr. Darwin\nhas said enough to show that he had the whole thing clearly before him,\nand could have elaborated it as finely as or better than Lamarck\nhimself has done, if he had been so minded, yet the palm must be given\nto Lamarck on the score of what he actually did, and this I observe to\nbe the verdict of history, for whereas Lamarck's name is still daily\nquoted, Dr. Darwin's is seldom mentioned, and never with the applause\nwhich it deserves.\n\nThe resemblance between the two writers--that is to say, the complete\ncoincidence of their views--is so remarkable that the question is forced\nupon us how far Lamarck knew the substance of Dr. Darwin's theory.\nLamarck knew Buffon personally; he had been tutor to Buffon's son, and\nBuffon had three of Lamarck's volumes on the French Flora printed at the\nroyal printing press;--how can we account for Lamarck's having had\nBuffon's theory of descent with modification before him for so many\nyears, and yet remaining a partisan of immutability till 1801? Before\nthis year we find no trace of his having accepted evolution;\nthenceforward he is one of the most ardent and constant exponents which\nthis doctrine has ever had. What was it that repelled him in Buffon's\nsystem? How is it that in the 'Philosophie Zoologique' there is not, so\nfar as I can remember, a single reference to Buffon, from whom, however,\nas we shall see, many paragraphs are taken with but very little\nalteration?\n\nI am inclined to think that the secret of this sudden conversion must be\nfound in a French translation by M. Deleuze of Dr. Darwin's poem, 'The\nLoves of the Plants' which appeared in 1800. Lamarck--the most eminent\nbotanist of his time--was sure to have heard of and seen this, and would\nprobably know the translator, who would be able to give him a fair idea\nof the 'Zoonomia.'\n\nI will give a few of the passages which Lamarck would find in this\ntranslation. Speaking of Dr. Darwin, M. Deleuze says:--\"Il falloit\nencore qu'un nouvel observateur, entrant dans la route qui venoit de\ns'ouvrir, s'y frayat des sentiers ignores; que liant la physique\nvegetale a la botanique il nous montrat dans les plantes, non seulement\ndes corps organises soumis a des lois constantes, mais des etres doues\nsinon de sensibilite, au moins d'une irritabilite particuliere, d'un\nprincipe de vie _qui leur fait executer des mouvements analogues a leurs\nbesoins_....[202]\n\n\"Il est des animaux et des plantes qui par le laps du tems paroissent\navoir eprouve des changemens dans leur organisation, _pour s'accommoder\na de nouveaux genres de nourriture et aux moyens de se la procurer_.\nPeut-etre les productions de la nature font elles des progres vers la\nperfection. Cette idee appuyee par les observations modernes sur\nl'accroissement progressif des parties solides du globe, s'accorde avec\nla dignite et la providence du createur de l'univers.\"[203]\n\n\"La nature semble s'etre fait un jeu d'etablir entre tous les etres\norganises une sorte de guerre qui entretient leur activite: si elle a\ndonne aux uns des moyens de defense, elle a donne aux autres des moyens\nd'attaque.\"[204]\n\nTurning to the 'Botanic Garden' itself, I find that this admirable\nsentence belongs to M. Deleuze, and not to Dr. Darwin, who, however, has\nsaid what comes to much the same thing,[205] as may be seen p. 227 of\nthis volume. But the authorship is immaterial; whether the passage was\nby Dr. Darwin or M. Deleuze, it was, in all probability, known to\nLamarck before his change of front.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nThe note on Trapa Natans again[206] suggests itself as the source from\nwhich the passage in the 'Philosophie Zoologique' about the Ranunculus\naquatilis is taken,[207] while one of the most important passages in the\nwork, a summary, in fact, of the principal means of modification, seems\nto be taken, the first half of it from Buffon, and the second from Dr.\nDarwin. I have called attention to it on pp. 300, 301.\n\nWe may then suppose that Lamarck failed to understand Buffon, and\nconceived that he ought either to have gone much farther, or not so far;\nnot being yet prepared to go the whole length himself, he opposed\nmutability till Dr. Darwin's additions to Buffon's ostensible theory\nreached him, whereon he at once adopted them, and having received\nnothing but a few notes and hints, felt himself at liberty to work the\ntheory out independently and claim it. In so original a work as the\n'_Philosophie Zoologique_' must always be considered, this may be\nlegitimate, but I find in it, as Isidore Geoffroy seems also to have\nfound, a little more claim to complete independence than is acceptable\nto one who is fresh from Buffon and Dr. Darwin.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[186] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 404, 1859.\n\n[187] 'Systeme des Animaux sans Vertebres,' Paris, in-8, an. ix. (1801);\n'Discours d'Ouverture,' p. 12, &c.; 'Recherches sur l'Organisation des\nCorps Vivants,' Paris, in-8, 1802, p. 50, &c.; 'Discours d'Ouverture\nd'un Cours de Zoologie pour l'an ix.,' Paris, in-8, 1803. This discourse\nis entirely devoted to the consideration of the question, \"What is\nSpecies?\"\n\n[188] 'Discours d'Ouverture d'un Cours de Zoologie,' 1806, Paris, in-8,\np. 8, &c.\n\n[189] See following chapter.\n\n[190] 'Hist, des Anim. sans Verteb.,' tom, i., Introduction, 1^re ed.,\n1815; 'Syst. des Conn. Positives,' Paris, in-8, 1820, 1^re part,\n2^me sect. ch. ii. p. 114, &c.\n\n[191] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 407.\n\n[192] 'History of Creation,' English translation, vol. i. pp. 111, 112.\n\n[193] M. Martins' edition of the 'Philosophie Zoologique,' Paris, 1873.\nIntrod., p. vi.\n\n[194] 'Origin of Species,' p. 3, 1859.\n\n[195] 'Vestiges of Creation,' ed. 1860, Proofs, Illustrations, &c., p.\nlxiv.\n\n[196] 'Origin of Species,' ed. 1, p. 239; ed. 6, p. 231.\n\n[197] 'Origin of Species,' ed. 1, p. 242; ed. 6, 1876, p. 233.\n\n[198] 'Origin of Species,' p. 421, ed. 1876.\n\n[199] 'Phil. Zool.,' vol. i. p. 404.\n\n[200] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 324.\n\n[201] 'Phil. Zool.,' vol. ii. p. 410.\n\n[202] 'Les Amours des Plantes,' Discours Prelim., p. 7. Paris, 1800.\n\n[203] Ibid., Notes du chant i., p. 202.\n\n[204] Ibid. p. 238.\n\n[205] 'Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 507.\n\n[206] 'Les Amours des Plantes,' p. 360.\n\n[207] Vol. i. p. 231, ed. M. Martins, 1873.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nSUMMARY OF THE 'PHILOSOPHIE ZOOLOGIQUE.'\n\n\nThe first part of the '_Philosophie Zoologique_' is the one which deals\nwith the doctrine of evolution or descent with modification. It is to\nthis, therefore, that our attention will be confined. Yet only a\ncomparatively small part of the three hundred and fifty pages which\nconstitute Lamarck's first part are devoted to setting forth the reasons\nwhich led him to arrive at his conclusions--the greater part of the\nvolume being occupied with the classification of animals, which we may\nagain omit, as foreign to our purpose.\n\nI shall condense whenever I can, but I do not think the reader will find\nthat I have left out much that bears upon the argument. I shall also use\ninverted commas while translating with such freedom as to omit several\nlines together, where I can do so without suppressing anything essential\nto the elucidation of Lamarck's meaning. I shall, however, throughout\nrefer the reader to the page of the original work from which I am\ntranslating.\n\n\"The common origin of bodily and mental phenomena,\" says Lamarck in his\npreliminary chapter, \"has been obscured, because we have studied them\nchiefly in man, who, as the most highly developed of living beings,\npresents the problem in its most difficult and complicated aspect. If we\nhad begun our study with that of the lowest organisms, and had proceeded\nfrom these to the more complex ones, we should have seen the progression\nwhich is observable in organization, and the successive acquisition of\nvarious special organs, with new faculties for every additional organ.\nWe should thus have seen that sense of needs--originally hardly\nperceptible, but gradually increasing in intensity and variety--has led\nto the attempt to gratify them; that the actions thus induced, having\nbecome habitual and energetic, have occasioned the development of organs\nadapted for their performance; that the force which excites organic\nmovements can in the case of the lowest animals exist outside them and\nyet animate them; that this force was subsequently introduced into the\nanimals themselves, and fixed within them; and, lastly, that it gave\nrise to sensibility and, in the end, to intelligence.\"[208] The reader\nhad better be on his guard here, and whenever Lamarck is speculating\nabout the lowest forms of action and sensation. I have thought it well,\nhowever, to give enough of these speculations, as occasion arises, to\nshow their tendency.\n\n\"Sensation is not the proximate cause of organic movements. It may be so\nwith the higher animals, but it cannot be shown to be so with plants,\nnor even with all known animals. At the outset of life there was none of\nthat sensation which could only arise where organic beings had already\nattained a considerable development. Nature has done all by slow\ngradations, both organs and faculties being the outcome of a progressive\ndevelopment.[209]\n\n\"The mere composition of an animal is but a small part of what deserves\nstudy in connection with the animal itself. The effects of its\nsurroundings in causing new wants, the effects of its wants in giving\nrise to actions, those of its actions in developing habits and\ntendencies, the effects of use and disuse as affecting any organ, the\nmeans which nature takes to preserve and make perfect what has been\nalready acquired--these are all matters of the highest importance.[210]\n\n\"In their bearing upon these questions the invertebrate animals are more\nimportant and interesting than the vertebrate, for they are more in\nnumber, and being more in number are more varied; their variations are\nmore marked, and the steps by which they have advanced in complexity are\nmore easily observed.[211]\n\n\"I propose, therefore, to divide this work into three parts, of which\nthe first shall deal with the conventions necessary for the treatment of\nthe subject, the importance of analogical structures, and the meaning\nwhich should be attached to the word species. I will point out on the\none hand the evidence of a graduated descending scale, as existing\nbetween the highest and the lowest organisms; and, on the other, the\neffect of surroundings and habits on the organs of living beings, as the\ncause of their development or arrest of development. Lastly, I will\ntreat of the natural order of animals, and show what should be their\nfittest classification and arrangement.\"[212]\n\nIt seems unnecessary to give Lamarck's intentions with regard to his\nsecond and third parts, as they do not here concern us; they deal with\nthe origin of life and mind.\n\nThe first chapter of the work opens with the importance of bearing in\nmind the difference between the conventional and the natural, that is to\nsay, between words and things. Here, as indeed largely throughout this\npart of his work, he follows Buffon, by whom he is evidently influenced.\n\n\"The conventional deals with systems of arrangement, classification,\norders, families, genera, and the nomenclature, whether of different\nsections or of individual objects.\n\n\"An arrangement should be called systematic, or arbitrary, when it does\nnot conform to the genealogical order taken by nature in the development\nof the things arranged, and when, by consequence it is not founded upon\nwell-considered analogies. There is such a thing as a natural order in\nevery department of nature; it is the order in which its several\ncomponent items have been successively developed.[213]\n\n\"Some lines certainly seem to have been drawn by Nature herself. It was\nhard to believe that mammals, for example, and birds, were not\nwell-defined classes. Nevertheless the sharpness of definition was an\nillusion, and due only to our limited knowledge. The ornithorhynchus and\nthe echidna bridge the gulf.[214]\n\n\"Simplicity is the main end of any classification. If all the races, or\nas they are called, species, of any kingdom were perfectly known, and if\nthe true analogies between each species, and between the groups which\nspecies form, were also known, so that their approximations to each\nother and the position of the several groups were in conformity with the\nnatural analogies between them--then classes, orders, sections, and\ngenera would be families, larger or smaller; for each division would be\na greater or smaller section of a natural order or sequence.[215] But in\nthis case it would be very difficult to assign the limits of each\ndivision; they would be continually subjected to arbitrary alteration,\nand agreement would only exist where plain and palpable gaps were\nmanifest in our series. Happily, however, for classifiers there are, and\nwill always probably remain, a number of unknown forms.\"[216]\n\nThat the foregoing is still felt to be true by those who accept\nevolution, may be seen from the following passage, taken from Mr.\nDarwin's 'Origin of Species':--\n\n\"As all the organic beings which have ever lived can be arranged within\na few great classes; and as all within each class have, according to our\ntheory, been connected together by fine gradations, the best, and if our\ncollections were nearly perfect, the only possible arrangement would be\ngenealogical: descent being the hidden bond of connection which\nnaturalists have been seeking under the term of the Natural System. On\nthis view, we can understand how it is that in the eyes of most\nnaturalists, the structure of the embryo is even more important for\nclassifications than that of the adult.\"[217]\n\nIn his second chapter Lamarck deals with the importance of comparative\nanatomy, and the study of homologous structures. These indicate a sort\nof blood relationship between the individuals in which they are found,\nand are our safest guide to any natural system of classification. Their\nimportance is not confined to the study of classes, families, or even\nspecies; they must be studied also in the individuals of each species,\nas it is thus only, that we can recognize either identity or difference\nof species. The results arrived at, however, are only trustworthy over a\nlimited period, for though the individuals of any species commonly so\nresemble one another at any given time, as to enable us to generalize\nfrom them, at the date of our observing them, yet species are not fixed\nand immutable through all time: they change, though with such extreme\nslowness that we do not observe their doing so, and when we come upon a\nspecies that _has_ changed, we consider it as a new one, and as having\nalways been such as we now see it.[218]\n\n\"It is none the less true that when we compare the same kind of organs\nin different individuals, we can quickly and easily tell whether they\nare very like each other or not, and hence, whether the animals or\nplants in which they are found, should be set down as members of the\nsame or of a different species. It is only therefore the general\ninference drawn from the apparent immutability of species, that has\nbeen too inconsiderately drawn.[219]\n\n\"The analogies and points of agreement between living organisms, are\nalways incomplete when based upon the consideration of any single organ\nonly. But though still incomplete, they will be much more important\naccording as the organ on which they are founded is an essential one or\notherwise.\n\n\"With animals, those analogies are most important which exist between\norgans most necessary for the conservation of their life. With plants,\nbetween their organs of generation. Hence, with animals, it will be the\ninterior structure which will determine the most important analogies:\nwith plants it will be the manner in which they fructify.[220]\n\n\"With animals we should look to nerves, organs of respiration, and those\nof the circulation; with plants, to the embryo and its accessories, the\nsexual organs of their flowers, &c.[221] To do this, will set us on to\nthe Natural Method, which is as it were a sketch traced by man of the\norder taken by Nature in her productions.[222] Nevertheless the\ndivisions which we shall be obliged to establish, will still be\narbitrary and artificial, though presenting to our view sections\narranged in the order which Nature has pursued.[223]\n\n\"What, then,\" he asks,[224] \"_is_ species--and can we show that species\nhas changed--however slowly?\" He now covers some of the ground since\nenlarged upon in Mr. Darwin's second chapter, in which the arbitrary\nnature of the distinction between species and varieties is so well\nexposed. \"I shall show,\" says Lamarck (in substance, but I am compelled\nto condense much), \"that the habits by which we now recognize any\nspecies, are due to the conditions of life [_circonstances_] under which\nit has for a long time existed, and that these habits have had such an\ninfluence upon the structure of each individual of the species, as to\nhave at length modified this structure, and adapted it to the habits\nwhich have been contracted.[225]\n\n\"The individuals of any species,\" he continues, \"certainly resemble\ntheir parents; it is a universal law of nature that all offspring should\ndiffer but little from its immediate progenitors, but this does not\njustify the ordinary belief that species never vary. Indeed, naturalists\nthemselves are in continual difficulty as regards distinguishing species\nfrom varieties; they do not recognize the fact that species are only\nconstant as long as the conditions in which they are placed are\nconstant. Individuals vary and form breeds which blend so insensibly\ninto the neighbouring species, that the distinctions made by naturalists\nbetween species and varieties, are for the most part arbitrary, and the\nconfusion upon this head is becoming day by day more serious.[226]\n\n\"Not perceiving that species will not vary as long as the conditions in\nwhich they are placed remain essentially unchanged, naturalists have\nsupposed that each species was due to a special act of creation on the\npart of the Supreme Author of all things. Assuredly, nothing can exist\nbut by the will of this Supreme Author, but can we venture to assign\nrules to him in the execution of his will? May not his infinite power\nhave chosen to create an order of things which should evolve in\nsuccession all that we know as well as all that we do not know? Whether\nwe regard species as created or evolved, the boundlessness of his power\nremains unchanged, and incapable of any diminution whatsoever. Let us\nthen confine ourselves simply to observing the facts around us, and if\nwe find any clue to the path taken by Nature, let us say fearlessly that\nit has pleased her Almighty Author that she should take this path.[227]\n\n\"What applies to species applies also to genera; the further our\nknowledge extends, the more difficult do we find it to assign its exact\nlimits to any genus. Gaps in our collections are being continually\nfilled up, to the effacement of our dividing lines of demarcation. We\nare thus compelled to settle the limits of species and variety\narbitrarily, and in a manner about which there will be constant\ndisagreement. Naturalists are daily classifying new species which blend\ninto one another so insensibly that there can hardly be found words to\nexpress the minute differences between them. The gaps that exist are\nsimply due to our not having yet found the connecting species.\n\n\"I do not, however, mean to say that animal life forms a simple and\ncontinuously blended series. Life is rather comparable to a\nramification. In life we should see, as it were, a ramified continuity,\nif certain species had not been lost. The species which, according to\nthis illustration, stands at the extremity of each bough, should bear a\nresemblance, at least upon one side, to the other neighbouring species;\nand this certainly is what we observe in nature.\n\n\"Having arranged living forms in such an order as this, let us take one,\nand then, passing over several boughs, let us take another at some\ndistance from it; a wide difference will now be seen between the species\nwhich the forms selected represent. Our earliest collections supplied us\nwith such distantly allied forms only; now, however, that we have such\nan infinitely greater number of specimens, we can see that many of them\nblend one into the other without presenting noteworthy differences at\nany step.\"[228]\n\nThis has been well extended by Mr. Darwin in a passage which\nbegins:--\"The affinities of all beings of the same class have sometimes\nbeen represented by a great tree. I believe that this simile largely\nspeaks the truth.\"[229]\n\n\"What, then,\" continues Lamarck, \"can be the cause of all this? Surely\nthe following: namely, that when individuals of any species change their\nsituation, climate, mode of existence, or habits [conditions of life],\ntheir structure, form, organization, and in fact their whole being\nbecomes little by little modified, till in the course of time it\nresponds to the changes experienced by the creature.\"[230]\n\nIn his preface Lamarck had already declared that \"the thread which gives\nus a clue to the causes of the various phenomena of animal\norganization, in the manifold diversity of its developments, is to be\nfound in the fact that Nature conserves in offspring all that their life\nand environments has developed in parents.\" Heredity--\"the hidden bond\nof common descent\"--tempered with the modifications induced by changed\nhabits--which changed habits are due to new conditions and\nsurroundings--this with Lamarck, as with Buffon and Dr. Darwin, is the\nexplanation of the diversity of forms which we observe in nature. He now\ngoes on to support this--briefly, in accordance with his design--but\nwith sufficient detail to prevent all possibility of mistake about his\nmeaning.\n\n\"In the same climate differences in situation, and a greater or less\ndegree of exposure, affect simply, in the first instance, the\nindividuals exposed to them; but in the course of time, these repeated\ndifferences of surroundings in individuals which reproduce themselves\ncontinually under similar circumstances, induce differences which become\npart of their very nature; so that after many successive generations,\nthese individuals, which were originally, we will say, of any given\nspecies, become transformed into a different one.\"[231]\n\n\"Let us suppose that a grass growing in a low-lying meadow gets carried\nby some accident to the brow of a neighbouring hill, where the soil is\nstill damp enough for the plant to be able to exist. Let it live here\nfor many generations, till it has become thoroughly accustomed to its\nposition, and let it then gradually find its way to the dry and almost\narid soil of a mountain side; if the plant is able to stand the change\nand to perpetuate itself for many generations, it will have become so\nchanged that botanists will class it as a new species.\"[232]\n\n\"The same sort of process goes on in the animal kingdom, but animals are\nmodified more slowly than plants.\"[233]\n\nThe sterility of hybrids, to which Mr. Darwin devotes a great part of\nthe ninth chapter of his 'Origin of Species,'[234] is then touched\non--briefly, but sufficiently--as follows:--\n\n\"The idea that species were fixed and immutable involved the belief that\ndistinct species could not be fertile _inter se_. But unfortunately\nobservation has proved, and daily proves, that this supposition is\nunfounded. Hybrids are very common among plants, and quite sufficiently\nso among animals to show that the boundaries of these so-called\nimmutable species are not so well defined as has been supposed. Often,\nindeed, there is no offspring between the individuals of what are called\ndistinct species, especially when they are widely different, and again,\nthe offspring when produced is generally sterile; but when there is less\ndifference between the parents, both the difficulty of breeding the\nhybrid, and its sterility when produced, are found to disappear. In this\nvery power of crossing we see a source from which breeds, and ultimately\nspecies, may arise.\"[235]\n\nMr. Darwin arrives at the same conclusion. He writes:--\n\n\"We must, therefore, either give up the belief of the universal\nsterility of species when crossed, or we must look at this sterility in\nanimals, not as an indelible characteristic, but as one capable of being\nremoved by domestication.\n\n\"Finally, on considering all the ascertained facts on the intercrossing\nof plants and animals, it may be concluded that some degree of\nsterility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is an exceedingly\ngeneral result, but that it cannot, under our present state of\nknowledge, be considered as absolutely universal.\"[236]\n\nReturning to Lamarck, we find him saying:--\n\n\"The limits, therefore, of so-called species are not so constant and\nunvarying as is commonly supposed. Consider also the following. All\nliving forms upon the face of the globe have been brought forth in the\ncourse of infinite time by the process of generation only. Nature has\ndirectly created none but the lowest organisms; these she is still\nproducing every day, they being, as it were, the first sketches of life,\nand produced by what is called spontaneous generation. Organs have been\ngradually developed in these low forms, and these organs have in the\ncourse of time increased in diversity and complexity. The power of\ngrowth in each living body has given rise to various modes of\nreproduction, and thus progress, already acquired, has been preserved\nand handed down to offspring.[237] With sufficient time, favourable\nconditions of life [_circonstances_], successive changes in the surface\nof the globe, and the power of new surroundings and habits to modify the\norgans of living bodies, all animal and vegetable forms have been\nimperceptibly rendered such as we now see them. It follows that species\nwill be constant only in relation to their environments, and cannot be\nas old as Nature herself.\n\n\"But what are we to say of instinct? Can we suppose that all the tricks,\ncunning, artifices, precautions, patience, and skill of animals are due\nto evolution only? Must we not see here the design of an all-powerful\nCreator? No one certainly will assign limits to the Creator's power, but\nit is a bold thing to say that he did not choose to work in this way or\nthat way, when his own handiwork declares to us that this is the way he\nchose. I find proof in Nature--meaning by nature the _ensemble_ of all\nthat is,[238] but regarding her as herself the effect of an unknown\nfirst cause[239]--that she is the author of organization, life, and even\nsensation; that she has multiplied and diversified the organs and mental\npowers of the creatures which she sustains and reproduces; that she has\ndeveloped in animals, through the sole instrumentality of sense of need\nas establishing and directing their habits, all actions and all habits,\nfrom the simplest up to those which constitute instinct, industry, and\nfinally reason.[240]\n\n\"Against this it is alleged that we have no reason to believe species to\nhave changed within any known era. The skeletons of some Egyptian birds,\npreserved two or three thousand years ago, differ in no particular from\nthe same kind of creatures at the present day. But this is what we\nshould expect, inasmuch as the position and climate of Egypt itself do\nnot appear to have changed. If the conditions of life have not varied,\nwhy should the species subjected to those conditions have done so?\nMoreover, birds can move about freely, and if one place does not suit\nthem they can find another that does. All that these Egyptian mummies\nreally prove is, that there were animals in Egypt two or three thousand\nyears ago which are like the animals of to-day; but how short a space is\ntwo or three thousand years, as compared with the time which Nature has\nhad at her disposal! A time infinitely great _qua_ man, is still\ninfinitely short _qua_ Nature.[241]\n\n\"If, however, we turn to animals under confinement, we find immediate\nproof that the most startling changes are capable of being produced\nafter some generations of changed habits. In the sixth chapter we shall\nhave occasion to observe the power of changed conditions\n[_circonstances_] to develop new desires in animals, and to induce new\ncourses of action; we shall see the power which these new actions will\nhave, after a certain amount of repetition, to engender new habits and\ntendencies; and we shall also note the effects of use and disuse in\neither fortifying and developing an organ, or in diminishing it and\ncausing it to disappear. With plants under domestication, we shall find\ncorresponding phenomena. Species will thus appear to be unchangeable for\ncomparatively short periods only.\"[242]\n\nIt is interesting to see that Mr. Darwin lays no less stress on the\nstudy of animals and plants under domestication than Buffon, Dr. Darwin,\nand Lamarck. Indeed, all four writers appear to have been in great\nmeasure led to their conclusions by this very study. \"At the\ncommencement of my investigations,\" writes Mr. Darwin, \"it seemed to me\nprobable that a careful study of domesticated animals and of cultivated\nplants would offer the best chance of making out this obscure problem.\nNor have I been disappointed; in this and in all other perplexing cases,\nI have invariably found that our knowledge, imperfect though it be, of\nvariation under domestication, afforded the best and safest clue. I may\nventure to express my conviction of the high value of such studies,\nthough they have been very commonly neglected by naturalists.\"[243]\n\nIn justice to the three writers whom I have named, it should be borne in\nmind that they also ventured to express their conviction of the high\nvalue of these studies. Buffon, indeed, as we have seen, gives animals\nunder domestication the foremost place in his work. He does not treat of\nwild animals till he has said all he has to say upon our most important\ndomesticated breeds,--on whose descent from one or two wild stocks he is\nnever weary of insisting. It was doubtless because of the opportunities\nthey afforded him for demonstrating the plasticity of living organism\nthat the most important position in his work was assigned to them.\n\nLamarck professes himself unable to make up his mind about extinct\nspecies; how far, that is to say, whole breeds must be considered as\nhaving died out, or how far the difference between so many now living\nand fossil forms is due to the fact that our living species are\nmodified descendants of the fossil ones. Such large parts of the globe\nwere still practically unknown in Lamarck's time, and the recent\ndiscovery of the ornithorhynchus has raised such hopes as to what might\nyet be found in Australia, that he was inclined to think that only such\ncreatures as man found hurtful to him, as, for example, the megatherium\nand the mastodon, had become truly extinct, nor was he, it would seem,\nwithout a hope that these would yet one day be discovered. The climatic\nand geological changes that have occurred in past ages, would, he\nbelieved, account for all the difference which we observe between living\nand fossil forms, inasmuch as they would have changed the conditions\nunder which animals lived, and therefore their habits and organs would\nhave become correspondingly modified. He therefore rather wondered to\nfind so much, than so little, resemblance between existing and fossil\nforms.\n\nBuffon took a juster view of this matter; it will be remembered that he\nconcluded his remarks upon the mammoth by saying that many species had\ndoubtless disappeared without leaving any living descendants, while\nothers had left descendants which had become modified.\n\nLamarck anticipated Lyell in supposing geological changes to have been\ndue almost entirely to the continued operation of the causes which we\nobserve daily at work in nature: thus he writes:--\n\n\"Every observer knows that the surface of the earth has changed; every\nvalley has been exalted, the crooked has been made straight, and the\nrough places plain; not even is climate itself stable. Hence changed\nconditions; and these involve changed needs and habits of life; if such\nchanges can give rise to modifications or developments, it is clear that\nevery living body must vary, especially in its outward character, though\nthe variation can only be perceptible after several generations.\n\n\"It is not surprising then that so few living species should be\nrepresented in the geologic record. It is surprising rather that we\nshould find any living species represented at all.[244]\n\n\"Catastrophes have indeed been supposed, and they are an easy way of\ngetting out of the difficulty; but unfortunately, they are not supported\nby evidence. Local catastrophes have undoubtedly occurred, as\nearthquakes and volcanic eruptions, of which the effects can be\nsufficiently seen; but why suppose any universal catastrophe, when the\nordinary progress of nature suffices to account for the phenomena?\nNature is never _brusque_. She proceeds slowly step by step,\nand this with occasional local catastrophes will remove all our\ndifficulties.\"[245]\n\nIn his fourth chapter Lamarck points out that animals move themselves,\nor parts of themselves, not through impulsion or movement communicated\nto them as from one billiard ball to another, but by reason of a cause\nwhich excites their irritability, which cause is within some animals and\nforms part of them, while it is wholly outside of others.[246]\n\nI should again warn the reader to be on his guard against the opinion\nthat any animals can be said to live if they have no \"inward motion\" of\ntheir own which prompts them to act. We cannot call anything alive which\nmoves only as wind and water may make it move, but without any impulse\nfrom within to execute the smallest action and without any capacity of\nfeeling. Such a creature does not look sufficiently like the other\nthings which we call alive; it should be first shown to us, so that we\nmay make up our minds whether the facts concerning it have been truly\nstated, and if so, what it most resembles; we may then classify it\naccordingly.\n\n\"Some animals change their place by creeping, some by walking, some by\nrunning or leaping; others again fly, while others live in the water and\nswim.\n\n\"The origin of these different kinds of locomotion is to be found in the\ntwo great wants of animal life: 1, the means of procuring food; 2, the\nsearch after mates with a view to reproduction.\n\n\"Since then the power of locomotion was a matter affecting their\nindividual self-preservation, as well as that of their race, the\nexistence of the want led to the means of its being gratified.\"[247]\n\nLamarck is practically at one with Dr. Erasmus Darwin, that modification\nwill commonly travel along three main lines which spring from the need\nof reproduction, of procuring food, and (Dr. Darwin has added) the power\nof self-protection; but Dr. Darwin's treatment of this part of his\nsubject is more lucid and satisfactory than Lamarck's, inasmuch as he\nimmediately brings forward instances of various modifications which have\nin each case been due to one of the three main desires above specified,\nnamely, reproduction, subsistence, and self-defence.\n\nLamarck concludes the chapter with some passages which show that he was\nalive--as what Frenchman could fail to be after Buffon had written?--to\nthe consequences which must follow from the geometrical ratio of\nincrease, and to the struggle for existence, with consequent survival of\nthe fittest, which must always be one of the conditions of any wild\nanimal's existence. The paragraphs, indeed, on this subject are taken\nwith very little alteration from Buffon's work. As Lamarck's theory is\nbased upon the fact that it is on the nature of these conditions that\nthe habits and consequently the structure of any animal will depend, he\nmust have seen that the shape of many of its organs must vary greatly in\ncorrelation to the conditions to which it was subjected in the matter of\nself-protection. I do not see, then, that there is any substantial\ndifference between the positions taken by Dr. Erasmus Darwin and by\nLamarck in this respect.\n\n\"Let us conclude,\" he writes, \"by showing the means employed by nature\nto prevent the number of her creatures from injuring the conservation of\nwhat has been produced already, and of the general order which should\nsubsist.[248]\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"In consequence of the extremely rapid rate of increase of the smaller,\nand especially of the most imperfect, animals, their numbers would\nbecome so great as to prove injurious to the conservation of breeds, and\nto the progress already made towards more perfect organization, unless\nnature had taken precautions to keep them down within certain fixed\nlimits which she cannot exceed.\"[249]\n\nThis seems to contain, and in a nutshell, as much of the essence of what\nMr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. Charles Darwin have termed the survival of\nthe fittest in the struggle for existence, as was necessary for\nLamarck's purpose.\n\nTo Lamarck, as to Dr. Darwin and Buffon, it was perfectly clear that the\nfacts, that animals have to find their food under varying circumstances,\nand that they must defend themselves in all manner of varying ways\nagainst other creatures which would eat them if they could, were simply\nsome of the conditions of their existence. In saying that the\nsurrounding circumstances--which amount to the conditions of\nexistence--determined the direction in which any plant or animal should\nbe slowly modified, Lamarck includes as a matter of course the fact that\nthe \"stronger and better armed should eat the weaker,\" and thus survive\nand bear offspring which would inherit the strength and better armour of\nits parents. Nothing therefore can be more at variance with the truth\nthan to represent Lamarck and the other early evolutionists as ignoring\nthe struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest; these are\ninevitably implied whenever they use the word \"_circonstances_\" or\nenvironment, as I will more fully show later on, and are also expressly\ncalled attention to by the greater number of them.[250]\n\n\"Animals, except those which are herbivorous, prey upon one another; and\nthe herbivorous are exposed to the attacks of the flesh-eating races.\n\n\"_The strongest and best armed for attack eat the weaker_, and the\ngreater kinds eat the smaller. Individuals of the same race rarely eat\none another; they war only with other races than their own.\"[251]\n\nDr. Darwin here again has the advantage over Lamarck; for he has pointed\nout how the males contend with one another for the possession of the\nfemales, which I do not find Lamarck to have done, though he would at\nonce have admitted the fact. Lamarck continues:--\n\n\"The smaller kinds of animals breed so numerously and so rapidly that\nthey would people the globe to the exclusion of other forms of life, if\nnature had not limited their inconceivable multitude. As, however, they\nare the prey of a number of other creatures, live but a short time, and\nperish easily with cold, they are kept always within the proportions\nnecessary for the maintenance both of their own and of other races.[252]\n\n\"As regards the larger and stronger animals, they would become dominant,\nand be injurious to the conservation of many other races, if they could\nmultiply in too great numbers. But as it is, they devour one another,\nand breed but slowly, and few at a birth, so that equilibrium is duly\npreserved among them. Man alone is the unquestionably dominant animal,\nbut men war among themselves, so that it may be safely said the world\nwill never be peopled to its utmost capacity.\"[253]\n\nIn his fifth chapter Lamarck returns to the then existing arrangement\nand classification of animals.\n\n\"Naturalists having remarked that many species, and some genera and even\nfamilies present characters which as it were isolate them, it has been\nimagined that these approached or drew further from each other according\nas their points of agreement or difference seemed greater or less when\nset down as it were on a chart or map. They regard the small well-marked\nseries which have been styled natural families, as groups which should\nbe placed between the isolated species and their nearest neighbours so\nas to form a kind of reticulation. This idea, which some of our modern\nnaturalists have held to be admirable, is evidently mistaken, and will\nbe discarded on a profounder and more extended knowledge of\norganization, and more especially when the distinction has been duly\ndrawn between what is due to the action of special conditions and to\ngeneral advance of organization.\"[254]\n\nI take it that Lamarck is here attempting to express what Mr. Charles\nDarwin has rendered much more clearly in the following excellent\npassage:--\n\n\"It should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must,\non the theory [what theory?], have formerly existed. I have found it\ndifficult when looking at any two species to avoid picturing to myself\nforms _directly_ intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false\nview; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species\nand a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally\nhave differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To\ngive a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both\ndescended from the rock pigeon. If we possessed all the intermediate\nvarieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close\nseries, between both and the rock pigeon; but we should have no\nvarieties directly intermediate between the fantail and the pouter;\nnone, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop\nsomewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds.\nThese two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified that, if we had\nno historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not\nhave been possible to have determined, from a mere comparison of their\nstructure with that of the rock pigeon C. livia, whether they had\ndescended from this species, or from some other allied form, as C.\noenas.\n\n\"So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct--for\ninstance, to the horse and the tapir--we have no reason to suppose that\nlinks directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each\nand an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its\nwhole organization much general resemblance to the tapir and the horse;\nbut in some points of structure it may have differed considerably from\nboth, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence in all\nsuch cases we should be unable to recognize the parent form of any two\nor more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent\nwith that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a\nnearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"By the theory of natural selection [surely this is a slip for \"by the\ntheory of descent with modification\"] all living species have been\nconnected with the parent species of each genus, by differences not\ngreater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the\nsame species at the present day; and their parent species, now generally\nextinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient\nforms, and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of\neach great class; so that the number of intermediate and transitional\nlinks between all living and extinct species must have been\ninconceivably great. But assuredly if this theory [the theory of descent\nwith modification or that of \"natural selection\"?] be true, such have\nlived upon the earth.\"[255]\n\nTo return, however, to Lamarck.\n\n\"Though Nature,\" he continues, \"in the course of long time has evolved\nall animals and plants in a true scale of progression, the steps of this\nscale can be perceived only in the principal groups of living forms; it\ncannot be perceived in species nor even in genera. The reason of this\nlies in the extreme diversity of the surroundings in which each\ndifferent race of animals and plants has existed. These surroundings\nhave often been out of harmony with the growing organization of the\nplants and animals themselves; this has led to anomalies, and, as it\nwere, digressions, which the mere development of organization by itself\ncould not have occasioned.\"[256] Or, in other words, to that divergency\nof type which is so well insisted on by Mr. Charles Darwin.\n\n\"It is only therefore the principal groups of animal and vegetable life\nwhich can be arranged in a vertical line of descent; species and even\ngenera cannot always be so--for these contain beings whose organization\nhas been dependent on the possession of such and such a special system\nof essential organs.\n\n\"Each great and separate group has its own system of essential organs,\nand it is these systems which can be seen to descend, within the limits\nof the group, from their most complex to their simplest form. But each\norgan, considered individually, does not descend by equally regular\ngradation; the gradations are less and less regular according as the\norgan is of less importance, and is more susceptible of modification by\nthe conditions which surround it. Organs of small importance, and not\nessential to existence, are not always either perfected or degraded at\nan equal rate, so that in observing all the species of any class we find\nan organ in one species in the highest degree of perfection, while\nanother organ, which in this same species is impoverished or very\nimperfect, is highly developed in another species of the same\ngroup.\"[257]\n\nThe facts maintained in the preceding paragraph are in great measure\nsupported by Mr. Charles Darwin, who, however, assigns their cause to\nnatural selection.\n\nMr. Darwin writes, \"Ordinary specific characters are more variable than\ngeneric;\" and again, a little lower down, \"The points in which all the\nspecies of a genus resemble each other, and in which they differ from\nallied genera, are called generic characters; and these characters may\nbe attributed to inheritance from a common progenitor, for it can rarely\nhappen that natural selection will have modified several distinct\nspecies fitted to more or less widely different habits, in exactly the\nsame manner; and as these so called generic characters have been\ninherited from before the period when the several species first branched\noff from their common progenitor, and subsequently have not varied or\ncome to differ in any degree, or only in a slight degree, it is not\nprobable that they should vary at the present day. On the other hand,\nthe points in which species differ from other species of the same genus\nare called specific characters; and as these specific characters have\nvaried and come to differ since the period when the species branched off\nfrom a common progenitor, it is probable that they should still often be\nin some degree variable, or at least more variable than those parts of\nthe organization which have for a very long time remained\nconstant.\"[258]\n\nThe fact, then, that it is specific characters which vary most is agreed\nupon by both Lamarck and Mr. Darwin. Lamarck, however, maintains that it\nis these specific characters which are most capable of being affected by\nthe habits of the creature, and that it is for this reason they will be\nmost variable, while Mr. Darwin simply says they _are_ most variable,\nand that, this being so, the favourable variations will be preserved and\naccumulated--an assertion which Lamarck would certainly not demur to.\n\n\"Irregular degrees of perfection,\" says Lamarck, \"and degradation in the\nless essential organs, are due to the fact that these are more liable\nthan the more essential ones to the influence of external circumstances:\nthese induce corresponding differences in the more outward parts of the\nanimal, and give rise to such considerable and singular difference in\nspecies, that instead of being able to arrange them in a direct line of\ndescent, as we can arrange the main groups, these species often form\nlateral ramifications round about the main groups to which they belong,\nand in their extreme development are truly isolated.\"[259]\n\nIn his summary of the second chapter of his 'Origin of Species,' Mr.\nDarwin well confirms this when he says, \"In large genera the species are\napt to be closely, but unequally, allied together, forming little\nclusters round other species.\"\n\n\"A longer time,\" says Lamarck, \"and a greater influence of surrounding\nconditions, is necessary in order to modify interior organs.\nNevertheless we see that Nature does pass from one system to another\nwithout any sudden leap, when circumstances require it, provided the\nsystems are not too far apart. Her method is to proceed from the more\nsimple to the more complex.[260]\n\n\"She does this not only in the race, but in the individual.\" Here\nLamarck, like Dr. Erasmus Darwin, shows his perception of the importance\nof embryology in throwing light on the affinities of animals--as since\nmore fully insisted on by the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation,' and\nby Mr. Darwin,[261] as well as by other writers. \"Breathing through\ngills is nearer to breathing through lungs than breathing through\ntrachea is. Not only do we see Nature pass from gills to lungs in\nfamilies which are not too far apart, as may be seen by considering the\ncase of fishes and reptiles; but she does so during the existence of a\nsingle individual, which may successively make use both of the one and\nof the other system. The frog while yet a tadpole breathes through\ngills; on becoming a frog it breathes through lungs; but we cannot find\nthat Nature in any case passes from trachea to lungs.\"[262]\n\nLamarck now rapidly reviews previous classifications, and propounds his\nown, which stands thus:--I. Vertebrata, consisting of Mammals, Birds,\nFishes, and Reptiles. II. Invertebrata, consisting of Molluscs,\nCentipedes, Annelids, Crustacea, Arachnids, Insects, Worms, Radiata,\nPolyps, Infusoria.\n\n\"The degradation of organism,\" he concludes, \"in this descending scale\nis not perfectly even, and cannot be made so by any classification,\nnevertheless there is such evidence of sustained degradation in the\nprincipal groups as must point in the direction of some underlying\ngeneral principle.\"[263]\n\nLamarck's sixth chapter is headed \"Degradation and Simplification of the\nAnimal Chain as we proceed downwards from the most complex to the most\nsimple Organisms.\"\n\n\"This is a positive fact, and results from the operation of a constant\nlaw of nature; but a disturbing cause, which can be easily recognized,\nvaries the regular operation of the law from one end to the other of the\nchain of life.[264]\n\n\"We can see, nevertheless, that special organs become more and more\nsimple the lower we descend; that they become changed, impoverished, and\nattenuated little by little; that they lose their local centres, and\nfinally become definitely annihilated before we reach the lowest\nextremity of the chain.[265]\n\n\"As has been said already, the degradation of organism is not always\nregular; such and such an organ often fails or changes suddenly, and\nsometimes in its changes assumes forms which are not allied with any\nothers by steps that we can recognize. An organ may disappear and\nreappear several times before being entirely lost: but this is what we\nmight expect, for the cause which has led to the evolution of living\norganisms has evolved many varieties, due to external influences.\nNevertheless, looking at organization broadly, we observe a descending\nscale.\"[266]\n\n\"If the tendency to progressive development was the only cause which had\ninfluenced the forms and organs of animals, development would have been\nregular throughout the animal chain; but it has not been so: Nature is\ncompelled to submit her productions to an environment which acts upon\nthem, and variation in environment will induce variation in organism:\nthis is the true cause of the sometimes strange deviations from the\ndirect line of progression which we shall have to observe.[267]\n\n\"If Nature had only called aquatic beings into existence, and if these\nbeings had lived always in the same climate, in the same kind of water,\nand at the same depth, the organization of these animals would doubtless\nhave presented an even and regular scale of development. But there has\nbeen fresh water, salt water, running and stagnant water, warm and cold\nclimates, an infinite variety of depth: animals exposed to these and\nother differences in their surroundings have varied in accordance with\nthem.[268] In like manner those animals which have been gradually fitted\nfor living in air instead of water have been subjected to an endless\ndiversity in their surroundings. The following law, then, may be now\npropounded, namely:--\n\n\"_That anomalies in the development of organism are due to the\ninfluences of the environment and to the habits of the creature._[269]\n\n\"Some have said that the anomalies above mentioned are so great\nas to disprove the existence of any scale which should indicate\ndescent; but the nearer we approach species, the smaller we see\ndifferences become, till with species itself we find them at times\nalmost imperceptible.\"[270]\n\nLamarck here devotes about seventy pages to a survey of the animal\nkingdom in its entirety, beginning with the mammals and ending with the\ninfusoria. He points out the manner in which organ after organ\ndisappears as we descend the scale, till we are left with a form which,\nthough presenting all the characteristics of life, has yet no special\norgan whatever. I am obliged to pass this classification over, but do so\nvery unwillingly, for it is illustrative of Lamarck, both at his best\nand at his worst.\n\nThe seventh chapter is headed--\n\n\"On the influence of their surroundings on the actions and habits of\nanimals, and on the effect of these habits and actions in modifying\ntheir organization.\"\n\n\"The effect of different conditions of our organization upon our\ncharacter, tendencies, actions, and even our ideas, has been often\nremarked, but no attention has yet been paid to that of our actions and\nhabits upon our organization itself. These actions and habits depend\nentirely upon our relations to the surroundings in which we habitually\nexist; we shall have occasion, therefore, to see how great is the effect\nof environment upon organization.\n\n\"But for our having domesticated plants and animals we should never have\narrived at the perception of this truth; for though the influence of the\nenvironment is at all times and everywhere active upon all living\nbodies, its effects are so gradual that they can only be perceived over\nlong periods of time.[271]\n\n\"Taking the chain of life in the inverse order of nature--that is to\nsay, from man downwards--we certainly perceive a sustained but irregular\ndegradation of organism, with an increasing simplicity both in organism\nand faculties.\n\n\"This fact should throw light upon the order taken by nature, but it\ndoes not show us why the gradation is so irregular, nor why throughout\nits extent we find so many anomalies or digressions which have\napparently no order at all in their manifold varieties.[272] The\nexplanation of this must be sought for in the infinite diversity of\ncircumstances under which organisms have been developed. On the one\nhand, there is a tendency to a regular progressive development; on the\nother, there is a host of widely different surroundings which tend\ncontinually to destroy the regularity of development.\n\n\"It is necessary to explain what is meant by such expressions as 'the\neffect of its environment upon the form and organization of an animal.'\nIt must not be supposed that its surroundings directly effect any\nmodification whatever in the form and organization of an animal.[273]\nGreat changes in surroundings involve great changes in the wants of\nanimals, and these changes in their wants involve corresponding changes\nin their actions. If these new wants become permanent, or of very long\nduration, the animals contract new habits, which last as long as the\nwants which gave rise to them.[274] A great change in surroundings, if\nit persist for a long time, must plainly, therefore, involve the\ncontraction of new habits. These new habits in their turn involve a\npreference for the employment of such and such an organ over such and\nsuch another organ, and in certain cases the total disuse of an organ\nwhich is no longer wanted. This is perfectly self-evident.[275]\n\n\"On the one hand, new wants have rendered a part necessary, which part\nhas accordingly been created by a succession of efforts: use has kept it\nin existence, gradually strengthening and developing it till in the end\nit attains a considerable degree of perfection. On the other, new\ncircumstances having in some cases rendered such or such a part useless,\ndisuse has led to its gradually ceasing to receive the development which\nthe other parts attain to; on this it becomes reduced, and in time\ndisappears.[276]\n\n\"Plants have neither actions nor habits properly so called, nevertheless\nthey change in a changed environment as much as animals do. This is due\nto changes in nutrition, absorption and transpiration, to degrees of\nheat, light, and moisture, and to the preponderance over others which\ncertain of the vital functions attain to.\"\n\nLamarck is led into the statement that plants have neither actions nor\nhabits, by his theories about the nervous system and the brain. Plain\nmatter-of-fact people will prefer the view taken by Buffon, Dr. Darwin,\nand, more recently, by Mr. Francis Darwin, that there is no radical\ndifference between plants and animals.\n\n\"The differences between well-nourished and ill-nourished plants become\nlittle by little very noticeable. If individuals, whether animal or\nvegetable, are continually ill-fed and exposed to hardships for several\ngenerations, their organization becomes eventually modified, and the\nmodification is transmitted until a race is formed which is quite\ndistinct from those descendants of the common parent stock which have\nbeen placed in favourable circumstances.[277] In a dry spring the meagre\nand stunted herbage seeds early. When, on the other hand, the spring is\nwarm but with occasional days of rain, there is an excellent hay-crop.\nIf, however, any cause perpetuates unfavourable circumstances, plants\nwill vary correspondingly, first in appearance and general conditions,\nand then in several particulars of their actual character, certain\norgans having received more development than others, these differences\nwill in the course of time become hereditary.[278]\n\n\"Nature changes a plant or animal's surroundings gradually--man\nsometimes does so suddenly. All botanists know that plants vary so\ngreatly under domestication that in time they become hardly\nrecognizable. They undergo so much change that botanists do not at all\nlike describing domesticated varieties. Wheat itself is an example.\nWhere can wheat be found as a wild plant, unless it have escaped from\nsome neighbouring cultivation? Where are our cauliflowers, our lettuces,\nto be found wild, with the same characters as they possess in our\nkitchen gardens?\n\n\"The same applies to our domesticated breeds of animals. What a variety\nof breeds has not man produced among fowls and pigeons, of which we can\nfind no undomesticated examples!\"[279]\n\nThe foregoing remarks on the effects of domestication seem to have been\ninspired by those given p. 123 and pp. 168, 169 of this volume.[280]\n\n\"Some, doubtless, have changed less than others, owing to their having\nundergone a less protracted domestication, and a less degree of change\nin climate; nevertheless, though our ducks and geese, for example, are\nof the same type as their wild progenitors, they have lost the power of\nlong and sustained flight, and have become in other respects\nconsiderably modified.[281]\n\n\"A bird, after having been kept five or six years in a cage, cannot on\nbeing liberated fly like its brethren which have been always free. Such\na change in a single lifetime has not effected any transmissible\nmodification of type; but captivity, continued during many successive\ngenerations, would undoubtedly do so. If to the effects of captivity\nthere be added also those of changed climate, changed food, and changed\nactions for the purpose of laying hold of food, these, united together\nand become constant, would in the course of time develop an entirely new\nbreed.\"\n\nThis, again, is almost identical with the passage from Buffon,[282] p.\n148 of this volume. See also pp. 169, 170.\n\n\"Where can our many domestic breeds of dogs be found in a wild state?\nWhere are our bulldogs, greyhounds, spaniels, and lapdogs, breeds\npresenting differences which, in wild animals, would be certainly called\nspecific? These are all descended from an animal nearly allied to the\nwolf, if not from the wolf itself. Such an animal was domesticated by\nearly man, taken at successive intervals into widely different climates,\ntrained to different habits, carried by man in his migrations as a\nprecious capital into the most distant countries, and crossed from time\nto time with other breeds which had been developed in similar ways.\nHence our present multiform breeds.\"[283]\n\nHere, also, it is impossible to forget Buffon's passages on the dog,\ngiven pp. 121, 122. See also p. 223.\n\n\"Observe the gradations which are found between the _ranunculus\naquatilis_ and the _ranunculus hederaceus_: the latter--a land\nplant--resembles those parts of the former which grow above the surface\nof the water, but not those that grow beneath it.[284]\n\n\"The modifications of animals arise more slowly than those of plants;\nthey are therefore less easily watched, and less easily assignable to\ntheir true causes, but they arise none the less surely. As regards these\ncauses, the most potent is diversity of the surroundings in which they\nexist, but there are also many others.[285]\n\n\"The climate of the same place changes, and the place itself changes\nwith changed climate and exposure, but so slowly that we imagine all\nlands to be stable in their conditions. This, however, is not true;\nclimatic and other changes induce corresponding changes in environment\nand habit, and these modify the structure of the living forms which are\nsubjected to them. Indeed, we see intermediate forms and species\ncorresponding to intermediate conditions.\n\n\"To the above causes must be ascribed the infinite variety of existing\nforms, independently of any tendency towards progressive\ndevelopment.\"[286]\n\nThe reader has now before him a fair sample of \"the well-known doctrine\nof inherited habit as advanced by Lamarck.\"[287] In what way, let me ask\nin passing, does \"the case of neuter insects\" prove \"demonstrative\"\nagainst it, unless it is held equally demonstrative against Mr. Darwin's\nown position? Lamarck continues:--\n\n\"The character of any habitable quarter of the globe is _qua_ man\nconstant: the constancy of type in species is therefore also _qua_ man\npersistent. But this is an illusion. We establish, therefore, the three\nfollowing propositions:--\n\n\"1. That every considerable and sustained change in the surroundings of\nany animal involves a real change in its needs.\n\n\"2. That such change of needs involves the necessity of changed action\nin order to satisfy these needs, and, in consequence, of new\nhabits.[288]\n\n\"3. It follows that such and such parts, formerly less used, are now\nmore frequently employed, and in consequence become more highly\ndeveloped; new parts also become insensibly evolved in the creature by\nits own efforts from within.\n\n\"From the foregoing these two general laws may be deduced:--\n\n\"_Firstly. That in every animal which has not passed its limit of\ndevelopment, the more frequent and sustained employment of any organ\ndevelops and aggrandizes it, giving it a power proportionate to the\nduration of its employment, while the same organ in default of constant\nuse becomes insensibly weakened and deteriorated, decreasing\nimperceptibly in power until it finally disappears._[289]\n\n\"_Secondly. That these gains or losses of organic development, due to\nuse or disuse, are transmitted to offspring, provided they have been\ncommon to both sexes, or to the animals from which the offspring have\ndescended._\"[290]\n\nLamarck now sets himself to establish the fact that animals have\ndeveloped modifications which have been transmitted to their offspring.\n\n\"Naturalists,\" he says, \"have believed that the possession of certain\norgans has led to their employment. This is not so: it is need and use\nwhich have developed the organs, and even called them into existence.\"\n[I have already sufficiently insisted that it is impossible to dispense\nwith either of these two views. Demand and Supply have gone hand in\nhand, each reacting upon the other.] \"Otherwise a special act of\ncreation would be necessary for every different combination of\nconditions; and it would be also necessary that the conditions should\nremain always constant.\n\n\"If this were really so we should have no racehorses like those of\nEngland, nor drayhorses so heavy in build and so unlike the racehorse;\nfor there are no such breeds in a wild state. For the same reason, we\nshould have no turnspit dogs with crooked legs, no greyhounds nor\nwater-spaniels; we should have no tailless breed of fowls nor fantail\npigeons, &c. Nor should we be able to cultivate wild plants in our\ngardens, for any length of time we please, without fear of their\nchanging.\n\n\"'Habit,' says the proverb, 'is a second nature'; what possible meaning\ncan this proverb have, if descent with modification is unfounded?[291]\n\n\"As regards the circumstances which give rise to variation, the\nprincipal are climatic changes, different temperatures of any of a\ncreature's environments, differences of abode, of habit, of the most\nfrequent actions; and lastly, of the means of obtaining food,\nself-defence, reproduction, &c., &c.\"[292]\n\nHere we have absolute agreement with Dr. Erasmus Darwin,[293] except\nthat there seems a tendency in this passage to assign more effect to the\ndirect action of conditions than is common with Lamarck. He seems to be\nmixing Buffon and Dr. Darwin.\n\n\"In consequence of change in any of these respects, the faculties of an\nanimal become extended and enlarged by use: they become diversified\nthrough the long continuance of the new habits, until little by little\ntheir whole structure and nature, as well as the organs originally\naffected, participate in the effects of all these influences, and are\nmodified to an extent which is capable of transmission to\noffspring.\"[294]\n\nThis sentence alone would be sufficient to show that Lamarck was as much\nalive as Buffon and Dr. Darwin were before him, to the fact that one of\nthe most important conditions of an animal's life, is the relation in\nwhich it stands to the other inhabitants of the same neighbourhood--from\nwhich the survival of the fittest follows as a self-evident proposition.\nNothing, therefore, can be more unfounded than the attempt, so\nfrequently made by writers who have not read Lamarck, or who think\nothers may be trusted not to do so, to represent him as maintaining\nsomething perfectly different from what is maintained by modern writers\non evolution. The difference, in so far as there is any difference, is\none of detail only. Lamarck would not have hesitated to admit, that, if\nanimals are modified in a direction which is favourable to them, they\nwill have a better chance of surviving and transmitting their\nfavourable modifications. In like manner, our modern evolutionists\nshould allow that animals are modified not because they subsequently\nsurvive, but because they have done this or that which has led to their\nmodification, and hence to their surviving.\n\nHaving established that animals and plants are capable of being\nmaterially changed in the course of a few generations, Lamarck proceeds\nto show that their modification is due to changed distribution of the\nuse and disuse of their organs at any given time.\n\n\"_The disuse of an organ_,\" he writes, \"_if it becomes constant in\nconsequence of new habits, gradually reduces the organ, and leads\nfinally to its disappearance_.\"[295]\n\n\"Thus whales have lost their teeth, though teeth are still found in the\nembryo. So, again, M. Geoffroy has discovered in birds the groove where\nteeth were formerly placed. The ant-eater, which belongs to a genus that\nhas long relinquished the habit of masticating its food, is as toothless\nas the whale.\"[296]\n\nThen are adduced further examples of rudimentary organs, which will be\ngiven in another place, and need not be repeated here. Speaking of the\nfact, however, that serpents have no legs, though they are higher in the\nscale of life than the batrachians, Lamarck attributes this \"to the\ncontinued habit of trying to squeeze through very narrow places, where\nfour feet would be in the way, and would be very little good to them,\ninasmuch as more than four would be wanted in order to turn bodies that\nwere already so much elongated.\"[297]\n\nIf it be asked why, on Lamarck's theory, if serpents wanted more legs\nthey could not have made them, the answer is that the attempt to do this\nwould be to unsettle a question which had been already so long settled,\nthat it would be impossible to reopen it. The animal must adapt itself\nto four legs, or must get rid of all or some of them if it does not like\nthem; but it has stood so long committed to the theory that if there are\nto be legs at all, there are to be not more than four, that it is\nimpossible for it now to see this matter in any other light.\n\nThe experiments of M. Brown Sequard on guinea pigs, quoted by Mr.\nDarwin,[298] suggest that the form of the serpent may be due to its\nhaving lost its legs by successive accidents in squeezing through narrow\nplaces, and that the wounds having been followed by disease, the\ncreature may have bitten the limbs off, in which case the loss might\nhave been very readily transmitted to offspring; the animal would\naccordingly take to a sinuous mode of progression that would doubtless\nin time elongate the body still further. M. Brown Sequard \"carefully\nrecorded\" thirteen cases, and saw even a greater number, in which the\nloss of toes by guinea pigs which had gnawed their own toes off, was\nimmediately transmitted to offspring. Accidents followed by disease seem\nto have been somewhat overlooked as a possible means of modification.\nThe missing forefinger to the hand of the potto[299] would appear at\nfirst sight to have been lost by some such mishap. Returning to Lamarck,\nwe find him saying:--\n\n\"Even in the lifetime of a single individual we can see organic changes\nin consequence of changed habits. Thus M. Tenon has constantly found the\nintestinal canal of drunkards to be greatly shorter than that of people\nwho do not drink. This is due to the fact that habitual drunkards eat\nbut little solid food, so that the stomach and intestines are more\nrarely distended. The same applies to people who lead studious and\nsedentary lives. The stomachs of such persons and of drunkards have\nlittle power, and a small quantity will fill them, while those of men\nwho take plenty of exercise remain in full vigour and are even\nincreased.\"[300]\n\nIt becomes now necessary to establish the converse proposition, namely\nthat:--\n\n\"_The frequent use of an organ increases its power; it even develops the\norgan itself, and makes it acquire dimensions and powers which it is not\nfound to have in animals which make no use of such an organ._\n\n\"In support of this we see that the bird whose needs lead it to the\nwater, in which to find its prey, extends the toes of its feet when it\nwants to strike the water, and move itself upon the surface. The skin at\nthe base of the toes of such a bird contracts the habit of extending\nitself from continual practice. To this cause, in the course of time,\nmust be attributed the wide membrane which unites the toes of ducks,\ngeese, &c. The same efforts to swim, that is to say, to push the water\nfor the purpose of moving itself forward, has extended the membrane\nbetween the toes of frogs, turtles, the otter, and the beaver.\"[301]\n\n[This is taken, I believe, from Dr. Darwin or Buffon, but I have lost\nthe passage, if, indeed, I ever found it. It had been met by Paley some\nyears earlier (1802) in the following:--\n\n\"There is nothing in the action of swimming as carried on by a bird upon\nthe surface of the water that should generate a membrane between the\ntoes. As to that membrane it is an action of constant resistance.... The\nweb feet of amphibious quadrupeds, seals, otters, &c., fall under the\nsame observation.\"[302]]\n\n\"On the other hand those birds whose habits lead them to perch on trees,\nand which have sprung from parents that have long contracted this habit,\nhave their toes shaped in a perfectly different manner. Their claws\nbecome lengthened, sharpened, and curved, so as to enable the creature\nto lay hold of the boughs on which it so often rests. The shore bird\nagain, which does not like to swim, is nevertheless continually obliged\nto enter the water when searching after its prey. Not liking to plunge\nits body in the water, it makes every endeavour to extend and lengthen\nits lower limbs. In the course of long time these birds have come to be\nelevated, as it were, on stilts, and have got long legs bare of feathers\nas far as their thighs, and often still higher. The same bird is\ncontinually trying to extend its neck in order to fish without wetting\nits body, and in the course of time its neck has become modified\naccordingly.[303]\n\n\"Swans, indeed, and geese have short legs and very long necks, but this\nis because they plunge their heads as low in the water as they can in\ntheir search for aquatic larvae and other animalcules, but make no effort\nto lengthen their legs.\"[304]\n\nThis too is taken from some passage which I have either never seen or\nhave lost sight of. Paley never gives a reference to an opponent, though\nhe frequently does so when quoting an author on his own side, but I can\nhardly doubt that he had in his mind the passage from which Lamarck in\n1809 derived the foregoing, when in 1802 he wrote Sec. 5 of chapter xv. and\nthe latter half of chapter xxiii. of his 'Natural Theology.'\n\n\"The tongues of the ant-eater and the woodpecker,\" continues Lamarck,\n\"have become elongated from similar causes. Humming birds catch hold of\nthings with their tongues; serpents and lizards use their tongues to\ntouch and reconnoitre objects in front of them, hence their tongues have\ncome to be forked.\n\n\"Need--always occasioned by the circumstances in which an animal is\nplaced, and followed by sustained efforts at gratification--can not only\nmodify an organ, that is to say, augment or reduce it, but can change\nits position when the case requires its removal.[305]\n\n\"Ocean fishes have occasion to see what is on either side of them, and\nhave their eyes accordingly placed on either side their head. Some\nfishes, however, have their abode near coasts on submarine banks and\ninclinations, and are thus forced to flatten themselves as much as\npossible in order to get as near as they can to the shore. In this\nsituation they receive more light from above than from below, and find\nit necessary to pay attention to whatever happens to be above them; this\nneed has involved the displacement of their eyes, which now take the\nremarkable position which we observe in the case of soles, turbots,\nplaice, &c. The transfer of position is not even yet complete in the\ncase of these fishes, and the eyes are not, therefore, symmetrically\nplaced; but they are so with the skate, whose head and whole body are\nequally disposed on either side a longitudinal section. Hence the eyes\nof this fish are placed symmetrically upon the uppermost side.[306]\n\n\"The eyes of serpents are placed on the sides and upper portions of the\nhead, so that they can easily see what is on one side of them or above\nthem; but they can only see very little in front of them, and supplement\nthis deficiency of power with their tongue, which is very long and\nsupple, and is in many kinds so divided that it can touch more than one\nobject at a time; the habit of reconnoitring objects in front of them\nwith their tongues has even led to their being able to pass it through\nthe end of their nostrils without being obliged to open their jaws.[307]\n\n\"Herbivorous mammals, such as the elephant, rhinoceros, ox, buffalo,\nhorse, &c., owe their great size to their habit of daily distending\nthemselves with food and taking comparatively little exercise. They\nemploy their feet for standing, walking, or running, but not for\nclimbing trees. Hence the thick horn which covers their toes. These toes\nhave become useless to them, and are now in many cases rudimentary only.\nSome pachyderms have five toes covered with horn; some four, some\nthree. The ruminants, which appear to be the earliest mammals that\nconfined themselves to a life upon the ground, have but two hooves,\nwhile the horse has only one.[308]\n\n\"Some herbivorous animals, especially among the ruminants, have been\nincessantly preyed upon by carnivorous animals, against which their only\nrefuge is in flight. Necessity has therefore developed the light and\nactive limbs of antelopes, gazelles, &c. Ruminants, only using their\njaws to graze with, have but little power in them, and therefore\ngenerally fight with their heads. The males fight frequently with one\nanother, and their desires prompt an access of fluids to the parts of\ntheir heads with which they fight; thus the horns and bosses have arisen\nwith which the heads of most of these animals are armed.[309] The\ngiraffe owes its long neck to its continued habit of browsing upon\ntrees, whence also the great length of its fore legs as compared with\nits hinder ones. Carnivorous animals, in like manner, have had their\norgans modified in correlation with their desires and habits. Some\nclimb, some scratch in order to burrow in the earth, some tear their\nprey; they therefore have need of toes, and we find their toes separated\nand armed with claws. Some of them are great hunters, and also plunge\ntheir claws deeply into the bodies of their victims, trying to tear out\nthe part on which they have seized; this habit has developed a size and\ncurvature of claw which would impede them greatly in travelling over\nstony ground; they have therefore been obliged to make efforts to draw\nback their too projecting claws, and so, little by little, has arisen\nthe peculiar sheath into which cats, tigers, lions, &c., withdraw their\nclaws when they no longer wish to use them.[310]\n\n\"We see then that the long-sustained and habitual exercise of any part\nof a living organism, in consequence of the necessities engendered by\nits environment, develops such part, and gives it a form which it would\nnever have attained if the exercise had not become an habitual action.\nAll known animals furnish us with examples of this.[311] If anyone\nmaintains that the especially powerful development of any organ has had\nnothing to do with its habitual use--that use has added nothing, and\ndisuse detracted nothing from its efficiency, but that the organ has\nalways been as we now see it from the creation of the particular species\nonwards--I would ask why cannot our domesticated ducks fly like wild\nducks? I would also quote a multitude of examples of the effects of use\nand disuse upon our own organs, effects which, if the use and disuse\nwere constant for many generations, would become much more marked.\n\n\"A great number of facts show, as will be more fully insisted on, that\nwhen its will prompts an animal to this or that action, the organs which\nare to execute it receive an excess of nervous fluid, and this is the\ndeterminant cause of the movements necessary for the required action.\nModifications acquired in this way eventually become permanent in the\nbreed that has acquired them, and are transmitted to offspring, without\nthe offspring's having itself gone through the processes of acquisition\nwhich were necessary in the case of the ancestor.[312] Frequent crosses,\nhowever, with unmodified individuals, destroy the effect produced. It is\nonly owing to the isolation of the races of man through geographical and\nother causes, that man himself presents so many varieties, each with a\ndistinctive character.\n\n\"A review of all existing classes, orders, genera, and species would\nshow that their structure, organs, and faculties, are in all cases\nsolely attributable to the surroundings to which each creature has been\nsubjected by nature, and to the habits which individuals have been\ncompelled to contract; and that they are not at all the result of a form\noriginally bestowed, which has imposed certain habits upon the\ncreature.[313]\n\n\"It is unnecessary to multiply instances; the fact is simply this, that\nall animals have certain habits, and that their organization is always\nin perfect harmony with these habits.[314] The conclusion hitherto\naccepted is that the Author of Nature, when he created animals, foresaw\nall the possible circumstances in which they would be placed, and gave\nan unchanging organism to each creature, in accordance with its future\ndestiny. The conclusion, on the other hand, here maintained is that\nnature has evolved all existing forms of life successively, beginning\nwith the simplest organisms and gradually proceeding to those which are\nmore complete. Forms of life have spread themselves throughout all the\nhabitable parts of the earth, and each species has received its habits\nand corresponding modification of organs, from the influence of the\nsurroundings in which it found itself placed.[315]\n\n\"The first conclusion supposes an unvarying organism and unvarying\nconditions. The second, which is my theory (_la mienne propre_),\nsupposes that each animal is capable of modifications which in the\ncourse of generations amount to a wide divergence of type.\n\n\"If a single animal can be shown to have varied considerably under\ndomestication, the first conclusion is proved to be inadmissible, and\nthe second to be in conformity with the laws of nature.\"\n\nThis is a milder version of Buffon's conclusion (see _ante_, pp. 90,\n91). It is a little grating to read the words \"la mienne propre,\"\nand to recall no mention of Buffon in the 'Philosophie Zoologique.'\n\n\"Animal forms then are the result of conditions of life and of the\nhabits engendered thereby. With new forms new faculties are developed,\nand thus nature has little by little evolved the existing\ndifferentiations of animal and vegetable life.\"[316]\n\nLamarck makes no exception in man's favour to the rule of descent with\nmodification. He supposes that a race of quadrumanous apes gradually\nacquired the upright position in walking, with a corresponding\nmodification of the feet and facial angle. Such a race having become\nmaster of all the other animals, spread itself over all parts of the\nworld that suited it. It hunted out the other higher races which were in\na condition to dispute with it for enjoyment of the world's\nproductions, and drove them to take refuge in such places as it did not\ndesire to occupy. It checked the increase of the races nearest itself,\nand kept them exiled in woods and desert places, so that their further\ndevelopment was arrested, while itself, able to spread in all\ndirections, to multiply without opposition, and to lead a social life,\nit developed new requirements one after another, which urged it to\nindustrial pursuits, and gradually perfected its capabilities.\nEventually this pre-eminent race, having acquired absolute supremacy,\ncame to be widely different from even the most perfect of the lower\nanimals.\n\n\"Certain apes approach man more nearly than any other animal approaches\nhim; nevertheless, they are far inferior to him, both in bodily and\nmental capacity. Some of them frequently stand upright, but as they do\nnot habitually maintain this attitude, their organization has not been\nsufficiently modified to prevent it from being irksome to them to stand\nfor long together. They fall on all fours immediately at the approach of\ndanger. This reveals their true origin.[317]\n\n\"But is the upright position altogether natural, even to man? He uses it\nin moving from place to place, but still standing is a fatiguing\nposition, and one which can only be maintained for a limited time, and\nby the aid of muscular contraction. The vertebrate column does not pass\nthrough the axis of the head so as to maintain it in like equilibrium\nwith other limbs. The head, chest, stomach, and intestines weigh almost\nentirely on the anterior part of the vertebrate column, and this column\nitself is placed obliquely, so that, as M. Richerand has observed,\ncontinual watchfulness and muscular exertion are necessary to avoid the\nfalls towards which the weight and disposition of our parts are\ncontinually inclining us. 'Children,' he remarks, 'have a constant\ntendency to assume the position of quadrupeds.'\"[318]\n\n\"Surely these facts should reveal man's origin as analogous to that of\nthe other mammals, if his organization only be looked to. But the\nfollowing consideration must be added. New wants, developed in societies\nwhich had become numerous, must have correspondingly multiplied the\nideas of this dominant race, whose individuals must have therefore\ngradually felt the need of fuller communication with each other. Hence\nthe necessity for increasing and varying the number of the signs\nsuitable for mutual understanding. It is plain therefore that incessant\nefforts would be made in this direction.[319]\n\n\"The lower animals, though often social, have been kept in too great\nsubjection for any such development of power. They continue, therefore,\nstationary as regards their wants and ideas, very few of which need be\ncommunicated from one individual to another. A few movements of the\nbody, a few simple cries and whistles, or inflexions of voice, would\nsuffice for their purpose. With the dominant race, on the other hand,\nthe continued multiplication of ideas which it was desirable to\ncommunicate rapidly, would exhaust the power of pantomimic gesture and\nof all possible inflexions of the voice--therefore by a succession of\nefforts this race arrived at the utterance of articulate sounds. A few\nonly would be at first made use of, and these would be supplemented by\ninflexions of the voice: presently they would increase in number,\nvariety, and appropriateness, with the increase of needs and of the\nefforts made to speak. Habitual exercise would increase the power of the\nlips and tongue to articulate distinctly.\n\n\"The diversity of language is due to geographical distribution, with\nconsequent greater or less isolation of certain races, and corruption of\nthe signs originally agreed upon for each idea. Man's own wants,\ntherefore, will have achieved the whole result. They will have given\nrise to endeavour, and habitual use will have developed the organs of\narticulation.\"[320]\n\nHow, let me ask again, is \"the case of neuter insects\" \"demonstrative\"\nagainst the \"well-known\" theory put forward in the foregoing chapter?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[208] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i., edited by M. Martins, 1873, pp. 25, 26.\n\n[209] 'Phil. Zool.' tom. i. pp. 26, 27.\n\n[210] Page 28.\n\n[211] Pages 28-31.\n\n[212] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 34, 35.\n\n[213] Page 42.\n\n[214] Page 46.\n\n[215] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 50.\n\n[216] Pages 50, 51.\n\n[217] 'Origin of Species,' p. 395, ed. 1876.\n\n[218] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 61.\n\n[219] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 62.\n\n[220] Page 63.\n\n[221] Page 64.\n\n[222] Page 65.\n\n[223] Page 67.\n\n[224] Chap. iii.\n\n[225] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 72.\n\n[226] Pages 71-73.\n\n[227] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 74, 75.\n\n[228] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 75-77.\n\n[229] 'Origin of Species,' p. 104, ed. 1876.\n\n[230] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 79.\n\n[231] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 79, 80.\n\n[232] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 80.\n\n[233] Page 80.\n\n[234] Ed. 1876.\n\n[235] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 81.\n\n[236] 'Origin of Species,' p. 241.\n\n[237] 'Phil. Zool.,' p. 82.\n\n[238] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 83.\n\n[239] Pages 349-351.\n\n[240] Page 84.\n\n[241] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 88.\n\n[242] Page 90.\n\n[243] 'Origin of Species,' p. 3.\n\n[244] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 94.\n\n[245] Pages 95-96.\n\n[246] Page 97.\n\n[247] Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 98.\n\n[248] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 111.\n\n[249] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 112.\n\n[250] See pp. 227 and 259 of this book.\n\n[251] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 113.\n\n[252] Page 113.\n\n[253] 'Phil Zool.,' tom. i. p. 113.\n\n[254] This passage is rather obscure. I give it therefore in the\noriginal:--\n\n\"Ainsi les naturalistes ayant remarque que beaucoup d'especes, certains\ngenres, et meme quelques familles paraissent dans une sorte d'isolement,\nquant a leurs caracteres, plusieurs se sont imagines que les etres\nvivants, dans l'un ou l'autre regne, s'avoisinaient, ou s'eloignaient\nentre eux, relativement a leurs _rapports naturels_, dans une\ndisposition semblable aux differents points d'une carte de geographie ou\nd'une mappemonde. Ils regardent les petites series bien prononcees qu'on\na nommees familles naturelles, comme devant etre disposees entre elles\nde maniere a former une reticulation. Cette idee qui a paru sublime a\nquelques modernes, est evidemment une erreur, et, sans doute, elle se\ndissipera des qu'on aura des connaissances plus profondes et plus\ngenerales de l'organisation, et surtout lorsqu'on distinguera ce qui\nappartient a l'influence des lieux d'habitation et des habitudes\ncontractees, de ce qui resulte des progres plus ou moins avances dans la\ncomposition ou le perfectionnement de l'organisation.\"--(p. 120).\n\n[255] 'Origin of Species,' pp. 265, 266.\n\n[256] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 121.\n\n[257] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 122.\n\n[258] 'Origin of Species,' pp. 122, 123.\n\n[259] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 123.\n\n[260] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 123.\n\n[261] 'Origin of Species,' chap. xiv.\n\n[262] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 123.\n\n[263] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 140.\n\n[264] Page 142.\n\n[265] Page 143.\n\n[266] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 143.\n\n[267] Page 144.\n\n[268] Ibid.\n\n[269] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 145.\n\n[270] Page 146.\n\n[271] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 221.\n\n[272] Page 222.\n\n[273] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 223.\n\n[274] Page 224.\n\n[275] Page 223.\n\n[276] Page 225.\n\n[277] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 225.\n\n[278] Page 226.\n\n[279] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 228.\n\n[280] See Buffon, 'Hist. Nat.,' tom. v. pp. 196, 197, and Supp. tom. v.\npp. 250-253.\n\n[281] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 229.\n\n[282] 'Hist. Nat.,' tom. xi. p. 290.\n\n[283] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 231.\n\n[284] Page 231. See Dr. Darwin's note on _Trapa natans_, 'Botanic\nGarden,' part ii. canto 4, l. 204.\n\n[285] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 232.\n\n[286] Page 233. See Buffon on Climate, tom. ix., 'The Animals of the Old\nand New Worlds.'\n\n[287] 'Origin of Species,' p. 233, ed. 1876.\n\n[288] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p 234.\n\n[289] Page 235.\n\n[290] Page 236.\n\n[291] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 237.\n\n[292] Page 238.\n\n[293] See _ante_, pp. 220-228.\n\n[294] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 239.\n\n[295] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p 240.\n\n[296] Page 241.\n\n[297] Page 245.\n\n[298] 'Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. i. p. 467, &c.\n\n[299] See frontispiece to Professor Mivart's 'Genesis of Species.'\n\n[300] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 247.\n\n[301] Page 248.\n\n[302] 'Nat. Theol.,' vol. xii., end of Sec. viii.\n\n[303] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 249.\n\n[304] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 250.\n\n[305] Page 250.\n\n[306] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 251.\n\n[307] Page 252.\n\n[308] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 253.\n\n[309] Page 254.\n\n[310] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 256.\n\n[311] Page 257.\n\n[312] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 259.\n\n[313] Page 260.\n\n[314] Page 263.\n\n[315] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 263.\n\n[316] Page 265.\n\n[317] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 343.\n\n[318] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 343.\n\n[319] Page 346.\n\n[320] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 347.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nMR. PATRICK MATTHEW, MM. ETIENNE AND ISIDORE GEOFFROY ST. HILAIRE, AND\nMR. HERBERT SPENCER.\n\n\nThe same complaint must be made against Mr. Matthew's excellent survey\nof the theory of evolution, as against Dr. Erasmus Darwin's original\nexposition of the same theory, namely, that it is too short. It may be\nvery true that brevity is the soul of wit, but the leaders of science\nwill generally succeed in burking new-born wit, unless the brevity of\nits soul is found compatible with a body of some bulk.\n\nMr. Darwin writes thus concerning Mr. Matthew in the historical sketch\nto which I have already more than once referred.\n\n\"In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and\nArboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin\nof species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr.\nWallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged in the\npresent volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very\nbriefly, in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on a different\nsubject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew\nattention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle' for April 7, 1860. The\ndifferences of Mr. Matthew's view from mine are not of much importance;\nhe seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive\nperiods, and then re-stocked, and he gives as an alternative, that new\nforms may be generated 'without the presence of any mould or germ of\nformer aggregates.' I am not sure that I understand some passages; but\nit seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the\nconditions of life. He clearly saw, however, the full force of the\nprinciple of natural selection.\"[321]\n\nNothing could well be more misleading. If Mr. Matthew's view of the\norigin of species is \"precisely the same as that\" propounded by Mr.\nDarwin, it is hard to see how Mr. Darwin can call those of Lamarck and\nDr. Erasmus Darwin \"erroneous\"; for Mr. Matthew's is nothing but an\nexcellent and well-digested summary of the conclusions arrived at by\nthese two writers and by Buffon. If, again, Mr. Darwin is correct in\nsaying that Mr. Matthew \"clearly saw the full force of the principle of\nnatural selection,\" he condemns the view he has himself taken of it in\nhis 'Origin of Species,' for Mr. Darwin has assigned a far more\nimportant and very different effect to the fact that the fittest\ncommonly survive in the struggle for existence, than Mr. Matthew has\ndone. Mr. Matthew sees a cause underlying all variations; he takes the\nmost teleological or purposive view of organism that has been taken by\nany writer (not a theologian) except myself, while Mr. Darwin's view, if\nnot the least teleological, is certainly nearly so, and his confession\nof inability to detect any general cause underlying variations, leaves,\nas will appear presently, less than common room for ambiguity. Here are\nMr. Matthew's own words:--\n\n\"There is a law universal in nature, tending to render every\nreproductive being the best possibly suited to the condition that its\nkind, or that organized matter is susceptible of, and which appears\nintended to model the physical and mental or instinctive, powers to\ntheir highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the\nlion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his\nwiles. As nature in all her modifications of life has a power of\nincrease far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by\nTime's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength,\nswiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without\nreproducing--either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under\ndisease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being\noccupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the\nmeans of existence.\n\n\"Throughout this volume, we have felt considerable inconvenience from\nthe adopted dogmatical classification of plants, and have all along been\nfloundering between species and variety, which certainly under culture\nsoften into each other. A particular conformity, each after its own\nkind, when in a state of nature, termed species, no doubt exists to a\nconsiderable degree. This conformity has existed during the last forty\ncenturies; geologists discover a like particular conformity--fossil\nspecies--through the deep deposition of each great epoch; but they also\ndiscover an almost complete difference to exist between the species or\nstamp of life of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore\nled to admit either a repeated miraculous conception, or _a power of\nchange under change of circumstances_ to belong to living organized\nmatter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life which appears to\nform superior.\" (By this I suppose Mr. Matthew to imply his assent to\nthe theory, that our personality or individuality is but as it were \"the\nconsensus, or full flowing river of a vast number of subordinate\nindividualities or personalities, each one of which is a living being\nwith thoughts and wishes of its own.\") \"The derangements and changes in\norganized existence, induced by a change of circumstances from the\ninterference of man, afford us proof of the plastic quality of superior\nlife; and the likelihood that circumstances have been very different in\nthe different epochs, though steady in each, tend strongly to heighten\nthe probability of the latter theory.\n\n\"When we view the immense calcareous and bituminous formations,\nprincipally from the waters and atmosphere, and consider the oxidations\nand depositions which have taken place, either gradually or during some\nof the great convulsions, it appears at least probable that the liquid\nelements containing life have varied considerably at different times in\ncomposition and weight; that our atmosphere has contained a much greater\nproportion of carbonic acid or oxygen; and our waters, aided by excess\nof carbonic acid, and greater heat resulting from greater density of\natmosphere, have contained a greater quantity of lime, and other mineral\nsolutions. Is the inference, then, unphilosophic that living things\nwhich are proved to have _a circumstance-suiting power_ (a very slight\nchange of circumstance by culture inducing a corresponding change of\ncharacter), may have gradually accommodated themselves to the variations\nof the elements containing them, and without new creation, have\npresented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present\norganized existence?\n\n\"The destructive liquid currents before which the hardest mountains have\nbeen swept and comminuted into gravel, sand, and mud, which intervened\nbetween and divided these epochs, probably extending over the whole\nsurface of the globe and destroying nearly all living things, must have\nreduced existence so much that an unoccupied field would be formed for\nnew diverging ramifications of life, which from the connected sexual\nsystem of vegetables, and the natural instinct of animals to herd and\ncombine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups--these\nremnants in the course of time moulding and accommodating their being\nanew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of\nsubsistence--and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have\nfollowed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was\ncompleted, affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"In endeavouring to trace ... the principle of these changes of fashion\nwhich have taken place in the domiciles of life the following questions\noccur: Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing\nintermediate species? Are they the diverging ramifications of the\nliving principle under modification of circumstance? or have they\nresulted from the combined agency of both?\n\n\"_Is there only one living principle? Does organized existence, and\nperhaps all material existence, consist of one Proteus principle of\nlife_ capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and\naggregations without bound, under the solvent or motion-giving principle\nof heat or light? There is more beauty and unity of design in this\ncontinual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to\nthose dispositions of nature that are manifest to us, than in total\ndestruction and new creation. It is improbable that much of this\ndiversification is owing to commixture of species nearly allied; all\nchange by this appears very limited and confined within the bounds of\nwhat is called species; the progeny of the same parents under great\ndifference of circumstance, might in several generations even become\ndistinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.\n\n\"The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organized life may, in\npart, be traced to the extreme fecundity of nature, who, as before\nstated, has in all the varieties of her offspring a prolific power much\nbeyond (in many cases a thousand fold) what is necessary to fill up the\nvacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited\nand preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to\ncircumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity,\nthese inhabiting only the situations to which they have _superior\nadaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the\nweaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed_. This\nprinciple is in constant action; it regulates the colour, the figure,\nthe capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose\ncolour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from\nenemies, or defence from inclemencies and vicissitudes of climate, whose\nfigure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support;\nwhose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies\nto self-advantage according to circumstances--in such immense waste of\nprimary and youthful life those only come forward to maturity from the\nstrict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of\nperfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.\n\n\"From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the\ntendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of\nthe parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables and\ninstinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable\nuniformity of figure, colour, and character is induced constituting\nspecies; the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation\nof these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when\nalteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit\nthese, as far as its nature is susceptible of change.\n\n\"This circumstance-adaptive law operating upon the slight but continued\nnatural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety) _does not\npreclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have had\nover the configuration of the body_. To examine into the disposition to\nsport in the progeny, even when there is only one parent as in many\nvegetables, and to investigate how much variation is modified by the\nmind or nervous sensation of the parents, or of the living thing itself\nduring its progress to maturity; how far it depends upon external\ncircumstance, and how far on the will, irritability, and muscular\nexertion, is open to examination and experiment. In the first place, we\nought to examine its dependency upon the preceding links of the\nparticular chain of life, variety being often merely types or\napproximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family\nas well as of the individual must be embraced by our experiments.\n\n\"This continuation of family type, not broken by casual particular\naberration, is mental as well as corporeal, and is exemplified in many\nof the dispositions or instincts of particular races of men. _These\ninnate or continuous ideas or habits seem proportionally greater in the\ninsect tribes, and in those especially of shorter revolution; and\nforming an abiding memory, may resolve much of the enigma of instinct,\nand the foreknowledge which these tribes have of what is necessary to\ncompleting their round of life, reducing this to knowledge or\nimpressions and habits acquired by a long experience._\n\n\"This greater continuity of existence, or rather continuity of\nperceptions and impressions in insects, is highly probable; _it is even\ndifficult in some to ascertain the particular steps when each individual\ncommences_, under the different phases of egg, larva, pupa, or if much\nconsciousness of individuality exists. The continuation of reproduction\nfor several generations by the females alone in some of these tribes,\n_tends to the probability of the greater continuity of existence; and\nthe subdivisions of life by cuttings (even in animal life), at any rate,\nmust stagger the advocate of individuality_.\n\n\"Among the millions of specific varieties of living things which occupy\nthe humid portions of the surface of our planet, as far back as can be\ntraced, there does not appear, with the exception of man, to have been\nany particular engrossing race, but a pretty fair balance of power of\noccupancy--or rather most wonderful variation of circumstance parallel\nto the nature of every species, _as if circumstance and species had\ngrown up together_. There are, indeed, several races which have\nthreatened ascendancy in some particular regions; but it is man alone\nfrom whom any general imminent danger to the existence of his brethren\nis to be dreaded.\n\n\"As far back as history reaches, man had already had considerable\ninfluence, and had made encroachments upon his fellow denizens, probably\noccasioning the destruction of many species, and the production and\ncontinuation of a number of varieties, and even species, which he found\nmore suited to supply his wants, but which from the infirmity of their\ncondition--_not having undergone selection by the law of nature_, of\nwhich we have spoken--cannot maintain their ground without culture and\nprotection.\n\n\"It is only however in the present age that man has begun to reap the\nfruits of his tedious education, and has proven how much 'knowledge is\npower.' He has now acquired a dominion over the material world, and a\nconsequent power of increase, so as to render it probable that the whole\nsurface of the earth may soon be overrun by this engrossing anomaly, to\nthe annihilation of every wonderful and beautiful variety of animal\nexistence which does not administer to his wants, principally as\nlaboratories of preparation to befit cruder elemental matter for\nassimilation by his organs.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The consequences are being now developed of our deplorable ignorance\nof, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural\nhistory--that vegetables, as well as animals, are generally liable to an\nalmost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate, soil,\nnourishment, and new commixture of already-formed varieties. In those\nwith which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them\nfrom their natural locality and disposition has brought out this power\nof diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his\nnotice, as in man himself, in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry,--in\nthe apple, pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite\nvarieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of\ntexture, period of growth, almost in every recognizable quality. In all\nthese kinds man is influential in preventing deterioration, by careful\nselection of the largest or most valuable as breeders.\"[322]\n\n\n_Etienne and Isidore Geoffroy._\n\n\"Both Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy,\" says Isidore Geoffroy, \"had early\nperceived the philosophical importance of a question (evolution) which\nmust be admitted as--with that of unity of composition--the greatest in\nnatural history. We find them laying it down in the year 1795 in one of\ntheir joint 'Memoirs' (on the Orangs), in the very plainest terms, in\nthe following question, 'Must we see,' they inquire, 'what we commonly\ncall species, as the modified descendants of the same original form?'\n\n\"Both were at that time doubtful. Some years afterwards Cuvier not only\nanswered this question in the negative, but declared, and pretended to\nprove, that the same forms have been perpetuated from the beginning of\nthings. Lamarck, his antagonist _par excellence_ on this point,\nmaintained the contrary position with no less distinctness, showing that\nliving beings are unceasingly variable with change of their\nsurroundings, and giving with some boldness a zoological genesis in\nconformity with this doctrine.\n\n\"Geoffroy St. Hilaire had long pondered over this difficult subject. The\ndoctrine which in his old age he so firmly defended, does not seem to\nhave been conceived by him till after he had completed his 'Philosophie\nAnatomique,' and except through lectures delivered orally to the museum\nand the faculty, it was not published till 1828; nor again in the work\nthen published do we find his theory in its neatest expression and\nfullest development.\"\n\nIsidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire tells us in a note that the work referred\nto as first putting his father's views before the public in a printed\nform, was a report to the Academy of Sciences on a memoir by M. Roulin;\nbut that before this report some indications of them are to be found in\na paper on the Gavials, published in 1825. Their best rendering,\nhowever, and fullest development is in several memoirs, published in\nsuccession, between the years 1828 and 1837.\n\n\"This doctrine,\" he continues, \"is diametrically opposed to that of\nCuvier, and is not entirely the same as Lamarck's. Geoffroy St. Hilaire\nrefutes the one, he restrains and corrects the other. Cuvier, according\nto him, sums up against the facts, while Lamarck goes further than they\nwill bear him out. Essentially however on questions of this nature he is\na follower of Lamarck, and took pleasure on several occasions in\ndescribing himself as the disciple of his illustrious _confrere_.\"[323]\n\nI have been unable to detect any substantial difference of opinion\nbetween Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Lamarck, except that the first\nmaintained that a line must be drawn somewhere--and did not draw\nit--while the latter said that no line could be drawn, and therefore\ndrew none. Mr. Darwin is quite correct in saying that Geoffroy St.\nHilaire \"relied chiefly on the conditions of life, or the 'monde\nambiant,' as the cause of change.\" But this is only Lamarck over again,\nfor though Lamarck attributes variation directly to change of habits in\nthe creature, he is almost wearisome in his insistence on the fact that\nthe habit will not change, unless the conditions of life also do so.\nWith both writers then it is change in the relative positions of the\nexterior circumstances, and of the organism, which results in variation,\nand finally in specific modification.\n\nHere is another sketch of Etienne Geoffroy, also by his son Isidore.\n\nIn 1795, while Lamarck was still a believer in immutability, Etienne\nGeoffroy St. Hilaire \"had ventured to say that species might well be\n'degenerations from a single type,'\" but, though he never lost sight of\nthe question, he waited more than a quarter of a century before passing\nfrom meditation to action. \"He at length put forward his opinion in\n1825, he returned to it, but still briefly, in 1828 and 1829, and did\nnot set himself to develop and establish it till the year 1831--the year\nfollowing the memorable discussion in the Academy, on the unity of\norganic composition.\"[324]\n\n\"If,\" says his son, \"he began by paying homage to his illustrious\nprecursor, and by laying it down as a general axiom, that there is no\nsuch thing as fixity in nature, and especially in animated nature, he\nfollows this adhesion to the general doctrine of variability by a\ndissent which goes to the very heart of the matter. And this dissent\nbecomes deeper and deeper in his later works. Not only is Geoffroy St.\nHilaire at pains to deny the unlimited extension of variability which\nis the foundation of the Lamarckian system, but he moreover and\nparticularly declines to explain those degenerations which he admits as\npossible, by changes of action and habit on the part of the creature\nvarying--Lamarck's favourite hypothesis, which he laboured to\ndemonstrate without even succeeding in making it appear probable.\"[325]\n\nIsidore Geoffroy then declares that his father, \"though chronologically\na follower of Lamarck, should be ranked philosophically as having\ncontinued the work of Buffon, to whom all his differences of opinion\nwith Lamarck serve to bring him nearer.\"[326] If he had understood\nBuffon he would not have said so.\n\nHis conclusions are thus summed up:--\"Geoffroy St. Hilaire maintains\nthat species are variable if the environment varies in character;\ndifferences, then, more or less considerable according to the power of\nthe modifying causes _may have_ been produced in the course of time, and\nthe living forms of to-day _may be_ the descendants of more ancient\nforms.\"[327]\n\nIt is not easy to see that much weight should be attached to Geoffroy\nSt. Hilaire's opinion. He seems to have been a person of hesitating\ntemperament, under an impression that there was an opening just then\nthrough which a judicious trimmer might pass himself in among men of\ngreater power. If his son has described his teaching correctly, it\namounts practically to a _bona fide_ endorsement of what Buffon can only\nbe considered to have pretended to believe. The same objection that must\nbe fatal to the view pretended by Buffon, is so in like manner to those\nput forward seriously of both the Geoffroys--for Isidore Geoffroy\nfollowed his father, but leant a little more openly towards Lamarck. He\nwrites:--\n\n\"The characters of species are neither absolutely fixed, as has been\nmaintained by some; nor yet, still more, indefinitely variable as\naccording to others. They are fixed for each species as long as that\nspecies continues to reproduce itself in an unchanged environment; but\nthey become modified if the environment changes.\"[328]\n\nThis is all that Lamarck himself would expect, as no one could be more\nfully aware than M. Geoffroy, who, however, admits that degeneration may\nextend to generic differences.[329]\n\nI have been unable to find in M. Isidore Geoffroy's work anything like a\nrefutation of Lamarck's contention that the modifications in animals and\nplants are due to the needs and wishes of the animals and plants\nthemselves; on the contrary, to some extent he countenances this view\nhimself, for he says, \"hence arise notable differences of habitation and\nclimate, and these in their turn induce secondary differences in diet\n_and even in habits_.\"[330] From which it must follow, though I cannot\nfind it said expressly, that the author attributes modification in some\nmeasure to changed habits, and therefore to the changed desires from\nwhich the change of habits has arisen; but in the main he appears to\nrefer modification to the direct action of a changed environment.\n\n\n_Mr. Herbert Spencer._\n\n\"Those who cavalierly reject the theory of Lamarck and his followers as\nnot adequately supported by facts,\" wrote Mr. Herbert Spencer,[331]\n\"seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at\nall\"--inasmuch as no one pretends to have seen an act of direct\ncreation. Mr. Spencer points out that, according to the best\nauthorities, there are some 320,000 species of plants now existing, and\nabout 2,000,000 species of animals, including insects, and that if the\nextinct forms which have successively appeared and disappeared be added\nto these, there cannot have existed in all less than some ten million\nspecies. \"Which,\" asks Mr. Spencer, \"is the most rational theory about\nthese ten millions of species? Is it most likely that there have been\nten millions of special creations? or, is it most likely that by\ncontinual modification _due to change of circumstances_, ten millions of\nvarieties may have been produced as varieties are being produced still?\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Even could the supporters of the development hypothesis merely show\nthat the production of species by the process of modification is\nconceivable, they would be in a better position than their opponents.\nBut they can do much more than this; they can show that the process of\nmodification has effected and is effecting great changes in all\norganisms, subject to modifying influences ... they can show that any\nexisting species--animal or vegetable--when placed under conditions\ndifferent from its previous ones, _immediately begins to undergo certain\nchanges of structure_ fitting it for the new conditions. They can show\nthat in successive generations these changes continue until ultimately\nthe new conditions become the natural ones. They can show that in\ncultivated plants and domesticated animals, and in the several races of\nmen, these changes have uniformly taken place. They can show that the\ndegrees of difference, so produced, are often, as in dogs, greater than\nthose on which distinctions of species are in other cases founded. They\ncan show that it is a matter of dispute whether some of these modified\nforms _are_ varieties or modified species. They can show too that the\nchanges daily taking place in ourselves; the facility that attends long\npractice, and the loss of aptitude that begins when practice ceases; the\nstrengthening of passions habitually gratified, and the weakening of\nthose habitually curbed; the development of every faculty, bodily, moral\nor intellectual, according to the use made of it, are all explicable on\nthis same principle. And thus they can show that throughout all organic\nnature there _is_ at work a modifying influence of the kind they assign\nas the cause of these specific differences, an influence which, though\nslow in its action, does in time, if the circumstances demand it,\nproduce marked changes; an influence which, to all appearance, would\nproduce in the millions of years, and under the great varieties of\ncondition which geological records imply, any amount of change.\"\n\nThis leaves nothing to be desired. It is Buffon, Dr. Darwin, and\nLamarck, well expressed. Those were the days before \"Natural Selection\"\nhad been discharged into the waters of the evolution controversy, like\nthe secretion of a cuttle fish. Changed circumstances immediately induce\nchanged habits, and hence a changed use of some organs, and disuse of\nothers: as a consequence of this, organs and instincts become changed,\n\"and these changes continue in successive generations, until ultimately\nthe new conditions become the natural ones.\" This is the whole theory of\n\"development,\" \"evolution,\" or \"descent with modification.\" Volumes may\nbe written to adduce the details which warrant us in accepting it, and\nto explain the causes which have brought it about, but I fail to see how\nanything essential can be added to the theory itself, which is here so\nwell supported by Mr. Spencer, and which is exactly as Lamarck left it.\nAll that remains is to have a clear conception of the oneness of\npersonality between parents and offspring, of the eternity, and latency,\nof memory, and of the unconsciousness with which habitual actions are\nrepeated, which last point, indeed, Mr. Spencer has himself touched\nupon.\n\nMr. Spencer continues--\"That by any series of changes a zoophyte should\never become a mammal, seems to those who are not familiar with zoology,\nand who have not seen how clear becomes the relationship between the\nsimplest and the most complex forms, when all intermediate forms are\nexamined, a very grotesque notion ... they never realize the fact that\nby small increments of modification, any amount of modification may in\ntime be generated. That surprise which they feel on finding one whom\nthey last saw as a boy, grown into a man, becomes incredulity when the\ndegree of change is greater. Nevertheless, abundant instances are at\nhand of the mode in which we may pass to the most diverse forms by\ninsensible gradations.\"\n\nNothing can be more satisfactory and straightforward. I will make one\nmore quotation from this excellent article:--\n\n\"But the blindness of those who think it absurd to suppose that complex\norganic forms may have arisen by successive modifications out of simple\nones, becomes astonishing when we remember that complex organic forms\nare daily being thus produced. A tree differs from a seed immeasurably\nin every respect--in bulk, in structure, in colour, in form, in specific\ngravity, in chemical composition--differs so greatly that no visible\nresemblance of any kind can be pointed out between them. Yet is the one\nchanged in the course of a few years into the other--changed so\ngradually that at no moment can it be said, 'Now the seed ceases to be,\nand the tree exists.' What can be more widely contrasted than a\nnewly-born child, and the small, semi-transparent gelatinous spherule\nconstituting the human ovum? The infant is so complex in structure that\na cyclopaedia is needed to describe its constituent parts. The germinal\nvesicle is so simple, that a line will contain all that can be said of\nit. Nevertheless, a few months suffices to develop the one out of the\nother, and that too by a series of modifications so small, that were\nthe embryo examined at successive minutes, not even a microscope would\ndisclose any sensible changes. That the uneducated and ill-educated\nshould think the hypothesis that all races of beings, man inclusive, may\nin process of time have been evolved from the simplest monad a ludicrous\none is not to be wondered at. But for the physiologist, who knows that\nevery individual being _is_ so evolved--who knows further that in their\nearliest condition the germs of all plants and animals whatsoever are so\nsimilar, 'that there is no appreciable distinction among them which\nwould enable it to be determined whether a particular molecule is the\ngerm of a conferva or of an oak, of a zoophyte or of a man'[332]--for\nhim to make a difficulty of the matter is inexcusable. Surely, if a\nsingle structureless cell may, when subjected to certain influences,\nbecome a man in the space of twenty years, there is nothing absurd in\nthe hypothesis that under certain other influences a cell may, in the\ncourse of millions of years, give origin to the human race. The two\nprocesses are generically the same, and differ only in length and\ncomplexity.\"\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nThe very important extract from Professor Hering's lecture should\nperhaps have been placed here. The reader will, however, find it on page\n199.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[321] 'Origin of Species,' Hist. Sketch, p. xvi.\n\n[322] See 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' by Patrick Matthew,\npublished by Adam and C. Black, Edinburgh, and Longmans and Co., London,\n1831, pp. 364, 365, 381-388, and also 106-108, 'Gardeners' Chronicle,'\nApril 7, 1860.\n\n[323] 'Vie et Doctrine Scientifique de Geoffroy Etienne St. Hilaire,'\nParis, Strasbourg, 1847, pp. 344-346.\n\n[324] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. 413.\n\n[325] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' tom. ii. p. 415.\n\n[326] Ibid.\n\n[327] Ibid. p. 421.\n\n[328] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' vol. ii. p. 431, 1859.\n\n[329] 'Origin of Species,' Hist. Sketch, p. xix.\n\n[330] 'Hist. Nat. Gen.,' vol. ii. p. 432.\n\n[331] See 'The Leader,' March 20, 1852, \"The Haythorne Papers.\"\n\n[332] Carpenter's 'Principles of Physiology', 3rd ed., p. 867.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nMAIN POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW\nTHEORIES OF EVOLUTION.\n\n\nHaving put before the reader with some fulness the theories of the three\nwriters to whom we owe the older or teleological view of evolution, I\nwill now compare that view more closely with the theory of Mr. Darwin\nand Mr. Wallace, to whom, in spite of my profound difference of opinion\nwith them on the subject of natural selection, I admit with pleasure\nthat I am under deep obligation. For the sake of brevity, I shall take\nLamarck as the exponent of the older view, and Mr. Darwin as that of the\none now generally accepted.\n\nWe have seen, that up to a certain point there is very little difference\nbetween Lamarck and Mr. Darwin. Lamarck maintains that animals and\nplants vary: so does Mr. Darwin. Lamarck maintains that variations\nhaving once arisen have a tendency to be transmitted to offspring and\naccumulated: so does Mr. Darwin. Lamarck maintains that the accumulation\nof variations, so small, each one of them, that it cannot be, or is not\nnoticed, nevertheless will lead in the course of that almost infinite\ntime during which life has existed upon earth, to very wide differences\nin form, structure, and instincts: so does Mr. Darwin. Finally, Lamarck\ndeclares that all, or nearly all, the differences which we observe\nbetween various kinds of animals and plants are due to this exceedingly\ngradual and imperceptible accumulation, during many successive\ngenerations, of variations each one of which was in the outset small: so\ndoes Mr. Darwin. But in the above we have a complete statement of the\nfact of evolution, or descent with modification--wanting nothing, but\nentire, and incapable of being added to except in detail, and by way of\nexplanation of the causes which have brought the fact about. As regards\nthe general conclusion arrived at, therefore, I am unable to detect any\ndifference of opinion between Lamarck and Mr. Darwin. They are both bent\non establishing the theory of evolution in its widest extent.\n\nThe late Sir Charles Lyell, in his 'Principles of Geology,' bears me out\nhere. In a note to his _resume_ of the part of the 'Philosophie\nZoologique' which bears upon evolution, he writes:--\n\n\"I have reprinted in this chapter word for word my abstract of Lamarck's\ndoctrine of transmutation, as drawn up by me in 1832 in the first\nedition of the 'Principles of Geology.'[333] I have thought it right to\ndo this in justice to Lamarck, in order to show how nearly the opinions\ntaught by him at the commencement of this century resembled those now in\nvogue amongst a large body of naturalists respecting the infinite\nvariability of species, and the progressive development in past time of\nthe organic world. The reader must bear in mind that when I made this\nanalysis of the 'Philosophie Zoologique' in 1832, I was altogether\nopposed to the doctrine that the animals and plants now living were the\nlineal descendants of distinct species, only known to us in a fossil\nstate, and ... so far from exaggerating, I did not do justice to the\narguments originally adduced by Lamarck and Geoffroy St. Hilaire,\nespecially those founded on the occurrence of rudimentary organs. There\nis therefore no room for suspicion that my account of the Lamarckian\nhypothesis, written by me thirty-five years ago, derived any colouring\nfrom my own views tending to bring it more into harmony with the theory\nsince propounded by Darwin.\"[334] So little difference did Sir Charles\nLyell discover between the views of Lamarck and those of his successors.\n\nWith the identity, however, of the main proposition which, both Lamarck\nand Mr. Darwin alike endeavour to establish, the points of agreement\nbetween the two writers come to an end. Lamarck's great aim was to\ndiscover the cause of those variations whose accumulation results in\nspecific, and finally in generic, differences. Not content with\nestablishing the fact of descent with modification, he, like his\npredecessors, wishes to explain how it was that the fact came about. He\nfinds its explanation in changed surroundings--that is to say, in\nchanged conditions of existence--as the indirect cause, and in the\nvarying needs arising from these changed conditions as the direct cause.\n\nAccording to Lamarck, there is a broad principle which underlies\nvariation generally, and this principle is the power which all living\nbeings possess of slightly varying their actions in accordance with\nvarying needs, coupled with the fact observable throughout nature that\nuse develops, and disuse enfeebles an organ, and that the effects,\nwhether of use or disuse, become hereditary after many generations.\n\nThis resolves itself into the effect of the mutual interaction of mind\non body and of body on mind. Thus he writes:--\n\n\"The physical and the mental are to start with undoubtedly one and the\nsame thing; this fact is most easily made apparent through study of the\norganization of the various orders of known animals. From the common\nsource there proceeded certain effects, and these effects, in the outset\nhardly separated, have in the course of time become so perfectly\ndistinct, that when looked at in their extremest development they appear\nto have little or nothing in common.\n\n\"The effect of the body upon the mind has been already sufficiently\nrecognized; not so that of the mind upon the body itself. The two, one\nin the outset though they were, interact upon each other more and more\nthe more they present the appearance of having become widely sundered,\nand it can be shown that each is continually modifying the other and\ncausing it to vary.\"[335]\n\nAnd again, later:--\n\n\"I shall show that the habits by which we now recognize any creature\nare due to the environment (_circonstances_) under which it has for a\nlong while existed, _and that these habits have had such an influence\nupon the structure of each individual of the species as to have at\nlength_\" (that is to say, through many successive slight variations,\neach due to habit engendered by the wishes of the animal itself),\n\"modified this structure and adapted it to the habits contracted.\"[336]\n\nThese quotations must suffice, for the reader has already had Lamarck's\nargument sufficiently put before him.\n\nVariation, and consequently modification, are, according to Lamarck, the\noutward and visible signs of the impressions made upon animals and\nplants in the course of their long and varied history, each organ\nchronicling a time during which such and such thoughts and actions\ndominated the creature, and specific changes being the effect of certain\nlong-continued wishes upon the body, and of certain changed surroundings\nupon the wishes. Plants and animals are living forms of faith, or faiths\nof form, whichever the reader pleases.\n\nMr. Darwin, on the other hand, repeatedly avows ignorance, and profound\nignorance, concerning the causes of those variations which, or nothing,\nmust be the fountain-heads of species. Thus he writes of \"the complex\nand _little known_ laws of variation.\"[337] \"There is also _some\nprobability_ in the view propounded by Andrew Knight, that variability\n_may be partly_ connected with excess of food.\"[338] \"Many laws regulate\nvariation, _some few of which_ can be _dimly seen_.\"[339] \"The results\nof the _unknown_, or _but dimly understood_, laws of variation are\ninfinitely complex and diversified.\"[340] \"We are _profoundly ignorant_\nof the cause of each slight variation or individual difference.\"[341]\n\"We are _far too ignorant_ to speculate on the relative importance of\nthe several known and unknown causes of variation.\"[342] He admits,\nindeed, the effects of use and disuse to have been important, but how\nimportant we have no means of knowing; he also attributes considerable\neffect to the action of changed conditions of life--but how considerable\nagain we know not; nevertheless, he sees no great principle underlying\nthe variations generally, and tending to make them appear for a length\nof time together in any definite direction advantageous to the creature\nitself, but either expressly, as at times, or by implication, as\nthroughout his works, ascribes them to accident or chance.\n\nIn other words, he admits his ignorance concerning them, and dwells only\non the accumulation of variations the appearance of which for any length\nof time in any given direction he leaves unaccounted for.\n\nLamarck, again, having established his principle that sense of need is\nthe main direct cause of variation, and having also established that the\nvariations thus engendered are inherited, so that divergences accumulate\nand result in species and genera, is comparatively indifferent to\nfurther details. His work is avowedly an outline. Nevertheless, we have\nseen that he was quite alive to the effects of the geometrical ratio of\nincrease, and of the struggle for existence which thence inevitably\nfollows.\n\nMr. Darwin, on the other hand, comparatively indifferent to, or at any\nrate silent concerning the causes of those variations which appeared so\nall-important to Lamarck, inasmuch as they are the raindrops which unite\nto form the full stream of modification, goes into very full detail upon\nnatural selection, or the survival of the fittest, and maintains it to\nhave been \"the most important but not the exclusive means of\nmodification.\"[343]\n\nIt will be readily seen that, according to Lamarck, the variations which\nwhen accumulated amount to specific and generic differences, will have\nbeen due to causes which have been mainly of the same kind for long\nperiods together. Conditions of life change for the most part slowly,\nsteadily, and in a set direction; as in the direction of steady, gradual\nincrease or decrease of cold or moisture; of the steady, gradual\nincrease of such and such an enemy, or decrease of such and such a kind\nof food; of the gradual upheaval or submergence of such and such a\ncontinent, and consequent drying up or encroachment of such and such a\nsea, and so forth. The thoughts of the creature varying will thus have\nbeen turned mainly in one direction for long together; and hence the\nconsequent modifications will also be mainly in fixed and definite\ndirections for many successive generations; as in the direction of a\nwarmer or cooler covering; of a better means of defence or of attack in\nrelation to such and such another species; of a longer neck and longer\nlegs, or of whatever other modification the gradually changing\ncircumstances may be rendering expedient. It is easy to understand the\naccumulation of slight successive modifications which thus make their\nappearance in given organs and in a set direction.\n\nWith Mr. Darwin, on the contrary, the variations being accidental, and\ndue to no special and uniform cause, will not appear for any length of\ntime in any given direction, nor in any given organ, but will be just as\nliable to appear in one organ as in another, and may be in one\ngeneration in one direction, and in another in another.\n\nIn confirmation of the above, and in illustration of the important\nconsequences that will follow according as we adopt the old or the more\nrecent theory, I would quote the following from Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of\nSpecies.'\n\nShortly before maintaining that two similar structures have often been\ndeveloped independently of one another, Mr. Mivart points out that if we\nare dependent upon indefinite variations only, as provided for us by Mr.\nDarwin, this would be \"so improbable as to be practically\nimpossible.\"[344] The number of possible variations being indefinitely\ngreat, \"it is therefore an indefinitely great number to one against a\nsimilar series of variations occurring and being similarly preserved in\nany two independent instances.\" It will be felt (as Mr. Mivart presently\ninsists) that this objection does not apply to a system which maintains\nthat in case an animal feels any given want it will gradually develop\nthe structure which shall meet the want--that is to say, if the want be\nnot so great and so sudden as to extinguish the creature to which it has\nbecome a necessity. For if there be such a power of self-adaptation as\nthus supposed, two or more very widely different animals feeling the\nsame kind of want might easily adopt similar means to gratify it, and\nhence develop eventually a substantially similar structure; just as two\nmen, without any kind of concert, have often hit upon like means of\ncompassing the same ends. Mr. Spencer's theory--so Mr. Mivart tells\nus--and certainly that of Lamarck, whose disciple Mr. Spencer would\nappear to be,[345] admits \"a certain peculiar, but limited power of\nresponse and adaptation in each animal and plant\"--to the conditions of\ntheir existence. \"Such theories,\" says Mr. Mivart, \"have not to contend\nagainst the difficulty proposed, and it has been urged that even very\ncomplex extremely similar structures have again and again been developed\nquite independently one of the other, and this because the process has\ntaken place not by merely haphazard, indefinite variations in all\ndirections, but by the concurrence of some other internal natural law or\nlaws co-operating with external influences and with Natural Selection in\nthe evolution of organic forms.\n\n\"_It must never be forgotten that to admit any such constant operation\nof any such unknown natural cause is to deny the purely Darwinian theory\nwhich relies upon the survival of the fittest by means of minute\nfortuitous indefinite variations._\n\n\"Among many other obligations which the author has to acknowledge to\nProfessor Huxley, are the pointing out of this very difficulty, and the\ncalling his attention to the striking resemblance between certain teeth\nof the dog, and of the thylacine, as one instance, and certain ornithic\npeculiarities of pterodactyles as another.\"[346]\n\nIn brief then, changed distribution of use and disuse in consequence of\nchanged conditions of the environment is with Lamarck the main cause of\nmodification. According to Mr. Darwin natural selection, or the survival\nof favourable but accidental variations, is the most important means of\nmodification. In a word, with Lamarck the variations are definite; with\nMr. Darwin indefinite.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[333] Vol. ii. chap. i.\n\n[334] Vol. ii. chap, xxxiv., ed. 1872.\n\n[335] 'Philosophie Zoologique,' ed. M. Martins, Paris, Lyons, 1873, tom.\ni. p. 24.\n\n[336] 'Philosophie Zoologique,' tom. i. p. 72.\n\n[337] 'Origin of Species,' p. 3.\n\n[338] Ibid. p. 5.\n\n[339] 'Origin of Species,' p. 8.\n\n[340] Ibid. p. 9.\n\n[341] Ibid. p. 158.\n\n[342] Ibid. p. 159.\n\n[343] 'Origin of Species,' p. 4.\n\n[344] 'Genesis of Species,' p. 74, 1871.\n\n[345] See _ante_, p. 330, line 1 after heading.\n\n[346] 'Genesis of Species,' p. 76, ed. 1871.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nNATURAL SELECTION CONSIDERED AS A MEANS OF MODIFICATION. THE CONFUSION\nWHICH THIS EXPRESSION OCCASIONS.\n\n\nWhen Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the most important\n\"means\" of modification, I am not sure that I understand what he wishes\nto imply by the word \"means.\" I do not see how the fact that those\nanimals which are best fitted for the conditions of their existence\ncommonly survive in the struggle for life, can be called in any special\nsense a \"means\" of modification.\n\n\"Means\" is a dangerous word; it slips too easily into \"cause.\" We have\nseen Mr. Darwin himself say that Buffon did not enter on \"the _causes or\nmeans_\"[347] of modification, as though these two words were synonymous,\nor nearly so. Nevertheless, the use of the word \"means\" here enables Mr.\nDarwin to speak of Natural Selection as if it were an active cause\n(which he constantly does), and yet to avoid expressly maintaining that\nit is a cause of modification. This, indeed, he has not done in express\nterms, but he does it by implication when he writes, \"Natural Selection\n_might be most effective in giving_ the proper colour to each kind of\ngrouse, and in _keeping_ that colour when once acquired.\" Such language,\nsays the late Mr. G. H. Lewes, \"is misleading;\" it makes \"selection an\nagent.\"[348]\n\nIt is plain that natural selection cannot be considered a cause of\nvariation; and if not of variation, which is as the rain drop, then not\nof specific and generic modification, which are as the river; for the\nvariations must make their appearance before they can be selected.\nSuppose that it is an advantage to a horse to have an especially hard\nand broad hoof, then a horse born with such a hoof will indeed probably\nsurvive in the struggle for existence, but he was not born with the\nlarger and harder hoof _because of his subsequently surviving_. He\nsurvived because he was born fit--not, he was born fit because he\nsurvived. The variation must arise first and be preserved afterwards.\n\nMr. Darwin therefore is in the following dilemma. If he does not treat\nnatural selection as a cause of variation, the 'Origin of Species' will\nturn out to have no _raison d'etre_. It will have professed to have\nexplained to us the manner in which species has originated, but it will\nhave left us in the dark concerning the origin of those variations\nwhich, when added together, amount to specific and generic differences.\nThus, as I said in 'Life and Habit,' Mr. Darwin will have made us think\nwe know the whole road, in spite of his having almost ostentatiously\nblindfolded us at every step in the journey. The 'Origin of Species'\nwould thus prove to be no less a piece of intellectual sleight-of-hand\nthan Paley's 'Natural Theology.'\n\nIf, on the other hand, Mr. Darwin maintains natural selection to be a\ncause of variation, this comes to saying that when an animal has varied\nin an advantageous direction, the fact of its subsequently surviving in\nthe struggle for existence is the cause of its having varied in the\nadvantageous direction--or more simply still--that the fact of its\nhaving varied is the cause of its having varied.\n\nAnd this is what we have already seen Mr. Darwin actually to say, in a\npassage quoted near the beginning of this present book. When writing of\nthe eye he says, \"Variation will cause the slight alterations;\"[349] but\nthe \"slight alterations\" _are_ the variations; so that Mr. Darwin's\nwords come to this--that \"variation will cause the variations.\"\n\nThere does not seem any better way out of this dilemma than that which\nMr. Darwin has adopted--namely, to hold out natural selection as \"a\nmeans\" of modification, and thenceforward to treat it as an efficient\ncause; but at the same time to protest again and again that it is\nnot a cause. Accordingly he writes that \"Natural Selection _acts\nonly by the preservation and accumulation_ of small inherited\nmodifications,\"[350]--that is to say, it has had no share in inducing or\ncausing these modifications. Again, \"What applies to one animal will\napply throughout all time to all animals--_that is, if they vary, for\notherwise natural selection can effect nothing_\"[351]; and again, \"for\nnatural selection only _takes advantage of such variations as\narise_\"[352]--the variations themselves arising, as we have just seen,\nfrom variation.\n\nNothing, then, can be clearer from these passages than that natural\nselection is not a cause of modification; while, on the other hand,\nnothing can be clearer, from a large number of such passages, as, for\ninstance, \"natural selection may be _effective_ in _giving_ and\n_keeping_ colour,\"[353] than that natural selection is an efficient\ncause; and in spite of its being expressly declared to be only a \"means\"\nof modification, it will be accepted as cause by the great majority of\nreaders.\n\nMr. Darwin explains this apparent inconsistency thus:--He maintains that\nthough the advantageous modification itself is fortuitous, or without\nknown cause or principle underlying it, yet its becoming the predominant\nform of the species in which it appears is due to the fact that those\nanimals which have been advantageously modified commonly survive in\ntimes of difficulty, while the unmodified individuals perish: offspring\ntherefore is more frequently left by the favourably modified animal, and\nthus little by little the whole species will come to inherit the\nmodification. Hence the survival of the fittest becomes a means of\nmodification, though it is no cause of variation.\n\nIt will appear more clearly later on how much this amounts to. I will\nfor the present content myself with the following quotation from the\nlate Mr. G. H. Lewes in reference to it. Mr. Lewes writes:--\n\n\"Mr. Darwin seems to imply that the external conditions which cause a\nvariation are to be distinguished from the conditions which accumulate\nand perfect such variation, that is to say, he implies a radical\ndifference between the process of variation and the process of\nselection. This I have already said does not seem to me acceptable; the\nselection I conceive to be simply the variation which has\nsurvived.\"[354]\n\nCertainly those animals and plants which are best fitted for their\nenvironment, or, as Lamarck calls it, \"_circonstances_\"--those animals,\nin fact, which are best fitted to comply with the conditions of their\nexistence--are most likely to survive and transmit their especial\nfitness. No one would admit this more readily than Lamarck. This is no\ntheory; it is a commonly observed fact in nature which no one will\ndispute, but it is not more \"a means of modification\" than many other\ncommonly observed facts concerning animals.\n\nWhy is \"the survival of the fittest\" more a means of modification than,\nwe will say, the fact that animals live at all, or that they live in\nsuccessive generations, being born, continuing their species, and dying,\ninstead of living on for ever as one single animal in the common\nacceptation of the term; or than that they eat and drink?\n\nThe heat whereby the water is heated, the water which is turned into\nsteam, the piston on which the steam acts, the driving wheel, &c., &c.,\nare all one as much as another a means whereby a train is made to go\nfrom one place to another; it is impossible to say that any one of them\nis the main means. So (_mutatis mutandis_) with modification. There is\nno reason therefore why \"the survival of the fittest\" should claim to\nbe an especial \"means of modification\" rather than any other necessary\nadjunct of animal or vegetable life.\n\nI find that the late Mr. G. H. Lewes has insisted on this objection in\nhis 'Physical Basis of Mind.' I observe, also, that in the very passage\nin which he does so, Mr. Lewes appears to have been misled by Mr.\nDarwin's use of that dangerous word \"means,\" and, at the same time, by\nhis frequent treatment of natural selection as though it were an active\ncause; so that Mr. Lewes supposes Mr. Darwin to have fallen into the\nvery error of which, as I have above shown, he is evidently struggling\nto keep clear--namely, that of maintaining natural selection to be a\n\"cause\" of variation. Mr. Lewes then continues:--\n\n\"He [Mr. Darwin] separates Natural Selection from all the primary causes\nof variation either internal or external--either as results of the laws\nof growth, of the correlations of variation, of use and disuse, &c., and\nlimits it to the slow accumulation of such variations as are profitable\nin the struggle with competitors. And for his purpose this separation is\nnecessary. But biological philosophy must, I think, regard the\ndistinction as artificial, _referring only to one of the great factors\nin the production of species_.\"[355]\n\nThe fact that one in a brood or litter is born fitter for the conditions\nof its existence than its brothers and sisters, and, again, the causes\nthat have led to this one's having been born fitter--which last is what\nthe older evolutionists justly dwelt upon as the most interesting\nconsideration in connection with the whole subject--are more noteworthy\nfactors of modification than the factor that an animal, if born fitter\nfor its conditions, will commonly survive longer in the struggle for\nexistence. If the first of these can be explained in such a manner as to\nbe accepted as true, or highly probable, we have a substantial gain to\nour knowledge. The second is little--if at all--better than a truism.\nGranted, if it were not generally the case that those forms are most\nlikely to survive which are best fitted for the conditions of their\nexistence, no adaptation of form to conditions of existence could ever\nhave come about. \"The survival of the fittest\" therefore, or, perhaps\nbetter, \"the fertility of the fittest,\" is thus a _sine qua non_ for\nmodification. But, as we have just insisted, this does not render \"the\nfertility of the fittest\" an especial \"means of modification,\" rather\nthan any other _sine qua non_ for modification.\n\nBut, to look at the matter in another light. Mr. Darwin maintains\nnatural selection to be \"the most important but not the exclusive means\nof modification.\"\n\nFor \"natural selection\" substitute the words \"survival of the fittest,\"\nwhich we may do with Mr. Darwin's own consent abundantly given.\n\nTo the words \"survival of the fittest\" add what is elided, but what is,\nnevertheless, unquestionably as much implied as though it were said\nopenly whenever these words are used, and without which \"fittest\" has no\nforce--I mean, \"for the conditions of their existence.\"\n\nWe thus find that when Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the\nmost important, but not exclusive means of modification, he means that\nthe survival in the struggle for existence of those creatures which are\nbest fitted to comply with the conditions of their existence is the most\nimportant, but not exclusive means whereby the descendants of a\ncreature, we will say, A, have become modified, so as to be now\nrepresented by a creature, we will say, B.\n\nBut the word \"_circonstances_,\" so frequently used by Lamarck for the\nconditions of an animal's existence, contains, by implication, the idea\nof animals _which shall exist or not according as they fulfil those\nconditions or fail to fulfil them_. Conditions of existence are\nconditions which something capable of existing must fulfil if it would\nexist at all, and nothing is a condition of an animal's existence which\nthat animal need not comply with and may yet continue to exist. Again,\nthe words \"animals\" and \"plants\" comprehend the ideas of \"fit,\"\n\"fitter,\" and \"fittest,\" \"unfit,\" \"unfitter,\" and \"unfittest\" for\ncertain conditions, for we know of no animals or plants in which we do\nnot observe degrees of fitness or unfitness for their \"_circonstances_\"\nor environment, or conditions of existence.\n\nThe use, therefore, of the term \"conditions of existence\" is sufficient\nto show that the person using it intends to imply that those animals and\nplants will live longest (or survive) and thrive best which are best\nable to fulfil those conditions. Hence it implies neither more nor less\nthan what is implied by the words \"struggle for existence, with\nconsequent survival of the fittest\"--that is to say, if we hold the\ncomplying with any condition of life to which difficulty is attached to\nbe part of \"the struggle\" for life, and this we should certainly do.\n\nThe words \"conditions of existence\" may, then, be used instead of the\n\"struggle for existence with consequent survival of the fittest,\" for as\nthey cannot imply any less than the \"struggle, &c.,\" when they are set\nout in full, and without suppression, so neither do they imply more; for\nnothing is a condition of existence, in so far as its power of effecting\nthe modification of any animal is concerned, which does not also involve\nmore or less difficulty or struggle; for if there is no difficulty or\nstruggle there will be nothing to bring about change of habit, and hence\nof structure. This identity of meaning may be also seen if we call to\nmind that the conditions of existence can be only a synonym for \"the\nconditions of continuing to live,\" and \"the conditions of continuing to\nlive\" a synonym for \"the conditions of continuing to live a longer\ntime,\" and \"the conditions of continuing to live a longer time,\" for\n\"the conditions of survival,\" and \"the conditions of survival,\" for \"the\nsurvival of the fittest,\" inasmuch as the being fittest is the condition\nof being the longest survivor.\n\nBut we have already seen that \"the survival of the fittest,\" is,\naccording to Mr. Darwin, a synonym for \"natural selection\"; hence it\nfollows that \"the conditions of existence\" imply neither more nor less\nthan what is implied by \"natural selection\" when this expression is\nproperly explained, and may be used instead of it; so that when Mr.\nDarwin says that \"natural selection\" is the main but not exclusive means\nof modification, he must mean, consciously or unconsciously, that \"the\nconditions of existence\" are the main but not exclusive means of\nmodification. But this is only falling in with \"the views and erroneous\ngrounds of opinion,\" as Mr. Darwin briefly calls them, of Lamarck\nhimself; a fact which Mr. Darwin's readers would have seen more readily\nif he had kept to the use of the words \"survival of the fittest\" instead\nof \"natural selection.\" Of that expression Mr. Darwin says[356] that it\nis \"more accurate\" than natural selection, but naively adds, \"and\nsometimes equally convenient.\"\n\nI have said that there is a practical identity of meaning between\n\"natural selection\" and \"the conditions of existence,\" when both\nexpressions are fully extended. I say this, however, without prejudice\nto my right of maintaining that, of the two expressions, the one is\naccurate, lucid, and calculated to keep the thread of the argument well\nin sight of the reader, while the other is inaccurate, and always, if I\nmay say so, less \"convenient,\" as being always liable to lead the reader\nastray. Nor should it be lost sight of that Lamarck and Dr. Erasmus\nDarwin maintain that species and genera have arisen _because animals can\nfashion themselves into accord with_ their conditions, so that, as\nLamarck is so continually insisting, the action of the conditions is\nindirect only--changed use and disuse being the direct causes; while,\naccording to Mr. Darwin, it is natural selection itself (which, as we\nhave seen, is but another way of saying conditions of existence) that is\nthe most important means of modification.\n\nThe identity of meaning above insisted on was, on the face of it, almost\nas obscure as that between \"_eveque_ and bishop.\" Yet we know that\n\"_eveque_\" is \"episc\" and \"bishop\" \"piscop,\" and that \"episcopus\" is the\nLatin for bishop; the words, therefore, are really one and the same, in\nspite of the difference in their appearance. I think I can show,\nmoreover, that Mr. Darwin himself holds natural selection and the\nconditions of existence to be one and the same thing. For he writes, \"in\none sense,\" and it is hard to see any sense but one in what follows,\n\"the conditions of life may be said not only to cause variability\" (so\nthat here Mr. Darwin appears to support Lamarck's main thesis) \"either\ndirectly or indirectly, but likewise to include natural selection; for\nthe conditions determine whether this or that variety shall\nsurvive.\"[357] But later on we find that \"the expression of conditions\nof existence, so often insisted upon by the illustrious Cuvier\" (and\nsurely also by the illustrious Lamarck, though he calls them\n\"_circonstances_\") \"is fully embraced by the principle of natural\nselection.\"[358] So we see that the conditions of life \"_include_\"\nnatural selection, and yet the conditions of existence \"_are fully\nembraced by_\" natural selection, which, I take it, is an enigmatic way\nof saying that they are one and the same thing, for it is not until two\nbodies absolutely coincide and occupy the same space that the one can be\nsaid both to include and to be embraced by the other.\n\nThe difficulty, again, of understanding Mr. Darwin's meaning is enhanced\nby his repeatedly writing of \"natural selection,\" or the fact that the\nfittest survive in the struggle for existence, as though it were the\nsame thing as \"evolution\" or the descent, through the accumulation of\nsmall modifications in many successive generations, of one species from\nanother and different one. In the concluding and recapitulatory chapter\nof the 'Origin of Species,' he writes:--\n\n\"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered _on\nthe theory of descent with modification_ are serious enough;\"[359] and\nin the next paragraph, \"As, according to _the theory of natural\nselection, &c._,\" the context showing that in each case descent with\nmodification is intended.\n\nAgain:--\n\n\"On the theory of the _natural selection_ of successive, slight, but\nprofitable, modifications,\"[360] that is to say, on the theory of the\nsurvival of the fittest; while on the next page we find \"_the theory of\ndescent with modification_,\" and \"_the principle of natural selection_,\"\nused as though they were convertible terms.\n\nAgain:--\n\n\"The existence of closely allied or representative species in any two\nareas implies, _on the theory of descent with modification, &c._;\"[361]\nand, in the next paragraph, \"_the theory of natural selection_, with its\ncontingencies of extinction and divergence of character,\" is substituted\nas though the two expressions were identical.\n\nThis is calculated to mislead. Independently of the fact that \"natural\nselection,\" or \"the survival of the fittest,\" is in no sense a theory,\nbut simply an observed fact, yet even if the words are allowed to stand\nfor \"descent with modification by means of natural selection,\" it is\nstill misleading to write as though this were synonymous with \"the\ntheory of evolution,\" or \"the theory of descent with modification.\" To\ndo this prevents the reader from bearing in mind that \"evolution by\nmeans of the circumstance-suiting power of plants and animals\" as\nadvanced by the earlier evolutionists; and \"evolution by means of lucky\naccidents\" with comparatively little circumstance-suiting power, are two\nvery different things, of which the one may be true and the other\nuntrue. It leads the reader to forget that evolution by no means stands\nor falls with evolution by means of natural selection, and makes him\nthink that if he accepts evolution at all, he is bound to Mr. Darwin's\nview of it. Hence, when he falls in with such writers as Professor\nMivart and the Rev. J. J. Murphy, who show, and very plainly, that the\nsurvival of the fittest, unsupplemented by something which shall give a\ndefinite aim to the variations which successively occur, fails to\naccount for the coadaptations of need and structure, he imagines that\nevolution has much less to say for itself than it really has. If Mr.\nDarwin, instead of taking the line which he has thought fit to adopt\ntowards Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and the author of the\n'Vestiges,' had shown us what these men taught, why they taught it,\nwherein they were wrong, and how he proposed to set them right, he would\nhave taken a course at once more agreeable with ordinary practice, and\nmore likely to clear misconception from his own mind and from those of\nhis readers.\n\nMr. Darwin says,[362] \"it is easy to hide our ignorance under such\nexpressions as 'the plan of creation' and 'unity of design.'\" Surely,\nalso, it is easy to hide want of precision of thought, and the absence\nof any fundamental difference between his own main conclusion and that\nof Dr. Darwin and Lamarck whom he condemns, under the term \"natural\nselection.\"\n\nI assure the reader that I find the task of forming a clear,\nwell-defined conception of Mr. Darwin's meaning, as expressed in his\n'Origin of Species,' comparable only to that of one who has to act on\nthe advice of a lawyer who has obscured the main issue as far as he can,\nand whose chief aim has been to make as many loopholes as possible for\nhimself to escape through in case of his being called to account. Or,\nagain, to that of one who has to construe an Act of Parliament which was\noriginally framed so as to throw dust in the eyes of those who would\noppose the measure, and which, having been since found unworkable, has\nhad clauses repealed and inserted up and down it, till it is in an\ninextricable tangle of confusion and contradiction.\n\nAs an example of my meaning, I will quote a passage to which I called\nattention in 'Life and Habit.' It runs:--\n\n\"In the earlier editions of this work I underrated, as now seems\nprobable, the frequency and importance of modifications due to\nspontaneous variability. But it is impossible to attribute to _this\ncause_\" (i. e. spontaneous variability, which is itself only an\nexpression for unknown causes) \"the innumerable structures which are so\nwell adapted to the habits of life of each species. I can no more\nbelieve in _this_\" (i. e. that the innumerable structures, &c., can be\ndue to unknown causes) \"than that the well adapted form of a racehorse\nor greyhound, which, before the principle of selection by man was well\nunderstood, excited so much surprise in the minds of the older\nnaturalists, can _thus_\" (i. e. by attributing them to unknown causes)\n\"be explained.\"[363]\n\nThis amounts to saying that unknown causes can do so much, but cannot do\nso much more. On this passage I wrote, in 'Life and Habit':--\n\n\"It is impossible to believe that, after years of reflection upon his\nsubject, Mr. Darwin should have written as above, especially in such a\nplace, if his mind was clear about his own position. Immediately after\nthe admission of a certain amount of miscalculation there comes a more\nor less exculpatory sentence, which sounds so right that ninety-nine\npeople out of a hundred would walk through it, unless led by some\nexigency of their own position to examine it closely, but which yet,\nupon examination, proves to be as nearly meaningless as a sentence can\nbe.\"[364]\n\nNo one, to my knowledge, has impugned the justice of this criticism, and\nI may say that further study of Mr. Darwin's works has only strengthened\nmy conviction of the confusion and inaccuracy of thought, which detracts\nso greatly from their value.\n\nSo little is it generally understood that \"evolution\" and what is called\n\"Darwinism\" convey indeed the same main conclusion, but that this\nconclusion has been reached by two distinct roads, one of which is\nimpregnable, while the other has already fallen into the hands of the\nenemy, that in the last November number of the 'Nineteenth Century'\nProfessor Tyndall, while referring to descent with modification or\nevolution, speaks of it as though it were one and inseparable from Mr.\nDarwin's theory that it has come about mainly by means of natural\nselection. He writes:--\n\n\"_Darwin's theory_, as pointed out nine or ten years ago by Helmholtz\nand Hooker, was then exactly in this condition of growth; and had they\nto speak of the subject to-day they would be able to announce an\nenormous strengthening of the theoretic fibre. Fissures in continuity\nwhich then existed, and which left little hope of being ever spanned,\nhave been since bridged over, so that the further _the theory_ is tested\nthe more fully does it harmonize with progressive experience and\ndiscovery. We shall never probably fill all the gaps; but this will not\nprevent a profound belief in the truth of _the theory_ from taking root\nin the general mind. Much less will it justify a total denial of _the\ntheory_. The man of science, who assumes in such a case the position of\na denier, is sure to be stranded and isolated.\"\n\nThis is in the true vein of the professional and orthodox scientist; of\nthat new orthodoxy which is clamouring for endowment, and which would\nstep into the Pope's shoes to-morrow, if we would only let it. If\nProfessor Tyndall means that those who deny evolution will find\nthemselves presently in a very small minority, I agree with him; but if\nhe means that evolution is Mr. Darwin's theory, and that he who rejects\nwhat Mr. Darwin calls \"the theory of natural selection\" will find\nhimself stranded, his assertion will pass muster with those only who\nknow little of the history and literature of evolution.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[347] 'Origin of Species,' Hist. Sketch, p. xiii.\n\n[348] 'Physical Basis of Mind,' p. 108.\n\n[349] 'Origin of Species,' p. 146.\n\n[350] Ibid. p. 75.\n\n[351] Ibid. p. 88.\n\n[352] 'Origin of Species,' p. 98.\n\n[353] Ibid. p. 66.\n\n[354] 'Physical Basis of the Mind,' p. 109, 1878.\n\n[355] 'Physical Basis of the Mind,' p. 107, 1878.\n\n[356] 'Origin of Species,' p. 49.\n\n[357] 'Origin of Species,' p. 107.\n\n[358] Ibid. p. 166.\n\n[359] 'Origin of Species,' p. 406.\n\n[360] Ibid, p. 416.\n\n[361] Ibid. p. 419.\n\n[362] 'Origin of Species,' p. 422.\n\n[363] 'Origin of Species,' p. 171, ed. 1876.\n\n[364] 'Life and Habit,' p. 260.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nMR. DARWIN'S DEFENCE OF THE EXPRESSION, NATURAL SELECTION--PROFESSOR\nMIVART AND NATURAL SELECTION.\n\n\nSo important is it that we should come to a clear understanding upon the\npositions taken by Mr. Darwin and Lamarck respectively, that at the risk\nof wearying the reader I will endeavour to exhaust this subject here. In\norder to do so, I will follow Mr. Darwin's answer to those who have\nobjected to the expression, \"natural selection.\"\n\nMr. Darwin says:--\n\n\"Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term 'natural\nselection.' Some have even imagined that natural selection induces\nvariability.\"[365]\n\nAnd small wonder if they have; but those who have fallen into this error\nare hardly worth considering. The true complaint is that Mr. Darwin has\ntoo often written of \"natural selection\" as though it does induce\nvariability, and that his language concerning it is so confusing that\nthe reader is not helped to see that it really comes to nothing but a\ncloak of difference from his predecessors, under which there lurks a\nconcealed identity of opinion as to the main facts. The reader is thus\nled to look upon it as something positive and special, and, in spite of\nMr. Darwin's disclaimer, to think of it as an actively efficient cause.\n\nFew will deny that this complaint is a just one, or that ninety-nine out\nof a hundred readers of average intelligence, if asked, after reading\nMr. Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' what was the most important cause of\nmodification, would answer \"natural selection.\" Let the same readers\nhave read the 'Zoonomia' of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, or the 'Philosophie\nZoologique' of Lamarck, and they would at once reply, \"the wishes of an\nanimal or plant, as varying with its varying conditions,\" or more\nbriefly, \"sense of need.\"\n\n\"Whereas,\" continues Mr. Darwin, \"it\" (natural selection) \"implies only\nthe preservation of such variations as arise, and are beneficial to the\nbeing under its conditions of life. No one objects to agriculturists\nspeaking of the potent effects of man's selection.\"\n\nOf course not; for there _is_ an actual creature man, who actually does\nselect with a set purpose in order to produce such and such a result,\nwhich result he presently produces.\n\n\"And in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man\nfor some object selects, must first occur.\"\n\nThis shows that the complaint has already reached Mr. Darwin, that in\nnot showing us how \"the individual differences first occur,\" he is\nreally leaving us absolutely in the dark as to the cause of all\nmodification--giving us an 'Origin of Species' with \"the origin\" cut\nout; but I do not think that any reader who has not been compelled to go\nsomewhat deeply into the question would find out that this is the real\ngist of the objection which Mr. Darwin is appearing to combat. A general\nimpression is left upon the reader that some very foolish objectors are\nbeing put to silence, that Mr. Darwin is the most candid literary\nopponent in the world, and as just as Aristides himself; but if the\nunassisted reader will cross-question himself what it is all about, I\nshall be much surprised if he is ready with his answer.\n\n\"Others\"--to resume our criticism on Mr. Darwin's defence--\"have\nobjected that the term implies conscious choice in the animals which\nbecome modified, and it has been even urged that as plants have no\nvolition, natural selection is not applicable to them!\"\n\nThis--unfortunately--must have been the objection of a slovenly, or\nwilfully misapprehending reader, and was unworthy of serious notice. But\nits introduction here tends to draw the reader from the true ground of\ncomplaint, which is that at the end of Mr. Darwin's book we stand much\nin the same place as we did when we started, as regards any knowledge of\nwhat is the \"origin of species.\"\n\n\"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a\nfalse term.\"\n\nThen why use it when another, and, by Mr. Darwin's own admission, a\n\"more accurate\" one is to hand in \"the survival of the fittest\"?[366]\nThis term is not appreciably longer than natural selection. Mr. Darwin\nmay say, indeed, that it is \"sometimes\" as convenient a term as natural\nselection; but the kind of men who exercise permanent effect upon the\nopinions of other people will bid such a passage as this stand aside\nsomewhat sternly. If a term is not appreciably longer than another, and\nif at the same time it more accurately expresses the idea which is\nintended to be conveyed, it is not sometimes only, but always, more\nconvenient, and should immediately be substituted for the less accurate\none.\n\nNo one complains of the use of what is, strictly speaking, an inaccurate\nexpression, when it is nevertheless the best that we can get. It may be\ndoubted whether there is any such thing possible as a perfectly accurate\nexpression. All words that are not simply names of things are apt to\nturn out little else than compendious false analogies; but we have a\nright to complain when a writer tells us that he is using a less\naccurate expression when a more accurate one is ready to his hand.\nHence, when Mr. Darwin continues, \"Who ever objected to chemists\nspeaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? and yet an\nacid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it by\npreference combines,\" he is beside the mark. Chemists do not speak of\n\"elective affinities\" in spite of there being a more accurate and not\nappreciably longer expression at their disposal.\n\n\"It has been said,\" continues Mr. Darwin, \"that I speak of natural\nselection as an active power or deity. But who objects to an author\nspeaking of the attraction of gravity? Everyone knows what is meant and\nimplied by such metaphorical expressions, and they are almost necessary\nfor brevity.\"\n\nMr. Darwin certainly does speak of natural selection \"acting,\"\n\"accumulating,\" \"operating\"; and if \"every-one knew what was meant and\nimplied by this metaphorical expression,\" as they now do, or think they\ndo, in the case of the attraction of gravity, there might be less ground\nof complaint; but the expression was known to very few at the time Mr.\nDarwin introduced it, and was used with so much ambiguity, and with so\nlittle to protect the reader from falling into the error of supposing\nthat it was the cause of the modifications which we see around us, that\nwe had a just right to complain, even in the first instance; much more\nshould we do so on the score of the retention of the expression when a\nmore accurate one had been found.\n\nIf the \"survival of the fittest\" had been used, to the total excision of\n\"natural selection\" from every page in Mr. Darwin's book--it would have\nbeen easily seen that \"the survival of the fittest\" is no more a cause\nof modification, and hence can give no more explanation concerning the\norigin of species, than the fact of a number of competitors in a race\nfailing to run the whole course, or to run it as quickly as the winner,\ncan explain how the winner came to have good legs and lungs. According\nto Lamarck, the winner will have got these by means of sense of need,\nand consequent practice and training, on his own part, and on that of\nhis forefathers; according to Mr. Darwin, the \"most important means\" of\nhis getting them is his \"happening\" to be born with them, coupled, with\nthe fact that his uncles and aunts for many generations could not run\nso well as his ancestors in the direct line. But can the fact of his\nuncles and aunts running less well than his fathers and mothers be a\nmeans of his fathers and mothers coming to run _better than they used to\nrun_?\n\nIf the reader will bear in mind the idea of the runners in a race, it\nwill help him to see the point at issue between Mr. Darwin and Lamarck.\nPerhaps also the double meaning of the word race, as expressing equally\na breed and a competition, may not be wholly without significance. What\nwe want to be told is, not that a runner will win the prize if he can\nrun \"ever such a little\" faster than his fellows--we know this--but by\nwhat process he comes to be able to run ever such a little faster.\n\n\"So, again,\" continues Mr. Darwin, \"it is difficult to avoid\npersonifying nature, but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and\nproduct of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as\nascertained by us.\"\n\nThis, again, is raising up a dead man in order to knock him down. Nature\nhas been personified for more than two thousand years, and every one\nunderstands that nature is no more really a woman than hope or justice,\nor than God is like the pictures of the mediaeval painters; no one whose\nobjection was worth notice could have objected to the personification of\nnature.\n\nMr. Darwin concludes:--\n\n\"With a little familiarity, such superficial objections will be\nforgotten.\"[367]\n\nAs a matter of fact, I do not see any greater tendency to acquiesce in\nMr. Darwin's claim on behalf of natural selection than there was a few\nyears ago, but on the contrary, that discontent is daily growing. To say\nnothing of the Rev. J. J. Murphy and Professor Mivart, the late Mr. G.\nH. Lewes did not find the objection a superficial one, nor yet did he\nfind it disappear \"with a little familiarity\"; on the contrary, the more\nfamiliar he became with it the less he appeared to like it. I may even\ngo, without fear, so far as to say that any writer who now uses the\nexpression \"natural selection,\" writes himself down thereby as behind\nthe age. It is with great pleasure that I observe Mr. Francis Darwin in\nhis recent lecture[368] to have kept clear of it altogether, and to have\nmade use of no expression, and advocated no doctrine to which either Dr.\nErasmus Darwin or Lamarck would not have readily assented. I think I may\naffirm confidently that a few years ago any such lecture would have\ncontained repeated reference to Natural Selection. For my own part I\nknow of few passages in any theological writer which please me less than\nthe one which I have above followed sentence by sentence. I know of few\nwhich should better serve to show us the sort of danger we should run if\nwe were to let men of science get the upper hand of us.\n\nNatural Selection, then, is only another way of saying \"Nature.\" Mr.\nDarwin seems to be aware of this when he writes, \"Nature, if I may be\nallowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the\nfittest.\" And again, at the bottom of the same page, \"It may\nmetaphorically be said that _natural selection is daily and hourly\nscrutinizing_ throughout the world the slightest variations.\"[369] It\nmay be metaphorically said that _Nature_ is daily and hourly\nscrutinizing, but it cannot be said consistently with any right use of\nwords, metaphorical or otherwise, that natural selection scrutinizes,\nunless natural selection is merely a somewhat cumbrous synonym for\nNature. When, therefore, Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the\n\"most important, but not the exclusive means\" whereby any modification\nhas been effected, he is really saying that Nature is the most important\nmeans of modification--which is only another way of telling us that\nvariation causes variations, and is all very true as far as it goes.\n\nI did not read Professor Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' until I had\nwritten all my own criticism on Mr. Darwin's position. From that work,\nhowever, I now quote the following:--\n\n\"It cannot then be contested that the far-famed 'Origin of Species,'\nthat, namely, by 'Natural Selection,' has been repudiated in fact,\nthough not expressly even by its own author. This circumstance, which is\nsimply undeniable, might dispense us from any further consideration of\nthe hypothesis itself. But the \"conspiracy of silence,\" which has\naccompanied the repudiation tends to lead the unthinking many to suppose\nthat the same importance still attaches to it as at first. On this\naccount it may be well to ask the question, what, after all, _is_\n'Natural Selection'?\n\n\"The answer may seem surprising to some, but it is none the less true,\nthat 'Natural Selection' is simply nothing. It is an apparently positive\nname for a really negative effect, and is therefore an eminently\nmisleading term. By 'Natural Selection' is meant the result of all the\ndestructive agencies of Nature, destructive to individuals and to races\nby destroying their lives or their powers of propagation. Evidently,\n_the cause of the distinction of species_ (supposing such distinction to\nbe brought about in natural generation) _must be that which causes\nvariation, and variation in one determinate direction in at least\nseveral individuals simultaneously_.\" I should like to have added here\nthe words \"and during many successive generations,\" but they will go\nvery sufficiently without saying.\n\n\"At the same time,\" continues Professor Mivart, \"it is freely conceded\nthat the destructive agencies in nature do succeed in preventing the\nperpetuation of monstrous, abortive, and feeble attempts at the\nperformance of the evolutionary process, that they rapidly remove\nantecedent forms when new ones are evolved more in harmony with\nsurrounding conditions, and that their action results in the formation\nof new characters when these have once attained sufficient completeness\nto be of real utility to their possessor.\n\n\"Continued reflection, and five years further pondering over the\nproblems of specific origin have more and more convinced me that the\nconception, that the origin of all species 'man included' is due simply\nto conditions which are (to use Mr. Darwin's own words) 'strictly\naccidental,' is a conception utterly irrational.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"With regard to the conception as now put forward by Mr. Darwin, I\ncannot truly characterize it but by an epithet which I employ only with\nmuch reluctance. I weigh my words and have present to my mind the many\ndistinguished naturalists who have accepted the notion, and yet I cannot\nhesitate to call it a '_puerile hypothesis_.'\"[370]\n\nI am afraid I cannot go with Professor Mivart farther than this point,\nthough I have a strong feeling as though his conclusion is true, that\n\"the material universe is always and everywhere sustained and directed\nby an infinite cause, for which to us the word mind is the least\ninadequate and misleading symbol.\" But I feel that any attempt to deal\nwith such a question is going far beyond that sphere in which man's\npowers may be at present employed with advantage: I trust, therefore,\nthat I may never try to verify it, and am indifferent whether it is\ncorrect or not.\n\nAgain, I should probably differ from Professor Mivart in finding this\nmind inseparable from the material universe in which we live and move.\nSo that I could neither conceive of such a mind influencing and\ndirecting the universe from a point as it were outside the universe\nitself, nor yet of a universe as existing without there being\npresent--or having been present--in its every particle something for\nwhich mind should be the least inadequate and misleading symbol. But the\nsubject is far beyond me.\n\nAs regards Professor Mivart's denunciations of natural selection, I\nhave only one fault to find with them, namely, that they do not speak\nout with sufficient bluntness. The difficulty of showing the fallacy of\nMr. Darwin's position, is the difficulty of grasping a will-o'-the-wisp.\nA concluding example will put this clearly before the reader, and at the\nsame time serve to illustrate the most tangible feature of difference\nbetween Mr. Darwin and Lamarck.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[365] 'Origin of Species,' p. 62.\n\n[366] 'Origin of Species,' p. 49.\n\n[367] 'Origin of Species,' p. 63.\n\n[368] 'Nature,' March 14 and 21, 1878.\n\n[369] 'Origin of Species,' p. 65.\n\n[370] 'Lessons from Nature,' p. 300.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE CASE OF THE MADEIRA BEETLES AS ILLUSTRATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN\nTHE EVOLUTION OF LAMARCK AND OF MR. CHARLES DARWIN--CONCLUSION.\n\n\nAn island of no very great extent is surrounded by a sea which cuts it\noff for many miles from the nearest land. It lies a good deal exposed to\nwinds, so that the beetles which live upon it are in continual danger of\nbeing blown out to sea if they fly during the hours and seasons when the\nwind is blowing. It is found that an unusually large proportion of the\nbeetles inhabiting this island are either without wings or have their\nwings in a useless and merely rudimentary state; and that a large number\nof kinds which are very common on the nearest mainland, but which are\ncompelled to use their wings in seeking their food, are here entirely\nwanting. It is also observed that the beetles on this island generally\nlie much concealed until the wind lulls and the sun shines. These are\nthe facts; let us now see how Lamarck would treat them.\n\nLamarck would say that the beetles once being on this island it became\none of the conditions of their existence that they should not get blown\nout to sea. For once blown out to sea, they would be quite certain to be\ndrowned. Beetles, when they fly, generally fly for some purpose, and do\nnot like having that purpose interfered with by something which can\ncarry them all-whithers, whether they like it or no. If they are flying\nand find the wind taking them in a wrong direction, or seaward--which\nthey know will be fatal to them--they stop flying as soon as may be, and\nalight on _terra firma_. But if the wind is very prevalent the beetles\ncan find but little opportunity for flying at all: they will therefore\nlie quiet all day and do as best they can to get their living on foot\ninstead of on the wing. There will thus be a long-continued disuse of\nwings, and this will gradually diminish the development of the wings\nthemselves, till after a sufficient number of generations these will\neither disappear altogether, or be seen in a rudimentary condition only.\nFor each beetle which has made but little use of its wings will be\nliable to leave offspring with a slightly diminished wing, some other\norgan which has been used instead of the wing becoming proportionately\ndeveloped. It is thus seen that the conditions of existence are the\nindirect cause of the wings becoming rudimentary, inasmuch as they\npreclude the beetles from using them; the disuse however on the part of\nthe beetles themselves is the direct cause.\n\nNow let us see how Mr. Darwin deals with the same case. He writes:--\n\n\"In some cases we might easily set down to disuse, modifications of\nstructure which are _wholly_ or _mainly_ due to natural selection.\" Then\nfollow the facts about the beetles of Madeira, as I have given them\nabove. While we are reading them we naturally make up our minds that\nthe winglessness of the beetles will prove due either wholly, or at any\nrate mainly, to natural selection, and that though it would be easy to\nset it down to disuse, yet we must on no account do so. The facts having\nbeen stated, Mr. Darwin continues:--\"These several considerations make\nme believe that the wingless condition of so many Madeira beetles is\nmainly due to the action of natural selection,\" and when we go on to the\nwords that immediately follow, \"combined probably with disuse,\" we are\nalmost surprised at finding that disuse has had anything to do with the\nmatter. We feel a languid wish to know exactly how much and in what way\nit has entered into the combination; but we find it difficult to think\nthe matter out, and are glad to take it for granted that the part played\nby disuse must be so unimportant that we need not consider it. Mr.\nDarwin continues:--\n\n\"For during many successive generations each individual beetle which\nflew least, either from its wings having been ever so little less\nperfectly developed, or from indolent habit, will have had the best\nchance of surviving from not having been blown out to sea; and on the\nother hand those beetles which most readily took to flight would\noftenest be blown out to sea and perish.\"[371]\n\nSo apt are we to believe what we are told, when it is told us gravely\nand with authority, and when there is no statement at hand to contradict\nit, that we fail to see that Mr. Darwin is all the time really\nattributing the winglessness of the Madeira beetles either to the _qua_\nhim _unknown causes_ which have led to the \"ever so little less perfect\ndevelopment of wing\" on the part of the beetles that leave\noffspring--that is to say, is admitting that he can give no account of\nthe matter--or else to the \"indolent habit\" of the parent beetles which\nhas led them to disuse their wings, and hence gradually to lose\nthem--which is neither more nor less than the \"erroneous grounds of\nopinion,\" and \"well-known doctrine\" of Lamarck.\n\nFor Mr. Darwin cannot mean that the fact of some beetles being blown out\nto sea is the most important means whereby certain other beetles come to\nhave smaller wings--that the Madeira beetles in fact come to have\nsmaller wings mainly because their large winged uncles and aunts--go\naway.\n\nBut if he does not mean this, what becomes of natural selection?\n\nFor in this case we are left exactly where Lamarck left us, and must\nhold that such beetles as have smaller wings have them because the\nconditions of life or \"circumstances\" in which their parents were\nplaced, rendered it inconvenient to them to fly, and thus led them to\nleave off using their wings.\n\nGranted, that if there had been nothing to take unmodified beetles away,\nthere would have been less room and scope for the modified beetles; also\nthat unmodified beetles would have intermixed with the modified, and\nimpeded the prevalence of the modification. But anything else than such\nremoval of unmodified individuals would be contrary to our hypothesis.\nThe very essence of conditions of existence is that there _shall be_\nsomething to take away those which do not comply with the conditions;\nif there is nothing to render such and such a course a _sine qua non_\nfor life, there is no condition of existence in respect of this course,\nand no modification according to Lamarck could follow, as there would be\nno changed distribution of use.\n\nI think that if I were to leave this matter here I should have said\nenough to make the reader feel that Lamarck's system is direct,\nintelligible and sufficient--while Mr. Darwin's is confused and\nconfusing. I may however quote Mr. Darwin himself as throwing his theory\nabout the Madeira beetles on one side in a later passage, for he\nwrites:--\n\n\"It is probable that _disuse has been the main agent in rendering organs\nrudimentary_,\" or in other words that Lamarck was quite right--nor does\none see why if disuse is after all the main agent in rendering an organ\nrudimentary, use should not have been the main agent in developing\nit--but let that pass. \"It (disuse) would at first lead,\" continues Mr.\nDarwin, \"by slow steps to the more and more complete reduction of a\npart, until at last it became rudimentary--as in the case of the eyes of\nanimals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting\noceanic islands, which have seldom been forced by beasts of prey to take\nflight, and have ultimately lost the power of flying. Again, an organ\nuseful under certain conditions, might become injurious under others,\n_as with the wings of beetles living on small and exposed\nislands_;\"[372] so that the rudimentary condition of the Madeira\nbeetles' wings is here set down as mainly due to disuse--while above we\nfind it mainly due to natural selection--I should say that immediately\nafter the word \"islands\" just quoted, Mr. Darwin adds \"and in this case\nnatural selection will have aided in reducing the organ, until it was\nrendered harmless and rudimentary,\" but this is Mr. Darwin's manner, and\nmust go for what it is worth.\n\nHow refreshing to turn to the simple straightforward language of\nLamarck.\n\n\"Long continued disuse,\" he writes, \"in consequence of the habits which\nan animal has contracted, gradually reduces an organ, and leads to its\nfinal disappearance....\n\n\"Eyes placed in the head form an essential part of that plan on which we\nobserve all vertebrate organisms to be constructed. Nevertheless the\nmole which uses its vision very little, has eyes which are only very\nsmall and hardly apparent.\n\n\"The _aspalax_ of Olivier, which lives underground like the mole, and\nexposes itself even less than the mole to the light of day, has wholly\nlost the use of its sight, nor does it retain more than mere traces of\nvisual organs, these traces again being hidden under the skin and under\ncertain other parts which cover them up and leave not even the smallest\naccess to the light. The Proteus, an aquatic reptile akin to the\nSalamander and living in deep and obscure cavities under water, has,\nlike the aspalax, no longer anything but traces of eyes\nremaining--traces which are again entirely hidden and covered up.[373]\n\n\"The following consideration should be decisive.\n\n\"Light cannot penetrate everywhere, and as a consequence, animals which\nlive habitually in places which it cannot reach, do not have an\nopportunity of using eyes, even though they have got them; but animals\nwhich form part of a system of organization which comprises eyes as an\ninvariable rule among its organs, must have had eyes originally. Since\nthen we find among these animals some which have lost their eyes, and\nwhich have only concealed traces of these organs, it is evident that the\nimpoverishment, and even disappearance of the organs in question, must\nbe the effect of long-continued disuse.\n\n\"A proof of this is to be found in the fact that the organ of hearing is\nnever in like case with that of sight; we always find it in animals of\nwhose system of organization hearing is a component part; and for the\nfollowing reason, namely, that sound, which is the effect of vibration\nupon the ear, can penetrate everywhere, and pass even through massive\nintermediate bodies. Any animal, therefore, with an organic system of\nwhich the ear is an essential part, can always find a use for its ears,\nno matter where it inhabits. We never, therefore, come upon rudimentary\nears among the vertebrata, and when, going down the scale of life lower\nthan the vertebrata, we come to a point at which the ear is no longer to\nbe found; we never come upon ears again in any lower class.\n\n\"Not so with the organ of sight: we see this organ disappear, reappear,\nand disappear again with the possibility or impossibility of using eyes\non the part of the creature itself.[374]\n\n\"The great development of mantle in the acephalous molluscs has rendered\neyes, and even a head, entirely useless to them. These organs, though\nbelonging to the type of the organism, and by rights included in it,\nhave had to disappear and become annihilated owing to continued default\nof use.\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Many insects which, by the analogy of their order and even genus,\nshould have wings, have nevertheless lost them more or less completely\nthrough disuse. A number of coleoptera, orthoptera, hymenoptera, and\nhemiptera give us examples, the habits of these animals never leading\nthem to use their wings.\"[375]\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nI will here bring this present volume to a conclusion, hoping, however,\nto return to the same subject shortly, but to that part of it which\nbears upon longevity and the phenomena of old age. In 'Life and Habit' I\npointed out that if differentiations of structure and instinct are\nconsidered as due to the different desires under different circumstances\nof an organism, which must be regarded as a single creature, though its\ndevelopment has extended over millions of years, and which is guided\nmainly by habit and memory until some disturbing cause compels\ninvention--then the longevity of each generation or stage of this\norganism should depend upon the lateness of the average age of\nreproduction in each generation; so that an organism (using the word in\nits usual signification) which did not upon the average begin to\nreproduce itself till it was twenty, should be longer lived than one\nthat on the average begins to reproduce itself at a year old. I also\nmaintained that the phenomena of old age should be referred to failure\nof memory on the part of the organism, which in the embryonic stages,\ninfancy, youth, and early manhood, leans upon the memory of what it did\nwhen it was in the persons of its ancestors; in middle life, carries its\naction onward by means of the impetus, already received, and by the\nforce of habit; and in old age becomes puzzled, having no experience of\nany past existence at seventy-five, we will say, to guide it, and\ntherefore forgetting itself more and more completely till it dies. I\nhope to extend this, and to bring forward arguments in support of it in\na future work.\n\nOf the importance of the theory put forward in 'Life and Habit'--I am\ndaily more and more convinced. Unless we admit oneness of personality\nbetween parents and offspring, memory of the often repeated facts of\npast existences, the latency of that memory until it is rekindled by the\npresence of the associated ideas, or of a sufficient number of them, and\nthe far-reaching consequences of the unconsciousness which results from\nhabitual action, evolution does not greatly add to our knowledge as to\nhow we shall live here to the best advantage. Add these considerations,\nand its value as a guide becomes immediately apparent; a new light is\npoured upon a hundred problems of the greatest delicacy and difficulty.\nNot the least interesting of these is the gradual extension of human\nlongevity--an extension, however, which cannot be effected till many\nmany generations as yet unborn have come and gone. There is nothing,\nhowever, to prevent man's becoming as long lived as the oak if he will\npersevere for many generations in the steps which can alone lead to this\nresult. Another interesting achievement which should be more quickly\nattainable, though still not in our own time, is the earlier maturity of\nthose animals whose rapid maturity is an advantage to us, but whose\nlongevity is not to our purpose.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nThe question--Evolution or Direct Creation of all species?--has been\nsettled in favour of Evolution. A hardly less interesting and important\nbattle has now to be fought over the question whether we are to accept\nthe evolution of the founders of the theory--with the adjuncts hinted at\nby Dr. Darwin and Mr. Matthew, and insisted on, so far as I can gather,\nby Professor Hering and myself--or the evolution of Mr. Darwin, which\ndenies the purposiveness or teleology inherent in evolution as first\npropounded. I am assured that such of my readers as I can persuade to\nprefer the old evolution to the new will have but little reason to\nregret their preference.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nP.S.--As these sheets leave my hands, my attention is called to a review\nof Professor Haeckel's 'Evolution of Man,' by Mr. A. E. Wallace, in the\n'Academy' for April 12, 1879. \"Professor Haeckel maintains,\" says Mr.\nWallace, \"_that the struggle for existence in nature evolves new forms\nwithout design, just as the will of man produces new varieties in\ncultivation with design_.\" I maintain in preference with the older\nevolutionists, that in consequence of change in the conditions of their\nexistence, _organisms design new forms for themselves, and carry those\ndesigns out in additions to, and modifications of, their own bodies_.\n\n\"The science of rudimentary organs,\" continues Mr. Wallace, \"which\nHaeckel terms 'dysteleology, or the doctrine of purposelessness,' is\nhere discussed, and a number of interesting examples are given, the\nconclusion being that they prove the mechanical or monistic conception\nof the origin of organisms to be correct, and the idea of any 'all-wise\ncreative plan an ancient fable.'\" I see no reason to suppose, or again\nnot to suppose, an all-wise creative plan. I decline to go into this\nquestion, believing it to be not yet ripe, nor nearly ripe, for\nconsideration. I see purpose, however, in rudimentary organs as much as\nin useful ones, but a spent or extinct purpose--a purpose which has been\nfulfilled, and is now forgotten--the rudimentary organ being repeated\nfrom force of habit, indolence, and dislike of change, so long as it\ndoes not, to use the words of Buffon, \"stand in the way of the fair\ndevelopment\" of other parts which are found useful and necessary. I\ndemur, therefore, to the inference of \"purposelessness\" which I gather\nthat Professor Haeckel draws from these organs.\n\nIn the 'Academy' for April 19, 1879, Mr. Wallace quotes Professor\nHaeckel as saying that our \"highly purposive and admirably-constituted\nsense-organs have developed without premeditated aim; that they have\noriginated by the same mechanical process of Natural Selection, by the\nsame constant interaction of Adaptation and Heredity [what _is_ Heredity\nbut another word for unknown causes, unless it is explained in some such\nmanner as in 'Life and Habit'?] by which all the other purposive\ncontrivances of the animal organization have been slowly and gradually\nevolved during the struggle for existence.\"\n\nI see no evidence for \"premeditated aim\" at any modification very far in\nadvance of an existing organ, any more than I do for \"premeditated aim\"\non man's part at any as yet inconceivable mechanical invention; but as\nin the case of man's inventions, so also in that of the organs of\nanimals and plants, modification is due to the accumulation of small,\nwell-considered improvements, as found necessary in practice, and the\nconduct of their affairs. Each step having been purposive, the whole\nroad has been travelled purposively; nor is the purposiveness of such an\norgan, we will say, as the eye, barred by the fact that invention has\ndoubtless been aided by some of those happy accidents which from time to\ntime happen to all who keep their wits about them, and know how to turn\nthe gifts of Fortune to account.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[371] 'Origin of Species,' p. 109.\n\n[372] 'Origin of Species, p. 401.\n\n[373] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 242.\n\n[374] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 244.\n\n[375] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 245.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nREVIEWS OF 'EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW.'\n\n\nThose who have been at the pains to read the foregoing book will,\nperhaps, pardon me if I put before them a short account of the reception\nit has met with: I will not waste time by arguing with my critics at any\nlength; it will be enough if I place some of their remarks upon my book\nunder the same cover as the book itself, with here and there a word or\ntwo of comment.\n\nThe only reviews which have come under my notice appeared in the\n'Academy' and the 'Examiner,' both of May 17, 1879; the 'Edinburgh Daily\nReview,' May 23, 1879; 'City Press,' May 21, 1879; 'Field,' May 26,\n1879; 'Saturday Review,' May 31, 1879; 'Daily Chronicle,' May 31, 1879;\n'Graphic' and 'Nature,' both June 12, 1879; 'Pall Mall Gazette,' June\n18, 1879; 'Literary World,' June 20, 1879; 'Scotsman,' June 24, 1879;\n'British Journal of Homoeopathy' and 'Mind,' both July 1, 1879;\n'Journal of Science,' July 18, 1879; 'Westminster Review,' July, 1879;\n'Athenaeum,' July 26, 1879; 'Daily News,' July 29, 1879; 'Manchester\nCity News,' August 16, 1879; 'Nonconformist,' November 26, 1879;\n'Popular Science Review,' Jan. 1, 1880; 'Morning Post,' Jan. 12, 1880.\n\nSome of the most hostile passages in the reviews above referred to are\nas follows:--\n\n\"From beginning to end, our eccentric author treats us to a dazzling\nflood of epigram, invective, and what appears to be argument; and\nfinally leaves us without a single clear idea as to what he has been\ndriving at.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Mr. Butler comes forward, as it were, to proclaim himself a\nprofessional satirist, and a mystifier who will do his best to leave you\nutterly in the dark with regard to his system of juggling. Is he a\nteleological theologian making fun of evolution? Is he an evolutionist\nmaking fun of teleology? Is he a man of letters making fun of science?\nOr is he a master of pure irony making fun of all three, and of his\naudience as well? For our part we decline to commit ourselves, and\nprefer to observe, as Mr. Butler observes of Von Hartmann, that if his\nmeaning is anything like what he says it is, we can only say that it has\nnot been given us to form any definite conception whatever as to what\nthat meaning may be.\"--'Academy,' May 17, 1879, Signed Grant Allen.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nHere is another criticism of \"Evolution, Old and New\"--also, I believe I\nam warranted in saying, by Mr. Grant Allen. These two criticisms\nappeared on the same day; how many more Mr. Allen may have written later\non I do not know.\n\nWe find the writer who in the 'Academy' declares that he has been left\nwithout \"a single clear idea\" as to what 'Evolution, Old and New,' has\nbeen driving at saying on the same day in the 'Examiner' that\n'Evolution, Old and New,' \"has a more evident purpose than any of its\npredecessors.\" If so, I am afraid the predecessors must have puzzled Mr.\nAllen very unpleasantly. What the purpose of 'Evolution, Old and New,'\nis, he proceeds to explain:--\n\n\"As to his (Mr. Butler's) main argument, it comes briefly to this:\nnatural selection does not originate favourable varieties, it only\npassively permits them to exist; therefore it is the unknown cause which\nproduced the variations, not the natural selection which spared them,\nthat ought to count as the mainspring of evolution. That unknown cause\nMr. Butler boldly declares to be the will of the organism itself. An\nintelligent ascidian wanted a pair of eyes,[376] so set to work and made\nitself a pair, exactly as a man makes a microscope; a talented fish\nconceived the idea of walking on dry land, so it developed legs, turned\nits swim bladder into a pair of lungs, and became an amphibian; an\naesthetic guinea-fowl admired bright colours, so it bought a paint-box,\nstudied Mr. Whistler's ornamental designs, and, painting itself a gilded\nand ocellated tail, was thenceforth a peacock. But how about plants? Mr.\nButler does not shirk even this difficulty. The theory must be\nmaintained at all hazards.... This is the sort of mystical nonsense\nfrom which we had hoped Mr. Darwin had for ever saved us.\"--'Examiner,'\nMay 17, 1879.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nIn this last article, Mr. Allen has said that I am a man of genius,\n\"with the unmistakable signet-mark upon my forehead.\" I have been\nsubjected to a good deal of obloquy and misrepresentation at one time or\nanother, but this passage by Mr. Allen is the only one I have seen that\nhas made me seriously uneasy about the prospects of my literary\nreputation.\n\nI see Mr. Allen has been lately writing an article in the 'Fortnightly\nReview' on the decay of criticism. Looking over it somewhat hurriedly,\nmy eye was arrested by the following:--\n\n\"Nowadays any man can write, because there are papers enough to give\nemployment to everybody. No reflection, no deliberation, no care; all is\nhaste, fatal facility, stock phrases, commonplace ideas, and a ready pen\nthat can turn itself to any task with equal ease, because supremely\nignorant of all alike.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"The writer takes to his craft nowadays, not because he has taste for\nliterature, but because he has an incurable faculty for scribbling. He\nhas no culture, and he soon loses the power of taking pains, if he ever\npossessed it. But he can talk with glib superficiality and imposing\nconfidence about every conceivable subject, from a play or a picture to\na sermon or a metaphysical essay. It is the utter indifference to\nsubject-matter, joined with the vulgar unscrupulousness of pretentious\nignorance, that strikes the keynote of our existing criticism. Men write\nwithout taking the trouble to read or think.\"[377]\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nThe 'Saturday Review' attacked 'Evolution, Old and New,' I may almost\nsay savagely. It wrote: \"When Mr. Butler's 'Life and Habit' came before\nus, we doubted whether his ambiguously expressed speculations belonged\nto the regions of playful but possibly scientific imagination, or of\nunscientific fancies; and we gave him the benefit of the doubt. In fact,\nwe strained a point or two to find a reasonable meaning for him. He has\nnow settled the question against himself. Not professing to have any\nparticular competence in biology, natural history, or the scientific\nstudy of evidence in any shape whatever, and, indeed, rather glorying in\nhis freedom from any such superfluities, he undertakes to assure the\noverwhelming majority of men of science, and the educated public who\nhave followed their lead, that, while they have done well to be\nconverted to the doctrine of the evolution and transmutation of species,\nthey have been converted on entirely wrong grounds.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"When a writer who has not given as many weeks to the subject as Mr.\nDarwin has given years [as a matter of fact, it is now twenty years\nsince I began to publish on the subject of Evolution] is not content to\nair his own crude, though clever, fallacies, but presumes to criticize\nMr. Darwin with the superciliousness of a young schoolmaster looking\nover a boy's theme, it is difficult not to take him more seriously than\nhe deserves or perhaps desires. One would think that Mr. Butler was the\ntravelled and laborious observer of Nature, and Mr. Darwin the pert\nspeculator, who takes all his facts at secondhand.\"\n\n     . . . . . .\n\n\"Let us once more consider how matters stood a year or two before the\n'Origin of Species' first appeared. The continuous evolution of animated\nNature had in its favour the difficulty of drawing fixed lines between\nspecies and even larger divisions, all the indications of comparative\nanatomy and embryology, and a good deal of general scientific\npresumption. Several well-known writers, and some eminent enough to\ncommand respect, had expressed their belief in it. One or two far-seeing\nthinkers, among whom the place of honour must be assigned to Mr. Herbert\nSpencer, had done more. They had used their philosophic insight, which,\nto science, is the eye of faith, to descry the promised land almost\nwithin reach; they knew and announced how rich and spacious the heritage\nwould be, if once the entry could be made good. But on that 'if'\neverything hung. Nature was not bound to give up her secret, or was\nbound only in a mocking covenant with an impossible condition: _Si caelum\ndigito tetigeris_; if only some fortunate hand could touch the\ninaccessible firmament, and bring down the golden chain to earth! But\nfruition seemed out of sight. Even those who were most willing to\nadvance in this direction, could only regret that they saw no road\nclear. There was a tempting vision, but nothing proven--many would have\nsaid nothing provable. A few years passed, and all this was changed.\nThe doubtful speculation had become a firm and connected theory. In the\nroom of scattered foragers and scouts, there was an irresistibly\nadvancing column. Nature had surrendered her stronghold, and was\ndisarmed of her secret. And if we ask who were the men by whom this was\ndone, the answer is notorious, and there is but one answer possible: the\nnames that are for ever associated with this great triumph are those of\nCharles Darwin and Wallace.\"[378]\n\nI gave the lady or gentleman who wrote this an opportunity of\nacknowledging the authorship; but she or he preferred, not I think\nunnaturally, to remain anonymous.\n\nThe only other criticism of 'Evolution, Old and New,' to which I would\ncall attention, appeared in 'Nature,' in a review of 'Unconscious\nMemory,' by Mr. Romanes, and contained the following passages:--\n\n\"But to be serious, if in charity we could deem Mr. Butler a lunatic, we\nshould not be unprepared for any aberration of common sense that he\nmight display.... A certain nobody writes a book ['Evolution, Old and\nNew'] accusing the most illustrious man in his generation of burying the\nclaims of certain illustrious predecessors out of the sight of all men.\nIn the hope of gaining some notoriety by deserving, and perhaps\nreceiving a contemptuous refutation from the eminent man in question, he\npublishes this book which, if it deserved serious consideration, would\nbe not more of an insult to the particular man of science whom it\naccuses of conscious and wholesale plagiarism [there is no such\naccusation in 'Evolution, Old and New'] than it would be to men of\nscience in general for requiring such elementary instruction on some of\nthe most famous literature in science from an upstart ignoramus, who,\nuntil two or three years ago, considered himself a painter by\nprofession.\"--'Nature,' Jan. 27, 1881.\n\n     *     *     *     *     *\n\nIn a subsequent letter to 'Nature,' Mr. Romanes said he had been \"acting\nthe part of policeman\" by writing as he had done. Any unscrupulous\nreviewer may call himself a policeman if he likes, but he must not\nexpect those whom he assails to recognize his pretensions. 'Evolution,\nOld and New,' was not written for the kind of people whom Mr. Romanes\ncalls men of science; if \"men of science\" means men like Mr. Romanes, I\ntrust they say well who maintain that I am not a man of science; I\nbelieve the men to whom Mr. Romanes refers to be men, not of that kind\nof science which desires to know, but of that kind whose aim is to\nthrust itself upon the public as actually knowing. 'Evolution, Old and\nNew,' could be of no use to these; certainly, it was not intended as an\ninsult to them, but if they are insulted by it, I do not know that I am\nsorry, for I value their antipathy and opposition as much as I should\ndislike their approbation: of one thing, however, I am certain--namely,\nthat before 'Evolution, Old and New,' was written, Professors Huxley and\nTyndall, for example, knew very little of the earlier history of\nEvolution. Professor Huxley, in his article on Evolution in the ninth\nedition of the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica,' published in 1878, says of the\ntwo great pioneers of Evolution, that Buffon \"contributed nothing to\nthe general doctrine of Evolution,\"[379] and that Erasmus Darwin \"can\nhardly be said to have made any real advance on his predecessors.\"[380]\n\nProfessor Haeckel evidently knew little of Erasmus Darwin, and still\nless, apparently, about Buffon.[381] Professor Tyndall,[382] in 1878,\nspoke of Evolution as \"Darwin's theory\"; and I have just read Mr. Grant\nAllen as saying that Evolutionism \"is an almost exclusively English\nimpulse.\"[383]\n\nSince 'Evolution, Old and New,' was published, I have observed several\nof the so-called men of science--among them Professor Huxley and Mr.\nRomanes--airing Buffon; but I never observed any of them do this till\nwithin the last three years. I maintain that \"men of science\" were, and\nstill are, very ignorant concerning the history of Evolution; but,\nwhether they were or were not, I did not write 'Evolution, Old and New,'\nfor them; I wrote for the general public, who have been kind enough to\ntestify their appreciation of it in a sufficiently practical manner.\n\nThe way in which Mr. Charles Darwin met 'Evolution, Old and New,' has\nbeen so fully dealt with in my book, 'Unconscious Memory;' in the\n'Athenaeum,' Jan. 31, 1880; the 'St. James's Gazette,' Dec. 8, 1880; and\n'Nature,' Feb. 3, 1881, that I need not return to it here, more\nespecially as Mr. Darwin has, by his silence, admitted that he has no\ndefence to make.\n\nI have quoted by no means the moat exceptionable parts of Mr. Romanes'\narticle, and have given them a permanence they would not otherwise\nattain, inasmuch as nothing can better show the temper of the kind of\nmen who are now--as I said in the body of the foregoing work--clamouring\nfor endowment, and who would step into the Pope's shoes to-morrow if we\nwould only let them.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[376] See p. 44, and the whole of chap. v., where I say of this\nsupposition, that \"nothing could be conceived more foreign\nto experience and common sense.\"\n\n[377] 'Fortnightly Review,' March 1, 1882, pp. 344, 345.\n\n[378] 'Saturday Review,' May 31, 1879, pp. 682-3.\n\n[379] P. 748.\n\n[380] _Ibid._\n\n[381] See pp. 71-73.\n\n[382] 'Nineteenth Century' for November, pp. 360, 361.\n\n[383] 'Fortnightly Review,' March, 1882.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nROME AND PANTHEISM.\n\n\nEvolution would after all be a poor doctrine if it did not affect human\naffairs at every touch and turn. I propose to devote the second chapter\nof this Appendix to the consideration of an aspect of Evolution which\nwill always interest a very large number of people--the development of\nthe relation that may exist between religion and science.\n\nIf the Church of Rome would only develop some doctrine or, I know not\nhow, provide some means by which men like myself, who cannot pretend to\nbelieve in the miraculous element of Christianity, could yet join her as\na conservative stronghold, I, for one, should gladly do so. I believe\nthe difference between her faith and that of all who can be called\ngentlemen to be one of words rather than things. Our practical working\nideal is much the same as hers; when we use the word \"gentleman\" we mean\nthe same thing that the Church of Rome does; so that, if we get down\nbelow the words that formulate her teaching, there are few points upon\nwhich we should not agree. But, alas! words are often so very important.\n\nHow is it possible for myself, for example, to give people to understand\nthat I believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or in the\nLourdes miracles? If the Pope could spare time to think about so\ninsignificant a person, would he wish me to pretend such beliefs or\nthink better of me if I did pretend them? I should be sorry to see him\nturn suddenly round and deny his own faith, and I am persuaded that, in\nlike manner, he would have me continue to hold my own in peace;\nnevertheless, the duty of subordinating private judgment to the\navoidance of schism is so obvious that, if we could see a practicable\nway of bridging the gulf between ourselves and Rome, we should be\nheartily glad to bridge it.\n\nI speak as though the Church of Rome was the only one we can look to. I\ndo not see how it is easy to dispute this. Protestantism has been tried\nand failed; it has long ceased to grow, but it has by no means ceased to\ndisintegrate. Note the manner in which it is torn asunder by\ndissensions, and the rancour which these dissensions engender--a rancour\nwhich finds its way into the political and social life of Europe, with\nincalculable damage to the health and well-being of the world. Who can\ndoubt but that there will be a split even in the Church of England ere\nso many years are over? Protestantism is like one of those drops of\nglass which tend to split up into minuter and minuter fragments the\nmoment the bond that united them has been removed. It is as though the\nforce of gravity had lost its hold, and a universal power of repulsion\ntaken the place of attraction. This may, perhaps, come about some day in\nthe material as well as in the spiritual and political world, but the\nspirit of the age is as yet one of aggregation; the spirit of\nProtestantism is one of disintegration. I maintain, therefore, that it\nis not likely to be permanent.\n\nAll the great powers of Europe have from numberless distinct tribes\nbecome first a few kingdoms or dukedoms, then two or three nations, and\nnow homogeneous wholes, so that there is no chance of their further\ndismemberment through internal discontent; a process which has been\ngoing on for so many hundreds of years all over Europe is not likely to\nbe arrested without ample warning. True, during the Roman Empire the\nworld was practically bonded together, yet broke in pieces again; but\nthis, I imagine, was because the bonding was prophetic and superficial\nrather than genuine. Nature very commonly makes one or two false starts,\nand misses her aim a time or two before she hits it. She nearly hit it\nin the time of Alexander the Great, but this was a short-lived success;\nin the case of the Roman Empire she succeeded better and for longer\ntogether. Where Nature has once or twice hit her mark as near as this\nshe will commonly hit it outright eventually; the disruption of the\nRoman Empire, therefore, does not militate against the supposition that\nthe normal condition of right-minded people is one which tends towards\naggregation, or, in other words, towards compromise and the merging of\nmuch of one's own individuality for the sake of union and concerted\naction.\n\nSee, again, how Rome herself, within the limits of Italy, was an\naggregation, an aggregation which has now within these last few years\ncome together again after centuries of disruption; all middle-aged men\nhave seen many small countries come together in their own lifetime,\nwhile in America a gigantic attempt at disruption has completely failed.\nSuccess will, of course, sometimes attend disruption, but on the whole\nthe balance inclines strongly in favour of aggregation and homogeneity;\nanalogy points in the direction of supposing that the great civilized\nnations of Europe, as they are the coalition of subordinate provinces,\nso must coalesce themselves also to form a larger, but single empire.\nWars will then cease, and surely anything that seems likely to tend\ntowards so desirable an end deserves respectful consideration.\n\nThe Church of Rome is essentially a unifier. It is a great thing that\nnations should have so much in common as the acknowledgment of the same\ntribunal for the settlement of spiritual and religious questions, and\nthere is no head under which Christendom can unite with as little\ndisturbance as under Rome. Nothing more tends to keep men apart than\nreligious differences; this certainly ought not to be the case, but it\nno less certainly is, and therefore we should strain many points and\nsubordinate our private judgment to a very considerable extent if called\nupon to do so. A man, under these circumstances, is right in saying he\nbelieves in much that he does not believe in. Nevertheless there are\nlimits to this, and the Church of Rome requires more of us at present\nthan we can by any means bring ourselves into assenting to.\n\nIt may be asked, Why have a Church at all? Why not unite in community of\nnegation rather than of assertion? When I wrote 'Evolution, Old and\nNew,' three years ago, I thought, as now, that the only possible Church\nmust be a development of the Church of Rome; and seeing no chance of\nagreement between avowed free-thinkers, like myself, and Rome (for I\nbelieved Rome immovable), I leaned towards absolute negation as the best\nchance for unity among civilized nations; but even then, I expressed\nmyself as \"having a strong feeling as though Professor Mivart's\nconclusion is true, that 'the material universe is always and everywhere\nsustained and directed by an infinite cause, for which to us the word\nmind is the least inadequate and misleading symbol.'\"[384]\n\nI had hardly finished 'Evolution, Old and New,' before I began to deal\nwith this question according to my lights, in a series of articles upon\nGod[385] which appeared in the 'Examiner' during the summer of 1879, and\nI returned to the same matter more than once in 'Unconscious Memory,' my\nnext succeeding work. The articles I intend recasting and rewriting, as\nthey go upon a false assumption; but subsequent reflection has only\nconfirmed me in the general result I arrived at--namely, the\nomnipresence of mind in the universe.\n\nI have therefore come to see that we can go farther than negation, and\nin this case--a positive expression of faith as regards an invisible\nuniverse of some sort being possible--a Church of some sort is also\npossible, which shall formulate and express the general convictions as\nregards man's position in respect of this faith. I think the instinct\nwhich has led so many countries towards a double legislative chamber,\nand ourselves, till at any rate quite recently, to a double system of\njurisprudence, law and equity, was not arrived at without having passed\nthrough the stages of reason and reflection. There are a variety of\ndelicate, almost intangible, questions which belong rather to conscience\nthan to law, and for which a Church is a fitter tribunal--at any rate\nfor many ages hence--than a parliament or law court. There is room,\ntherefore, for both a State and a Church, each of which should be\ninfluenced by the action of the other.\n\nI do not say that I personally should like to see the Church of Rome as\nat present constituted in the position which I should be glad to see\nattained by an ideal Church. If it were in that position I would attack\nit to the utmost of my power; but I have little hesitation in thinking\nthat the world with a very possible feasible Church, would be better\nthan the world with no Church at all; and, if so, I have still less\nhesitation in concluding, for the reasons already given, that it is to\nRome we must turn as the source from which the Church of the future is\nto be evolved, if it is to come at all.\n\nFor the new, if it is to strike deep root and be permanent, must grow\nout of the old, without too violent a transition. Some violence there\nwill always be, even in the kindliest birth; but the less the better,\nand a leap greater than the one from Judaism to Christianity is not\ndesirable, even if it were possible. As a free-thinker, therefore, but\nalso as one who wishes to take a practical view of the manner in which\nthings will, and ought to go, I neither expect to see the religions of\nthe world come once for all to an end with the belief in\nChristianity--which to me is tantamount to saying with Rome--nor am I at\nall sure that such a consummation is more desirable than likely to come\nabout. The ultimate fight will, I believe, be between Rome and\nPantheism; and the sooner the two contending parties can be ranged into\ntheir opposite camps by the extinction of all intermediate creeds, the\nsooner will an issue of some sort be arrived at. This will not happen in\nour time, but we should work towards it.\n\nWhen it arrives, what is to happen? Is Pantheism to absorb Rome, and, if\nso, what sort of a religious formula is to be the result? or is Rome so\nto modify her dogmas that the Pantheist can join her without doing too\nmuch violence to his convictions? We who are outside the Church's pale\nare in the habit of thinking that she will make little if any advances\nin our direction. The dream of a Pantheistic Rome seems so wild as\nhardly to be entertained seriously; nevertheless I am much mistaken if I\ndo not detect at least one sign as though more were within the bounds of\npossibility than even the most sanguine of us could have hoped for a few\nyears back. We do not expect the Church to go our whole length; it is\nthe business of some to act as pioneers, but this is the last function a\nChurch should assume. A Church should be as the fly-wheel of a\nsteam-engine, which conserves, regulates and distributes energy, but\ndoes not originate it. In all cases it is more moral and safer to be a\nlittle behind the age than a little in front of it; a Church, therefore,\nought to cling to an old-established belief, even though her leaders\nknow it to be unfounded, so long as any considerable number of her\nmembers would be shocked at its abandonment. The question is whether\nthere are any signs as though the Church of Rome thought the time had\ncome when she might properly move a step forward, and I rejoice to\nthink, as I have said above, that at any rate one such sign--and a very\nimportant one--has come under my notice.\n\nIn his Encyclical of August 4, 1879, the Pope desires the Bishops and\nClergy to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas, and to spread\nit far and wide. \"Vos omnes,\" he writes, \"Venerabiles Fratres, quam\nenixe hortamur ut ad Catholicae fidei tutelam et decus, ad societatis\nbonum, ad scientiarum omnium incrementum auream Sancti Thomae sapientiam\nrestituatis, et quam latissime propagetis.\" He proceeds then with the\nfollowing remarkable passage: \"We say the wisdom of St. Thomas. For\nwhatever has been worked out with too much subtleness by the doctors of\nthe schools, or handed down inconsiderately, whatever is not consistent\nwith the teachings of a later age, or finally, is in any way NOT\nPROBABLE, We in no wise intend to propose for acceptance in these\ndays.\"[386]\n\nIt would be almost possible to suppose that these words had been written\ninadvertently, so the Pope practically repeats them thus: \"We willingly\nand gratefully declare that whatsoever can be excepted with advantage,\nis to be excepted, no matter by whom it has been invented.\"[387]\n\nThe passage just quoted is so pregnant that a few words of comment may\nbe very well excused. In the first place, I cannot but admire the\nlatitude which the Pope not only tolerates, but enjoins: he defines\nnothing, but declares point blank that if we find anything in St. Thomas\nAquinas \"not consistent with the assured teachings of a later age, or\nfinally IN ANY WAY NOT PROBABLE\"--(what is not involved here?)--we are\n\"in no wise to suppose\" that it is being proposed for our acceptance.\nBut it is a small step from allowing latitude in accepting or rejecting\nthe parts of St. Thomas Aquinas which conflict with the assured result\nof later discoveries to allowing a similar latitude in respect, we will\nsay, of St. Jude; and if of St. Jude, then of St. James the Less; and if\nof St. James the Less, then surely ere very long of St. James the\nGreater and St. John and St. Paul; nor will the matter stop there. How\nmarvellously closely are the two extremes of doctrine approaching to one\nanother! We, on the one hand, who begin with _tabulae rasae_ having made a\nclean sweep of every shred of doctrine, lay hold of the first thing we\ncan grasp with any firmness, and work back from it. We grope our way to\nevolution; through this to purposive evolution; through this to the\nomnipresence of mind and design throughout the universe; what is this\nbut God? So that we can say with absolute freedom from _equivoque_ that\nwe are what we are through the will of God. The theologian, on the other\nhand, starts with God, and finds himself driven through this to\nevolution, as surely as we found ourselves driven through evolution to\nthe omnipresence of God.\n\nLet us look a little more closely at the ground which the Church of Rome\nand the Evolutionist hold in common. St. Paul speaks of there being \"one\nbody and one spirit,\" and of one God as being \"above all, and through\nall, and in you all.\"[388] Again, he tells us that we are members of\nGod's body, \"of his flesh and of his bones;\"[389] in another place he\nwrites that God has reconciled us to himself, \"in the body of his\nflesh,\"[390] and in yet another of the Spirit of God \"dwelling in\nus.\"[391] St. Paul indeed is continually using language which implies\nthe closest physical as well as spiritual union between God and those at\nany rate of mankind who were Christians. Then he speaks of our \"being\nbuilded together for an habitation of God through the spirit,\"[392] and\nof our being \"filled with the fulness of God.\"[393] He calls Christian\nmen's bodies \"temples of the Holy Spirit,\"[394] in fact it is not too\nmuch to say that he regarded Christian men's limbs as the actual living\norgans of God himself, for the expressions quoted above--and many others\ncould be given--come to no less than this. It follows that since any man\ncould unite himself to \"the flesh and bones\" of God by becoming a\nChristian, Paul had a perception of the unity at any rate of human life;\nand what Paul admitted I am persuaded the Church of Rome will not deny.\n\nGranted that Paul's notion of the unity of all mankind in one spirit\nanimating, or potentially animating the whole was mystical, I submit\nthat the main difference between him and the Evolutionist is that the\nfirst uses certain expressions more or less prophetically, and without\nperhaps a full perception of their import; while the second uses the\nsame expressions literally, and with the ordinary signification attached\nto the words that compose them. It is not so much that we do not hold\nwhat Paul held, but that we hold it with the greater definiteness and\ncomprehension which modern discovery has rendered possible. We not only\naccept his words, but we extend them, and not only accept them as\narticles of faith to be taken on the word of others, but as so\nprofoundly entering into our views of the world around us that that\nworld loses the greater part of its significance if we may not take such\nsayings as that \"we are God's flesh and his bones\" as meaning neither\nmore nor less than what appears upon the face of them. We believe that\nwhat we call our life is part of the universal life of the Deity--which\nis literally and truly made manifest to us in flesh that can be seen and\nhandled--ever changing, but the same yesterday, and to-day, and for\never.\n\nSo much for the closeness with which we have come together on matters of\nfact, and now for the _rapprochement_ between us in respect of how much\nconformity is required for the sake of avoiding schism. We find\nourselves driven through considerations of great obviousness and\nsimplicity to the conclusion that a man both may and should keep no\nsmall part of his opinions to himself, if they are too widely different\nfrom those of other people for the sake of union and the strength gained\nby concerted action; and we also find the Pope declaring of one of the\nbrightest saints and luminaries of the Church that we need not follow\nhim when it is plainly impossible for us to do so. Is it so very much to\nhope that ere many years are over the approximation will become closer\nstill?\n\nI have sometimes imagined that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility may\nbe the beginning of a way out of the difficulty, and that its promoters\nwere so eager for it, rather for the facilities it afforded for the\nrepealing of old dogmas than for the imposition of new ones. The Pope\ncannot, even now, under any circumstances, declare a dogma of the Church\nto be obsolete or untrue, but I should imagine he can, in council, _ex\ncathedra_, modify the interpretation to be put upon any dogma, if he\nshould find the interpretation commonly received to be prejudicial to\nthe good of the Church: and if so, the manner in which Rome can put\nherself more in harmony with the spirit of recent discoveries, without\nputting herself in an illogical position, is not likely to escape eyes\nso keen as those of the Catholic hierarchy. No sensible man will\nhesitate to admit that many an interpretation which was natural to and\nsuitable for one age is unnatural to and unsuitable for another; as\ncircumstances are always changing, so men's moods and the meanings they\nattach to words, and the state of their knowledge changes; and hence,\nalso, the interpretation of the dogmas in which their conclusions are\nsummarized. There is nothing to be ashamed of or that needs explaining\naway in this; nothing can remain changeless under changed conditions;\nand that institution is most likely to be permanent which contains\nprovision for such changes as time may prove to be expedient, with the\nleast disturbance. I can see nothing, therefore, illogical or that needs\nconcealment in the fact of an infallible Pope putting a widely different\ninterpretation upon a dogma now, to what a no less infallible Pope put\nupon the same dogma fifteen hundred, or even fifteen years ago; it is\nonly right, reasonable, and natural that this should be so. The Church\nof England may have made no provision for the virtual pruning off of\ndogmas that have become rudimentary, but the Encyclical from which I\nhave just quoted leads me to think that the Church of Rome has found\none, and, in her own cautious way, is proceeding to make use of it. If\nso, she may possibly in the end get rid of Protestantism by putting\nherself more in harmony with the spirit of the age than Protestantism\ncan do. In this case, the spiritual reunion of Christendom under Rome\nceases to be impossible, or even, I should think improbable. I heartily\nwish that my conjecture concerning future possibilities is not\nunfounded.\n\nScientists have been right in preaching evolution, but they have\npreached it in such a way as to make it almost as much of a\nstumbling-block as of an assistance. For though the fact that animals\nand plants are descended from a common stock is accepted by the greater\nand more reasonable part of mankind, these same people feel that the\nevidence in favour of design in the universe is no less strong than that\nin favour of evolution, and our scientists, for the most part, uphold a\ntheory of evolution of which the cardinal doctrine is that design and\nevolution have nothing to do with one another; the jar they raise,\ntherefore, is as bad as the jar they have allayed.\n\nIt has been the object of the foregoing work to show that those who take\nthis line are wrong, and that evolution not only tolerates design, but\ncannot get on without it. The unscrupulousness with which I have been\nattacked, together with the support given me by the general public, are\nsufficient proofs that I have not written in vain.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[384] P. 371.\n\n[385] Published as \"God the Known and God the Unknown\" in 1909.\n(Fifield.)\n\n[386] \"Sapientiam Sancti Thomae dicimus: si quid enim est a doctoribus\nscholasticis vel nimia subtilitate quaesitum, vel parum considerate\ntraditum, si quid cum exploratis posterioris aevi doctrinis minus\ncohaerens, vel denique quoque modo non probabile, id nullo pacto in animo\nest aetate nostra ad imitandum proponi.\"\n\n[387] \"Edicimus libenti gratoque animo excipiendum esse quidquid\nutiliter fuerit a quopiam inventum atque excogitatum.\"\n\n[388] Eph. iv. 3, 4, 5.\n\n[389] Eph. v. 30.\n\n[390] Col. i. 22.\n\n[391] Rom. viii. 2.\n\n[392] Eph. ii. 22.\n\n[393] Eph. iii. 19.\n\n[394] 1 Cor. vii. 19.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nABORTION, neutralization of working bees an act of, 250\n\nAccessory touches, varying Buffon on, 92\n\nAccident, many of our best thoughts come thoughtlessly, 48, 384\n\n---- profiting by, 51, 53\n\n---- and discovery of theory connecting meteors with comets, 53\n\n---- shaking the bag to see what will come out, 53\n\n---- effects of, transmitted to offspring, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 224\n\n---- and design, the line between these hard to draw, 384\n\nAccidental variations thrown for as with dice, 3\n\nAccumulation of variations, C. Darwin deals with the, and not with\n  the origin of, 340, 341\n\n---- of small divergencies, Buffon on the, 103\n\nAccurate, survival of fittest more accurate than Nat. Sel. and\n  _sometimes_ equally convenient, 9, 354, 365\n\nAct of Parliament, Natural Selection compared to a certain kind of, 358\n\nAge, old, the phenomena of, 67, 204, 381\n\nAggregation, the spirit of the age tends towards, 397, 398\n\nAhead, no organism sees very far, 44, 48, 54, 384\n\nAldrovandus, Buffon on the learned, 93\n\nAlive, when we must not say that an animal is alive (to be\n  retracted), 279\n\nAllen, Grant, on 'Evolution, Old and New,' 386-388\n\n---- on the decay of criticism, 388\n\n---- calls Evolutionism \"an almost exclusively English impulse,\" 393\n\nAlternations of fat and lean years, Buffon on, 125\n\nAmoeba, the, did not conceive the idea of an eye and work towards\n  it, 43, 44, 384\n\nAnalogies, false, all words are apt to turn out to be, 365\n\nAnimals, contracts among, Dr. E. Darwin on, 205\n\nApe, the, and man, 90\n\nApes and monkeys, Buffon on, 153\n\n---- and children fall on all-fours at the approach of danger, 312\n\nApparentibus, _de non_, _et non existentibus, &c._, 36\n\nAppearances, rather superficial, our only guide to\n  classification, 34, 35, 36, 198, 204\n\nAppetency, Paley's argument against the view that structures have been\n  developed through, 22, 45\n\nAristides, C. Darwin as just as, 363\n\nAristotle denied teleology, 4\n\nArtificial and real foot, differences between, 25\n\nAsceticism, virtue errs on the side of excess rather than on that of, 35\n\nAss, the, and horse, Buffon's pregnant passage on their\n  relationship, 80, 90, 91, 100, 101, 142, 143, 155, 164, 311\n\nAuthority, a hard thing to weigh, 253\n\n\nBACON, F., on evolution, 69\n\nBalzac, quotation from, on memory and instinct, 67\n\nBark, Erasmus Darwin's theory of, 208\n\nBeaver, trowel incorporated into the beaver's organism, 8\n\nBees, neutralization of working, an act of abortion, 250\n\nBeetles, Madeira, Lamarck and C. Darwin's views of their winglessness\n  compared, 373, 380\n\nBegin, How could the eye _begin_? 46, 47\n\nBeginnings, of complex structures, a difficulty in the way of natural\n  selection, 21, 22\n\n---- difficulty of accounting for, 46, 47\n\n---- a matter of conjecture and inference, 48\n\nBehind, more moral to be behind the age than in front of it, 401\n\nBest, making the best of whatever power one has, 50\n\nBird, how birds became web-footed, 48, 49, 51\n\n---- a, will modify its nest a little, under altered circumstances, 55\n\n---- Buffon on, 170, &c.\n\n---- nests, Dr. Erasmus Darwin's failure to connect the power to make\n  them with memory, 201, 203\n\n---- aquatic and wading, Lamarck on, 305\n\nBishop, and Eveque, common derivation of, 355\n\nBlindfolded, we are so far, that we can see a few steps in front,\n  but no more, 44\n\n---- us, C. Darwin has almost ostentatiously, 346\n\nBlindly, forces interacting blindly, 59\n\nBody and mind, Lamarck on, 338, 339, 341\n\nBrain, Lamarck had brain upon the brain, 36\n\n---- Buffon on the, 131, 133, &c.\n\nBrevity may be the soul of wit, but, &c., 315\n\nBreeding, and feeding, 222\n\nBrown-Sequard, his experiments on guinea-pigs' legs, 303\n\nBuds, individuality of, Dr. Erasmus Darwin on the, 207, 208\n\nBuffalo, Buffon on the, 148, &c.\n\nBuffon, profoundly superficial, 34\n\n---- _plus il a su, plus il a pu, &c._, 44\n\n---- _dans l'animal il y a moins de jugement que de sentiment_, 51\n\n---- ignorance concerning, 61\n\n---- memoir of, 74, &c.\n\n---- on glory, genius, and style, 76, 77\n\n---- ironical character of his work and method (_see_ Irony), 78,\n  &c., 171\n\n---- on the ass, horse, and zebra, 80, 90, 91, 100, 101, 142,\n  143, 155, 164, 311\n\n---- would not play the part of Rousseau or Voltaire, 81\n\n---- Sir W. Jardine on, and the Sorbonne, 82\n\n---- regards all animal and vegetable life as from one common source, 90\n\n---- if a single species has ever been found under domestication,\n  &c., 91\n\n---- on plaisanterie, and the learned Aldrovandus, 93, &c.\n\n---- his compromise, 92\n\n---- accessory touches, 92\n\n---- \"_especially_\" the same, 96\n\n---- fluctuation of opinion an unfounded charge, 97, &c., 164\n\n---- on the accumulation of small divergencies, 103\n\n---- began preaching evolution almost on his first page, 104\n\n---- chapter on the _degeneration des animaux_, equivalent to \"on\n  descent with modification,\" 104, &c.\n\n---- difference of opinion between him and Erasmus Darwin and\n  Lamarck, 105\n\n---- probably did not differ from Lamarck, 105\n\n---- on direct action of changed conditions, 105, 145, 147\n\n---- on man and the lower animals, 108\n\n---- on classification, 108, 109, 141\n\n---- on animals and plants, 109, 110\n\n---- on reason and instinct, 110, 115\n\n---- on final causes (the pig), 118, &c.\n\n---- on hybridism, 117, 118\n\n---- rudimentary organs, 120\n\n---- on animals under domestication, 121, &c., 148\n\n---- deals with these early, as giving him the best opportunities\n  for illustrating the theory of evolution, 276\n\n---- approaches natural selection in his \"by _some chance_ common\n  enough in Nature,\" 122\n\n---- preaching on the hare when he should have preached on the rabbit\n  out of pure love of mischief, 123\n\n---- resumption of feral characteristics, 123\n\n---- on the geometrical ratio of increase, 123, &c.\n\n---- alternation of fat and lean years, 125\n\n---- equilibrium of Nature, 125\n\n---- \"au reel,\" 126\n\n---- on violent death, 126\n\n---- on sensation, 126, &c.\n\n---- on the interaction of organ and sense, 127\n\n---- the carnivora, 126\n\n---- his criterion of what name a thing is to bear, 127\n\n---- his criterion of perception and sensation, 127\n\n---- on the unity of the individual, 127, 128\n\n---- satirizes our habit of judging all things by our own standards, 129\n\n---- the diaphragm, 129\n\n---- on the stock and the diaphragm, 130\n\n---- distinction between perception and sensation, 129, 130\n\n---- on the meninges, 132\n\n---- on the brain, 131, 133, &c.\n\n---- on scientific orthodoxy and mystification, 138\n\n---- on the relativity of science, 140\n\n---- on nomenclature and knowledge, 141\n\n---- on the genus _felis_, 143\n\n---- on the lion and the tiger, 143, 145\n\n---- on the animals of the old and new world, 145, &c.\n\n---- on changed geographical distribution of land and water, 145, 164\n\n---- on extinct species, 146\n\n---- hates the new world, 146\n\n---- on heredity and habit, 148, 159, 160, 161, 162\n\n---- approaches Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, _re_ the Buffalo, Camel,\n  and Llama, 148, 160, 161\n\n---- on oneness of personality between parents and offspring, 151\n\n---- on the organic and inorganic, 153, &c.\n\n---- on apes and monkeys, 153, &c.\n\n---- on the causes or means of the transformation of species, 159, &c.\n\n---- on generic (as well as specific) differences, 164\n\n---- on plants under domestication, 167\n\n---- on pigeons and fowls, 169\n\n---- on birds, 170, &c.\n\n---- the assistance he rendered to Lamarck, 237, 258\n\n---- Isidore Geoffroy's failure to understand, 328\n\n---- Colonel, 75\n\nBulk, a _sine qua non_ for success in literature or science, 315\n\nBull running, Tutbury, and Erasmus Darwin, 187\n\n\nCAMEL, Buffon on the hereditary ills of the, 161\n\nCant, and rudimentary organs, 38\n\nCaptandum, all good things are done ad, 85\n\nCarnivora, Buffon on the, 126\n\nCarriage, Dr. Erasmus Darwin's, 181\n\nCat, family, Buffon on the, 142, &c.\n\n---- with a mane and long tail, 143\n\nCataclysms, the good cells that get exterminated during the cataclysms\n  of our own development, 75\n\nCatastrophes, Lamarck on, 277\n\nCauses, or \"means,\" of modification, 301\n\n---- C. Darwin says that Buffon has not entered on the, 104, &c.\n\n---- C. Darwin gets us into a fog about, 345, &c.\n\nChange, under changed circumstances, Mr. Patrick Matthew on, 318\n\nCharity, the greatest of these is, 77\n\nChurch, a, like a second chamber, 400\n\n---- the world better with than without, 400\n\n---- should be like the fly-wheel of a steam engine, 104\n\n_Circonstances_ (_see_ Conditions of Existence), Lamarck on, 268, 281\n\nCircumstance, suiting power, a, Mr. Patrick Matthew on, 318-321\n\nClassification, rather superficial appearances our best guide\n  to, 34, 35, 36, 198, 204\n\n---- Buffon on, 108, 109, 141\n\nClear, an ineradicable tendency to make things, 92\n\nClifford, Professor, on \"Design,\" 6, 7\n\nClimbing plants, the movements of, Dr. Erasmus Darwin on, 209\n\nCoherency, the persistency of ideas the best argument in support of\n  their legitimate connection, 23\n\nColeridge, on \"Darwinising,\" 21\n\nCommon terms, our, involve the connection between memory and\n  heredity, 201, 205\n\n---- descent, the \"hidden bond\" of Lamarck, as also of C. Darwin, 271\n\nComparative anatomy, Lamarck on, 266, &c.\n\nComplex structures, the incipiency of, a difficulty in the way of the\n  natural selection view of evolution, 21, 22\n\nCompromise, Buffon's, 92\n\nConditions of existence, the very essence of condition involves that\n  there shall be penalty in case of non-fulfilment, 352, 376, 377\n\n---- and the winglessness of Madeira beetles, 373, &c.\n\n---- according to C. Darwin, \"include\" and yet \"are fully embraced by\"\n  natural selection, 355\n\n---- identical with \"natural selection,\" 351-354\n\n---- Etienne Geoffroy, and Lamarck on, 326, 327, 328\n\n---- Buffon on the, 103;\n     difference between Buffon's and Lamarck's view of their action, 105\n\n---- direct action of changed, Buffon on the, 145, 147, 160\n\n---- Lamarck on, 105, 268, 270, 271, 275, 277, 278, 281, 291,\n  292, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, &c.\n\nContinuity in discontinuity, and _vice versa_, 47\n\nContracts of animals, Dr. E. Darwin on the, 205\n\nContrivance, does organism show signs of this? 2\n\nConvenient, not only _sometimes_, but always, more, 365\n\nCorkscrew for corks, and lungs for respiration, Prof. Clifford on, 7.\n  See also p. 58\n\n---- we should have grown a, if drawing corks had been important\n  to us, 7\n\nCreator, a, who is not an organism, unintelligible, 6, 11, 24\n\nCriticising, difficulty of, without knowing more than the mere facts\n  which are to be criticised, 172\n\nCriticism, Miss Seward's, on Dr. Darwin's \"Elegy,\" 189\n\n---- Grant Allen on the decay of, 388\n\nCrux, the, of the early evolutionist, 35\n\nCuttle-fish, natural selection like the secretion of a, 332\n\n\nDAMNATION, praising with faint, 111\n\nDarwin, Charles, on the eye, denies design, 8\n\n---- declares variation to be the cause of variation, 8, 347, 369\n\n---- and blind chance working on whither; the accumulation of\n  innumerable lucky accidents, 41, 42\n\n---- our indebtedness to, 62, 66, 335\n\n---- has adopted one half of Isidore Geoffroy's conclusion without\n  verifying either, 83\n\n---- on Buffon's fluctuation of opinion, 97\n\n---- on Isidore Geoffroy, 97\n\n---- his assertion that Buffon has not entered on the \"causes or\n  means\" of transformation, 104\n\n---- his meagre notice of his grandfather, 196\n\n---- his treatment of the author of the \"Vestiges of Creation,\" 65,\n  247, 248\n\n---- attributes the characteristics of neuter insects to natural\n  selection, 249\n\n---- his treatment of Lamarck, 249, 250, 251, 298, 314, 376\n\n---- \"great is the power of steady misrepresentation,\" 251\n\n---- his \"happy simplicity\" about animals and plants under\n  domestication, 276\n\n---- his notice of Mr. Patrick Matthew in the imperfect historical\n  sketch which he has prefaced to the \"Origin of Species,\" 315, 316\n\n---- points of agreement between him and Lamarck, 335-337\n\n---- sees no broad principle underlying variation, 339\n\n---- dwells on the accumulation of variations, the origination of\n  which he leaves unaccounted for, 340, 341\n\n---- his variations being due to no general underlying principle, will\n  not tend to appear in definite directions, nor to many individuals\n  at a time, nor to be constant for long together, 342\n\n---- speaks of natural selection as a cause of modification, while\n  declaring it to be a means only, 345, &c.\n\n---- his explanation of this, 384, &c.\n\n---- his dilemma, as regards the \"Origin of Species,\" 346\n\n---- declares the fact of variation to be the cause of variation,\n  8, 347, 369\n\n---- if he had told us more of what Buffon, &c., said, and where\n  they were wrong, he would have taken a course, &c., 357\n\n---- on the ease with which we can hide our ignorance under a cloud\n  of words, 358\n\n---- apologizes for having underrated the frequency and importance\n  of variation due to spontaneous variability, 358\n\n---- his \"Origin of Species\" like the opinion of a lawyer who wanted\n  to leave loopholes, or an Act of Parliament full of repealed and\n  inserted clauses, 358\n\n---- accused of confusion and inaccuracy of thought, 359\n\n---- as just as Aristides himself, 364\n\n---- most candid literary opponent in the world, 364\n\n---- declares Nature to be the most important means of modification,\n  and variation to be the cause of variations, 369\n\n---- like a will-o'-the-wisp, 372\n\n---- disuse, the main agent in reducing wings of Madeira beetles, 377\n\n---- how he and Lamarck treat the winglessness of Madeira beetles\n  respectively, 373-380\n\n---- an example of his \"manner,\" 378\n\n---- the way in which he met \"Evolution, Old and New,\" 393\n\nDarwin, Erasmus, never quite recognized design, 39\n\n---- ignorance concerning, 61\n\n---- on reason and instinct, 115, &c.\n\n---- life of, 173, &c.\n\n---- in Nottingham market-place, 182, 184, 197\n\n---- and Dr. Johnson, 184, 185\n\n---- and Tutbury bull running, 187\n\n---- his poetry about the pump, and illustration, 84, 193\n\n---- should have given his evolution theory a book to itself, 197\n\n---- had no wish to see far beyond the obvious, 197\n\n---- must be admitted to have missed detecting Buffon's\n  humour, 83, 84, 197\n\n---- did not attribute instincts and structures to memory pure\n  and simple, 198\n\n---- on the reasoning powers of animals, and on instinct, 201, 205\n\n---- his failure to connect memory and instinct, as with birds'\n  nests, 201-203\n\n---- failed to see the four main propositions which I contended\n  for in \"Life and Habit,\" 37, 203, 204\n\n---- on the analogies between animal and vegetable life, 206, &c.\n\n---- on sensitive plants, 206, 210\n\n---- on the individuality of buds, and his theory of bark, 207, 208\n\n---- on the movements of climbing plants, 209\n\n---- on the oneness of personality between parents and offspring, 214;\n     the embryo not a new animal, 215\n\n---- on animals under domestication, 223\n\n---- on the effects of accidents transmitted to offspring, 224\n\n---- sees struggle, and hence modification, turn mainly round three\n  great wants, 226, 229, 257, 279\n\n---- on desire as a means of modification, 226, 228, 259\n\n---- by a slip approaches the error of his grandson, 227, 228\n\n---- on embryonic metamorphoses, 230, 231\n\n---- believed animals and plants to be descended from a common\n  stock, 233\n\n---- and Lamarck compared, 257\n\n---- on the struggle of existence, and the survival of the\n  fittest, 227, 232, 259\n\nDarwin, Mrs. Erasmus, death-bed of, 178\n\nDarwin, Francis, mentioned, 109\n\n---- his interesting lecture, 206\n\n---- does not use the expression \"natural selection,\" 368\n\nDarwinising, Coleridge on, 21\n\nDarwinism, the old Darwinism involves desire, invention, and design, 58\n\n---- modern, falling into disfavour, 60\n\n---- and evolution not to be confounded, 360, 361\n\nDay, the portrait of, by Wright of Derby, 180\n\nDeath, violent, Buffon on, 126\n\n---- of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 193, 194\n\nDeath-bed of Mrs. Erasmus Darwin, 178\n\nDeed, illustration drawn from a very intricate, 28\n\nDefinite, with Lamarck the variations are, 341, 344\n\n_Degenerations_, 87\n\nDemand and supply, like power and desire, 222, 300\n\nDemonstrative case, \"this demonstrative case of neuter insects,\n  &c.,\" 249, 298, 314\n\nDescent, with modification, spoken of as though synonymous with\n  natural selection, 248, 356\n\nDesign, and organism, shall we or shall we not connect these ideas? 2\n\n---- Aristotle denied, Plato upheld, Haeckel on, 4\n\n---- Prof. Clifford's denial of, 6, 7\n\n---- does certainly involve a designer who has an organism, who\n  can think, and make mistakes, 6, 24\n\n---- a belief in both design and evolution, commonly held to\n  be incompatible, 9\n\n---- Sir W. Thomson and Sir J. Herschel on, 11\n\n---- Paley on, 12, &c.\n\n---- light thrown by embryology on the method of, 25\n\n---- G. H. Lewes opposes, 26\n\n---- the three positions in respect to, taken by Charles Darwin,\n  Paley, and the earlier evolutionists, 31\n\n---- the first evolutionists did not see that their view of\n  evolution involved design, 34\n\n---- from within as much design as from without, 36\n\n---- was equivalent to theological design, with the early\n  evolutionists, 36\n\n---- if each step is taken designedly, the whole is done\n  designedly, 52, 384\n\n---- and accident, the line between them hard to draw; shaking\n  the bag, &c., 53, 384\n\n---- instinct originated in, 54\n\n---- as much lost sight of with old-established forms of the\n  steam-engine as with birds' nests or the wheel, 55\n\n---- Dr. E. Darwin's failure to see that evolution involves design, 195\n\n---- we feel the want of, as much as we do of evolution, 407\n\n---- evolution not only tolerates, but cannot get on without, 408\n\nDesigner, \"I believe in an organic and tangible designer of every\n  complex structure,\" 6\n\n---- \"where is he? show him to us,\" &c., 29, 30\n\n---- the, of any organism, the organism itself, 30, 31, 40\n\nDesire and power, interaction of, 44, 45, 47, 127, 217, 221, 300, 322\n\n---- and power, like wealth, 222\n\n---- as a means of modification, Dr. Erasmus Darwin on, 226, 228, 259\n\nDevelopment, the history of organic, the history of a moral struggle, 45\n\n---- always due to making the best of the present, 50\n\nDevils, 20,000, dancing a saraband on the point of a needle, 216\n\nDew drop, or lens, the, and Lord Rosse's telescope, 44, 47\n\nDiaphragm, Buffon on the, 129\n\nDice, accidental variations thrown for as with, 3\n\nDifference between animal and ordinary mechanism, 24\n\n---- the main, between the manufacture of tools and that of organs, 39\n\nDilemma, C. Darwin's, 346\n\nDirect action of changed conditions, Buffon on the, 105, 145, 147, 160\n\nDiscontinuity in continuity, 47\n\nDisease, accidents followed by, 303\n\nDisintegration, Protestantism tends towards, 397\n\nDistribution, geographical, changed, Buffon on, 145, 164\n\nDisuse, and the winglessness of Madeira beetles, we are almost surprised\n  to find that they are connected at all, 375\n\n---- the main agent in reducing the wings of Madeira beetles, 377\n\n---- some examples of the effect of, adduced by Lamarck, 378\n\nDog, Buffon on the, 120\n\n---- Lamarck on the various breeds of the, 297\n\nDomestication, a single case of a species formed under domestication\n  sufficient to remove the _a priori_ difficulty from a\n  comprehensive theory of evolution, 90, 91, 311\n\n---- plants under, Buffon on, 167, &c.\n\n---- Buffon on animals under, 103, 120, &c., 148, &c., 159, &c., 276\n\n---- animals under, Dr. Erasmus Darwin on, 223\n\n---- animals under, Buffon on, 121, &c., 148, 276\n\n---- C. Darwin on, 276\n\n---- animals and plants under, Lamarck on, 275, 293, 296, 297, 300\n\n---- animals and plants under, Mr. Patrick Matthew on, 324\n\nDoor, the doing anything well will open the door for doing\n  something else, 51\n\nDucks, our domesticated, why they cannot fly like wild ones, 296, 309\n\n\nEARN, \"you are but doing your best to earn an honest living,\" 29\n\nEars are never found in a rudimentary condition, 379\n\nEat, or be eaten, 177\n\nEffort, Paley's argument that structures have not been developed\n  through, 22, 45\n\n---- too much, as vicious as indolence, 35\n\n---- \"neither too much nor too little,\" 50\n\n---- Herculean, condemned, 197\n\nEgyptian mummies, Lamarck on, 274, 275\n\nEmbryology, the light it throws upon the mode in which organisms\n  have been designed, 25\n\nEmbryonic metamorphoses, Erasmus Darwin on, 230, 231\n\nEmbryonic development, Lamarck on, 289\n\nEncyclical, the Pope's, on St. Thomas Aquinas, 402, &c.\n\nEndeavour, Paley's argument against the view that structures have\n  been developed through, 22, 45\n\nEndowment, the new orthodoxy, which is clamouring for, 360\n\nEnglish wines, Dr. Erasmus Darwin's preference for, 175\n\nEnvironment. _See_ Conditions of Existence\n\nEquilibrium, the, of Nature, Buffon on the, 125\n\nErr, the power to, rated highly, 29\n\n---- \"it is on this margin that we may err or wander,\" 50\n\n---- virtue ever errs on the side of excess, 35\n\nError, importance of, dependent on the distance, rather than the\n  direction, 50\n\n\"Especially\" the same, 92, 96\n\nEthiopian, the, can change his skin, if it becomes worth his while\n  to try long enough, 40\n\nEveque and bishop, common derivation of, 355\n\nEverlasting, God, how far, 32\n\nEvolution, commonly held incompatible with design, 9\n\n---- Paley, its first serious opponent in England, 21\n\n---- Sir Walter Raleigh on, 21, 70\n\n---- must stand or fall according as it rests on a purposive\n  foundation or no, 60\n\n---- brief summary of its six principal stages, 62, &c.\n\n---- Bacon on, 69\n\n---- the theory of, as apart from the evidence in support of it, 332\n\n---- C. Darwin and Lamarck are equally intent upon establishing\n  the same theory of evolution, 335-337\n\n---- and Darwinism, not to be confounded, 360, 361\n\n---- Rome and Pantheism meet in, 403\n\nEvolutionists, the early, did not know that they accepted teleology, 34\n\n---- the early, saw design, only as design by the God of theologians, 36\n\nExperience and instinct, Mr. Patrick Matthew on, 322\n\nExtinct species, Lamarck on, 277\n\n---- Buffon on, 146, 277\n\nEye, no creature that had nothing like an eye ever set itself to\n  conceive one and grow one, 44, 387\n\n---- Paley asks \"how will our philosopher get an eye?\" 46\n\n---- of flat fish, Lamarck on the, 307\n\n---- Lamarck on the, of underground and cave-inhabiting animals, 378\n\n---- disappear and reappear in the scale of organism according to the\n  power of using them, 379\n\n\nFAITH, forms of, or faiths of form, &c., 339\n\nFamiliarity, with a little, such superficial objections will be\n  forgotten, 367\n\nFar ahead, no organism ever saw an improvement a long way off and made\n  towards it, 43, 44, 48, 49, 54, 384\n\nFather, the man who could be father of such a son and retain his\n  affection, &c., 76\n\nFactors, there have been two, of modification, one producing and the\n  other accumulating variations, 227\n\nFecundity, alternate years of, Buffon on, 125\n\nFeeding and breeding, 222\n\nFeel, if plants and animals look as if they feel, let us say\n  they feel, 198\n\nFeeling, there is more feeling than reason in animals, 51\n\nFeral characteristics, resumption of, Buffon on, 123\n\nFinal causes, the doctrine of, as commonly held in the time of the\n  early evolutionists, 34, 36\n\n---- Buffon on, 118, &c.\n\nFitness, the cause of, more important than the fact that fitness is\n  commonly fit, and therefore successful, 351\n\nFlat fish, Lamarck on the eyes of, 307\n\nFluctuation of opinion, C. Darwin on Buffon's, the charge\n  refuted, 97, &c., 164, 166\n\nFontenelle, on theories, 22\n\nFoot, and model of foot, differences between, 24\n\nForms of faith, or faiths of form, &c., 339\n\nFour main points which the early evolutionists failed to see in\n  their connection and bearing on each other, 37, 203\n\nFour main principles, the, which I contended for in \"Life and\n  Habit,\" 37, 203, 380, 381\n\nFowls and pigeons, Buffon on, 169\n\n\nGARNETT, Mr. R., and \"Darwinising,\" 21\n\nGenius, Mr. Allen says I am a, 388\n\nGentleman, the Church of Rome means the same by the word as we do, 395\n\nGeoffroy, Etienne, how small a way he goes, 196\n\n---- and Isidore, trimmers, 328\n\n---- on Buffon, 328\n\n---- on conditions of existence, 326, 327\n\n---- declares against Lamarck's hypothesis, 328\n\n---- his position, 325-328\n\nGeoffroy, Isidore, on evolution and final causes, 9\n\n---- on Buffon's fluctuation of opinion, 98, &c., 164, 166\n\n---- points out the difference between the views of Buffon\n  and Lamarck, 105\n\n---- statement that Buffon's opinions fluctuated again refuted, 166\n\n---- and Lamarck's hypothesis, 244-246, 329\n\n---- on Buffon, 328\n\n---- his position, 329\n\nGenealogical order, Lamarck on, 264\n\n---- C. Darwin on, 265\n\nGeneration more remarkable than reason, Hume on, 233\n\nGeneric differences (as well as specific), Buffon on, 164\n\nGenius, a supreme capacity for taking pains, 76\n\nGeographical distribution, changed, Buffon on, 145, &c., 164\n\nGeometrical ratio of increase, Buffon on, 123\n\n---- Lamarck, on, 280\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 320, 321\n\nGerm of oak indistinguishable from that of a man, 334\n\nGermans, Buffon on the, 93\n\nGlory \"comes after labour if she can,\" &c., 76\n\nGo away, because their uncles, aunts, 376\n\nGod, embodied in living forms, and dwelling in them, 31\n\n---- how far everlasting, invisible, imperishable, omnipotent, &c., 32\n\n---- the unseen parts of, are as a deep-buried history, 33\n\nGoethe, as an evolutionist, 71\n\nGradations infinitely subtle, 87\n\nGrant Allen, on \"Evolution, Old and New,\" 386-388\n\n---- on the decay of criticism, 388\n\n---- says that \"Evolutionism is an almost exclusively English\n  impulse,\" 393\n\nGreyhound or racehorse, the well-adapted form of the, 359\n\nGrowth attended at each step by a felicitous tempering of two\n  antagonistic principles, 35\n\nGueneau de Montbeillard, 172, 173\n\n\nHABIT,\" \"Life and. _See_ \"Life and Habit.\"\n\n---- rudimentary organs repeated through mere force of, 38, 39\n\n---- Buffon on, 148, 159, 160, 161, 162\n\n---- a second Nature, Lamarck on, 300\n\nHabits, or use, and organ, Lamarck on the interaction of, 292, 311\n\nHaeckel, on design, 4, 5\n\n---- on Goethe as an evolutionist, 71\n\n---- does not appear to know of Buffon as an evolutionist, 71, 393\n\n---- his surprising statement concerning Lamarck, 73\n\n---- his ignorance concerning Erasmus Darwin, 73, 393\n\n---- on Lamarck, 246, 247\n\n---- A. R. Wallace's review of his \"Evolution of Man,\" 382, 384\n\nHamlet, the \"Origin of Species\" like \"Hamlet\" without Hamlet, 363\n\nHandiest, a man should do whatever comes handiest, 51, 52\n\nHare, Buffon on the, 123, &c.\n\nHartmann's philosophy of the unconscious, and \"Life and Habit,\" 56, 57\n\nHearing, when we once reach animals so low as to have no organ of,\n  we lose this organ for good and all, 379\n\nHeredity and habit, Buffon on, 148, 159, 160, 161, 162\n\n---- only another term for unknown causes, unless the \"Life and Habit\"\n  theory be adopted, 384\n\nHering, Professor, referred to, 66, 67\n\n---- his theory as given in \"Nature\" by Ray Lankester, 198-200\n\nHerschel, Sir John, compares natural selection to the Laputan\n  method of making books, 10\n\nHiggling and haggling of the market, 50\n\nHistory of the universe, each organism is a, from its own point\n  of view, 31\n\nHorse and ass, Buffon's most pregnant passage on the, 80, 90, 91,\n  100, 101, 142, 143, 155, 164, 311\n\n---- and man, skeleton of the, 88, 89\n\n---- and zebra, Buffon on the, example of irony, 80, 155, 164\n\nHume, his saying that generation is more remarkable than reason, 233\n\nHuxley, Professor, referred to, 93\n\n---- pointed out to Professor Mivart the difficulty in the way of\n  natural selection, 344\n\n---- his ignorance concerning the earlier history of evolution, 392, 393\n\nHybridism, Buffon on, 117, 118\n\nHybrids, sterility of, Lamarck on, and C. Darwin on, 272, 273\n\n\nIDEAS, the bond or nexus of our, 23, 29, 30\n\nIgnorance, the prevailing, concerning the earlier evolutionists, 61\n\n---- it is easy to hide our, under such expressions as \"plan of\n  creation,\" or natural selection, 358\n\nImitation, instinct not referable to, as maintained by Erasmus\n  Darwin, 202\n\nImmutability of species and design commonly accepted together, 9, 10\n\nImprovements, small successive, in man's inventions, 44, 46,\n  47, 54, 55, 384\n\nInaccuracy of thought, C. Darwin accused of, 359\n\nIncipiency, of complex structures, a difficulty in the way of the\n  Natural selection view of evolution, 21, 22\n\nIncorporate, the designer is, with the organism, 30\n\nIncrease, geometrical ratio of Buffon on the, 123\n\n---- Lamarck on, 280\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 320, 321\n\nIndefinite, with C. Darwin the variations are, 342, 344\n\nIndifference, I say I am more indifferent than I think I am, whether\n  mind is or is not the least misleading symbol for the cause that\n  sustains the universe, 371\n\nIndirect action of conditions of existence according to\n  Lamarck, 294, 299, 306. (_See_ \"Conditions of Existence\")\n\nIndividuality, Buffon on, 128\n\n---- of buds, Erasmus Darwin on the, 207, 208\n\n---- our, a _consensus_, or full-flowing river, 318\n\nInfallibility, possible results of the doctrine of Papal, 406\n\nInsectivorous plants, Erasmus Darwin on, 206\n\nInstep, ligament that binds the tendons of the, Paley on the, 22\n\nInstinct, present, does not bar its having arisen in reason and\n  reflection, 53, 54\n\n---- returns to its earlier phase, _i. e._ to reason on the presence\n  of the unfamiliar, 54, 55, 56\n\n---- and reason, Buffon on, 110-116\n\n---- Darwin, Erasmus, on, 115, 116, 204\n\n---- not referable to imitation, as maintained by Erasmus Darwin, 202\n\n---- is reason become habitual, 203\n\n---- reason perfected and got by rote, 256\n\n---- and reason, Lamarck on, 256, 257, 274\n\n---- referred to experience and memory, by Patrick Matthew, 322\n\nInsult, \"Evolution, Old and New,\" not intended as an insult to men\n  of science, 392\n\nInteraction of want and power, 44, 45, 47, 217, 218, 221, 300, 323\n\n---- of body and mind, Lamarck on the, 338, 339, 341\n\nInteresting, the more interesting the animal the more evolution Buffon\n  puts into his account of it, 84\n\nIntermediate forms, Lamarck on, 283, 286\n\n---- C. Darwin, 284, 285\n\nInventions, small successive improvements in man's, and development of,\n  analogous to that of organism, 44, 46, 47, 54, 55, 384\n\nIrony, good-natured and the reverse, 91\n\n---- an apology for, and explanation how far it is legitimate, 111, 112\n\n---- Buffon's, 78, &c., 91, 92, 93, 155, 157, 163, 164\n\n\nJARDINE, Sir W., on Buffon's character, 82\n\nJohnson, Dr., and Erasmus Darwin, 184, 185\n\nJoints, Paley on the human, 19, 20\n\nJuggle, Paley's argument a juggle, unless man has had a _bona fide_\n  personal, and therefore organic designer, 14, 16\n\n\nKNEE-PAN, Paley on the human, 18\n\nKnowledge, nomenclature mistaken for, 141\n\n\nLABOUR, glory comes after, if she can, 76\n\nLamarck, had brain upon the brain, 36\n\n---- never quite recognized design, 39\n\n---- Haeckel's surprising statement concerning, 73\n\n---- wherein he mainly differs from Buffon, 105\n\n---- memoir of, 235\n\n---- his connection with Buffon, as tutor to his son, &c., 237, 258\n\n---- his daughters, 242, 253\n\n---- his poverty and blindness, 242, 253\n\n---- Isidore Geoffroy on, bad caricature of his teaching, 244-246\n\n---- Haeckel on, 246, 247\n\n---- never seriously discussed, 247\n\n---- \"the well-known doctrine of,\" C. Darwin's reference\n  to, 249, 250, 251, 298, 314, 376\n\n---- on the opposition his theory met with, 252\n\n---- too old to have begun his unequal contest, 253\n\n---- on the feeling of animals, 254, 255\n\n---- too theory-ridden, 254\n\n---- misled by Buffon (query), 255\n\n---- took from Buffon without sufficient acknowledgment,\n  255, 258, 260, 311\n\n---- as compared with Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 257\n\n---- like Dr. E. Darwin, sees struggle and modification turn\n  mainly round three great wants, 257, 279, 300, 309\n\n---- when and how he came over to the side of mutability, 258\n\n---- and the French translation of the \"Loves of the Plant,\" 259\n\n---- on comparative anatomy, 266\n\n---- on species, 267, &c.\n\n---- on conditions of existence (_circonstances_), 105, 268, 270, 271,\n  275, 277, 278, 281, 291, 292, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, &c.\n\n---- on instinct, 274\n\n---- on animals and plants under domestication, 275, 293, 296, 297, 300\n\n---- on extinct species, 277\n\n---- anticipated Lyell in rejecting catastrophes, 277\n\n---- on the geometrical ratio of increase and struggle for\n  existence, 280-282\n\n---- on embryonic development, 289\n\n---- the main principles which he supposes to underlie\n  variations, 292, 299, 338, 339\n\n---- his contention that plants have neither actions nor habits, 295\n\n---- on use and disuse, 294, 296, 299, 301, 302, 304, 305, 307-309\n\n---- on the various breeds of the dog, 297\n\n---- habit a second nature, 300\n\n---- like Erasmus Darwin and Buffon, understood the survival of\n  the fittest, 301\n\n---- on the way in which serpents have lost their legs, 303\n\n---- on wading and aquatic birds, 305\n\n---- on the eyes of flat fish, 307\n\n---- on man, 311, &c.\n\n---- on a single instance of considerable variation under\n  domestication, 311\n\n---- on speech, 313, 314\n\n---- on the upright position of man and certain apes, 313\n\n---- his, and Etienne Geoffroy's views on conditions of\n  existence, 326, 327, 328\n\n---- his hypothesis, and Isidore Geoffroy, 329\n\n---- Herbert Spencer on, 330, 331\n\n---- desired to discover the law underlying variations, 337\n\n---- the extent to which he and C. Darwin take common ground, 335-337\n\n---- on body and mind, 338, 339, 341\n\n---- on his theory variations will be definite, will appear in large\n  numbers of individuals at the same time, for long periods\n  together, 341\n\n---- how he and C. Darwin treat the winglessness of Madeira beetles\n  respectively, 373-380\n\n---- on the eyes and ears of cave-inhabiting animals, 378, 379\n\nLaputan method of making books, the, and natural selection, 11\n\nLawyer's deed, if we come across a very intricate, &c., 27\n\nLeopard, the, can change his spots if it becomes worth his while to\n  try long enough, 40\n\nLewes, G. H., on embryology, 25\n\n---- his objection to the tentativeness with which the same errors\n  are repeated generation after generation, 26\n\n---- his objection to C. Darwin's language concerning natural\n  selection, 346\n\nLewes, G. H., on natural selection, 348, 349, 359\n\nLife, some remarks about the criterion of, that I must retract, 279\n\n---- one Proteus principal of, 320\n\n\"Life and Habit,\" what I believe to have been its most important\n  features, 67, 203, 204\n\n---- recapitulation of the main principle insisted on, 37, 56,\n  203, 380, 381, 384\n\n---- and Hartmann's philosophy of the unconscious, German review, 56, 57\n\nLifetime, considerable modifications effected during a single, 304\n\n---- the changes undergone by organisms during a single, Herbert\n  Spencer, on, 332-334\n\nLigament, the, which binds down the tendons of the instep, 21\n\nLiving, Paley is but doing his best to earn an honest, 29\n\n---- forms of faith, or faiths of form, 339\n\nLines, no sharp can be drawn, 47\n\nLion and tiger, Buffon on the, 143, 145\n\nLlama, Buffon on the hereditary ills of the, 161\n\nLongevity, the principle underlying, 67, 380, 381\n\nLoopholes for escape, the \"Origin of Species\" full of, 358\n\n\"Loves of the Plants,\" French translation of the, 63, 259\n\nLungs for respiration, and corkscrew for corks, Professor\n  Clifford on, 7. (_See_ also p. 58)\n\nLyell, Sir C., and Lamarck, 277\n\n---- on the similarity between Lamarck's theory and Mr.\n  Darwin's, 336, 337\n\n\nMACHINE, Paley declares animals to be neither wholly machines\n  nor wholly not machines, 14\n\nMadeira beetles, the ways in which Lamarck and C. Darwin would\n  treat their winglessness, 373-380\n\nMaillet, de, referred to, 70\n\nMainspring, the true, of our existence lies not in these\n  muscles, &c., 32\n\nMan, the designer of man, 30\n\n---- and horse, skeleton of the, 88, 89\n\n---- and the ape, 90\n\n---- and the lower animals, Buffon on, 107, 108\n\n---- Lamarck on, 311, &c.\n\nManner, the, is the man himself, 77\n\n---- \"but this is Mr. Darwin's\", 378\n\nManufacture, the, of tools and of organs, two species of\n  the same genus, 39\n\nMargin, there is a margin in every organic structure, &c., 49, 50\n\n---- on the margin of the self-evident the greatest purchase is\n  obtainable, 197\n\nMarket, the higgling and haggling of the, 50\n\nMartins, M., his life of Lamarck, 235, &c.\n\nMatter less important than the manner, 77\n\n---- and mind, inseparable, 371\n\nMatthew, Mr. Patrick, his work on naval timber and arboriculture, 64, 65\n\n---- extracts from, 315, &c.\n\n---- Mr. C. Darwin on, 315\n\n---- on animals and plants under domestication, 324\n\n---- on will as influencing organism, 320, 321, 322\n\n---- on the struggle for existence with survival of the\n  fittest, 320, 322\n\n---- and natural selection, 323\n\n---- on instinct and memory, and on the continued personality\n  of parents in offspring, 321, 322, 323\n\nMeans, C. Darwin's dangerous use of this word, 345\n\n---- one _sine qua non_ for a thing is as much a means of that\n  thing's coming about as anything else is, 349\n\nMechanism of animals, Paley on the, 14\n\nMechanism of animals, evidence of design in any ordinary, 15\n\nMemory, and life and heredity, 37, 38, 39, 56, 67, 198-203,\n  332, 380, 381\n\n---- Professor Hering on, 198-200\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 322\n\nMeteoric, both want and power are, 44, 45\n\nMeninges, Buffon on the, 132\n\nMicrocosm, each organism a history of the universe from its\n  own point of view, 31\n\nMicroscope, illustration from successive improvements in the, 46, 47\n\nMind, \"the least inadequate and misleading symbol,\" for the power\n  that has designed organism, 3, 371\n\n---- and body, Lamarck on, 338, 339, 341\n\n---- and matter inseparable, 371\n\nMisfortune, take advantage of, 51\n\nMisrepresentation, \"great is the power of steady,\" 251\n\nMissionaries should avoid trying to effect sudden modifications, 183\n\nMistake, the power to make, rated highly, 29\n\n---- importance of, depends on magnitude rather than on the\n  direction, 50\n\nMivart, Professor, says that, \"Mind is the least adequate and\n  misleading symbol,\" &c., 3, 371\n\n---- referred to, 22, 66, 67\n\n---- admits that his objection does not tell against the Lamarckian\n  theory of evolution, 343\n\n---- points out that the admission of a principle underlying variations\n  is fatal to C. Darwin's theory concerning natural selection, 343\n\n---- on C. Darwin's \"haphazard, indefinite variations,\" 343\n\n---- how Professor Huxley pointed out to him the objection to C.\n  Darwin's theory concerning natural selection, 344\n\n---- asks what is natural selection? and declares it to be repudiated\n  by its propounder, 369\n\n---- declares it to be \"nothing,\" and a puerile\n  hypothesis, 370, 371\n\n---- declares the causes of variation to be the causes of the\n  distinction of species, 370\n\nModel, artificial, of a foot, and true foot, difference between, 24\n\nModification. It is only on modification that reason reasserts\n  itself, 55\n\n---- there have been two factors of, one producing variations, and\n  the other accumulating them, 227\n\n---- arrived at by struggle round three great wants, Erasmus\n  Darwin on, 226-229\n\n---- Lamarck on the same, 257, 279, 300, 301\n\n---- the cause of survival, not survival the cause of modification, 302\n\nMoral, an organism is most, when looking a little ahead, but not\n  too far, 44\n\n---- struggle, the history of organic development, the history of a, 45\n\n---- more, and safer, to be behind the age than in front of it, 401\n\nMovement, Buffon's great criterion of sensation, 127\n\nMummies, Egyptian, Lamarck on, 274, 275\n\nMurphy, Rev. J. J., mentioned, 22\n\n---- referred to, 66, 67\n\nMutability of species commonly held to be incompatible with a\n  belief in design, 9, 10\n\nMystery-mongering, that Buffon wished to protest against, 81, 171\n\nMystification, scientific, and orthodoxy, Buffon on, 138\n\n\nNAIVELY, as Mr. Darwin naively adds, \"_sometimes_ equally\n  convenient,\" 354\n\nNatural selection, the essence of the theory is that the variations\n  shall have been mainly accidental, 7\n\nNatural selection, the unerring skill of, 9\n\n---- Sir William Thomson and Sir John Herschel on, 10\n\n---- Button, and, \"by _some chance_ common enough with Nature,\" 122\n\n---- spoken of as though synonymous with descent with\n  modification, 248, 285, 356\n\n---- C. Darwin attributes the instincts of neuter insects to, 249\n\n---- Mr. Patrick Matthew and, 323\n\n---- like the secretion of a cuttle-fish, 332\n\n---- G. H. Lewes's objection to C. Darwin's language concerning, 346\n\n---- if this is declared to be a cause, the fact of variation\n  is declared to be the cause of variation, 347\n\n---- declared by C. Darwin to be a means of variation, 347\n\n---- treated as a cause, 348\n\n---- G. H. Lewes on, 348, 349, 350\n\n---- identity with \"conditions of existence,\" 351-354\n\n---- according to C. Darwin, \"fully embraces\" and yet \"is included\n  in\" conditions of existence, 355\n\n---- a cloak for want of precision of thought, and of substantial\n  difference from Lamarck, 358\n\n---- \"some have even imagined that it induces variability;\" and small\n  wonder, considering C. Darwin's language concerning it, 362\n\n---- C. Darwin's reply to those who have objected to the term, 362-368\n\n---- a cloak of difference from C. Darwin's predecessors, under which\n  there lurks a concealed identity of opinion as to main facts, 362, 363\n\n---- \"implies only the preservation of such variations as arise,\"\n  &c., 363\n\n---- admitted by C. Darwin to be a false term, 364\n\n---- the complaint is that the expression has been retained when\n  an avowedly more accurate one is to hand, 365, 366\n\n---- only another way of saying Nature, 368, 369\n\n---- the dislike of it is increasing, 368, 369\n\n---- Francis Darwin does not use the expression, 368, 369\n\n---- daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, &c., 369\n\n---- practically repudiated by C. Darwin himself, 369\n\n---- Professor Mivart declares it to be \"simply nothing,\" 370\n\n---- a \"puerile hypothesis,\" 371\n\n---- and not disuse, the true main cause of the winglessness of\n  Madeira beetles, according to C. Darwin, 374\n\n---- _not_ the main cause of the winglessness of Madeira beetles,\n  according to C. Darwin, 377\n\n---- \"combined probably with disuse,\" will account, according to\n  C. Darwin, for the winglessness of Madeira beetles, 375\n\n_Naturalistes_, _le peuple des_, 80, 171\n\nNature, the personification of comparatively venial, 367\n\n---- and natural selection the same thing, 368, 369\n\n---- the most important means of modification, and variation the\n  cause of variation, 369\n\nNeck, Paley on the human, 17, 18\n\nNeed, sense of, the main idea in connection with evolution that is\n  left with the reader by the \"Zoonomia,\" or \"Philosophie\n  Zoologique,\" 363\n\nNeedle, 20,000 devils dancing a saraband on the point of a, 216\n\nNest, a bird will alter its nest a little, to meet altered\n circumstances, 55\n\nNests, birds', Dr. E. Darwin on, 201\n\nNeuter insects, \"the demonstrative case of neuter insects,\"\n  &c., 249, 298, 314\n\nNew countries, Buffon a hater of, 146\n\nNomenclature, mistaken for knowledge, 141\n\nNottingham market-place, Erasmus Darwin in, 182, 184, 197\n\n\nOAK and man, the germs of, indistinguishable, 334\n\n---- man may become as long-lived as the, 382\n\nObvious, Erasmus Darwin had no wish to see far beyond the, 197\n\nOken, alluded to, 72\n\nOld age, the phenomena of, 67, 204, 381\n\n---- and new worlds, Buffon on the fauna of, 145, &c.\n\nOne source for all life, Buffon on, 91\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin on, 109, 233\n\nOneness of personality between parents and offspring, 37, 38, 39\n\n---- Buffon on the, 151\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin and Professor Hering on the, 198-200\n\n---- Dr. E. Darwin's failure to grasp the whole facts in connection\n  with this, 198, 201, 203\n\n---- Dr. E. Darwin on, 214, 215\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 322, 323\n\n---- mentioned, 332, 380, 381\n\nOrang-outang, Buffon on the, 156-159\n\nOrgan and use. _See_ \"Use.\"\n\n---- and sense, interaction of the, Buffon on, 127\n\n---- and faculty, Lamarck on, 255\n\nOrgans are living tools, 2\n\n---- the manufacture of, and that of tools, two species of the\n  same genus, 39, 43, &c.\n\n---- are the expressions of mental phases, 339, 341\n\nOrganic structures have a margin, 49, 50\n\nOrganic strictures and inorganic, Buffon on the, 153, &c.\n\nOrganisms, have been developed as man's inventions\n  have, 44, 46, 47, 384\n\n\"Origin of Species,\" the, cannot take permanent rank in the\n  literature of evolution, 62\n\n---- has no _raison d'etre_, if natural selection is not a\n  cause of variation, 346\n\n---- a piece of intellectual sleight of hand, 346\n\n---- compared to the advice of a lawyer who wanted to leave\n  plenty of loopholes, or to a cobbled Act of Parliament, 358\n\n---- is \"Hamlet\" with the part of Hamlet cut out, 363\n\n---- most readers would say that it advocated natural selection as\n  the most important cause of variation, 363\n\n---- and the \"Zoonomia,\" or the \"Philosophie Zoologique\"; the one\n  upholds natural selection, the other, sense of need, 363\n\nOrthodoxy, scientific, and mystification, Buffon on, 138\n\n---- scientific, clamouring for endowment, 360\n\n---- dangers of, 368\n\nOverseeing tends to oversight, 197\n\n\nPAINS, genius a supreme capacity for taking, 76\n\nPainting, a man should do _something_, no matter what, 51, 52\n\nPaley, quotations from, 12, &c.\n\n---- his argument a juggle, unless some one designed man, much as\n  man designed the watch, 14, 16\n\n---- on ordinary mechanism, as showing design, 15\n\n---- on the human neck, 16, 17\n\n---- on the patella, 18\n\n---- on the joints, 19, 20\n\n---- as a writer against evolution, 21\n\n---- on the ligament that binds the tendons of the instep, 21, 22\n\n---- opposes the view that structures have been formed through\n  appetency, endeavour or effort, 22, 45\n\n---- we turn on him and say, Show us your designer, 29\n\n---- asks, How will our philosopher get an eye? 46\n\n---- his \"Natural Theology\" written throughout at the \"Zoonomia,\" 195\n\n---- never gives a reference when quoting an opponent, 195, 306\n\nPantheism and Rome will in the end be the two sole combatants, 401\n\n---- common ground held by Rome and Pantheism, 403-405\n\n---- of Paul, 404\n\nParents and offspring, oneness of personality between (_see_\n  \"Personality\")\n\nPassions, of like passions, men of science are, with other\n  pastors and prophets, 253\n\nPatella, or knee-pan, Paley on the, 18\n\nPaul, St., his pantheistic tendencies, 404\n\n---- we want to accept him literally, 405\n\nPeace, the, that passeth understanding, 35\n\nPerception and sensation, Buffon on the difference between, 129, 130\n\nPersonality, oneness of, between parents and offspring, 37, 38, 39\n\n---- Buffon on the, 151\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin and Professor Hering on the, 198-200\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin's failure to grasp the whole conception,\n  198, 201, 203\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin on the, 214, 215\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on the, 322, 323\n\n---- mentioned, 332, 380, 381\n\nPersonification, the, of Nature, comparatively venial, 367\n\nPessimism: \"Which is the pessimist I or Mr. Darwin?\" 59\n\nPeuple des Naturalistes, le, 80, 171\n\n\"Philosophie Zoologique,\" summary of, 261-314\n\n---- the, leaves \"sense of need\" on the reader's mind; the\n  \"Origin of Species,\" natural selection, 363\n\nPig, Buffon on the, 118, &c.\n\nPigeons and fowls, Buffon on, 169\n\nPlaisanterie, Button's disclaimer of, 93\n\nPlanted upside down, the vertebrata regarded as vegetables, 137\n\nPlants under domestication, Buffon on, 167, &c.\n\n---- Dr. Erasmus Darwin, on the life of, 206, &c.\n\n---- Lamarck's assertion that they have no action nor habits, 294, 295\n\nPlato upheld teleology, 4\n\n_Plus il a su_, &c., 44\n\nPoem, a, by Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 189\n\nPoetry, Dr. Erasmus Darwin's, 83, 189, 193\n\nPope's shoes, scientists would step into the, if we would let\n  them, 360, 394\n\nPortrait of Mr. Day, author of \"Sandford and Merton,\" 180\n\nPotto, the missing forefinger of the, 303\n\nPower and desire, interaction of, 44, 45, 47, 127, 217, 221, 300, 323\n\nPraising, with faint damnation, 111\n\nPrescience, need not extend over more than the next step, and yet the\n  whole road may have been travelled presciently, 52, 384\n\nPresent, development due to a wise use of the, 50-52\n\nProbable, whatever in the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is not probable\n  is to be rejected, 402, 403\n\nProficiency is due to design if each step was taken designedly, though\n  the end was not far foreseen, 52, 384\n\nProtestantism tends towards disintegration, 396\n\nProteus principle of life, one, 320\n\nPump, Erasmus Darwin's poetry about the, 84, 193\n\nPurpose, instinctive actions were once done with a, 54\n\n---- spent or extinct, and rudimentary organs, 38, 383\n\nPurposive, if each step is purposive, the whole is purposive, 52, 384\n\nPurposiveness: I maintain the lungs to be as purposive us the\n  corkscrew, 5, 6, 7, 58\n\n\nRACE, the runners in a, and natural selection, 366, 367\n\n---- significance of the words being used for a breed and a\n  competition, 366, 367\n\nRacehorse or greyhound, \"the well-adapted forms of the,\" 359\n\nRanunculus aquatilis, Lamarck's passage on, 260, 297\n\nRaleigh, Sir Walter, and evolution, 21, 70\n\nRay Lankester, Professor, on Hering's theory connecting memory\n  and heredity, 198-200\n\nReason, there is less reason than feeling in animals, Buffon, 51\n\n---- perfected becomes instinct, but reasserts itself when the\n  circumstances alter, 54, 55, 56, 203\n\n---- and instinct, Buffon on, 110, 116\n\n---- Erasmus Darwin on, 115, 116, 201-205\n\n---- a less remarkable faculty than generation, Hume on, 233\n\n---- and instinct, Lamarck on, 256, 274\n\n---- declared to be incipient instinct, 256\n\n_Reel_, _au_, Buffon's use of these words, 126\n\nRelativity of the sciences, Buffon on the, 140\n\nReligion, Buffon's appeals to, 91, 115\n\nReopen settled questions, animals cannot, serpents must have no\n  more than four legs, 303\n\nResume earlier habits, the tendency to, on the approach of a\n  difficulty, 312, 313\n\nRetrogressive, Mr. Darwin's views of evolution retrogressive, 66\n\nRevelation, Buffon's appeals to, against evolution, 91, 115\n\nReviews of \"Evolution, Old and New,\" 385, &c.\n\nRiches, the normal growth of, and evolution, 222\n\nRoman Empire, the, prophetic, 397\n\nRomanes, G. R., on \"Evolution, Old and New,\" 391-393\n\nRome, Church of, means the same by \"gentleman\" as we do, 395\n\n---- I would join, if I could, 395, 396\n\n---- a unifier, 398\n\n---- the only source from which a church can come, 398-401\n\n---- and Pantheism, the ultimate fight will be between, 401\n\n---- points of agreement between Rome and Pantheists, 403-405\n\n---- may, and should get rid of Protestantism by outbidding it, 407\n\nRousseau, Buffon would not play part of, 81\n\nRudimentary organs, the crux of the early evolutionist in respect of\n  design, 34\n\n---- are now mere cant formulae, force of habit, 38, 383\n\n---- like the protuberance at the bottom of a tobacco-pipe, 38\n\n---- Buffon would not accept them as designed, 83\n\n---- Buffon on, 120\n\n---- Professor Haeckel on, 383\n\nRun, how did the winner come to be able to run ever such a little\n  faster than his fellows, 367\n\nRunners in a race and natural selection, 366, 367\n\n\n\"SANDFORD and Merton,\" Miss Seward on the author of, 179, 180\n\nSaints will commonly strain a point or two in their own favour, 253\n\n_Saturday Review_ on \"Evolution, Old and New,\" 389-391\n\nSavery, Captain, 54\n\nScience, men of, of like passions with other priests and prophets, 253\n\n---- not a kingdom into which a poor man can enter easily, 253\n\n---- the leaders of will generally burke new-born wit unless, &c., 315\n\n---- not of that kind which desires to know, 392\n\nScientific orthodoxy and mystification, Buffon on, 138\n\n---- danger of, 360, 368\n\nScramble, birds learned to swim through scrambling, 48, 51\n\nSelf-indulgence, virtue has ever erred rather on the side of, than\n  on that of asceticism, 35\n\nSensation, Buffon on, 126, 129\n\nSense, \"in one sense,\" 355\n\nSensitive plants, Dr. E. Darwin on, 206, 210\n\nSeriously, Buffon speaking, 126\n\nSerpents, how it is that they have lost their legs, 302\n\nSeward, Miss, her life of Erasmus Darwin, 174, &c.\n\nShakspeare and Handel address the many as well as the few, 81\n\nShortest day, and shortest day but one, no difference perceptible\n  between, 48\n\nSkeletons, the, of man and of the horse, 88, &c.\n\nSkill, the unerring, of natural selection, 9\n\nSiamese twins, desire and power compared to, 218, 300\n\nSimplicity, happy, an example of, 276\n\nSisters, \"his, and his cousins and his aunts,\" 253\n\nSlit, a slit in one tendon to let another pass through, 20\n\nSomething a man should do, no matter what, 51\n\nSometimes, \"equally convenient\" (\"the survival of the fittest\"\n  with natural selection), 9, 354, 365\n\nSon, the people who can get good sons and retain their affection\n  are the only ones worth studying from, 76\n\nSorbonne, the, and Buffon, 82, 84\n\nSorbonnes, never do like people who write in this way, 143\n\nSpecialists, embryos are, 28\n\nSpecies, Buffon on the causes or means of transformation, 159, &c.\n\n---- Lamarck on, 267, &c.\n\n---- clusters of, Lamarck on, 288\n\n---- C. Darwin on, 289\n\nSpecific characteristics vary more than generic, Lamarck on, 287, 288\n\n---- C. Darwin on, 288\n\nSpeech, Lamarck on, 313, 314\n\nSpencer, Herbert, on Lamarck's hypothesis, 330, 331\n\n---- a follower of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, 332\n\nSpent, or extinct purpose, and rudimentary organs, 383\n\nSpontaneous: C. Darwin uses this word in connection with\n  variability, 358\n\n---- variability (or unknown causes), C. Darwin, on what it will\n  account for, or make known, 358\n\nSteam engine, latest development of, not foreseen, though each\n  immediate step in advance was so, 54, 384\n\n---- design lost sight of in the most common patterns, as with\n  a bird's-nest, or the wheel, 55\n\nStep, if each step is purposive, the whole road has been\n  travelled purposively, 52, 384\n\n---- only the few nearest are taken definitely, 44, 384\n\nSterility of hybrids, Lamarck on, 272\n\n---- C. Darwin on, 273\n\nStock, Buffon on the, and the diaphragm, 130\n\nStronger, the, succeed, and the weaker fail, 320, 321\n\nStrongest, the, eat the weaker, 282\n\nStruggle for existence, Buffon on the, 123\n\n---- and hence modification, according to Dr. Erasmus Darwin, mainly\n  conversant about three wants, 226-229, 232\n\n---- comparison between Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck's views on the\n  foregoing, 257\n\n---- Lamarck on the foregoing, 279\n\n---- and survival of the fittest, Lamarck on the, 281, 282\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 321\n\nStyle, Buffon on, 76, 77\n\nSudden, the question what is too, to be settled by higgling and\n  haggling, 50\n\n---- modifications, missionaries should avoid trying to effect, 183\n\nSuperficial, philosophy of the, 34, 35, 36, 198, 204\n\nSupply and demand, and desire and power, 223, 300\n\nSurvival of the fittest, a synonym for natural selection, 9\n\n---- Dr. Erasmus Darwin on the, 227\n\n---- in the struggle for existence, Lamarck on the, 281, 282\n\n---- understood and admitted by Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and\n  Lamarck, 301\n\n---- subsequent to modification, and therefore not the cause\n  of it, 302, 346\n\n---- Patrick Matthew on, 321\n\n---- this is not a theory, but a fact, 356, 357\n\nSwimming, no shore bird ever set itself to learn, of malice\n  prepense, 48, 51\n\n\nTAIL, the beaver's, has become an incarnate trowel, 8\n\nTeething, the pain an infant feels is the death-cry of many a\n  good cell, 75\n\nTeleological, failure of the early evolutionists to see their\n  position as, 34\n\nTeleology, statement of the question, 1\n\n---- Aristotle denied, Plato upheld, 4\n\n---- the, of Paley and the theologians, 12, &c.\n\n---- internal as much teleology as external, 36\n\n---- _See_ also \"Design.\"\n\nTelescope, Lord Rosse's, and dew-drop, 44, 47\n\nTempering, the felicitous, of two great contradictory principles, 35\n\nTendon, a slit in one, to let another pass through, 20\n\nTerminology of botany harder than botany, 108\n\n---- Buffon on, 140, 141\n\nTest, Buffon's, as to the name an object is to bear, 115\n\n---- of perception and sensation, Buffon's, 127\n\nTheological writer, few passages in any, displease me more, &c., 368\n\nTheory, the survival of the fittest is a fact, not a theory, 356, 357\n\nTheories, true, Fontenelle on, 22, 23\n\n---- to be ordered out of court if troublesome, 35\n\nThis: \"I can no more believe in this,\" &c., 359\n\n---- \"it is impossible to attribute to this cause,\" 358\n\nThomas, St., Aquinas, Papal encyclical on, 402, 403\n\nThomson, Sir W., natural selection and design, 10\n\nThought is expressed in organ, 339, 341\n\nTime, Buffon on, 103\n\n---- Lamarck on, 241\n\nTobacco-pipe, a rudimentary organ on a, 38\n\nToes, a man who plays the violin with his, 50\n\nTools, organs are living tools, 2\n\n---- the manufacture of, and that of organs, two species of the\n  same genus, 39\n\nTouch, all senses modifications of the sense of touch, 47\n\nTransformation of species, Buffon on the causes or means of, 159\n\nTranslation of the \"Loves of the Plants\" into French, 63, 258, 259\n\nTranslation of the \"Zoonomia\" into German, 71\n\n---- of Dr. E. Darwin's other works, 195\n\nTrapa Natans, Erasmus Darwin's note on, 260\n\nTreviranus alluded to, 72\n\nTree, life seen as a tree, by Lamarck, 269\n\n---- by C. Darwin, 270\n\n---- nature compared to a, by Buffon, 171\n\nTrees, the blind man who saw men as trees walking, 137\n\nTrowel, the beaver has an incarnate trowel, 8\n\nTrue, vitally, 227\n\n---- all very, as far as it goes (that Nature is the most\n  important means of modification), 369\n\nTruism, the survival of the fittest, a, 351\n\nTutbury bull running, 187\n\nTyndall, Professor, a rhapsody about C. Darwin, 41\n\n---- calls evolution C. Darwin's theory, 360, 361\n\n\nUNCLES and aunts do not beget their nephews and nieces, 367, 376\n\nUnconscious, our acquired habits come to be done as unconsciously\n  as though instinctive, on repetition, 56\n\n---- difference between my view of the, and Von Hartmann's, 58\n\nUnconsciousness, the, with which habitual actions come to be\n  performed, 37, 38, 39, 56-58, 67, 203, 332, 381\n\nUnderstanding, the peace of mind that passeth, 35\n\nUnity of the individual, Buffon on the, 127, 128. (_See_ \"Oneness\")\n\n\"Unknown causes,\" according to Mr. Darwin, can do so much, but\n  not so much more, 359\n\n---- their identity with spontaneous variability, 359\n\n---- heredity only another name for, unless the \"Life and Habit\"\n  theory be adopted, 384\n\nUpright position in man and certain apes, and children, Lamarck\n  on, 312\n\nUpside down, the vertebrata are perambulating vegetables planted, 137\n\nUse and organ, 44, 45, 47, 217, 218, 221, 292, 294, 296, 299, 301,\n  302, 304, 305, 307-309, 311, 323\n\n\nVACUUM, an omniscient and omnipotent, 28\n\nVague, efforts and desires are vague in the outset, 47, 52, 384\n\nVariation, C. Darwin declares the fact of variation to be the cause\n  of variation, 8, 9, 347, 369\n\nVariations, one factor of modification provides, the other\n  accumulates, 227\n\n---- Lamarck strove to discover the law underlying, 337\n\n---- C. Darwin sees no cause underlying them, 339, 340\n\n---- according to Lamarck, they will tend to appear in definite\n  directions in large numbers of individuals, for long periods\n  together; according to C. Darwin they will not do thus, 341\n\n---- must appear before they can be preserved, 346\n\n---- the cause of variations is the cause of species (Professor\n  Mivart on this), 370\n\nVary, man cannot vary his practices much more than animals can, 55\n\n\"Vestiges of Creation,\" the, 65\n\n---- C. Darwin on the, 65\n\n---- the author of, on Lamarck, 247\n\n---- Darwin's treatment of, 247, 248\n\nVirtue has ever erred on the side of excess than on that of\n  asceticism, 35\n\nViolin, a man who plays the, with his toes, 50\n\nVitally true, 227\n\nVolition. (_See_ \"Will\")\n\nVoltaire, Buffon would not play the part of, 81\n\n\nWALLACE, A. R., his review of Professor Haeckel's \"Evolution\n  of Man,\" 382-384\n\nWant and power, interaction of, 44, 45, 47, 48, 217, 218,\n  221, 300, 323\n\nWasp, cutting a fly in half, Dr. Erasmus Darwin on, 205\n\nWatch, Paley's argument from the, 13\n\nWeaker, the strongest eat the, 282\n\nWealth, the normal growth of, and evolution, 222\n\nWeb-footed, how birds, became, 48, 49, 51\n\n---- development of, birds, Lamarck on, 305\n\n---- Paley on, 305\n\nWedge, Buffon let in the thin end of the wedge, by saying\n  that changed habits modify form, 105, 106\n\nWhisky, God keep you from--if he can, 176\n\nWill, Patrick Matthew on, as influencing organism, 320-322.\n  (_See_ also \"Desire,\" \"Design,\" \"Want,\" \"Wish\")\n\nWill-o'-the-wisp, C. Darwin like a, 372\n\nWish and power, their interaction, 44, 45, 47, 48, 217, 218, 221,\n  300, 323\n\nWit, brevity may be its soul, but the leaders of science, &c., 315\n\nWorcester, the Marquis of, 54\n\nWords are apt to turn out compendious false analogies, 365\n\nWorms, reasonable creatures, 255\n\nWorth, nothing worth looking at or doing, except at a fair price, 35\n\nWright, of Derby, his portrait of Mr. Day, 180\n\n\nZEBRA and horse, Buffon on the, 80, 155, 164\n\n\"Zoonomia,\" German translation of the, 71\n\n---- Paley's \"Natural Theology\" written at the, 195\n\n---- fuller quotations from the, 214, &c.\n\n---- the, and the \"Origin of Species,\" the different ideas that an\n  average reader would carry away with him from these two works\n  (\"Sense of Need\" and \"Natural Selection\"), 363\n\n\n\n\n_The Mayflower Press, Plymouth, England._ William Brendon & Son, Ltd.","title":"Evolution, Old & New: Or, the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck,; as compared with that of Charles Darwin","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":119114}