{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_3279/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_3279","id":"gutenberg_3279","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3279","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On the origin of species","Evolution (Biology)","New Zealand"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1914 A. C. Fifield edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                      [Picture: Public domain cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                            CANTERBURY PIECES\n\n\n                                    By\n                              Samuel Butler\n            Author of \u201cErewhon,\u201d \u201cThe Way of All Flesh,\u201d etc.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                       Edited by R. A. Streatfeild\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                          London: A. C. Fifield\n                                   1914\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                        PAGE\nDarwin on the Origin of Species          149\n  A Dialogue                             155\n  Barrel-Organs                          164\n  Letter: 21 February 1863               167\n  Letter: 14 March 1863                  171\n  Letter: 18 March 1863                  173\n  Letter: 11 April 1863                  175\n  Letter: 22 June 1863                   177\nDarwin Among the Machines                179\nLucubratio Ebria                         186\nA Note on \u201cThe Tempest\u201d                  195\nThe English Cricketers                   198\n\nDarwin on the Origin of Species\n\n\nPrefatory Note\n\n\n_AS the following dialogue embodies the earliest fruits of Butler\u2019s study\nof the works of Charles Darwin_, _with whose name his own was destined in\nlater years to be so closely connected_, _and thus possesses an interest\napart from its intrinsic merit_, _a few words as to the circumstances in\nwhich it was published will not be out of place_.\n\n_Butler arrived in New Zealand in October_, 1859, _and about the same\ntime Charles Darwin\u2019s_ ORIGIN OF SPECIES _was published_.  _Shortly\nafterwards the book came into Butler\u2019s hands_.  _He seems to have read it\ncarefully_, _and meditated upon it_.  _The result of his meditations took\nthe shape of the following dialogue_, _which was published on_ 20\n_December_, 1862, _in the_ PRESS _which had been started in the town of\nChrist Church in May_, 1861.  _The dialogue did not by any means pass\nunnoticed_.  _On the_ 17_th of January_, 1863, _a leading article_ (_of\ncourse unsigned_) _appeared in the_ PRESS, _under the title_\n\u201c_Barrel-Organs_,\u201d _discussing Darwin\u2019s theories_, _and incidentally\nreferring to Butler\u2019s dialogue_.  _A reply to this article_, _signed\nA.M._, _appeared on the_ 21_st of February_, _and the correspondence was\ncontinued until the_ 22_nd of June_, 1863.  _The dialogue itself_, _which\nwas unearthed from the early files of the_ PRESS, _mainly owing to the\nexertions of Mr. Henry Festing Jones_, _was reprinted_, _together with\nthe correspondence that followed its publication_, _in the_ PRESS _of\nJune_ 8 _and_ 15, 1912.  _Soon after the original appearance of Butler\u2019s\ndialogue a copy of it fell into the hands of Charles Darwin_, _possibly\nsent to him by a friend in New Zealand_.  _Darwin was sufficiently struck\nby it to forward it to the editor of some magazine_, _which has not been\nidentified_, _with the following letter_:\u2014\n\n                                         _Down_, _Bromley_, _Kent_, _S.E._\n                                                        _March_ 24 [1863].\n\n                                  (Private).\n\n    _Mr. Darwin takes the liberty to send by this post to the Editor a\n    New Zealand newspaper for the very improbable chance of the Editor\n    having some spare space to reprint a Dialogue on Species_.  _This\n    Dialogue_, _written by some_ [_sic_] _quite unknown to Mr. Darwin_,\n    _is remarkable from its spirit and from giving so clear and accurate\n    a view of Mr. D._ [_sic_] _theory_.  _It is also remarkable from\n    being published in a colony exactly_ 12 _years old_, _in which it\n    might have_ [_sic_] _thought only material interests would have been\n    regarded_.\n\n_The autograph of this letter was purchased from Mr. Tregaskis by Mr.\nFesting Jones_, _and subsequently presented by him to the Museum at\nChrist Church_.  _The letter cannot be dated with certainty_, _but since\nButler\u2019s dialogue was published in December_, 1862, _and it is at least\nprobable that the copy of the_ PRESS _which contained it was sent to\nDarwin shortly after it appeared_, _we may conclude with tolerable\ncertainty that the letter was written in March_, 1863.  _Further light is\nthrown on the controversy by a correspondence which took place between\nButler and Darwin in_ 1865, _shortly after Butler\u2019s return to England_.\n_During that year Butler had published a pamphlet entitled_ THE EVIDENCE\nFOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AS GIVEN BY THE FOUR EVANGELISTS\nCRITICALLY EXAMINED, _of which he afterwards incorporated the substance\ninto_ THE FAIR HAVEN.  _Butler sent a copy of this pamphlet to Darwin_,\n_and in due course received the following reply_:\u2014\n\n                                                _Down_, _Bromley_, _Kent_.\n                                                    _September_ 30 [1865].\n\n    _My dear Sir_,\u2014_I am much obliged to you for so kindly sending me\n    your Evidences_, _etc._  _We have read it with much interest_.  _It\n    seems to me written with much force_, _vigour_, _and clearness_; _and\n    the main argument to me is quite new_.  _I particularly agree with\n    all you say in your preface_.\n\n    _I do not know whether you intend to return to New Zealand_, _and_,\n    _if you are inclined to write_, _I should much like to know what your\n    future plans are_.\n\n    _My health has been so bad during the last five months that I have\n    been confined to my bedroom_.  _Had it been otherwise I would have\n    asked you if you could have spared the time to have paid us a visit_;\n    _but this at present is impossible_, _and I fear will be so for some\n    time_.\n\n    _With my best thanks for your present_,\n\n    _I remain_,\n\n                                _My dear Sir_,\n\n                                                  _Yours very faithfully_,\n                                                         _Charles Darwin_.\n\n_To this letter Butler replied as follows_:\u2014\n\n                                               15 _Clifford\u2019s Inn_, _E.C._\n                                                    _October_ 1_st_, 1865.\n\n    _Dear Sir_,\u2014_I knew you were ill and I never meant to give you the\n    fatigue of writing to me_.  _Please do not trouble yourself to do so\n    again_.  _As you kindly ask my plans I may say that_, _though I very\n    probably may return to New Zealand in three or four years_, _I have\n    no intention of doing so before that time_.  _My study is art_, _and\n    anything else I may indulge in is only by-play_; _it may cause you\n    some little wonder that at my age I should have started as an art\n    student_, _and I may perhaps be permitted to explain that this was\n    always my wish for years_, _that I had begun six years ago_, _as soon\n    as ever I found that I could not conscientiously take orders_; _my\n    father so strongly disapproved of the idea that I gave it up and went\n    out to New Zealand_, _stayed there for five years_, _worked like a\n    common servant_, _though on a run of my own_, _and sold out little\n    more than a year ago_, _thinking that prices were going to\n    fall_\u2014_which they have since done_.  _Being then rather at a loss\n    what to do and my capital being all locked up_, _I took the\n    opportunity to return to my old plan_, _and have been studying for\n    the last ten years unremittingly_.  _I hope that in three or four\n    years more I shall be able to go on very well by myself_, _and then I\n    may go back to New Zealand or no as circumstances shall seem to\n    render advisable_.  _I must apologise for so much detail_, _but\n    hardly knew how to explain myself without it_.\n\n    _I always delighted in your_ ORIGIN OF SPECIES _as soon as I saw it\n    out in New Zealand_\u2014_not as knowing anything whatsoever of natural\n    history_, _but it enters into so many deeply interesting questions_,\n    _or rather it suggests so many_, _that it thoroughly fascinated me_.\n    _I therefore feel all the greater pleasure that my pamphlet should\n    please you_, _however full of errors_.\n\n    _The first dialogue on the_ ORIGIN _which I wrote in the_ PRESS\n    _called forth a contemptuous rejoinder from_ (_I believe_) _the\n    Bishop of Wellington_\u2014(_please do not mention the name_, _though I\n    think that at this distance of space and time I might mention it to\n    yourself_) _I answered it with the enclosed_, _which may amuse you_.\n    _I assumed another character because my dialogue was in my hearing\n    very severely criticised by two or three whose opinion I thought\n    worth having_, _and I deferred to their judgment in my next_.  _I do\n    not think I should do so now_.  _I fear you will be shocked at an\n    appeal to the periodicals mentioned in my letter_, _but they form a\n    very staple article of bush diet_, _and we used to get a good deal of\n    superficial knowledge out of them_.  _I feared to go in too heavy on\n    the side of the_ ORIGIN, _because I thought that_, _having said my\n    say as well as I could_, _I had better now take a less impassioned\n    tone_; _but I was really exceedingly angry_.\n\n    _Please do not trouble yourself to answer this_, _and believe me_,\n\n                         _Yours most sincerely_,\n\n                                                              _S. Butler_.\n\n_This elicited a second letter from Darwin_:\u2014\n\n                                                _Down_, _Bromley_, _Kent_.\n                                                              _October_ 6.\n\n    _My dear Sir_,\u2014_I thank you sincerely for your kind and frank\n    letter_, _which has interested me greatly_.  _What a singular and\n    varied career you have already run_.  _Did you keep any journal or\n    notes in New Zealand_?  _For it strikes me that with your rare powers\n    of writing you might make a very interesting work descriptive of a\n    colonist\u2019s life in New Zealand_.\n\n    _I return your printed letter_, _which you might like to keep_.  _It\n    has amused me_, _especially the part in which you criticise\n    yourself_.  _To appreciate the letter fully I ought to have read the\n    bishop\u2019s letter_, _which seems to have been very rich_.\n\n    _You tell me not to answer your note_, _but I could not resist the\n    wish to thank you for your letter_.\n\n    _With every good wish_, _believe me_, _my dear Sir_,\n\n                                                        _Yours sincerely_,\n                                                             _Ch. Darwin_.\n\n_It is curious that in this correspondence Darwin makes no reference to\nthe fact that he had already had in his possession a copy of Butler\u2019s\ndialogue and had endeavoured to induce the editor of an English\nperiodical to reprint it_.  _It is possible that we have not here the\nwhole of the correspondence which passed between Darwin and Butler at\nthis period_, _and this theory is supported by the fact that Butler seems\nto take for granted that Darwin knew all about the appearance of the\noriginal dialogue on the_ ORIGIN OF SPECIES _in the_ PRESS.  _Enough_,\n_however_, _has been given to explain the correspondence which the\npublication of the dialogue occasioned_.  _I do not know what authority\nButler had for supposing that Charles John Abraham_, _Bishop of\nWellington_, _was the author of the article entitled_ \u201c_Barrel-Organs_,\u201d\n_and the_ \u201c_Savoyard_\u201d _of the subsequent controversy_.  _However_, _at\nthat time Butler was deep in the __counsels of the_ PRESS, _and he may\nhave received private information on the subject_.  _Butler\u2019s own\nreappearance over the initials A.M. is sufficiently explained in his\nletter to Darwin_.\n\n_It is worth observing that Butler appears in the dialogue and ensuing\ncorrespondence in a character very different from that which he was later\nto assume_.  _Here we have him as an ardent supporter of Charles Darwin_,\n_and adopting a contemptuous tone with regard to the claims of Erasmus\nDarwin to have sown the seed which was afterwards raised to maturity by\nhis grandson_.  _It would be interesting to know if it was this\ncorrespondence that first turned Butler\u2019s attention seriously to the\nworks of the older evolutionists and ultimately led to the production of_\nEVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW, _in which the indebtedness of Charles Darwin to\nErasmus Darwin_, _Buffon and Lamarck is demonstrated with such compelling\nforce_.\n\n\n\nA Dialogue\n\n\n                  [From the _Press_, 20 December, 1862.]\n\nF.  So you have finished Darwin?  Well, how did you like him?\n\nC.  You cannot expect me to like him.  He is so hard and logical, and he\ntreats his subject with such an intensity of dry reasoning without giving\nhimself the loose rein for a single moment from one end of the book to\nthe other, that I must confess I have found it a great effort to read him\nthrough.\n\nF.  But I fancy that, if you are to be candid, you will admit that the\nfault lies rather with yourself than with the book.  Your knowledge of\nnatural history is so superficial that you are constantly baffled by\nterms of which you do not understand the meaning, and in which you\nconsequently lose all interest.  I admit, however, that the book is hard\nand laborious reading; and, moreover, that the writer appears to have\npredetermined from the commencement to reject all ornament, and simply to\nargue from beginning to end, from point to point, till he conceived that\nhe had made his case sufficiently clear.\n\nC.  I agree with you, and I do not like his book partly on that very\naccount.  He seems to have no eye but for the single point at which he is\naiming.\n\nF.  But is not that a great virtue in a writer?\n\nC.  A great virtue, but a cold and hard one.\n\nF.  In my opinion it is a grave and wise one.  Moreover, I conceive that\nthe judicial calmness which so strongly characterises the whole book, the\nabsence of all passion, the air of extreme and anxious caution which\npervades it throughout, are rather the result of training and\nartificially acquired self-restraint than symptoms of a cold and\nunimpassioned nature; at any rate, whether the lawyer-like faculty of\nswearing both sides of a question and attaching the full value to both is\nacquired or natural in Darwin\u2019s case, you will admit that such a habit of\nmind is essential for any really valuable and scientific investigation.\n\nC.  I admit it.  Science is all head\u2014she has no heart at all.\n\nF.  You are right.  But a man of science may be a man of other things\nbesides science, and though he may have, and ought to have no heart\nduring a scientific investigation, yet when he has once come to a\nconclusion he may be hearty enough in support of it, and in his other\ncapacities may be of as warm a temperament as even you can desire.\n\nC.  I tell you I do not like the book.\n\nF.  May I catechise you a little upon it?\n\nC.  To your heart\u2019s content.\n\nF.  Firstly, then, I will ask you what is the one great impression that\nyou have derived from reading it; or, rather, what do you think to be the\nmain impression that Darwin wanted you to derive?\n\nC.  Why, I should say some such thing as the following\u2014that men are\ndescended from monkeys, and monkeys from something else, and so on back\nto dogs and horses and hedge-sparrows and pigeons and cinipedes (what is\na cinipede?) and cheesemites, and then through the plants down to\nduckweed.\n\nF.  You express the prevalent idea concerning the book, which as you\nexpress it appears nonsensical enough.\n\nC.  How, then, should you express it yourself?\n\nF.  Hand me the book and I will read it to you through from beginning to\nend, for to express it more briefly than Darwin himself has done is\nalmost impossible.\n\nC.  That is nonsense; as you asked me what impression I derived from the\nbook, so now I ask you, and I charge you to answer me.\n\nF.  Well, I assent to the justice of your demand, but I shall comply with\nit by requiring your assent to a few principal statements deducible from\nthe work.\n\nC.  So be it.\n\nF.  You will grant then, firstly, that all plants and animals increase\nvery rapidly, and that unless they were in some manner checked, the world\nwould soon be overstocked.  Take cats, for instance; see with what\nrapidity they breed on the different runs in this province where there is\nlittle or nothing to check them; or even take the more slowly breeding\nsheep, and see how soon 500 ewes become 5000 sheep under favourable\ncircumstances.  Suppose this sort of thing to go on for a hundred million\nyears or so, and where would be the standing room for all the different\nplants and animals that would be now existing, did they not materially\ncheck each other\u2019s increase, or were they not liable in some way to be\nchecked by other causes?  Remember the quail; how plentiful they were\nuntil the cats came with the settlers from Europe.  Why were they so\nabundant?  Simply because they had plenty to eat, and could get\nsufficient shelter from the hawks to multiply freely.  The cats came, and\ntussocks stood the poor little creatures in but poor stead.  The cats\nincreased and multiplied because they had plenty of food and no natural\nenemy to check them.  Let them wait a year or two, till they have\nmaterially reduced the larks also, as they have long since reduced the\nquail, and let them have to depend solely upon occasional dead lambs and\nsheep, and they will find a certain rather formidable natural enemy\ncalled Famine rise slowly but inexorably against them and slaughter them\nwholesale.  The first proposition then to which I demand your assent is\nthat all plants and animals tend to increase in a high geometrical ratio;\nthat they all endeavour to get that which is necessary for their own\nwelfare; that, as unfortunately there are conflicting interests in\nNature, collisions constantly occur between different animals and plants,\nwhereby the rate of increase of each species is very materially checked.\nDo you admit this?\n\nC.  Of course; it is obvious.\n\nF.  You admit then that there is in Nature a perpetual warfare of plant,\nof bird, of beast, of fish, of reptile; that each is striving selfishly\nfor its own advantage, and will get what it wants if it can.\n\nC.  If what?\n\nF.  If it can.  How comes it then that sometimes it cannot?  Simply\nbecause all are not of equal strength, and the weaker must go to the\nwall.\n\nC.  You seem to gloat over your devilish statement.\n\nF.  Gloat or no gloat, is it true or no?  I am not one of those\n\n    \u201cWho would unnaturally better Nature\n    By making out that that which is, is not.\u201d\n\nIf the law of Nature is \u201cstruggle,\u201d it is better to look the matter in\nthe face and adapt yourself to the conditions of your existence.  Nature\nwill not bow to you, neither will you mend matters by patting her on the\nback and telling her that she is not so black as she is painted.  My dear\nfellow, my dear sentimental friend, do you eat roast beef or roast\nmutton?\n\nC.  Drop that chaff and go back to the matter in hand.\n\nF.  To continue then with the cats.  Famine comes and tests them, so to\nspeak; the weaker, the less active, the less cunning, and the less\nenduring cats get killed off, and only the strongest and smartest cats\nsurvive; there will be no favouritism shown to animals in a state of\nNature; they will be weighed in the balance, and the weight of a hair\nwill sometimes decide whether they shall be found wanting or no.  This\nbeing the case, the cats having been thus naturally culled and the\nstronger having been preserved, there will be a gradual tendency to\nimprove manifested among the cats, even as among our own mobs of sheep\ncareful culling tends to improve the flock.\n\nC.  This, too, is obvious.\n\nF.  Extend this to all animals and plants, and the same thing will hold\ngood concerning them all.  I shall now change the ground and demand\nassent to another statement.  You know that though the offspring of all\nplants and animals is in the main like the parent, yet that in almost\nevery instance slight deviations occur, and that sometimes there is even\nconsiderable divergence from the parent type.  It must also be admitted\nthat these slight variations are often, or at least sometimes, capable of\nbeing perpetuated by inheritance.  Indeed, it is only in consequence of\nthis fact that our sheep and cattle have been capable of so much\nimprovement.\n\nC.  I admit this.\n\nF.  Then the whole matter lies in a nutshell.  Suppose that hundreds of\nmillions of years ago there existed upon this earth a single primordial\nform of the very lowest life, or suppose that three or four such\nprimordial forms existed.  Change of climate, of food, of any of the\ncircumstances which surrounded any member of this first and lowest class\nof life would tend to alter it in some slight manner, and the alteration\nwould have a tendency to perpetuate itself by inheritance.  Many failures\nwould doubtless occur, but with the lapse of time slight deviations would\nundoubtedly become permanent and inheritable, those alone being\nperpetuated which were beneficial to individuals in whom they appeared.\nRepeat the process with each deviation and we shall again obtain\ndivergences (in the course of ages) differing more strongly from the\nancestral form, and again those that enable their possessor to struggle\nfor existence most efficiently will be preserved.  Repeat this process\nfor millions and millions of years, and, as it is impossible to assign\nany limit to variability, it would seem as though the present diversities\nof species must certainly have come about sooner or later, and that other\ndivergences will continue to come about to the end of time.  The great\nagent in this development of life has been competition.  This has culled\nspecies after species, and secured that those alone should survive which\nwere best fitted for the conditions by which they found themselves\nsurrounded.  Endeavour to take a bird\u2019s-eye view of the whole matter.\nSee battle after battle, first in one part of the world, then in another,\nsometimes raging more fiercely and sometimes less; even as in human\naffairs war has always existed in some part of the world from the\nearliest known periods, and probably always will exist.  While a species\nis conquering in one part of the world it is being subdued in another,\nand while its conquerors are indulging in their triumph down comes the\nfiat for their being culled and drafted out, some to life and some to\ndeath, and so forth _ad infinitum_.\n\nC.  It is very horrid.\n\nF.  No more horrid than that you should eat roast mutton or boiled beef.\n\nC.  But it is utterly subversive of Christianity; for if this theory is\ntrue the fall of man is entirely fabulous; and if the fall, then the\nredemption, these two being inseparably bound together.\n\nF.  My dear friend, there I am not bound to follow you.  I believe in\nChristianity, and I believe in Darwin.  The two appear irreconcilable.\nMy answer to those who accuse me of inconsistency is, that both being\nundoubtedly true, the one must be reconcilable with the other, and that\nthe impossibility of reconciling them must be only apparent and\ntemporary, not real.  The reconciliation will never be effected by\nplaning a little off the one and a little off the other and then gluing\nthem together with glue.  People will not stand this sort of dealing, and\nthe rejection of the one truth or of the other is sure to follow upon any\nsuch attempt being persisted in.  The true course is to use the freest\ncandour in the acknowledgment of the difficulty; to estimate precisely\nits real value, and obtain a correct knowledge of its precise form.  Then\nand then only is there a chance of any satisfactory result being\nobtained.  For unless the exact nature of the difficulty be known first,\nwho can attempt to remove it?  Let me re-state the matter once again.\nAll animals and plants in a state of Nature are undergoing constant\ncompetition for the necessaries of life.  Those that can hold their\nground hold it; those that cannot hold it are destroyed.  But as it also\nhappens that slight changes of food, of habit, of climate, of\ncircumjacent accident, and so forth, produce a slight tendency to vary in\nthe offspring of any plant or animal, it follows that among these slight\nvariations some may be favourable to the individual in whom they appear,\nand may place him in a better position than his fellows as regards the\nenemies with whom his interests come into collision.  In this case he\nwill have a better chance of surviving than his fellows; he will thus\nstand also a better chance of continuing the species, and in his\noffspring his own slight divergence from the parent type will be apt to\nappear.  However slight the divergence, if it be beneficial to the\nindividual it is likely to preserve the individual and to reappear in his\noffspring, and this process may be repeated _ad infinitum_.  Once grant\nthese two things, and the rest is a mere matter of time and degree.  That\nthe immense differences between the camel and the pig should have come\nabout in six thousand years is not believable; but in six hundred million\nyears it is not incredible, more especially when we consider that by the\nassistance of geology a very perfect chain has been formed between the\ntwo.  Let this instance suffice.  Once grant the principles, once grant\nthat competition is a great power in Nature, and that changes of\ncircumstances and habits produce a tendency to variation in the offspring\n(no matter how slight such variation may be), and unless you can define\nthe possible limit of such variation during an infinite series of\ngenerations, unless you can show that there is a limit, and that Darwin\u2019s\ntheory over-steps it, you have no right to reject his conclusions.  As\nfor the objections to the theory, Darwin has treated them with admirable\ncandour, and our time is too brief to enter into them here.  My\nrecommendation to you is that you should read the book again.\n\nC.  Thank you, but for my own part I confess to caring very little\nwhether my millionth ancestor was a gorilla or no; and as Darwin\u2019s book\ndoes not please me, I shall not trouble myself further about the matter.\n\n\n\nBarrel-Organs\n\n\n                  [From the _Press_, 17 January, 1863.]\n\nDugald Stewart in his _Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysics_ says:\n\u201cOn reflecting on the repeated reproduction of ancient paradoxes by\nmodern authors one is almost tempted to suppose that human invention is\nlimited, like a barrel-organ, to a specific number of tunes.\u201d\n\nIt would be a very amusing and instructive task for a man of reading and\nreflection to note down the instances he meets with of these old tunes\ncoming up again and again in regular succession with hardly any change of\nnote, and with all the old hitches and involuntary squeaks that the\nbarrel-organ had played in days gone by.  It is most amusing to see the\nold quotations repeated year after year and volume after volume, till at\nlast some more careful enquirer turns to the passage referred to and\nfinds that they have all been taken in and have followed the lead of the\nfirst daring inventor of the mis-statement.  Hallam has had the courage,\nin the supplement to his _History of the Middle Ages_, p. 398, to\nacknowledge an error of this sort that he has been led into.\n\nBut the particular instance of barrel-organism that is present to our\nminds just now is the Darwinian theory of the development of species by\nnatural selection, of which we hear so much.  This is nothing new, but a\n_r\u00e9chauff\u00e9e_ of the old story that his namesake, Dr. Darwin, served up in\nthe end of the last century to Priestley and his admirers, and Lord\nMonboddo had cooked in the beginning of the same century.  We have all\nheard of his theory that man was developed directly from the monkey, and\nthat we all lost our tails by sitting too much upon that appendage.\n\nWe learn from that same great and cautious writer Hallam in his _History\nof Literature_ that there are traces of this theory and of other popular\ntheories of the present day in the works of Giordano Bruno, the\nNeapolitan who was burnt at Rome by the Inquisition in 1600.  It is\ncurious to read the titles of his works and to think of Dugald Stewart\u2019s\nremark about barrel-organs.  For instance he wrote on \u201cThe Plurality of\nWorlds,\u201d and on the universal \u201cMonad,\u201d a name familiar enough to the\nreaders of _Vestiges of Creation_.  He was a Pantheist, and, as Hallam\nsays, borrowed all his theories from the eclectic philosophers, from\nPlotinus and the Neo-Platonists, and ultimately they were no doubt of\nOriental origin.  This is just what has been shown again and again to be\nthe history of German Pantheism; it is a mere barrel-organ repetition of\nthe Brahman metaphysics found in Hindu cosmogonies.  Bruno\u2019s theory\nregarding development of species was in Hallam\u2019s words: \u201cThere is nothing\nso small or so unimportant but that a portion of spirit dwells in it; and\nthis spiritual substance requires a proper subject to become a plant or\nan animal\u201d; and Hallam in a note on this passage observes how the modern\ntheories of equivocal generation correspond with Bruno\u2019s.\n\nNo doubt Hallam is right in saying that they are all of Oriental origin.\nPythagoras borrowed from thence his kindred theory of the metempsychosis,\nor transmigration of souls.  But he was more consistent than modern\nphilosophers; he recognised a downward development as well as an upward,\nand made morality and immorality the crisis and turning-point of change\u2014a\nbold lion developed into a brave warrior, a drunken sot developed into a\nwallowing pig, and Darwin\u2019s slave-making ants, p. 219, would have been\nformerly Virginian cotton and tobacco growers.\n\nPerhaps Prometheus was the first Darwin of antiquity, for he is said to\nhave begun his creation from below, and after passing from the\ninvertebrate to the sub-vertebrate, from thence to the backbone, from the\nbackbone to the mammalia, and from the mammalia to the manco-cerebral, he\ncompounded man of each and all:\u2014\n\n    Fertur Prometheus addere principi\n    Limo coactus particulam undique\n    Desectam et insani leonis\n    Vim stomacho apposuisse nostro.\n\nOne word more about barrel-organs.  We have heard on the undoubted\nauthority of ear and eyewitnesses, that in a neighbouring province there\nis a church where the psalms are sung to a barrel-organ, but\nunfortunately the psalm tunes come in the middle of the set, and the jigs\nand waltzes have to be played through before the psalm can start.  Just\nso is it with Darwinism and all similar theories.  All his fantasias, as\nwe saw in a late article, are made to come round at last to religious\nquestions, with which really and truly they have nothing to do, but were\nit not for their supposed effect upon religion, no one would waste his\ntime in reading about the possibility of Polar bears swimming about and\ncatching flies so long that they at last get the fins they wish for.\n\n\n\nDarwin on Species\n[From the _Press_, 21 February, 1863.]\n\n\n                      To the Editor of the _Press_.\n\nSir\u2014In two of your numbers you have already taken notice of Darwin\u2019s\ntheory of the origin of species; I would venture to trespass upon your\nspace in order to criticise briefly both your notices.\n\nThe first is evidently the composition of a warm adherent of the theory\nin question; the writer overlooks all the real difficulties in the way of\naccepting it, and, caught by the obvious truth of much that Darwin says,\nhas rushed to the conclusion that all is equally true.  He writes with\nthe tone of a partisan, of one deficient in scientific caution, and from\nthe frequent repetition of the same ideas manifest in his dialogue one\nwould be led to suspect that he was but little versed in habits of\nliterary composition and philosophical argument.  Yet he may fairly claim\nthe merit of having written in earnest.  He has treated a serious subject\nseriously according to his lights; and though his lights are not\nbrilliant ones, yet he has apparently done his best to show the theory on\nwhich he is writing in its most favourable aspect.  He is rash, evidently\nwell satisfied with himself, very possibly mistaken, and just one of\nthose persons who (without intending it) are more apt to mislead than to\nlead the few people that put their trust in them.  A few will always\nfollow them, for a strong faith is always more or less impressive upon\npersons who are too weak to have any definite and original faith of their\nown.  The second writer, however, assumes a very different tone.  His\narguments to all practical intents and purposes run as follows:\u2014\n\nOld fallacies are constantly recurring.  Therefore Darwin\u2019s theory is a\nfallacy.\n\nThey come again and again, like tunes in a barrel-organ.  Therefore\nDarwin\u2019s theory is a fallacy.\n\nHallam made a mistake, and in his _History of the Middle Ages_, p. 398,\nhe corrects himself.  Therefore Darwin\u2019s theory is wrong.\n\nDr. Darwin in the last century said the same thing as his son or grandson\nsays now\u2014will the writer of the article refer to anything bearing on\nnatural selection and the struggle for existence in Dr. Darwin\u2019s\nwork?\u2014and a foolish nobleman said something foolish about monkey\u2019s tails.\nTherefore Darwin\u2019s theory is wrong.\n\nGiordano Bruno was burnt in the year 1600 A.D.; he was a Pantheist;\ntherefore Darwin\u2019s theory is wrong.\n\nAnd finally, as a clinching argument, in one of the neighbouring\nsettlements there is a barrel-organ which plays its psalm tunes in the\nmiddle of its jigs and waltzes.  After this all lingering doubts\nconcerning the falsehood of Darwin\u2019s theory must be at an end, and any\nperson of ordinary common sense must admit that the theory of development\nby natural selection is unwarranted by experience and reason.\n\nThe articles conclude with an implied statement that Darwin supposes the\nPolar bear to swim about catching flies for so long a period that at last\nit gets the fins it wishes for.\n\nNow, however sceptical I may yet feel about the truth of all Darwin\u2019s\ntheory, I cannot sit quietly by and see him misrepresented in such a\nscandalously slovenly manner.  What Darwin does say is that sometimes\ndiversified and changed habits may be observed in individuals of the same\nspecies; that is that there are eccentric animals just as there are\neccentric men.  He adduces a few instances and winds up by saying that\n\u201cin North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours\nwith widely open mouth, thus catching\u2014almost like a whale\u2014insects in the\nwater.\u201d  This and nothing more.  (See pp. 201 and 202.)\n\nBecause Darwin says that a bear of rather eccentric habits happened to be\nseen by Hearne swimming for hours and catching insects almost like a\nwhale, your writer (with a carelessness hardly to be reprehended in\nsufficiently strong terms) asserts by implication that Darwin supposes\nthe whale to be developed from the bear by the latter having had a strong\ndesire to possess fins.  This is disgraceful.\n\nI can hardly be mistaken in supposing that I have quoted the passage your\nwriter alludes to.  Should I be in error, I trust he will give the\nreference to the place in which Darwin is guilty of the nonsense that is\nfathered upon him in your article.\n\nIt must be remembered that there have been few great inventions in\nphysics or discoveries in science which have not been foreshadowed to a\ncertain extent by speculators who were indeed mistaken, but were yet more\nor less on the right scent.  Day is heralded by dawn, Apollo by Aurora,\nand thus it often happens that a real discovery may wear to the careless\nobserver much the same appearance as an exploded fallacy, whereas in fact\nit is widely different.  As much caution is due in the rejection of a\ntheory as in the acceptation of it.  The first of your writers is too\nhasty in accepting, the second in refusing even a candid examination.\n\nNow, when the _Saturday Review_, the _Cornhill Magazine_, _Once a Week_,\nand _Macmillan\u2019s Magazine_, not to mention other periodicals, have either\nactually and completely as in the case of the first two, provisionally as\nin the last mentioned, given their adherence to the theory in question,\nit may be taken for granted that the arguments in its favour are\nsufficiently specious to have attracted the attention and approbation of\na considerable number of well-educated men in England.  Three months ago\nthe theory of development by natural selection was openly supported by\nProfessor Huxley before the British Association at Cambridge.  I am not\nadducing Professor Huxley\u2019s advocacy as a proof that Darwin is right\n(indeed, Owen opposed him tooth and nail), but as a proof that there is\nsufficient to be said on Darwin\u2019s side to demand more respectful\nattention than your last writer has thought it worth while to give it.  A\ntheory which the British Association is discussing with great care in\nEngland is not to be set down by off-hand nicknames in Canterbury.\n\nTo those, however, who do feel an interest in the question, I would\nventure to give a word or two of advice.  I would strongly deprecate\nforming a hurried opinion for or against the theory.  Naturalists in\nEurope are canvassing the matter with the utmost diligence, and a few\nyears must show whether they will accept the theory or no.  It is\nplausible; that can be decided by no one.  Whether it is true or no can\nbe decided only among naturalists themselves.  We are outsiders, and most\nof us must be content to sit on the stairs till the great men come forth\nand give us the benefit of their opinion.\n\n                                I am, Sir,\n\n                                                    Your obedient servant,\n                                                                     A. M.\n\n\n\nDarwin on Species\n[From the _Press_, March 14th, 1863.]\n\n\n                      To the Editor of the _Press_.\n\nSir\u2014A correspondent signing himself \u201cA. M.\u201d in the issue of February 21st\nsays:\u2014\u201cWill the writer (of an article on barrel-organs) refer to anything\nbearing upon natural selection and the struggle for existence in Dr.\nDarwin\u2019s work?\u201d  This is one of the trade forms by which writers imply\nthat there is no such passage, and yet leave a loophole if they are\nproved wrong.  I will, however, furnish him with a passage from the notes\nof Darwin\u2019s _Botanic Garden_:\u2014\n\n\u201cI am acquainted with a philosopher who, contemplating this subject,\nthinks it not impossible that the first insects were anthers or stigmas\nof flowers, which had by some means loosed themselves from their parent\nplant; and that many insects have gradually in long process of time been\nformed from these, some acquiring wings, others fins, and others claws,\nfrom their ceaseless efforts to procure their food or to secure\nthemselves from injury.  The anthers or stigmas are therefore separate\nbeings.\u201d\n\nThis passage contains the germ of Mr. Charles Darwin\u2019s theory of the\norigin of species by natural selection:\u2014\n\n\u201cAnalogy would lead me to the belief that all animals and plants have\ndescended from one prototype.\u201d\n\nHere are a few specimens, his illustrations of the theory:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere seems to me no great difficulty in believing that natural\nselection has actually converted a swim-bladder into a lung or organ used\nexclusively for respiration.\u201d  \u201cA swim-bladder has apparently been\nconverted into an air-breathing lung.\u201d  \u201cWe must be cautious in\nconcluding that a bat could not have been formed by natural selection\nfrom an animal which at first could only glide through the air.\u201d  \u201cI can\nsee no insuperable difficulty in further believing it possible that the\nmembrane-connected fingers and forearm of the galeopithecus might be\ngreatly lengthened by natural selection, and this, as far as the organs\nof flight are concerned, would convert it into a bat.\u201d  \u201cThe framework of\nbones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of a\nporpoise, and leg of a horse, the same number of vertebr\u00e6 forming the\nneck of the giraffe and of the elephant, and innumerable other such\nfacts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and\nslight successive modifications.\u201d\n\nI do not mean to go through your correspondent\u2019s letter, otherwise \u201cI\ncould hardly reprehend in sufficiently strong terms\u201d (and all that sort\nof thing) the perversion of what I said about Giordano Bruno.  But \u201cex\nuno disce omnes\u201d\u2014I am, etc.,\n\n                                                           \u201cTHE SAVOYARD.\u201d\n\n\n\nDarwin on Species\n[From the _Press_, 18 March, 1863.]\n\n\n                      To the Editor of the _Press_.\n\nSir\u2014The \u201cSavoyard\u201d of last Saturday has shown that he has perused\nDarwin\u2019s _Botanic Garden_ with greater attention than myself.  I am\nobliged to him for his correction of my carelessness, and have not the\nsmallest desire to make use of any loopholes to avoid being \u201cproved\nwrong.\u201d  Let, then, the \u201cSavoyard\u2019s\u201d assertion that Dr. Darwin had to a\ncertain extent forestalled Mr. C. Darwin stand, and let my implied denial\nthat in the older Darwin\u2019s works passages bearing on natural selection,\nor the struggle for existence, could be found, go for nought, or rather\nlet it be set down against me.\n\nWhat follows?  Has the \u201cSavoyard\u201d (supposing him to be the author of the\narticle on barrel-organs) adduced one particle of real argument the more\nto show that the real Darwin\u2019s theory is wrong?\n\nThe elder Darwin writes in a note that \u201che is acquainted with a\nphilosopher who thinks it not impossible that the first insects were the\nanthers or stigmas of flowers, which by some means, etc. etc.\u201d  This is\nmere speculation, not a definite theory, and though the passage above as\nquoted by the \u201cSavoyard\u201d certainly does contain the germ of Darwin\u2019s\ntheory, what is it more than the crudest and most unshapen germ?  And in\nwhat conceivable way does this discovery of the egg invalidate the\nexcellence of the chicken?\n\nWas there ever a great theory yet which was not more or less developed\nfrom previous speculations which were all to a certain extent wrong, and\nall ridiculed, perhaps not undeservedly, at the time of their appearance?\nThere is a wide difference between a speculation and a theory.  A\nspeculation involves the notion of a man climbing into a lofty position,\nand descrying a somewhat remote object which he cannot fully make out.  A\ntheory implies that the theorist has looked long and steadfastly till he\nis clear in his own mind concerning the nature of the thing which he is\nbeholding.  I submit that the \u201cSavoyard\u201d has unfairly made use of the\nfailure of certain speculations in order to show that a distinct theory\nis untenable.\n\nLet it be granted that Darwin\u2019s theory has been foreshadowed by numerous\nprevious writers.  Grant the \u201cSavoyard\u201d his Giordano Bruno, and give full\nweight to the barrel-organ in a neighbouring settlement, I would still\nask, has the theory of natural development of species ever been placed in\nanything approaching its present clear and connected form before the\nappearance of Mr. Darwin\u2019s book?  Has it ever received the full attention\nof the scientific world as a duly organised theory, one presented in a\ntangible shape and demanding investigation, as the conclusion arrived at\nby a man of known scientific attainments after years of patient toil?\nThe upshot of the barrel-organs article was to answer this question in\nthe affirmative and to pooh-pooh all further discussion.\n\nIt would be mere presumption on my part either to attack or defend\nDarwin, but my indignation was roused at seeing him misrepresented and\ntreated disdainfully.  I would wish, too, that the \u201cSavoyard\u201d would have\ncondescended to notice that little matter of the bear.  I have searched\nmy copy of Darwin again and again to find anything relating to the\nsubject except what I have quoted in my previous letter.\n\n                    I am, Sir, your obedient servant,\n\n                                                                     A. M.\n\n\n\nDarwin on Species\n[From the _Press_, April 11th, 1863.]\n\n\n                      To the Editor of the _Press_.\n\nSir\u2014Your correspondent \u201cA. M.\u201d is pertinacious on the subject of the bear\nbeing changed into a whale, which I said Darwin contemplated as not\nimpossible.  I did not take the trouble in any former letter to answer\nhim on that point, as his language was so intemperate.  He has modified\nhis tone in his last letter, and really seems open to the conviction that\nhe may be the \u201ccareless\u201d writer after all; and so on reflection I have\ndetermined to give him the opportunity of doing me justice.\n\nIn his letter of February 21 he says: \u201cI cannot sit by and see Darwin\nmisrepresented in such a scandalously slovenly manner.  What Darwin does\nsay is \u2018that SOMETIMES diversified and changed habits may be observed in\nindividuals of the same species; that is, that there are certain\neccentric animals as there are certain eccentric men.  He adduces a few\ninstances, and winds up by saying that in North America the black bear\nwas seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus\ncatching, ALMOST LIKE A WHALE, insects in the water.\u2019  THIS, AND NOTHING\nMORE, pp. 201, 202.\u201d\n\nThen follows a passage about my carelessness, which (he says) is hardly\nto be reprehended in sufficiently strong terms, and he ends with saying:\n\u201cThis is disgraceful.\u201d\n\nNow you may well suppose that I was a little puzzled at the seeming\naudacity of a writer who should adopt this style, when the words which\nfollow his quotation from Darwin are (in the edition from which I quoted)\nas follows: \u201cEven in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects\nwere constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in\nthe country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by\nnatural selection more and more aquatic in their structure and habits,\nwith larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous\nas a whale.\u201d\n\nNow this passage was a remarkable instance of the idea that I was\nillustrating in the article on \u201cBarrel-organs,\u201d because Buffon in his\n_Histoire Naturelle_ had conceived a theory of degeneracy (the exact\nconverse of Darwin\u2019s theory of ascension) by which the bear might pass\ninto a seal, and that into a whale.  Trusting now to the fairness of \u201cA.\nM.\u201d  I leave to him to say whether he has quoted from the same edition as\nI have, and whether the additional words I have quoted are in his\nedition, and if so whether he has not been guilty of a great injustice to\nme; and if they are not in his edition, whether he has not been guilty of\ngreat haste and \u201ccarelessness\u201d in taking for granted that I have acted in\nso \u201cdisgraceful\u201d a manner.\n\n                                                          I am, Sir, etc.,\n                                                 \u201cThe Savoyard,\u201d or player\n                                                         on Barrel-organs.\n\n(The paragraph in question has been the occasion of much discussion.  The\nonly edition in our hands is the third, seventh thousand, which contains\nthe paragraph as quoted by \u201cA. M.\u201d  We have heard that it is different in\nearlier editions, but have not been able to find one.  The difference\nbetween \u201cA. M.\u201d and \u201cThe Savoyard\u201d is clearly one of different editions.\nDarwin appears to have been ashamed of the inconsequent inference\nsuggested, and to have withdrawn it.\u2014Ed. the _Press_.)\n\n\n\nDarwin on Species\n[From the _Press_, 22nd June, 1863.]\n\n\n                      To the Editor of the _Press_.\n\nSir\u2014I extract the following from an article in the _Saturday Review_ of\nJanuary 10, 1863, on the vertebrated animals of the Zoological Gardens.\n\n\u201cAs regards the ducks, for example, inter-breeding goes on to a very\ngreat extent among nearly all the genera, which are well represented in\nthe collection.  We think it unfortunate that the details of these\ncrosses have not hitherto been made public.  The Zoological Society has\nexisted about thirty-five years, and we imagine that evidence must have\nbeen accumulated almost enough to make or mar that part of Mr. Darwin\u2019s\nwell-known argument which rests on what is known of the phenomena of\nhybridism.  The present list reveals only one fact bearing on the\nsubject, but that is a noteworthy one, for it completely overthrows the\ncommonly accepted theory that the mixed offspring of different species\nare infertile _inter se_.  At page 15 (of the list of vertebrated animals\nliving in the gardens of the Zoological Society of London, Longman and\nCo., 1862) we find enumerated three examples of hybrids between two\nperfectly distinct species, and even, according to modern classification,\nbetween two distinct genera of ducks, for three or four generations.\nThere can be little doubt that a series of researches in this branch of\nexperimental physiology, which might be carried on at no great loss,\nwould place zoologists in a far better position with regard to a subject\nwhich is one of the most interesting if not one of the most important in\nnatural history.\u201d\n\nI fear that both you and your readers will be dead sick of Darwin, but\nthe above is worthy of notice.  My compliments to the \u201cSavoyard.\u201d\n\n                          Your obedient servant,\n\nMay 17th.\n\n                                                                     A. M.\n\n\n\nDarwin Among the Machines\n\n\n\u201c_Darwin Among the Machines_\u201d _originally appeared in the Christ Church_\nPRESS, 13 _June_, 1863.  _It was reprinted by Mr. Festing Jones in his\nedition of_ THE NOTE-BOOKS OF SAMUEL BUTLER (_Fifield_, _London_, 1912,\n_Kennerley_, _New York_), _with a prefatory note pointing out its\nconnection with the genesis of_ EREWHON, _to which readers desirous of\nfurther information may be referred_.\n\n[To the Editor of the _Press_, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863.]\n\nSIR\u2014There are few things of which the present generation is more justly\nproud than of the wonderful improvements which are daily taking place in\nall sorts of mechanical appliances.  And indeed it is matter for great\ncongratulation on many grounds.  It is unnecessary to mention these here,\nfor they are sufficiently obvious; our present business lies with\nconsiderations which may somewhat tend to humble our pride and to make us\nthink seriously of the future prospects of the human race.  If we revert\nto the earliest primordial types of mechanical life, to the lever, the\nwedge, the inclined plane, the screw and the pulley, or (for analogy\nwould lead us one step further) to that one primordial type from which\nall the mechanical kingdom has been developed, we mean to the lever\nitself, and if we then examine the machinery of the _Great Eastern_, we\nfind ourselves almost awestruck at the vast development of the mechanical\nworld, at the gigantic strides with which it has advanced in comparison\nwith the slow progress of the animal and vegetable kingdom.  We shall\nfind it impossible to refrain from asking ourselves what the end of this\nmighty movement is to be.  In what direction is it tending?  What will be\nits upshot?  To give a few imperfect hints towards a solution of these\nquestions is the object of the present letter.\n\nWe have used the words \u201cmechanical life,\u201d \u201cthe mechanical kingdom,\u201d \u201cthe\nmechanical world\u201d and so forth, and we have done so advisedly, for as the\nvegetable kingdom was slowly developed from the mineral, and as in like\nmanner the animal supervened upon the vegetable, so now in these last few\nages an entirely new kingdom has sprung up, of which we as yet have only\nseen what will one day be considered the antediluvian prototypes of the\nrace.\n\nWe regret deeply that our knowledge both of natural history and of\nmachinery is too small to enable us to undertake the gigantic task of\nclassifying machines into the genera and sub-genera, species, varieties\nand sub-varieties, and so forth, of tracing the connecting links between\nmachines of widely different characters, of pointing out how subservience\nto the use of man has played that part among machines which natural\nselection has performed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, of pointing\nout rudimentary organs {180} which exist in some few machines, feebly\ndeveloped and perfectly useless, yet serving to mark descent from some\nancestral type which has either perished or been modified into some new\nphase of mechanical existence.  We can only point out this field for\ninvestigation; it must be followed by others whose education and talents\nhave been of a much higher order than any which we can lay claim to.\n\nSome few hints we have determined to venture upon, though we do so with\nthe profoundest diffidence.  Firstly, we would remark that as some of the\nlowest of the vertebrata attained a far greater size than has descended\nto their more highly organised living representatives, so a diminution in\nthe size of machines has often attended their development and progress.\nTake the watch for instance.  Examine the beautiful structure of the\nlittle animal, watch the intelligent play of the minute members which\ncompose it; yet this little creature is but a development of the cumbrous\nclocks of the thirteenth century\u2014it is no deterioration from them.  The\nday may come when clocks, which certainly at the present day are not\ndiminishing in bulk, may be entirely superseded by the universal use of\nwatches, in which case clocks will become extinct like the earlier\nsaurians, while the watch (whose tendency has for some years been rather\nto decrease in size than the contrary) will remain the only existing type\nof an extinct race.\n\nThe views of machinery which we are thus feebly indicating will suggest\nthe solution of one of the greatest and most mysterious questions of the\nday.  We refer to the question: What sort of creature man\u2019s next\nsuccessor in the supremacy of the earth is likely to be.  We have often\nheard this debated; but it appears to us that we are ourselves creating\nour own successors; we are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of\ntheir physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and\nsupplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self-regulating,\nself-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the\nhuman race.  In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior\nrace.  Inferior in power, inferior in that moral quality of self-control,\nwe shall look up to them as the acme of all that the best and wisest man\ncan ever dare to aim at.  No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no\nimpure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures.\nSin, shame, and sorrow will have no place among them.  Their minds will\nbe in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows\nno wants, is disturbed by no regrets.  Ambition will never torture them.\nIngratitude will never cause them the uneasiness of a moment.  The guilty\nconscience, the hope deferred, the pains of exile, the insolence of\noffice, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes\u2014these\nwill be entirely unknown to them.  If they want \u201cfeeding\u201d (by the use of\nwhich very word we betray our recognition of them as living organism)\nthey will be attended by patient slaves whose business and interest it\nwill be to see that they shall want for nothing.  If they are out of\norder they will be promptly attended to by physicians who are thoroughly\nacquainted with their constitutions; if they die, for even these glorious\nanimals will not be exempt from that necessary and universal\nconsummation, they will immediately enter into a new phase of existence,\nfor what machine dies entirely in every part at one and the same instant?\n\nWe take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have\nbeen above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine\nwhat the horse and the dog are to man.  He will continue to exist, nay\neven to improve, and will be probably better off in his state of\ndomestication under the beneficent rule of the machines than he is in his\npresent wild state.  We treat our horses, dogs, cattle, and sheep, on the\nwhole, with great kindness; we give them whatever experience teaches us\nto be best for them, and there can be no doubt that our use of meat has\nadded to the happiness of the lower animals far more than it has\ndetracted from it; in like manner it is reasonable to suppose that the\nmachines will treat us kindly, for their existence is as dependent upon\nours as ours is upon the lower animals.  They cannot kill us and eat us\nas we do sheep; they will not only require our services in the\nparturition of their young (which branch of their economy will remain\nalways in our hands), but also in feeding them, in setting them right\nwhen they are sick, and burying their dead or working up their corpses\ninto new machines.  It is obvious that if all the animals in Great\nBritain save man alone were to die, and if at the same time all\nintercourse with foreign countries were by some sudden catastrophe to be\nrendered perfectly impossible, it is obvious that under such\ncircumstances the loss of human life would be something fearful to\ncontemplate\u2014in like manner were mankind to cease, the machines would be\nas badly off or even worse.  The fact is that our interests are\ninseparable from theirs, and theirs from ours.  Each race is dependent\nupon the other for innumerable benefits, and, until the reproductive\norgans of the machines have been developed in a manner which we are\nhardly yet able to conceive, they are entirely dependent upon man for\neven the continuance of their species.  It is true that these organs may\nbe ultimately developed, inasmuch as man\u2019s interest lies in that\ndirection; there is nothing which our infatuated race would desire more\nthan to see a fertile union between two steam engines; it is true that\nmachinery is even at this present time employed in begetting machinery,\nin becoming the parent of machines often after its own kind, but the days\nof flirtation, courtship, and matrimony appear to be very remote, and\nindeed can hardly be realised by our feeble and imperfect imagination.\n\nDay by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day\nwe are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down\nas slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their\nwhole lives to the development of mechanical life.  The upshot is simply\na question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will\nhold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no\nperson of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.\n\nOur opinion is that war to the death should be instantly proclaimed\nagainst them.  Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the\nwell-wisher of his species.  Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter\nshown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race.  If\nit be urged that this is impossible under the present condition of human\naffairs, this at once proves that the mischief is already done, that our\nservitude has commenced in good earnest, that we have raised a race of\nbeings whom it is beyond our power to destroy, and that we are not only\nenslaved but are absolutely acquiescent in our bondage.\n\nFor the present we shall leave this subject, which we present gratis to\nthe members of the Philosophical Society.  Should they consent to avail\nthemselves of the vast field which we have pointed out, we shall\nendeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period.\n\n                             I am, Sir, etc.,\n\n                                                                 CELLARIUS\n\n\n\n\nLucubratio Ebria\n\n\n\u201c_Lucubratio Ebria_,\u201d _like_ \u201c_Darwin Among the Machines_,\u201d _has already\nappeared in_ THE NOTE-BOOKS OF SAMUEL BUTLER _with a prefatory note by\nMr. Festing Jones_, _explaining its connection with_ EREWHON _and_ LIFE\nAND HABIT.  _I need therefore only repeat that it was written by Butler\nafter his return to England and sent to New Zealand_, _where it was\npublished in the_ PRESS _on July_ 29, 1865.\n\n                    [From the _Press_, 29 July, 1865.]\n\nTHERE is a period in the evening, or more generally towards the still\nsmall hours of the morning, in which we so far unbend as to take a single\nglass of hot whisky and water.  We will neither defend the practice nor\nexcuse it.  We state it as a fact which must be borne in mind by the\nreaders of this article; for we know not how, whether it be the\ninspiration of the drink or the relief from the harassing work with which\nthe day has been occupied or from whatever other cause, yet we are\ncertainly liable about this time to such a prophetic influence as we\nseldom else experience.  We are rapt in a dream such as we ourselves know\nto be a dream, and which, like other dreams, we can hardly embody in a\ndistinct utterance.  We know that what we see is but a sort of\nintellectual Siamese twins, of which one is substance and the other\nshadow, but we cannot set either free without killing both.  We are\nunable to rudely tear away the veil of phantasy in which the truth is\nshrouded, so we present the reader with a draped figure, and his own\njudgment must discriminate between the clothes and the body.  A truth\u2019s\nprosperity is like a jest\u2019s, it lies in the ear of him that hears it.\nSome may see our lucubration as we saw it, and others may see nothing but\na drunken dream or the nightmare of a distempered imagination.  To\nourselves it is the speaking with unknown tongues to the early\nCorinthians; we cannot fully understand our own speech, and we fear lest\nthere be not a sufficient number of interpreters present to make our\nutterance edify.  But there!  (Go on straight to the body of the\narticle.)\n\nThe limbs of the lower animals have never been modified by any act of\ndeliberation and forethought on their own part.  Recent researches have\nthrown absolutely no light upon the origin of life\u2014upon the initial force\nwhich introduced a sense of identity and a deliberate faculty into the\nworld; but they do certainly appear to show very clearly that each\nspecies of the animal and vegetable kingdom has been moulded into its\npresent shape by chances and changes of many millions of years, by\nchances and changes over which the creature modified had no control\nwhatever, and concerning whose aim it was alike unconscious and\nindifferent, by forces which seem insensate to the pain which they\ninflict, but by whose inexorably beneficent cruelty the brave and strong\nkeep coming to the fore, while the weak and bad drop behind and perish.\nThere was a moral government of this world before man came near it\u2014a\nmoral government suited to the capacities of the governed, and which\nunperceived by them has laid fast the foundations of courage, endurance,\nand cunning.  It laid them so fast that they became more and more\nhereditary.  Horace says well _fortes creantur fortibus et bonis_, good\nmen beget good children; the rule held even in the geological period;\ngood ichthyosauri begot good ichthyosauri, and would to our discomfort\nhave gone on doing so to the present time had not better creatures been\nbegetting better things than ichthyosauri, or famine or fire or\nconvulsion put an end to them.  Good apes begot good apes, and at last\nwhen human intelligence stole like a late spring upon the mimicry of our\nsemi-simious ancestry, the creature learnt how he could of his own\nforethought add extra-corporaneous limbs to the members of his own body,\nand become not only a vertebrate mammal, but a vertebrate machinate\nmammal into the bargain.\n\nIt was a wise monkey that first learned to carry a stick, and a useful\nmonkey that mimicked him.  For the race of man has learned to walk\nuprightly much as a child learns the same thing.  At first he crawls on\nall fours, then he clambers, laying hold of whatever he can; and lastly\nhe stands upright alone and walks, but for a long time with an unsteady\nstep.  So when the human race was in its gorilla-hood it generally\ncarried a stick; from carrying a stick for many million years it became\naccustomed and modified to an upright position.  The stick wherewith it\nhad learned to walk would now serve to beat its younger brothers, and\nthen it found out its service as a lever.  Man would thus learn that the\nlimbs of his body were not the only limbs that he could command.  His\nbody was already the most versatile in existence, but he could render it\nmore versatile still.  With the improvement in his body his mind improved\nalso.  He learnt to perceive the moral government under which he held the\nfeudal tenure of his life\u2014perceiving it he symbolised it, and to this day\nour poets and prophets still strive to symbolise it more and more\ncompletely.\n\nThe mind grew because the body grew; more things were perceived, more\nthings were handled, and being handled became familiar.  But this came\nabout chiefly because there was a hand to handle with; without the hand\nthere would be no handling, and no method of holding and examining is\ncomparable to the human hand.  The tail of an opossum is a prehensile\nthing, but it is too far from his eyes; the elephant\u2019s trunk is better,\nand it is probably to their trunks that the elephants owe their sagacity.\nIt is here that the bee, in spite of her wings, has failed.  She has a\nhigh civilisation, but it is one whose equilibrium appears to have been\nalready attained; the appearance is a false one, for the bee changes,\nthough more slowly than man can watch her; but the reason of the very\ngradual nature of the change is chiefly because the physical organisation\nof the insect changes, but slowly also.  She is poorly off for hands, and\nhas never fairly grasped the notion of tacking on other limbs to the\nlimbs of her own body, and so being short lived to boot she remains from\ncentury to century to human eyes _in statu quo_.  Her body never becomes\nmachinate, whereas this new phase of organism which has been introduced\nwith man into the mundane economy, has made him a very quicksand for the\nfoundation of an unchanging civilisation; certain fundamental principles\nwill always remain, but every century the change in man\u2019s physical\nstatus, as compared with the elements around him, is greater and greater.\nHe is a shifting basis on which no equilibrium of habit and civilisation\ncan be established.  Were it not for this constant change in our physical\npowers, which our mechanical limbs have brought about, man would have\nlong since apparently attained his limit of possibility; he would be a\ncreature of as much fixity as the ants and bees; he would still have\nadvanced, but no faster than other animals advance.\n\nIf there were a race of men without any mechanical appliances we should\nsee this clearly.  There are none, nor have there been, so far as we can\ntell, for millions and millions of years.  The lowest Australian savage\ncarries weapons for the fight or the chase, and has his cooking and\ndrinking utensils at home; a race without these things would be\ncompletely _fer\u00e6 natur\u00e6_ and not men at all.  We are unable to point to\nany example of a race absolutely devoid of extra-corporaneous limbs, but\nwe can see among the Chinese that with the failure to invent new limbs a\ncivilisation becomes as much fixed as that of the ants; and among savage\ntribes we observe that few implements involve a state of things scarcely\nhuman at all.  Such tribes only advance _pari passu_ with the creatures\nupon which they feed.\n\nIt is a mistake, then, to take the view adopted by a previous\ncorrespondent of this paper, to consider the machines as identities, to\nanimalise them and to anticipate their final triumph over mankind.  They\nare to be regarded as the mode of development by which human organism is\nmost especially advancing, and every fresh invention is to be considered\nas an additional member of the resources of the human body.  Herein lies\nthe fundamental difference between man and his inferiors.  As regard his\nflesh and blood, his senses, appetites, and affections, the difference is\none of degree rather than of kind, but in the deliberate invention of\nsuch unity of limbs as is exemplified by the railway train\u2014that\nseven-leagued foot which five hundred may own at once\u2014he stands quite\nalone.\n\nIn confirmation of the views concerning mechanism which we have been\nadvocating above, it must be remembered that men are not merely the\nchildren of their parents, but they are begotten of the institutions of\nthe state of the mechanical sciences under which they are born and bred.\nThese things have made us what we are.  We are children of the plough,\nthe spade, and the ship; we are children of the extended liberty and\nknowledge which the printing press has diffused.  Our ancestors added\nthese things to their previously existing members; the new limbs were\npreserved by natural selection and incorporated into human society; they\ndescended with modifications, and hence proceeds the difference between\nour ancestors and ourselves.  By the institutions and state of science\nunder which a man is born it is determined whether he shall have the\nlimbs of an Australian savage or those of a nineteenth-century\nEnglishman.  The former is supplemented with little save a rug and a\njavelin; the latter varies his physique with the changes of the season,\nwith age and with advancing or decreasing wealth.  If it is wet he is\nfurnished with an organ which is called an umbrella and which seems\ndesigned for the purpose of protecting either his clothes or his lungs\nfrom the injurious effects of rain.  His watch is of more importance to\nhim than a good deal of his hair, at any rate than of his whiskers;\nbesides this he carries a knife and generally a pencil case.  His memory\ngoes in a pocket-book.  He grows more complex as he becomes older and he\nwill then be seen with a pair of spectacles, perhaps also with false\nteeth and a wig; but, if he be a really well-developed specimen of the\nrace, he will be furnished with a large box upon wheels, two horses, and\na coachman.\n\nLet the reader ponder over these last remarks and he will see that the\nprincipal varieties and sub-varieties of the human race are not now to be\nlooked for among the negroes, the Circassians, the Malays, or the\nAmerican aborigines, but among the rich and the poor.  The difference in\nphysical organisation between these two species of man is far greater\nthan that between the so-called types of humanity.  The rich man can go\nfrom here to England whenever he feels inclined, the legs of the other\nare by an invisible fatality prevented from carrying him beyond certain\nnarrow limits.  Neither rich nor poor as yet see the philosophy of the\nthing, or admit that he who can tack a portion of one of the P. and O.\nboats on to his identity is a much more highly organised being than one\nwho cannot.  Yet the fact is patent enough, if we once think it over,\nfrom the mere consideration of the respect with which we so often treat\nthose who are richer than ourselves.  We observe men for the most part\n(admitting, however, some few abnormal exceptions) to be deeply impressed\nby the superior organisation of those who have money.  It is wrong to\nattribute this respect to any unworthy motive, for the feeling is\nstrictly legitimate and springs from some of the very highest impulses of\nour nature.  It is the same sort of affectionate reverence which a dog\nfeels for man, and is not infrequently manifested in a similar manner.\n\nWe admit that these last sentences are open to question, and we should\nhardly like to commit ourselves irrecoverably to the sentiments they\nexpress; but we will say this much for certain, namely, that the rich man\nis the true hundred-handed Gyges of the poets.  He alone possesses the\nfull complement of limbs who stands at the summit of opulence, and we may\nassert with strictly scientific accuracy that the Rothschilds are the\nmost astonishing organisms that the world has ever yet seen.  For to the\nnerves or tissues, or whatever it be that answers to the helm of a rich\nman\u2019s desires, there is a whole army of limbs seen and unseen attachable;\nhe may be reckoned by his horse-power, by the number of foot-pounds which\nhe has money enough to set in motion.  Who, then, will deny that a man\nwhose will represents the motive power of a thousand horses is a being\nvery different from the one who is equivalent but to the power of a\nsingle one?\n\nHenceforward, then, instead of saying that a man is hard up, let us say\nthat his organisation is at a low ebb, or, if we wish him well, let us\nhope that he will grow plenty of limbs.  It must be remembered that we\nare dealing with physical organisations only.  We do not say that the\nthousand-horse man is better than a one-horse man, we only say that he is\nmore highly organised and should be recognised as being so by the\nscientific leaders of the period.  A man\u2019s will, truth, endurance, are\npart of him also, and may, as in the case of the late Mr. Cobden, have in\nthemselves a power equivalent to all the horse-power which they can\ninfluence; but were we to go into this part of the question we should\nnever have done, and we are compelled reluctantly to leave our dream in\nits present fragmentary condition.\n\n\n\n\nA Note on \u201cThe Tempest\u201d\nAct III, Scene I\n\n\n_The following brief essay was contributed by Butler to a small\nmiscellany entitled_ LITERARY FOUNDLINGS: VERSE AND PROSE, COLLECTED IN\nCANTERBURY, N.Z., _which was published at Christ Church on the occasion\nof a bazaar held there in March_, 1864, _in aid of the funds of the\nChrist Church Orphan Asylum_, _and offered for sale during the progress\nof the bazaar_.  _The miscellany consisted entirely of the productions of\nCanterbury writers_, _and among the contributors were Dean Jacobs_,\n_Canon Cottrell_, _and James Edward FitzGerald_, _the founder of the_\nPRESS.\n\nWHEN Prince Ferdinand was wrecked on the island Miranda was fifteen years\nold.  We can hardly suppose that she had ever seen Ariel, and Caliban was\na detestable object whom her father took good care to keep as much out of\nher way as possible.  Caliban was like the man cook on a back-country\nrun.  \u201c\u2019Tis a villain, sir,\u201d says Miranda.  \u201cI do not love to look on.\u201d\n\u201cBut as \u2019tis,\u201d returns Prospero, \u201cwe cannot miss him; he does make our\nfire, fetch in our wood, and serve in offices that profit us.\u201d  Hands\nwere scarce, and Prospero was obliged to put up with Caliban in spite of\nthe many drawbacks with which his services were attended; in fact, no one\non the island could have liked him, for Ariel owed him a grudge on the\nscore of the cruelty with which he had been treated by Sycorax, and we\nhave already heard what Miranda and Prospero had to say about him.  He\nmay therefore pass for nobody.  Prospero was an old man, or at any rate\nin all probability some forty years of age; therefore it is no wonder\nthat when Miranda saw Prince Ferdinand she should have fallen violently\nin love with him.  \u201cNothing ill,\u201d according to her view, \u201ccould dwell in\nsuch a temple\u2014if the ill Spirit have so fair an house, good things will\nstrive to dwell with \u2019t.\u201d  A very natural sentiment for a girl in\nMiranda\u2019s circumstances, but nevertheless one which betrayed a charming\ninexperience of the ways of the world and of the real value of good\nlooks.  What surprises us, however, is this, namely the remarkable\ncelerity with which Miranda in a few hours became so thoroughly wide\nawake to the exigencies of the occasion in consequence of her love for\nthe Prince.  Prospero has set Ferdinand to hump firewood out of the bush,\nand to pile it up for the use of the cave.  Ferdinand is for the present\na sort of cadet, a youth of good family, without cash and unaccustomed to\nmanual labour; his unlucky stars have landed him on the island, and now\nit seems that he \u201cmust remove some thousands of these logs and pile them\nup, upon a sore injunction.\u201d  Poor fellow!  Miranda\u2019s heart bleeds for\nhim.  Her \u201caffections were most humble\u201d; she had been content to take\nFerdinand on speculation.  On first seeing him she had exclaimed, \u201cI have\nno ambition to see a goodlier man\u201d; and it makes her blood boil to see\nthis divine creature compelled to such an ignominious and painful labour.\nWhat is the family consumption of firewood to her?  Let Caliban do it;\nlet Prospero do it; or make Ariel do it; let her do it herself; or let\nthe lightning come down and \u201cburn up those logs you are enjoined to\npile\u201d;\u2014the logs themselves, while burning, would weep for having wearied\nhim.  Come what would, it was a shame to make Ferdinand work so hard, so\nshe winds up thus: \u201cMy father is hard at study; pray now rest\nyourself\u2014_he\u2019s safe for these three hours_.\u201d  Safe\u2014if she had only said\nthat \u201cpapa was safe,\u201d the sentence would have been purely modern, and\nhave suited Thackeray as well as Shakspeare.  See how quickly she has\nlearnt to regard her father as one to be watched and probably kept in a\ngood humour for the sake of Ferdinand.  We suppose that the secret of the\nmodern character of this particular passage lies simply in the fact that\nyoung people make love pretty much in the same way now that they did\nthree hundred years ago; and possibly, with the exception that \u201cthe\ngovernor\u201d may be substituted for the words \u201cmy father\u201d by the young\nladies of three hundred years hence, the passage will sound as fresh and\nmodern then as it does now.  Let the Prosperos of that age take a lesson,\nand either not allow the Ferdinands to pile up firewood, or so to arrange\ntheir studies as not to be \u201csafe\u201d for any three consecutive hours.  It is\ntrue that Prospero\u2019s objection to the match was only feigned, but Miranda\nthought otherwise, and for all purposes of argument we are justified in\nsupposing that he was in earnest.\n\n\n\n\nThe English Cricketers\n\n\n_The following lines were written by Butler in February_, 1864, _and\nappeared in the_ PRESS.  _They refer to a visit paid to New Zealand by a\nteam of English cricketers_, _and have kindly been copied and sent to me\nby Miss Colborne-Veel_, _whose father was editor of the_ PRESS _at the\ntime that Butler was writing for it_.  _Miss Colborne-Veel has further\npermitted to me to make use of the following explanatory note_: \u201c_The\ncoming of the All England team was naturally a glorious event in a\nprovince only fourteen years old_.  _The Mayor and Councillors had_ \u2018_a\ncar of state_\u2019\u2014_otherwise a brake_\u2014\u2018_with postilions in the English\nstyle_.\u2019_  Cobb and Co. supplied a six-horse coach for the English\neleven_, _the yellow paint upon which suggested the_ \u2018_glittering chariot\nof pure gold_.\u2019  _So they drove in triumph from the station and through\nthe town_.  _Tinley for England and Tennant for Canterbury were the\nheroes of the match_.  _At the Wednesday dinner referred to they\nexchanged compliments and cricket balls across the table_.  _This early\nesteem for cricket may be explained by a remark made by the All England\ncaptain_, _that_ \u2018_on no cricket ground in any colony had he met so many\npublic school men_, _especially men from old Rugby_, _as at\nCanterbury_.\u2019\u201d\n\n            [To the Editor, the _Press_, February 15th, 1864.]\n\nSIR\u2014The following lines, which profess to have been written by a friend\nof mine at three o\u2019clock in the morning after the dinner of Wednesday\nlast, have been presented to myself with a request that I should forward\nthem to you.  I would suggest to the writer of them the following\nquotation from \u201cLove\u2019s Labour\u2019s Lost.\u201d\n\n                                I am, Sir,\n\n                                                    Your obedient servant,\n                                                                      S.B.\n\n\u201cYou find not the apostrophes, and so miss the accent; let me supervise\nthe canzonet.  Here are only numbers ratified; but for the elegancy,\nfacility, and golden cadence of poesy, _caret_ . . . _Imitari_ is\nnothing.  So doth the hound his master, the ape his keeper, the tired\nhorse his rider.\u201d\n\n                                       Love\u2019s Labour\u2019s Lost, Act IV, S. 2.\n\n   HORATIO . . .\n\n   . . . The whole town rose\n   Eyes out to meet them; in a car of state\n   The Mayor and all the Councillors rode down\n   To give them greeting, while the blue-eyed team\n   Drawn in Cobb\u2019s glittering chariot of pure gold\n   Careered it from the station.\u2014But the Mayor\u2014\n   Thou shouldst have seen the blandness of the man,\n   And watched the effulgent and unspeakable smiles\n   With which he beamed upon them.\n   His beard, by nature tawny, was suffused\n   With just so much of a most reverend grizzle\n   That youth and age should kiss in\u2019t.  I assure you\n   He was a Southern Palmerston, so old\n   In understanding, yet jocund and jaunty\n   As though his twentieth summer were as yet\n   But in the very June o\u2019 the year, and winter\n   Was never to be dreamt of.  Those who heard\n   His words stood ravished.  It was all as one\n   As though Minerva, hid in Mercury\u2019s jaws,\n   Had counselled some divinest utterance\n   Of honeyed wisdom.  So profound, so true,\n   So meet for the occasion, and so\u2014short.\n   The king sat studying rhetoric as he spoke,\n   While the lord Abbot heaved half-envious sighs\n   And hung suspended on his accents.\n\n      CLAUD.  But will it pay, Horatio?\n\n      HOR.  Let Shylock see to that, but yet I trust\n   He\u2019s no great loser.\n\n      CLAUD.  Which side went in first?\n\n      HOR.        We did,\n   And scored a paltry thirty runs in all.\n   The lissom Lockyer gambolled round the stumps\n   With many a crafty curvet: you had thought\n   An Indian rubber monkey were endued\n   With wicket-keeping instincts; teazing Tinley\n   Issued his treacherous notices to quit,\n   Ruthlessly truthful to his fame, and who\n   Shall speak of Jackson?  Oh! \u2019twas sad indeed\n   To watch the downcast faces of our men\n   Returning from the wickets; one by one,\n   Like patients at the gratis consultation\n   Of some skilled leech, they took their turn at physic.\n   And each came sadly homeward with a face\n   Awry through inward anguish; they were pale\n   As ghosts of some dead but deep mourned love,\n   Grim with a great despair, but forced to smile.\n\n      CLAUD.  Poor souls!  Th\u2019 unkindest heart had bled for them.\n   But what came after?\n\n      HOR.        Fortune turned her wheel,\n   And Grace, disgrac\u00e9d for the nonce, was bowled\n   First ball, and all the welkin roared applause!\n   As for the rest, they scored a goodly score\n   And showed some splendid cricket, but their deeds\n   Were not colossal, and our own brave Tennant\n   Proved himself all as good a man as they.\n\n                                  * * * * *\n\n   Through them we greet our Mother.  In their coming,\n   We shake our dear old England by the hand\n   And watch space dwindling, while the shrinking world\n   Collapses into nothing.  Mark me well,\n   Matter as swift as swiftest thought shall fly,\n   And space itself be nowhere.  Future Tinleys\n   Shall bowl from London to our Christ Church Tennants,\n   And all the runs for all the stumps be made\n   In flying baskets which shall come and go\n   And do the circuit round about the globe\n   Within ten seconds.  Do not check me with\n   The roundness of the intervening world,\n   The winds, the mountain ranges, and the seas\u2014\n   These hinder nothing; for the leathern sphere,\n   Like to a planetary satellite,\n   Shall wheel its faithful orb and strike the bails\n   Clean from the centre of the middle stump.\n\n                                  * * * * *\n\n   Mirrors shall hang suspended in the air,\n   Fixed by a chain between two chosen stars,\n   And every eye shall be a telescope\n   To read the passing shadows from the world.\n   Such games shall be hereafter, but as yet\n   We lay foundations only.\n\n      CLAUD.  Thou must be drunk, Horatio.\n\n      HOR.        So I am.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n\n{180}  We were asked by a learned brother philosopher who saw this\narticle in MS. what we meant by alluding to rudimentary organs in\nmachines.  Could we, he asked, give any example of such organs?  We\npointed to the little protuberance at the bottom of the bowl of our\ntobacco pipe.  This organ was originally designed for the same purpose as\nthe rim at the bottom of a tea-cup, which is but another form of the same\nfunction.  Its purpose was to keep the heat of the pipe from marking the\ntable on which it rested.  Originally, as we have seen in very early\ntobacco pipes, this protuberance was of a very different shape to what it\nis now.  It was broad at the bottom and flat, so that while the pipe was\nbeing smoked the bowl might rest upon the table.  Use and disuse have\nhere come into play and served to reduce the function to its present\nrudimentary condition.  That these rudimentary organs are rarer in\nmachinery than in animal life is owing to the more prompt action of the\nhuman selection as compared with the slower but even surer operation of\nnatural selection.  Man may make mistakes; in the long run nature never\ndoes so.  We have only given an imperfect example, but the intelligent\nreader will supply himself with illustrations.","title":"Canterbury Pieces","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":14186}