Let us take the eye as a somewhat crucial example. It is a seeing- machine, or thing to see with. So is a telescope; the telescope in its highest development is a secular acc.u.mulation of cunning, sometimes small, sometimes great; sometimes applied to this detail of the instrument, and sometimes to that. It is an admirable example of design; nevertheless, as I said in "Evolution Old and New," he who made the first rude telescope had probably no idea of any more perfect form of the instrument than the one he had himself invented. Indeed, if he had, he would have carried his idea out in practice. He would have been unable to conceive such an instrument as Lord Rosse"s; the design, therefore, at present evidenced by the telescope was not design all on the part of one and the same person.
Nor yet was it unmixed with chance; many a detail has been doubtless due to an accident or coincidence which was forthwith seized and made the best of. Luck there always has been and always will be, until all brains are opened, and all connections made known, but luck turned to account becomes design; there is, indeed, if things are driven home, little other design than this. The telescope, therefore, is an instrument designed in all its parts for the purpose of seeing, and, take it all round, designed with singular skill.
Looking at the eye, we are at first tempted to think that it must be the telescope over again, only more so; we are tempted to see it as something which has grown up little by little from small beginnings, as the result of effort well applied and handed down from generation to generation, till, in the vastly greater time during which the eye has been developing as compared with the telescope, a vastly more astonishing result has been arrived at. We may indeed be tempted to think this, but, according to Mr. Darwin, we should be wrong.
Design had a great deal to do with the telescope, but it had nothing or hardly anything whatever to do with the eye. The telescope owes its development to cunning, the eye to luck, which, it would seem, is so far more cunning than cunning that one does not quite understand why there should be any cunning at all. The main means of developing the eye was, according to Mr. Darwin, not use as varying circ.u.mstances might direct with consequent slow increase of power and an occasional happy flight of genius, but natural selection. Natural selection, according to him, though not the sole, is still the most important means of its development and modification. {81a} What, then, is natural selection?
Mr. Darwin has told us this on the t.i.tle-page of the "Origin of Species." He there defines it as "The Preservation of Favoured Races;" "Favoured" is "Fortunate," and "Fortunate" "Lucky;" it is plain, therefore, that with Mr. Darwin natural selection comes to "The Preservation of Lucky Races," and that he regarded luck as the most important feature in connection with the development even of so apparently purposive an organ as the eye, and as the one, therefore, on which it was most proper to insist. And what is luck but absence of intention or design? What, then, can Mr. Darwin"s t.i.tle-page amount to when written out plainly, but to an a.s.sertion that the main means of modification has been the preservation of races whose variations have been unintentional, that is to say, not connected with effort or intention, devoid of mind or meaning, fortuitous, spontaneous, accidental, or whatever kindred word is least disagreeable to the reader? It is impossible to conceive any more complete denial of mind as having had anything to do with organic development, than is involved in the t.i.tle-page of the "Origin of Species" when its doubtless carefully considered words are studied-- nor, let me add, is it possible to conceive a t.i.tle-page more likely to make the reader"s attention rest much on the main doctrine of evolution, and little, to use the words now most in vogue concerning it, on Mr. Darwin"s own "distinctive feature."
It should be remembered that the full t.i.tle of the "Origin of Species" is, "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." The significance of the expansion of the t.i.tle escaped the greater number of Mr. Darwin"s readers. Perhaps it ought not to have done so, but we certainly failed to catch it. The very words themselves escaped us--and yet there they were all the time if we had only chosen to look. We thought the book was called "On the Origin of Species," and so it was on the outside; so it was also on the inside fly-leaf; so it was on the t.i.tle-page itself as long as the most prominent type was used; the expanded t.i.tle was only given once, and then in smaller type; so the three big "Origins of Species" carried us with them to the exclusion of the rest.
The short and working t.i.tle, "On the Origin of Species," in effect claims descent with modification generally; the expanded and technically true t.i.tle only claims the discovery that luck is the main means of organic modification, and this is a very different matter. The book ought to have been ent.i.tled, "On Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, as the main means of the origin of species;" this should have been the expanded t.i.tle, and the short t.i.tle should have been "On Natural Selection." The t.i.tle would not then have involved an important difference between its working and its technical forms, and it would have better fulfilled the object of a t.i.tle, which is, of course, to give, as far as may be, the essence of a book in a nutsh.e.l.l. We learn on the authority of Mr. Darwin himself {83a} that the "Origin of Species" was originally intended to bear the t.i.tle "Natural Selection;" nor is it easy to see why the change should have been made if an accurate expression of the contents of the book was the only thing which Mr. Darwin was considering. It is curious that, writing the later chapters of "Life and Habit" in great haste, I should have accidentally referred to the "Origin of Species" as "Natural Selection;" it seems hard to believe that there was no intention in my thus unconsciously reverting to Mr. Darwin"s own original t.i.tle, but there certainly was none, and I did not then know what the original t.i.tle had been.
If we had scrutinised Mr. Darwin"s t.i.tle-page as closely as we should certainly scrutinise anything written by Mr. Darwin now, we should have seen that the t.i.tle did not technically claim the theory of descent; practically, however, it so turned out that we unhesitatingly gave that theory to the author, being, as I have said, carried away by the three large "Origins of Species" (which we understood as much the same thing as descent with modification), and finding, as I shall show in a later chapter, that descent was ubiquitously claimed throughout the work, either expressly or by implication, as Mr. Darwin"s theory. It is not easy to see how any one with ordinary instincts could hesitate to believe that Mr.
Darwin was ent.i.tled to claim what he claimed with so much insistance. If ars est celare artem Mr. Darwin must be allowed to have been a consummate artist, for it took us years to understand the ins and outs of what had been done.
I may say in pa.s.sing that we never see the "Origin of Species"
spoken of as "On the Origin of Species, &c.," or as "The Origin of Species, &c." (the word "on" being dropped in the latest editions).
The distinctive feature of the book lies, according to its admirers, in the "&c.," but they never give it. To avoid pedantry I shall continue to speak of the "Origin of Species."
At any rate it will be admitted that Mr. Darwin did not make his t.i.tle-page express his meaning so clearly that his readers could readily catch the point of difference between himself and his grandfather and Lamarck; nevertheless the point just touched upon involves the only essential difference between the systems of Mr.
Charles Darwin and those of his three most important predecessors.
All four writers agree that animals and plants descend with modification; all agree that the fittest alone survive; all agree about the important consequences of the geometrical ratio of increase; Mr. Charles Darwin has said more about these last two points than his predecessors did, but all three were alike cognisant of the facts and attached the same importance to them, and would have been astonished at its being supposed possible that they disputed them. The fittest alone survive; yes--but the fittest from among what? Here comes the point of divergence; the fittest from among organisms whose variations arise mainly through use and disuse? In other words, from variations that are mainly functional?
Or from among organisms whose variations are in the main matters of luck? From variations into which a moral and intellectual system of payment according to results has largely entered? Or from variations which have been thrown for with dice? From variations among which, though cards tell, yet play tells as much or more? Or from those in which cards are everything and play goes for so little as to be not worth taking into account? Is "the survival of the fittest" to be taken as meaning "the survival of the luckiest" or "the survival of those who know best how to turn fortune to account"? Is luck the only element of fitness, or is not cunning even more indispensable?
Mr. Darwin has a habit, borrowed, perhaps, mutatis mutandis, from the framers of our collects, of every now and then adding the words "through natural selection," as though this squared everything, and descent with modification thus became his theory at once. This is not the case. Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck believed in natural selection to the full as much as any follower of Mr. Charles Darwin can do. They did not use the actual words, but the idea underlying them is the essence of their system. Mr. Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely, perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists, in the following pa.s.sage which appeared in 1831, and which I have already quoted in "Evolution Old and New" (pp. 320, 323). The pa.s.sage runs:-
"The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organised life may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of nature, who, as before stated, has in all the varieties of her offspring a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circ.u.mstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker and less circ.u.mstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action; it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self-advantage according to circ.u.mstances--in such immense waste of primary and youthful life those only come forward to maturity from THE STRICT ORDEAL BY WHICH NATURE TESTS THEIR ADAPTATION TO HER STANDARD OF PERFECTION and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction." {86a} A little lower down Mr. Matthew speaks of animals under domestication "NOT HAVING UNDERGONE SELECTION BY THE LAW OF NATURE, OF WHICH WE HAVE SPOKEN, and hence being unable to maintain their ground without culture and protection."
The distinction between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is generally believed to lie in the adoption of a theory of natural selection by the younger Darwin and its non-adoption by the elder. This is true in so far as that the elder Darwin does not use the words "natural selection," while the younger does, but it is not true otherwise.
Both writers agree that offspring tends to inherit modifications that have been effected, from whatever cause, in parents; both hold that the best adapted to their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring; both, therefore, hold that favourable modifications will tend to be preserved and intensified in the course of many generations, and that this leads to divergence of type; but these opinions involve a theory of natural selection or quasi-selection, whether the words "natural selection" are used or not; indeed it is impossible to include wild species in any theory of descent with modification without implying a quasi-selective power on the part of nature; but even with Mr. Charles Darwin the power is only quasi- selective; there is no conscious choice, and hence there is nothing that can in strictness be called selection.
It is indeed true that the younger Darwin gave the words "natural selection" the importance which of late years they have a.s.sumed; he probably adopted them unconsciously from the pa.s.sage of Mr.
Matthew"s quoted above, but he ultimately said, {87a} "In the literal sense of the word (sic) no doubt natural selection is a false term," as personifying a fact, making it exercise the conscious choice without which there can be no selection, and generally crediting it with the discharge of functions which can only be ascribed legitimately to living and reasoning beings.
Granted, however, that while Mr. Charles Darwin adopted the expression natural selection and admitted it to be a bad one, his grandfather did not use it at all; still Mr. Darwin did not mean the natural selection which Mr. Matthew and those whose opinions he was epitomising meant. Mr. Darwin meant the selection to be made from variations into which purpose enters to only a small extent comparatively. The difference, therefore, between the older evolutionists and their successor does not lie in the acceptance by the more recent writer of a quasi-selective power in nature which his predecessors denied, but in the background--hidden behind the words natural selection, which have served to cloak it--in the views which the old and the new writers severally took of the variations from among which they are alike agreed that a selection or quasi- selection is made.
It now appears that there is not one natural selection, and one survival of the fittest only, but two natural selections, and two survivals of the fittest, the one of which may be objected to as an expression more fit for religious and general literature than for science, but may still be admitted as sound in intention, while the other, inasmuch as it supposes accident to be the main purveyor of variations, has no correspondence with the actual course of things; for if the variations are matters of chance or hazard unconnected with any principle of constant application, they will not occur steadily enough, throughout a sufficient number of successive generations, nor to a sufficient number of individuals for many generations together at the same time and place, to admit of the fixing and permanency of modification at all. The one theory of natural selection, therefore, may, and indeed will, explain the facts that surround us, whereas the other will not. Mr. Charles Darwin"s contribution to the theory of evolution was not, as is commonly supposed, "natural selection," but the hypothesis that natural selection from variations that are in the main fortuitous could acc.u.mulate and result in specific and generic differences.
In the foregoing paragraph I have given the point of difference between Mr. Charles Darwin and his predecessors. Why, I wonder, have neither he nor any of his exponents put this difference before us in such plain words that we should readily apprehend it? Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck were understood by all who wished to understand them; why is it that the misunderstanding of Mr. Darwin"s "distinctive feature" should have been so long and obstinate? Why is it that, no matter how much writers like Mr. Grant Allen and Professor Ray Lankester may say about "Mr. Darwin"s master-key," nor how many more like hyperboles they brandish, they never put a succinct resume of Mr. Darwin"s theory side by side with a similar resume of his grandfather"s and Lamarck"s? Neither Mr. Darwin himself, not any of those to whose advocacy his reputation is mainly due, have done this. Professor Huxley is the man of all others who foisted Mr. Darwin most upon us, but in his famous lecture on the coming of age of the "Origin of Species" he did not explain to his hearers wherein the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution differed from the old; and why not? Surely, because no sooner is this made clear than we perceive that the idea underlying the old evolutionists is more in accord with instinctive feelings that we have cherished too long to be able now to disregard them than the central idea which underlies the "Origin of Species."
What should we think of one who maintained that the steam-engine and telescope were not developed mainly through design and effort (letting the indisputably existing element of luck go without saying), but to the fact that if any telescope or steam-engine "happened to be made ever such a little more conveniently for man"s purposes than another," &c., &c.?
Let us suppose a notorious burglar found in possession of a jemmy; it is admitted on all hands that he will use it as soon as he gets a chance; there is no doubt about this; how perverted should we not consider the ingenuity of one who tried to persuade us we were wrong in thinking that the burglar compa.s.sed the possession of the jemmy by means involving ideas, however vague in the first instance, of applying it to its subsequent function.
If any one could be found so blind to obvious inferences as to accept natural selection, "or the preservation of favoured machines," as the main means of mechanical modification, we might suppose him to argue much as follows:- "I can quite understand," he would exclaim, "how any one who reflects upon the originally simple form of the earliest jemmies, and observes the developments they have since attained in the hands of our most accomplished housebreakers, might at first be tempted to believe that the present form of the instrument has been arrived at by long-continued improvement in the hands of an almost infinite succession of thieves; but may not this inference be somewhat too hastily drawn?
Have we any right to a.s.sume that burglars work by means a.n.a.logous to those employed by other people? If any thief happened to pick up any crowbar which happened to be ever such a little better suited to his purpose than the one he had been in the habit of using hitherto, he would at once seize and carefully preserve it. If it got worn out or broken he would begin searching for a crowbar as like as possible to the one that he had lost; and when, with advancing skill, and in default of being able to find the exact thing he wanted, he took at length to making a jemmy for himself, he would imitate the latest and most perfect adaptation, which would thus be most likely to be preserved in the struggle of compet.i.tive forms.
Let this process go on for countless generations, among countless burglars of all nations, and may we not suppose that a jemmy would be in time arrived at, as superior to any that could have been designed as the effect of the Niagara Falls is superior to the puny efforts of the landscape gardener?"
For the moment I will pa.s.s over the obvious retort that there is no sufficient parallelism between bodily organs and mechanical inventions to make a denial of design in the one involve in equity a denial of it in the other also, and that therefore the preceding paragraph has no force. A man is not bound to deny design in machines wherein it can be clearly seen because he denies it in living organs where at best it is a matter of inference. This retort is plausible, but in the course of the two next following chapters but one it will be shown to be without force; for the moment, however, beyond thus calling attention to it, I must pa.s.s it by.
I do not mean to say that Mr. Darwin ever wrote anything which made the utility of his contention as apparent as it is made by what I have above put into the mouth of his supposed follower. Mr. Darwin was the Gladstone of biology, and so old a scientific hand was not going to make things unnecessarily clear unless it suited his convenience. Then, indeed, he was like the man in "The Hunting of the Snark," who said, "I told you once, I told you twice, what I tell you three times is true." That what I have supposed said, however, above about the jemmy is no exaggeration of Mr. Darwin"s att.i.tude as regards design in organism will appear from the pa.s.sage about the eye already referred to, which it may perhaps be as well to quote in full. Mr. Darwin says:-
"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope.
We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long- continued efforts of the highest human intellects, and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat a.n.a.logous process.
But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to a.s.sume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of men? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers, and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circ.u.mstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million, and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years, and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of gla.s.s as the works of the Creator are to those of man?" {92a}
Mr. Darwin does not in this pa.s.sage deny design, or cunning, point blank; he was not given to denying things point blank, nor is it immediately apparent that he is denying design at all, for he does not emphasize and call attention to the fact that the VARIATIONS on whose acc.u.mulation he relies for his ultimate specific difference are accidental, and, to use his own words, in the pa.s.sage last quoted, caused by VARIATION. He does, indeed, in his earlier editions, call the variations "accidental," and accidental they remained for ten years, but in 1869 the word "accidental" was taken out. Mr. Darwin probably felt that the variations had been accidental as long as was desirable; and though they would, of course, in reality remain as accidental as ever, still, there could be no use in crying "accidental variations" further. If the reader wants to know whether they were accidental or no, he had better find out for himself. Mr. Darwin was a master of what may be called scientific chiaroscuro, and owes his reputation in no small measure to the judgment with which he kept his meaning dark when a less practised hand would have thrown light upon it. There can, however, be no question that Mr. Darwin, though not denying purposiveness point blank, was trying to refer the development of the eye to the acc.u.mulation of small accidental improvements, which were not as a rule due to effort and design in any way a.n.a.logous to those attendant on the development of the telescope.
Though Mr. Darwin, if he was to have any point of difference from his grandfather, was bound to make his variations accidental, yet, to do him justice, he did not like it. Even in the earlier editions of the "Origin of Species," where the "alterations" in the pa.s.sage last quoted are called "accidental" in express terms, the word does not fall, so to speak, on a strong beat of the bar, and is apt to pa.s.s unnoticed. Besides, Mr. Darwin does not say point blank "we may believe," or "we ought to believe;" he only says "may we not believe?" The reader should always be on his guard when Mr. Darwin asks one of these bland and child-like questions, and he is fond of asking them; but, however this may be, it is plain, as I pointed out in "Evolution Old and New" {93a} that the only "skill," that is to say the only thing that can possibly involve design, is "the unerring skill" of natural selection.
In the same paragraph Mr. Darwin has already said: "Further, we must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest always intently watching each slight alteration, &c." Mr. Darwin probably said "a power represented by natural selection" instead of "natural selection" only, because he saw that to talk too frequently about the fact that the most lucky live longest as "intently watching" something was greater nonsense than it would be prudent even for him to write, so he fogged it by making the intent watching done by "a power represented by" a fact, instead of by the fact itself. As the sentence stands it is just as great nonsense as it would have been if "the survival of the fittest" had been allowed to do the watching instead of "the power represented by" the survival of the fittest, but the nonsense is harder to dig up, and the reader is more likely to pa.s.s it over.
This pa.s.sage gave Mr. Darwin no less trouble than it must have given to many of his readers. In the original edition of the "Origin of Species" it stood, "Further, we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental variation." I suppose it was felt that if this was allowed to stand, it might be fairly asked what natural selection was doing all this time? If the power was able to do everything that was necessary now, why not always? and why any natural selection at all? This clearly would not do, so in 1861 the power was allowed, by the help of brackets, actually to become natural selection, and remained so till 1869, when Mr. Darwin could stand it no longer, and, doubtless for the reason given above, altered the pa.s.sage to "a power represented by natural selection," at the same time cutting out the word "accidental."
It may perhaps make the workings of Mr. Darwin"s mind clearer to the reader if I give the various readings of this pa.s.sage as taken from the three most important editions of the "Origin of Species."
In 1859 it stood, "Further, we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration," &c.
In 1861 it stood, "Further, we must suppose that there is a power (natural selection) always intently watching each slight accidental alteration," &c.
And in 1869, "Further, we must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest always intently watching each slight alteration," &c. {94a}
The hesitating feeble gait of one who fears a pitfall at every step, so easily recognisable in the "numerous, successive, slight alterations" in the foregoing pa.s.sage, may be traced in many another page of the "Origin of Species" by those who will be at the trouble of comparing the several editions. It is only when this is done, and the working of Mr. Darwin"s mind can be seen as though it were the twitchings of a dog"s nose, that any idea can be formed of the difficulty in which he found himself involved by his initial blunder of thinking he had got a distinctive feature which ent.i.tled him to claim the theory of evolution as an original idea of his own. He found his natural selection hang round his neck like a millstone.
There is hardly a page in the "Origin of Species" in which traces of the struggle going on in Mr. Darwin"s mind are not discernible, with a result alike exasperating and pitiable. I can only repeat what I said in "Evolution Old and New," namely, that I find the task of extracting a well-defined meaning out of Mr. Darwin"s words comparable only to that of trying to act on the advice of a lawyer who has obscured the main issue as much as he can, and whose chief aim has been to leave as many loopholes as possible for himself to escape by, if things should go wrong hereafter. Or, again, to that of one who has to construe an Act of Parliament which was originally drawn with a view to throwing as much dust as possible in the eyes of those who would oppose the measure, and which, having been found utterly unworkable in practice, has had clauses repealed up and down it till it is now in an inextricable tangle of confusion and contradiction.
The more Mr. Darwin"s work is studied, and more especially the more his different editions are compared, the more impossible is it to avoid a suspicion of arriere pensee as pervading it whenever the "distinctive feature" is on the tapis. It is right to say, however, that no such suspicion attaches to Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin"s fellow discoverer of natural selection. It is impossible to doubt that Mr. Wallace believed he had made a real and important improvement upon the Lamarckian system, and, as a natural consequence, unlike Mr. Darwin, he began by telling us what Lamarck had said. He did not, I admit, say quite all that I should have been glad to have seen him say, nor use exactly the words I should myself have chosen, but he said enough to make it impossible to doubt his good faith, and his desire that we should understand that with him, as with Mr. Darwin, variations are mainly accidental, not functional. Thus, in his memorable paper communicated to the Linnean Society in 1858 he said, in a pa.s.sage which I have quoted in "Unconscious Memory":
"The hypothesis of Lamarck--that progressive changes in species have been produced by the attempts of the animals to increase the development of their own organs, and thus modify their structures and habits--has been repeatedly and easily refuted by all writers on the subject of varieties and species; . . . but the view here developed renders such an hypothesis quite unnecessary. . . . The powerful retractile talons of the falcon and cat tribes have not been produced or increased by the volition of those animals; . . .
neither did the giraffe acquire its long neck by desiring to reach the foliage of the more lofty shrubs, and constantly stretching its neck for this purpose, but because any varieties which occurred among its ant.i.types with a longer neck than usual AT ONCE SECURED A FRESH RANGE OF PASTURE OVER THE SAME GROUND AS THEIR SHORTER-NECKED COMPANIONS, AND ON THE FIRST SCARCITY OF FOOD WERE THUS ENABLED TO OUTLIVE THEM" (italics in original). {96a}
"Which occurred" is obviously "which happened to occur, by some chance or accident entirely unconnected with use and disuse;" and though the word "accidental" is never used, there can be no doubt about Mr. Wallace"s desire to make the reader catch the fact that with him accident, and not, as with Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, sustained effort, is the main purveyor of the variations whose acc.u.mulation amounts ultimately to specific difference. It is a pity, however, that instead of contenting himself like a theologian with saying that his opponent had been refuted over and over again, he did not refer to any particular and tolerably successful attempt to refute the theory that modifications in organic structure are mainly functional. I am fairly well acquainted with the literature of evolution, and have never met with any such attempt. But let this pa.s.s; as with Mr. Darwin, so with Mr. Wallace, and so indeed with all who accept Mr. Charles Darwin"s natural selection as the main means of modification, the central idea is luck, while the central idea of the Erasmus-Darwinian system is cunning.
I have given the opinions of these contending parties in their extreme development; but they both admit abatements which bring them somewhat nearer to one another. Design, as even its most strenuous upholders will admit, is a difficult word to deal with; it is, like all our ideas, substantial enough until we try to grasp it--and then, like all our ideas, it mockingly eludes us; it is like life or death--a rope of many strands; there is design within design, and design within undesign; there is undesign within design (as when a man shuffles cards designing that there shall be no design in their arrangement), and undesign within undesign; when we speak of cunning or design in connection with organism we do not mean cunning, all cunning, and nothing but cunning, so that there shall be no place for luck; we do not mean that conscious attention and forethought shall have been bestowed upon the minutest details of action, and nothing been left to work itself out departmentally according to precedent, or as it otherwise best may according to the chapter of accidents.
So, again, when Mr. Darwin and his followers deny design and effort to have been the main purveyors of the variations whose acc.u.mulation results in specific difference, they do not entirely exclude the action of use and disuse--and this at once opens the door for cunning; nevertheless, according to Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, the human eye and the long neck of the giraffe are alike due to the acc.u.mulation of variations that are mainly functional, and hence practical; according to Charles Darwin they are alike due to the acc.u.mulation of variations that are accidental, fortuitous, spontaneous, that is to say, mainly cannot be reduced to any known general principle. According to Charles Darwin "the preservation of favoured," or lucky, "races" is by far the most important means of modification; according to Erasmus Darwin effort non sibi res sed se rebus subjungere is unquestionably the most potent means; roughly, therefore, there is no better or fairer way of putting the matter, than to say that Charles Darwin is the apostle of luck, and his grandfather, and Lamarck, of cunning.
It should be observed also that the distinction between the organism and its surroundings--on which both systems are founded--is one that cannot be so universally drawn as we find it convenient to allege.
There is a debatable ground of considerable extent on which RES and ME, ego and non ego, luck and cunning, necessity and freewill, meet and pa.s.s into one another as night and day, or life and death. No one can draw a sharp line between ego and non ego, nor indeed any sharp line between any cla.s.ses of phenomena. Every part of the ego is non ego qua organ or tool in use, and much of the non ego runs up into the ego and is inseparably united with it; still there is enough that it is obviously most convenient to call ego, and enough that it is no less obviously most convenient to call non ego, as there is enough obvious day and obvious night, or obvious luck and obvious cunning, to make us think it advisable to keep separate accounts for each.
I will say more on this head in a following chapter; in this present one my business should be confined to pointing out as clearly and succinctly as I can the issue between the two great main contending opinions concerning organic development that obtain among those who accept the theory of descent at all; nor do I believe that this can be done more effectually and accurately than by saying, as above, that Mr. Charles Darwin (whose name, by the way, was "Charles Robert," and not, as would appear from the t.i.tle-pages of his books, "Charles" only), Mr. A. R. Wallace, and their supporters are the apostles of luck, while Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, followed, more or less timidly, by the Geoffroys and by Mr. Herbert Spencer, and very timidly indeed by the Duke of Argyll, preach cunning as the most important means of organic modification.
NOTE.--It appears from "Samuel Butler: A Memoir" (II, 29) that Butler wrote to his father (Dec. 1885) about a pa.s.sage in Horace (near the beginning of the First Epistle of the First Book) -
Nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor, Et mihi res, non me rebus subjungere conor.
On the preceding page he is adapting the second of these two verses to his own purposes.--H. F. J.
CHAPTER VII--(Intercalated) Mr. Spencer"s "The Factors of Organic Evolution"