The image of a stone formed in our minds is no representation of the object which has given rise to it. Not only, as has been often remarked, is there no resemblance between the particular thought and the particular thing, but thoughts and things generally are too unlike to be compared. An idea of a stone may be like an idea of another stone, or two stones may be like one another; but an idea of a stone is not like a stone; it cannot be thrown at anything, it occupies no room in space, has no specific gravity, and when we come to know more about stones, we find our ideas concerning them to be but rude, epitomised, and highly conventional renderings of the actual facts, mere hieroglyphics, in fact, or, as it were, counters or bank-notes, which serve to express and to convey commodities with which they have no pretence of analogy.

Indeed we daily find that, as the range of our perceptions becomes enlarged either by invention of new appliances or after use of old ones, we change our ideas though we have no reason to think that the thing about which we are thinking has changed. In the case of a stone, for instance, the rude, unassisted, uneducated senses see it as above all things motionless, whereas assisted and trained ideas concerning it represent motion as its most essential characteristic; but the stone has not changed. So, again, the uneducated idea represents it as above all things mindless, and is as little able to see mind in connection with it as it lately was to see motion; it will be no greater change of opinion than we have most of us undergone already if we come presently to see it as no less full of elementary mind than of elementary motion, but the stone will not have changed.

The fact that we modify our opinions suggests that our ideas are formed not so much in involuntary self-adjusting mimetic correspondence with the objects that we believe to give rise to them, as by what was in the outset voluntary, conventional arrangement in whatever way we found convenient, of sensation and perception-symbols, which had nothing whatever to do with the objects, and were simply caught hold of as the only things we could grasp. It would seem as if, in the first instance, we must have arbitrarily attached some one of the few and vague sensations which we could alone at first command, to certain motions of outside things as echoed by our brain, and used them to think and feel the things with, so as to docket them, and recognise them with greater force, certainty, and clearness—much as we use words to help us to docket and grasp our feelings and thoughts, or written characters to help us to docket and grasp our words.

If this view be taken we stand in much the same attitude towards our feelings as a dog may be supposed to do towards our own reading and writing. The dog may be supposed to marvel at the wonderful instinctive faculty by which we can tell the price of the different railway stocks merely by looking at a sheet of paper; he supposes this power to be a part of our nature, to have come of itself by luck and not by cunning, but a little reflection will show that feeling is not more likely to have "come by nature" than reading and writing are. Feeling is in all probability the result of the same kind of slow laborious development as that which has attended our more recent arts and our bodily organs; its development must be supposed to have followed the same lines as that of our other arts, and indeed of the body itself, which is the ars artium—for growth of mind is throughout coincident with growth of organic resources, and organic resources grow with growing mind.

Feeling is the art the possession of which differentiates the civilised organic world from that of brute inorganic matter, but still it is an art; it is the outcome of a mind that is common both to organic and inorganic, and which the organic has alone cultivated. It is not a part of mind itself; it is no more this than language and writing are parts of thought. The organic world can alone feel, just as man can alone speak; but as speech is only the development of powers the germs of which are possessed by the lower animals, so feeling is only a sign of the employment and development of powers the germs of which exist in inorganic substances. It has all the characteristics of an art, and though it must probably rank as the oldest of those arts that are peculiar to the organic world, it is one which is still in process of development. None of us, indeed, can feel well on more than a very few subjects, and many can hardly feel at all.

But, however this may be, our sensations and perceptions of material phenomena are attendant on the excitation of certain motions in the anterior parts of the brain. Whenever certain motions are excited in this substance, certain sensations and ideas of resistance, extension, &c., are either concomitant, or ensue within a period too brief for our cognisance. It is these sensations and ideas that we directly cognise, and it is to them that we have attached the idea of the particular kind of matter we happen to be thinking of. As this idea is not like the thing itself, so neither is it like the motions in our brain on which it is attendant. It is no more like these than, say, a stone is like the individual characters, written or spoken, that form the word "stone," or than these last are, in sound, like the word "stone" itself, whereby the idea of a stone is so immediately and vividly presented to us. True, this does not involve that our idea shall not resemble the object that gave rise to it, any more than the fact that a looking-glass bears no resemblance to the things reflected in it involves that the reflection shall not resemble the things reflected; the shifting nature, however, of our ideas and conceptions is enough to show that they must be symbolical, and conditioned by changes going on within ourselves as much as by those outside us; and if, going behind the ideas which suffice for daily use, we extend our inquiries in the direction of the reality underlying our conception, we find reason to think that the brain-motions which attend our conception correspond with exciting motions in the object that occasions it, and that these, rather than anything resembling our conception itself, should be regarded as the reality.

This leads to a third matter, on which I can only touch with extreme brevity.

Different modes of motion have long been known as the causes of our different colour perceptions, or at any rate as associated therewith, and of late years, more especially since the promulgation of Newlands' {260a} law, it has been perceived that what we call the kinds or properties of matter are not less conditioned by motion than colour is. The substance or essence of unconditioned matter, as apart from the relations between its various states (which we believe to be its various conditions of motion) must remain for ever unknown to us, for it is only the relations between the conditions of the underlying substance that we cognise at all, and where there are no conditions, there is nothing for us to seize, compare, and, hence, cognise; unconditioned matter must, therefore, be as inconceivable by us as unmattered condition; {261a} but though we can know nothing about matter as apart from its conditions or states, opinion has been for some time tending towards the belief that what we call the different states, or kinds, of matter are only our ways of mentally characterising and docketing our estimates of the different kinds of motion going on in this otherwise uncognisable substratum.

Our conception, then, concerning the nature of any matter depends solely upon its kind and degree of unrest, that is to say, on the characteristics of the vibrations that are going on within it. The exterior object vibrating in a certain way imparts some of its vibrations to our brain—but if the state of the thing itself depends upon its vibrations, it must be considered as to all intents and purposes the vibrations themselves—plus, of course, the underlying substance that is vibrating. If, for example, a pat of butter is a portion of the unknowable underlying substance in such- and-such a state of molecular disturbance, and it is only by alteration of the disturbance that the substance can be altered—the disturbance of the substance is practically equivalent to the substance: a pat of butter is such-and-such a disturbance of the unknowable underlying substance, and such-and-such a disturbance of the underlying substance is a pat of butter. In communicating its vibrations, therefore, to our brain a substance does actually communicate what is, as far as we are concerned, a portion of itself. Our perception of a thing and its attendant feeling are symbols attaching to an introduction within our brain of a feeble state of the thing itself. Our recollection of it is occasioned by a feeble continuance of this feeble state in our brains, becoming less feeble through the accession of fresh but similar vibrations from without. The molecular vibrations which make the thing an idea of which is conveyed to our minds, put within our brain a little feeble emanation from the thing itself—if we come within their reach. This being once put there, will remain as it were dust, till dusted out, or till it decay, or till it receive accession of new vibrations.

The vibrations from a pat of butter do, then, actually put butter into a man's head. This is one of the commonest of expressions, and would hardly be so common if it were not felt to have some foundation in fact. At first the man does not know what feeling or complex of feelings to employ so as to docket the vibrations, any more than he knows what word to employ so as to docket the feelings, or with what written characters to docket his word; but he gets over this, and henceforward the vibrations of the exterior object (that is to say, the thing) never set up their characteristic disturbances, or, in other words, never come into his head, without the associated feeling presenting itself as readily as word and characters present themselves, on the presence of the feeling. The more butter a man sees and handles, the more he gets butter on the brain—till, though he can never get anything like enough to be strictly called butter, it only requires the slightest molecular disturbance with characteristics like those of butter to bring up a vivid and highly sympathetic idea of butter in the man's mind.

If this view is adopted, our memory of a thing is our retention within the brain of a small leaven of the actual thing itself, or of what qua us is the thing that is remembered, and the ease with which habitual actions come to be performed is due to the power of the vibrations having been increased and modified by continual accession from without till they modify the molecular disturbances of the nervous system, and therefore its material substance, which we have already settled to be only our way of docketing molecular disturbances. The same vibrations, therefore, form the substance remembered, introduce an infinitesimal dose of it within the brain, modify the substance remembering, and, in the course of time, create and further modify the mechanism of both the sensory and motor nerves. Thought and thing are one.

I commend these two last speculations to the reader's charitable consideration, as feeling that I am here travelling beyond the ground on which I can safely venture; nevertheless, as it may be some time before I have another opportunity of coming before the public, I have thought it, on the whole, better not to omit them, but to give them thus provisionally. I believe they are both substantially true, but am by no means sure that I have expressed them either clearly or accurately; I cannot, however, further delay the issue of my book.

Returning to the point raised in my title, is luck, I would ask, or cunning, the more fitting matter to be insisted upon in connection with organic modification? Do animals and plants grow into conformity with their surroundings because they and their fathers and mothers take pains, or because their uncles and aunts go away? For the survival of the fittest is only the non-survival or going away of the unfittest—in whose direct line the race is not continued, and who are therefore only uncles and aunts of the survivors. I can quite understand its being a good thing for any race that its uncles and aunts should go away, but I do not believe the accumulation of lucky accidents could result in an eye, no matter how many uncles and aunts may have gone away during how many generations.

I would ask the reader to bear in mind the views concerning life and death expressed in an early chapter. They seem to me not, indeed, to take away any very considerable part of the sting from death; this should not be attempted or desired, for with the sting of death the sweets of life are inseparably bound up so that neither can be weakened without damaging the other. Weaken the fear of death, and the love of life would be weakened. Strengthen it, and we should cling to life even more tenaciously than we do. But though death must always remain as a shock and change of habits from which we must naturally shrink—still it is not the utter end of our being, which, until lately, it must have seemed to those who have been unable to accept the grosser view of the resurrection with which we were familiarised in childhood. We too now know that though worms destroy this body, yet in our flesh shall we so far see God as to be still in Him and of Him—biding our time for a resurrection in a new and more glorious body; and, moreover, that we shall be to the full as conscious of this as we are at present of much that concerns us as closely as anything can concern us.

The thread of life cannot be shorn between successive generations, except upon grounds which will in equity involve its being shorn between consecutive seconds, and fractions of seconds. On the other hand, it cannot be left unshorn between consecutive seconds without necessitating that it should be left unshorn also beyond the grave, as well as in successive generations. Death is as salient a feature in what we call our life as birth was, but it is no more than this. As a salient feature, it is a convenient epoch for the drawing of a defining line, by the help of which we may better grasp the conception of life, and think it more effectually, but it is a facon de parler only; it is, as I said in "Life and Habit," {264a} "the most inexorable of all conventions," but our idea of it has no correspondence with eternal underlying realities.

Finally, we must have evolution; consent is too spontaneous, instinctive, and universal among those most able to form an opinion, to admit of further doubt about this. We must also have mind and design. The attempt to eliminate intelligence from among the main agencies of the universe has broken down too signally to be again ventured upon—not until the recent rout has been forgotten. Nevertheless the old, far-foreseeing Deus ex machina design as from a point outside the universe, which indeed it directs, but of which it is no part, is negatived by the facts of organism. What, then, remains, but the view that I have again in this book endeavoured to uphold—I mean, the supposition that the mind or cunning of which we see such abundant evidence all round us, is, like the kingdom of heaven, within us, and within all things at all times everywhere? There is design, or cunning, but it is a cunning not despotically fashioning us from without as a potter fashions his clay, but inhering democratically within the body which is its highest outcome, as life inheres within an animal or plant.

All animals and plants are corporations, or forms of democracy, and may be studied by the light of these, as democracies, not infrequently, by that of animals and plants. The solution of the difficult problem of reflex action, for example, is thus facilitated, by supposing it to be departmental in character; that is to say, by supposing it to be action of which the department that attends to it is alone cognisant, and which is not referred to the central government so long as things go normally. As long, therefore, as this is the case, the central government is unconscious of what is going on, but its being thus unconscious is no argument that the department is unconscious also.

I know that contradiction in terms lurks within much that I have said, but the texture of the world is a warp and woof of contradiction in terms; of continuity in discontinuity, and discontinuity in continuity; of unity in diversity, and of diversity in unity. As in the development of a fugue, where, when the subject and counter subject have been enounced, there must henceforth be nothing new, and yet all must be new, so throughout organic life— which is as a fugue developed to great length from a very simple subject—everything is linked on to and grows out of that which comes next to it in order—errors and omissions excepted. It crosses and thwarts what comes next to it with difference that involves resemblance, and resemblance that involves difference, and there is no juxtaposition of things that differ too widely by omission of necessary links, or too sudden departure from recognised methods of procedure.

To conclude; bodily form may be almost regarded as idea and memory in a solidified state—as an accumulation of things each one of them so tenuous as to be practically without material substance. It is as a million pounds formed by accumulated millionths of farthings; more compendiously it arises normally from, and through, action. Action arises normally from, and through, opinion. Opinion, from, and through, hypothesis. "Hypothesis," as the derivation of the word itself shows, is singularly near akin to "underlying, and only in part knowable, substratum;" and what is this but "God" translated from the language of Moses into that of Mr. Herbert Spencer? The conception of God is like nature—it returns to us in another shape, no matter how often we may expel it. Vulgarised as it has been by Michael Angelo, Raffaelle, and others who shall be nameless, it has been like every other corruptio optimi—pessimum: used as a hieroglyph by the help of which we may better acknowledge the height and depth of our own ignorance, and at the same time express our sense that there is an unseen world with which we in some mysterious way come into contact, though the writs of our thoughts do not run within it—used in this way, the idea and the word have been found enduringly convenient. The theory that luck is the main means of organic modification is the most absolute denial of God which it is possible for the human mind to conceive—while the view that God is in all His creatures, He in them and they in Him, is only expressed in other words by declaring that the main means of organic modification is, not luck, but cunning.



Footnotes:

{17a} "Nature," Nov. 12, 1885.

{20a} "Hist. Nat. Gen.," tom. ii. p. 411, 1859.

{23a} "Selections, &c." Trubner & Co., 1884. [Out of print.]

{29a} "Selections, &c., and Remarks on Romanes' 'Mental Intelligence in Animals,'" Trubner & Co., 1884. pp. 228, 229. [Out of print.]

{35a} Quoted by M. Vianna De Lima in his "Expose Sommaire," &c., p. 6. Paris, Delagrave, 1886.

{40a} I have given the passage in full on p. 254a of my "Selections," &c. [Now out of print.] I observe that Canon Kingsley felt exactly the same difficulty that I had felt myself, and saw also how alone it could be met. He makes the wood-wren say, "Something told him his mother had done it before him, and he was flesh of her flesh, life of her life, and had inherited her instinct (as we call hereditary memory, to avoid the trouble of finding out what it is and how it comes)." —Fraser, June, 1867. Canon Kingsley felt he must insist on the continued personality of the two generations before he could talk about inherited memory. On the other hand, though he does indeed speak of this as almost a synonym for instinct, he seems not to have realised how right he was, and implies that we should find some fuller and more satisfactory explanation behind this, only that we are too lazy to look for it.

{44a} 26 Sept., 1877. "Unconscious Memory." ch. ii.

{52a} This chapter is taken almost entirely from my book, "Selections, &c.. and Remarks on Romanes' 'Mental Evolution in Animals.'" Trubner, 1884. [Now out of print.]

{52b} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 113. Kegan Paul, Nov., 1883.

{52c} Ibid. p. 115.

{52d} Ibid. p. 116.

{53a} "Mental Evolution in Animals." p. 131. Kegan Paul, Nov., 1883.

{54a} Vol. I, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 141, and Problem I. 21.

{54b} "Mental Evolution in Animals," pp. 177, 178. Nov., 1883.

{55a} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 192.

{55b} Ibid. p. 195.

{55c} Ibid. p. 296. Nov., 1883.

{56a} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 33. Nov., 1883.

{56b} Ibid., p. 116.

{56c} Ibid., p. 178.

{59a} "Evolution Old and New," pp. 357, 358.

{60a} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 159. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.

{61a} "Zoonomia," vol. i. p. 484.

{61b} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 297. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.

{61c} Ibid., p. 201. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.

{62a} "Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 301. November, 1883.

{62b} Origin of Species," ed. i. p. 209.

{62c} Ibid., ed. vi., 1876. p. 206.

{62d} "Formation of Vegetable Mould," etc., p. 98.

{62e} Quoted by Mr. Romanes as written in the last year of Mr. Darwin's life.

{63a} Macmillan, 1883.

{66a} "Nature," August 5, 1886.

{67a} London, H. K. Lewis, 1886.

{70a} "Charles Darwin." Longmans, 1885.

{70b} Lectures at the London Institution, Feb., 1886.

{70c} "Charles Darwin." Leipzig. 1885.

{72a} See Professor Hering's "Zur Lehre von der Beziehung zwischen Leib und Seele. Mittheilung uber Fechner's psychophysisches Gesetz."

{73a} Quoted by M. Vianna De Lima in his "Expose Sommaire des Theories Transformistes de Lamarck, Darwin, et Haeckel." Paris, 1886, p. 23.

{81a} "Origin of Species," ed. i., p. 6; see also p. 43.

{83a} "I think it can be shown that there is such a power at work in 'Natural Selection' (the title of my book)."—"Proceedings of the Linnean Society for 1858," vol. iii., p. 51.

{86a} "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture," 1831, pp. 384, 385. See also "Evolution Old and New," pp. 320, 321.

{87a} "Origin of Species," p. 49, ed. vi.

{92a} "Origin of Species," ed. i., pp. 188, 189.

{93a} Page 9.

{94a} Page 226.

{96a} "Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society." Williams and Norgate, 1858, p. 61.

{102a} "Zoonomia," vol. i., p. 505.

{104a} See "Evolution Old and New." p. 122.

{105a} "Phil. Zool.," i., p. 80.

{105b} Ibid., i. 82.

{105c} Ibid. vol. i., p. 237.

{107a} See concluding chapter.

{122a} Report, 9, 26.

{135a} Ps. cii. 25-27, Bible version.

{136a} Ps. cxxxix., Prayer-book version.

{140a} Contemporary Review, August, 1885, p. 84.

{142a} London, David Bogue, 1881, p. 60.

{144a} August 12, 1886.

{150a} Paris, Delagrave, 1886.

{150b} Page 60.

{150c} "OEuvre completes," tom. ix. p. 422. Paris, Garnier freres, 1875.

{150d} "Hist. Nat.," tom. i., p. 13, 1749, quoted "Evol. Old and New," p. 108.

{156a} "Origin of Species," ed. vi., p. 107.

{156b} Ibid., ed. vi., p. 166.

{157a} "Origin of Species," ed. vi., p. 233.

{157b} Ibid.

{157c} Ibid., ed. vi., p. 109.

{157d} Ibid., ed. vi., p. 401.

{158a} "Origin of Species," ed. i., p. 490.

{161a} "Origin of Species," ed. vi., 1876, p. 171.

{163a} "Charles Darwin," p. 113.

{164a} "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 367, ed. 1875.

{168a} Page 3.

{168b} Page 4.

{169a} It should be remembered this was the year in which the "Vestiges of Creation" appeared.

{173a} "Charles Darwin," p. 67.

{173b} H. S. King & Co., 1876.

{174a} Page 17.

{195a} "Phil. Zool.," tom. i., pp. 34, 35.

{202a} "Origin of Species," p. 381, ed. i.

{203a} Page 454, ed. i.

{205a} "Principles of Geology," vol. ii., chap. xxxiv., ed. 1872.

{206a} "Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 3. Berlin, 1868.

{209a} See "Evolution Old and New," pp. 8, 9.

{216a} "Vestiges," &c., ed. 1860; Proofs, Illustrations, &c., p. xiv.

{216b} Examiner, May 17, 1879, review of "Evolution Old and New."

{218a} Given in part in "Evolution Old and New."

{219a} "Mind," p. 498, Oct., 1883.

{224a} "Degeneration," 1880, p. 10.

{227a} E.g. the Rev. George Henslow, in "Modern Thought," vol. ii., No. 5, 1881.

{232a} "Nature," Aug. 6, 1886.

{234a} See Mr. Darwin's "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i., p. 466, &c., ed. 1875.

{235a} Paris, 1873, Introd., p. vi.

{235b} "Hist. Nat. Gen.," ii. 404, 1859.

{239a} As these pages are on the point of going to press, I see that the writer of an article on Liszt in the "Athenaeum" makes the same emendation on Shakespeare's words that I have done.

{240a} "Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle," vol. iii., p. 373. London, 1839.

{242a} See Professor Paley, "Fraser," Jan., 1882, "Science Gossip," Nos. 162, 163, June and July, 1878, and "Nature," Jan. 3, Jan. 10, Feb. 28, and March 27, 1884.

{245a} "Formation of Vegetable Mould," etc., p. 217. Murray, 1882.

{248a} "Fortnightly Review," Jan., 1886.

{253a} "On the Growth of Trees and Protoplasmic Continuity." London, Stanford, 1886.

{260a} Sometimes called Mendelejeff's (see "Monthly Journal of Science," April, 1884).

{261a} I am aware that attempts have been made to say that we can conceive a condition of matter, although there is no matter in connection with it—as, for example, that we can have motion without anything moving (see "Nature," March 5, March 12, and April 9, 1885)—but I think it little likely that this opinion will meet general approbation.

{264a} Page 53.

THE END