BeforeconcludingIshouldwishtodealalittlemorefullywithProfessorMaxMuller’scontentionthattherecanbenoreasonwithoutlanguage,andnolanguagewithoutreason。Surelywhentwopractisedpugilistsarefighting,parryingeachother’sblows,andwatchingkeenlyforanunguardedpoint,theyarethinkingandreasoningverysubtlythewholetime,withoutdoingsoinwords。
Themachinationoftheirthoughts,aswellasitsexpression,isactual——Imean,effectuatedandexpressedbyactionanddeed,notwords。Theyareunawareofanylogicalsequenceofthoughtthattheycouldfollowinwordsaspassingthroughtheirmindsatall。
Theymayperhapsthinkconsciouslyinwordsnowandagain,butsuchthoughtwillbeintermittent,andthemainpartofthefightingwillbedonewithoutanyinternalconcomitanceofarticulatedphrases。
Yetwecannotdoubtthattheiraction,howevermuchwemaydisapproveofit,isguidedbyintelligenceandreason;norshouldwedoubtthatareasoningprocessofthesamecharactergoesoninthemindsoftwodogsorfighting-cockswhentheyarestrivingtomastertheiropponents。
Dowethinkinwords,again,whenwewindupourwatches,putonourclothes,oreatourbreakfasts?Ifwedo,itisgenerallyaboutsomethingelse。Wedothesethingsalmostasmuchwithoutthehelpofwordsaswewinkoryawn,orperformanyofthoseotheractionsthatwecallreflex,asitwouldalmostseembecausetheyaredonewithoutreflection。Theyarenot,however,thelessreasonablebecausewordless。
Evenwhenwethinkwearethinkinginwords,wedosoonlyinhalfmeasure。Arunningaccompanimentofwordsnodoubtfrequentlyattendsourthoughts;but,unlesswearewritingorspeaking,thisaccompanimentisofthevaguestandmostfitfulkind,asweoftenfindoutwhenwetrytowritedownorsaywhatwearethinkingabout,thoughwehaveafairlydefinitenotionofit,orfancythatwehaveone,allthetime。Thethoughtisnotsteadilyandcoherentlygovernedbyandmouldedinwords,nordoesitsteadilygovernthem。Wordsandthoughtinteractuponandhelponeanother,asanyothermechanicalappliancesinteractonandhelptheinventionthatfirsthituponthem;butreasonorthought,forthemostpart,fliesalongovertheheadsofwords,workingitsownmysteriouswayinpathsthatarebeyondourken,thoughwhethersomeofourdepartmentalpersonalitiesareasunconsciousofwhatispassing,asthatcentralgovernmentiswhichwealonedubwiththenameof\"we\"or\"us,\"isapointonwhichIwillnotnowtouch。
Icannotthink,then,thatProfessorMaxMuller’scontentionthatthoughtandlanguageareidentical——andhehasrepeatedlyaffirmedthis——willeverbegenerallyaccepted。Thoughtisnomoreidenticalwithlanguagethanfeelingisidenticalwiththenervoussystem。
True,wecannomorefeelwithoutanervoussystemthanwecandiscerncertainminuteorganismswithoutamicroscope。Destroythenervoussystem,andwedestroyfeeling。Destroythemicroscope,andwecannolongerseetheanimalcules;butoursightoftheanimalculesisnotthemicroscope,thoughitiseffectuatedbymeansofthemicroscope,andourfeelingisnotthenervoussystem,thoughthenervoussystemistheinstrumentthatenablesustofeel。
Thenervoussystemisadevicewhichlivingbeingshavegraduallyperfected——IbelieveImaysayquitetruly——throughthewillandpowerwhichtheyhavederivedfromafountain-head,theexistenceofwhichwecaninfer,butwhichwecanneverapprehend。Bythehelpofthisdevice,andinproportionastheyhaveperfectedit,livingbeingsfeeleverwithgreaterdefiniteness,andhenceformulatetheirfeelingsinthoughtwithmoreandmoreprecision。Thehigherevolutionofthoughthasreactedonthenervoussystem,andtheconsequenthigherevolutionofthenervoussystemhasagainreacteduponthought。Thesethingsareaspoweranddesire,orsupplyanddemand,eachoneofwhichiscontinuallyoutstripping,andbeinginturnoutstrippedbytheother;but,inspiteoftheircloseconnectionandinteraction,powerisnotdesire,nordemandsupply。
Languageisadeviceevolvedsometimesbyleapsandbounds,andsometimesexceedinglyslowly,wherebywehelpourselvesaliketogreaterease,precision,andcomplexityofthought,andalsotomoreconvenientinterchangeofthoughtamongourselves。Thoughtfoundrudeexpression,whichgraduallyamongotherformsassumedthatofwords。Thesereacteduponthought,andthoughtagainonthem,butthoughtisnomoreidenticalwithwordsthanwordsarewiththeseparatelettersofwhichtheyarecomposed。
Tosumup,then,andtoconclude。Iwouldaskyoutoseetheconnectionbetweenwordsandideas,asinthefirstinstancearbitrary。Nodoubtinsomecasesanimitationofthecryofsomebirdorwildbeastwouldsuggestthenamethatshouldbeattachedtoit;occasionallythesoundofanoperationsuchasgrindingmayhaveinfluencedthechoiceofthelettersg,r,astherootofmanywordsthatdenoteagrinding,grating,grasping,crushing,action;butI
understandthatthenumberofwordsduetodirectimitationiscomparativelyfewinnumber,andthattheyhavebeenmainlycoinedastheresultofconnectionssofar-fetchedandfancifulastoamountpracticallytonoconnectionatall。Oncechosen,however,theywereadheredtoforaconsiderabletimeamongthedwellersinanygivenplace,soastobecomeacknowledgedasthevulgartongue,andraisereadilyinthemindoftheinhabitantsofthatplacetheideaswithwhichtheyhadbeenartificiallyassociated。
Asregardsourbeingabletothinkandreasonwithoutwords,theDukeofArgyllhasputthematterassoundlyasIhaveyetseenitstated。\"Itseemstome,\"hewrote,\"quitecertainthatwecananddoconstantlythinkofthingswithoutthinkingofanysoundorwordasdesignatingthem。Languageseemstometobenecessaryfortheprogressofthought,butnotatallforthemereactofthinking。
Itisaproductofthought,anexpressionofit,avehicleforthecommunicationofit,andanembodimentwhichisessentialtoitsgrowthandcontinuity;butitseemstomealtogethererroneoustoregarditasaninseparablepartofcogitation。\"
Thefollowingpassages,again,arequotedfromSirWilliamHamiltoninProfessorMaxMuller’sownbook,withsomuchapprovalastoleadonetosupposethatthedifferencesbetweenhimselfandhisopponentsareinrealitylessthanhebelievesthemtobe:-
\"Language,\"saysSirW。Hamilton,\"istheattributionofsignstoourcognitionsofthings。Butasacognitionmusthavealreadybeentherebeforeitcouldreceiveasign,consequentlythatknowledgewhichisdenotedbytheformationandapplicationofawordmusthaveprecededthesymbolthatdenotesit。Asign,however,isnecessarytogivestabilitytoourintellectualprogress——toestablisheachstepinouradvanceasanewstarting-pointforouradvancetoanotherbeyond。Acountrymaybeoverrunbyanarmedhost,butitisonlyconqueredbytheestablishmentoffortresses。
Wordsarethefortressesofthought。Theyenableustorealiseourdominionoverwhatwehavealreadyoverruninthought;tomakeeveryintellectualconquestthebaseofoperationsforothersstillbeyond。\"
\"This,\"saysProfessorMaxMuller,\"isamosthappyillustration,\"
andheproceedstoquotethefollowing,alsofromSirWilliamHamilton,whichhedeclarestobeevenhappierstill。
\"Youhaveallheard,\"saysSirWilliamHamilton,\"oftheprocessoftunnellingthroughasandbank。Inthisoperationitisimpossibletosucceedunlesseveryfoot,nay,almosteveryinchofourprogressbesecuredbyanarchofmasonrybeforeweattempttheexcavationofanother。Nowlanguageistothemindpreciselywhatthearchistothetunnel。Thepowerofthinkingandthepowerofexcavationarenotdependentonthewordsintheonecaseoronthemason-workintheother;butwithoutthesesubsidiariesneithercouldbecarriedonbeyonditsrudimentarycommencement。Though,therefore,weallowthateverymovementforwardinlanguagemustbedeterminedbyanantecedentmovementforwardinthought,still,unlessthoughtbeaccompaniedateachpointofitsevolutionsbyacorrespondingevolutionoflanguage,itsfurtherdevelopmentisarrested。\"
Manhasevolvedanarticulatelanguage,whereastheloweranimalsseemtobewithoutone。Man,therefore,hasfaroutstrippedtheminreasoningfacultyaswellasinpowerofexpression。This,however,doesnotbarthecommunicationswhichtheloweranimalsmaketooneanotherfrompossessingalltheessentialcharacteristicsoflanguage,andasamatteroffact,whereverwecanfollowthemwefindsuchcommunicationseffectuatedbytheaidofarbitrarysymbolscovenanteduponbythelivingbeingsthatwishtocommunicate,andpersistentlyassociatedwithcertaincorrespondingfeelings,statesofmind,ormaterialobjects。Humanlanguageisnothingmorethanthisinprinciple,howevermuchfurthertheprinciplehasbeencarriedinourowncasethaninthatoftheloweranimals。
Thisbeingadmitted,weshouldinferthatthethoughtorreasononwhichthelanguageofmenandanimalsisalikefoundeddiffersasbetweenmenandbrutesindegreebutnotinkind。Morethanthiscannotbeclaimedonbehalfoftheloweranimals,evenbytheirmostenthusiasticadmirer。
THEDEADLOCKINDARWINISM{20}——PARTI
ItwillbereadilyadmittedthatofalllivingwritersMr。AlfredRusselWallaceistheonethepeculiarturnofwhosemindbestfitshimtowriteonthesubjectofnaturalselection,ortheaccumulationoffortunatebutaccidentalvariationsthroughdescentandthestruggleforexistence。HismindinallitsmoreessentialcharacteristicscloselyresemblesthatofthelateMr。CharlesDarwinhimself,anditisnodoubtduetothisfactthatheandMr。
Darwinelaboratedtheirfamoustheoryatthesametime,andindependentlyofoneanother。Ishallhaveoccasioninthecourseofthefollowingarticletoshowhowmisledandmisleadingboththesedistinguishedmenhavebeen,inspiteoftheirunquestionablefamiliaritywiththewholerangeofanimalandvegetablephenomena。
Ibelieveitwillbemorerespectfultobothofthemtodothisinthemostout-spokenway。Ibelievetheirworktohavebeenasmischievousasithasbeenvaluable,andasvaluableasithasbeenmischievous;andhigher,whetherpraiseorblame,Iknownothowtogive。NeverthelessIwouldintheoutset,andwiththeutmostsincerity,admitconcerningMessrs。WallaceandDarwinthatneithercanbeheldasthemoreprofoundandconscientiousthinker;neithercanbeputforwardasthemorereadytoacknowledgeobligationtothegreatwritersonevolutionwhohadprecededhim,ortoplacehisowndevelopmentsincloserandmoreconspicuoushistoricalconnectionwithearlierthoughtuponthesubject;neitheristhemorereadytowelcomecriticismandtostatehisopponent’scaseinthemostpointedandtellingwayinwhichitcanbeput;neitheristhemorequicktoencouragenewtruth;neitheristhemoregenial,generousadversary,orhastheprofounderhorrorofanythingevenapproachingliteraryorscientificwantofcandour;bothdisplaythesameinimitablepowerofputtingtheiropinionsforwardinthewaythatshallbestensuretheiracceptance;bothareequallyunrivalledinthetactthattellsthemwhensilencewillbegolden,andwhenontheotherhandawholevolumeoffactsmaybeadvantageouslybroughtforward。LessthantheforegoingtributebothtoMessrs。DarwinandWallaceIwillnot,andmoreIcannotpay。
Letusnowturntothemostauthoritativeexponentoflatter-dayevolution——ImeantoMr。Wallace,whosework,entitled\"Darwinism,\"
thoughitshouldhavebeenentitled\"Wallaceism,\"isstillsofarDarwinisticthatitdevelopstheteachingofMr。DarwininthedirectiongiventoitbyMr。Darwinhimself——sofar,indeed,asthiscanbeascertainedatall——andnotinthatofLamarck。Mr。Wallacetellsus,onthefirstpageofhispreface,thathehasnointentionofdealingeveninoutlinewiththevastsubjectofevolutioningeneral,andhasonlytriedtogivesuchanaccountofthetheoryofnaturalselectionasmayfacilitateaclearconceptionofDarwin’swork。Howfarhehassucceededisapointonwhichopinionwillprobablybedivided。ThosewhofindMr。Darwin’sworksclearwillalsofindnodifficultyinunderstandingMr。Wallace;those,ontheotherhand,whofindMr。DarwinpuzzlingarelittlelikelytobelesspuzzledbyMr。Wallace。Hecontinues:-
\"TheobjectionsnowmadetoDarwin’stheoryapplysolelytotheparticularmeansbywhichthechangeofspecieshasbeenbroughtabout,nottothefactofthatchange。\"
But\"Darwin’stheory\"——asMr。Wallacehaselsewhereprovedthatheunderstands——hasnoreference\"tothefactofthatchange\"——thatistosay,tothefactthatspecieshavebeenmodifiedincourseofdescentfromotherspecies。ThisisnomoreMr。Darwin’stheorythanitisthereader’sormyown。Darwin’stheoryisconcernedonlywith\"theparticularmeansbywhichthechangeofspecieshasbeenbroughtabout\";hiscontentionbeingthatthisismainlyduetothenaturalsurvivalofthoseindividualsthathavehappenedbysomeaccidenttobebornmostfavourablyadaptedtotheirsurroundings,or,inotherwords,throughaccumulationinthecommoncourseofnatureofthemoreluckyvariationsthatchanceoccasionallypurveys。Mr。Wallace’swords,then,inrealityamounttothis,thattheobjectionsnowmadetoDarwin’stheoryapplysolelytoDarwin’stheory,whichisallverywellasfarasitgoes,butmighthavebeenmoreeasilyapprehendedifhehadsimplysaid,\"ThereareseveralobjectionsnowmadetoMr。Darwin’stheory。\"
ItmustberememberedthatthepassagequotedaboveoccursonthefirstpageofaprefacedatedMarch1889,whenthewriterhadcompletedhistask,andwasmostfullyconversantwithhissubject。
Nevertheless,itseemsindisputableeitherthatheisstillconfusingevolutionwithMr。Darwin’stheory,orthathedoesnotknowwhenhissentenceshavepointandwhentheyhavenone。
IshouldperhapsexplaintosomereadersthatMr。Darwindidnotmodifythemaintheoryputforward,firstbyBuffon,towhomitindisputablybelongs,andadoptedfromhimbyErasmusDarwin,Lamarck,andmanyotherwritersinthelatterhalfofthelastcenturyandtheearlieryearsofthepresent。Theearlyevolutionistsmaintainedthatallexistingformsofanimalandvegetablelife,includingman,werederivedincourseofdescentwithmodificationfromformsresemblingthelowestnowknown。
Mr。Darwinwentasfarasthis,andfarthernoonecango。Thepointatissuebetweenhimandhispredecessorsinvolvesneitherthemainfactofevolution,noryetthegeometricalratioofincrease,andthestruggleforexistenceconsequentthereon。Messrs。DarwinandWallacehaveeachthrowninvaluablelightupontheselasttwopoints,butBuffon,asearlyas1756,hadmadethemthekeystoneofhissystem。\"Themovementofnature,\"hethenwrote,\"turnsontwoimmovablepivots:one,theillimitablefecunditywhichshehasgiventoallspecies:theother,theinnumerabledifficultieswhichreducetheresultsofthatfecundity。\"ErasmusDarwinandLamarckfollowedinthesamesense。TheythusadmitthesurvivalofthefittestasfullyasMr。Darwinhimself,thoughtheydonotmakeuseofthisparticularexpression。Thedisputeturnsnotuponnaturalselection,whichiscommontoallwritersonevolution,butuponthenatureandcausesofthevariationsthataresupposedtobeselectedfromandthusaccumulated。Arethesemainlyattributabletotheinheritedeffectsofuseanddisuse,supplementedbyoccasionalsportsandhappyaccidents?Oraretheymainlyduetosportsandhappyaccidents,supplementedbyoccasionalinheritedeffectsofuseanddisuse?
TheLamarckiansystemhasallalongbeenmaintainedbyMr。HerbertSpencer,who,inhis\"PrinciplesofBiology,\"publishedin1865,showedhowimpossibleitwasthataccidentalvariationsshouldaccumulateatall。IamnotsurehowfarMr。SpencerwouldconsenttobeingcalledaLamarckianpureandsimple,noryethowfaritisstrictlyaccuratetocallhimone;nevertheless,IcanseenoimportantdifferenceinthemainpositionstakenbyhimandbyLamarck。
ThequestionatissuebetweentheLamarckians,supportedbyMr。
SpencerandagrowingbandofthosewhohaveriseninrebellionagainsttheCharles-Darwiniansystemontheonehand,andMessrs。
DarwinandWallacewiththegreaternumberofourmoreprominentbiologistsontheother,involvestheveryexistenceofevolutionasaworkabletheory。ForitisplainthatwhatNaturecanbesupposedabletodobywayofchoicemustdependonthesupplyofthevariationsfromwhichsheissupposedtochoose。Shecannottakewhatisnotofferedtoher;andsoagainshecannotbesupposedabletoaccumulateunlesswhatisgainedinonedirectioninonegeneration,orseriesofgenerations,islittlelikelytobelostinthosethatpresentlysucceed。Nowvariationsascribedmainlytouseanddisusecanbesupposedcapableofbeingaccumulated,foruseanddisusearefairlyconstantforlongperiodsamongtheindividualsofthesamespecies,andoftenoverlargeareas;moreover,conditionsofexistenceinvolvingchangesofhabit,andthusoforganisation,comeforthemostpartgradually;sothattimeisgivenduringwhichtheorganismcanendeavourtoadaptitselfintherequisiterespects,insteadofbeingshockedoutofexistencebytoosuddenchange。Variations,ontheotherhand,thatareascribedtomerechancecannotbesupposedaslikelytobeaccumulated,forchanceisnotoriouslyinconstant,andwouldnotpurveythevariationsinsufficientlyunbrokensuccession,orinasufficientnumberofindividuals,modifiedsimilarlyinallthenecessarycorrelationsatthesametimeandplacetoadmitoftheirbeingaccumulated。Itisvitalthereforetothetheoryofevolution,aswasearlypointedoutbythelateProfessorFleemingJenkinandbyMr。HerbertSpencer,thatvariationsshouldbesupposedtohaveadefiniteandpersistentprincipleunderlyingthem,whichshalltendtoengendersimilarandsimultaneousmodification,howeversmall,inthevastmajorityofindividualscomposinganyspecies。Theexistenceofsuchaprincipleanditspermanenceistheonlythingthatcanbesupposedcapableofactingasrudderandcompasstotheaccumulationofvariations,andofmakingitholdsteadilyononecourseforeachspecies,tilleventuallymanyhavens,farremotefromoneanother,aresafelyreached。
ItisobviousthatthehavingfatallyimpairedthetheoryofhispredecessorscouldnotwarrantMr。Darwininclaiming,ashemostfatuouslydid,thetheoryofevolution。Thatheisstillgenerallybelievedtohavebeentheoriginatorofthistheoryisduetothefactthatheclaimedit,andthatapowerfulliterarybackingatoncecameforwardtosupporthim。Itseemsatfirstsightimprobablethatthosewhotoozealouslyurgedhisclaimswereunawarethatsomuchhadbeenwrittenonthesubject,butwhenwefindevenMr。Wallacehimselfasprofoundlyignorantonthissubjectashestilleitheris,oraffectstobe,thereisnolimitassignabletotheignoranceoraffectedignoranceofthekindofbiologistswhowouldwritereviewsinleadingjournalsthirtyyearsago。Mr。Wallacewrites:-
\"Afewgreatnaturalists,struckbytheveryslightdifferencebetweenmanyofthesespecies,andthenumerouslinksthatexistbetweenthemostdifferentformsofanimalsandplants,andalsoobservingthatagreatmanyspeciesdovaryconsiderablyintheirforms,coloursandhabits,conceivedtheideathattheymightbeallproducedonefromtheother。ThemosteminentofthesewriterswasagreatFrenchnaturalist,Lamarck,whopublishedanelaboratework,thePhilosophieZoologique,inwhichheendeavouredtoprovethatallanimalswhateveraredescendedfromotherspeciesofanimals。
Heattributedthechangeofspecieschieflytotheeffectofchangesintheconditionsoflife——suchasclimate,food,&c。;andespeciallytothedesiresandeffortsoftheanimalsthemselvestoimprovetheircondition,leadingtoamodificationofformorsizeincertainparts,owingtothewell-knownphysiologicallawthatallorgansarestrengthenedbyconstantuse,whiletheyareweakenedorevencompletelylostbydisuse……
\"Theonlyotherimportantworkdealingwiththequestionwasthecelebrated’VestigesofCreation,’publishedanonymously,butnowacknowledgedtohavebeenwrittenbythelateRobertChambers。\"
Nonearesoblindasthosewhowillnotsee,anditwouldbewasteoftimetoarguewiththeinvincibleignoranceofonewhothinksLamarckandBuffonconceivedthatallspecieswereproducedfromoneanother,moreespeciallyasIhavealreadydealtatsomelengthwiththeearlyevolutionistsinmywork,\"Evolution,OldandNew,\"firstpublishedtenyearsago,andnot,sofarasIamaware,detectedinseriouserrororomission。If,however,Mr。WallacestillthinksitsafetopresumesofarontheignoranceofhisreadersastosaythattheonlytwoimportantworksonevolutionbeforeMr。Darwin’swereLamarck’sPhilosophieZoologiqueandthe\"VestigesofCreation,\"howfathomableistheignoranceoftheaveragereviewerlikelytohavebeenthirtyyearsago,whenthe\"OriginofSpecies\"
wasfirstpublished?Mr。Darwinclaimedevolutionashisowntheory。Ofcourse,hewouldnotclaimitifhehadnorighttoit。
Thenbyallmeansgivehimthecreditofit。Thiswasthemostnaturalviewtotake,anditwasgenerallytaken。Itwasnot,moreover,surprisingthatpeoplefailedtoappreciateallthenicetiesofMr。Darwin’s\"distinctivefeature\"which,whetherdistinctiveorno,wasassuredlynotdistinct,andwasneverfranklycontrastedwiththeolderview,asitwouldhavebeenbyonewhowishedittobeunderstoodandjudgeuponitsmerits。ItwasinconsequenceofthisomissionthatpeoplefailedtonotehowfastandlooseMr。Darwinplayedwithhisdistinctivefeature,andhowreadilyhedroppeditonoccasion。
ItmaybesaidthatthequestionofwhatwasthoughtbythepredecessorsofMr。Darwinis,afterall,personal,andofnointeresttothegeneralpublic,comparabletothatofthemainissue——whetherwearetoacceptevolutionornot。GrantedthatBuffon,ErasmusDarwin,andLamarckboretheburdenandheatofthedaybeforeMr。CharlesDarwinwasborn,theydidnotbringpeopleroundtotheiropinion,whereasMr。DarwinandMr。Wallacedid,andthepubliccannotbeexpectedtolookbeyondthisbroadandindisputablefact。
Theanswertothisis,thatthetheorywhichMessrs。DarwinandWallacehavepersuadedthepublictoacceptisdemonstrablyfalse,andthattheopponentsofevolutionarecertainintheendtotriumphoverit。Paley,inhis\"NaturalTheology,\"longsincebroughtforwardfartoomuchevidenceofdesigninanimalorganisationtoallowofoursettingdownitsmarvelstotheaccumulationsoffortunateaccident,undirectedbywill,effortandintelligence。Thosewhoexaminethemainfactsofanimalandvegetableorganisationwithoutbiaswill,nodoubt,erelongconcludethatallanimalsandvegetablesarederivedultimatelyfromunicellularorganisms,buttheywillnotlessreadilyperceivethattheevolutionofspecieswithouttheconcomitanceanddirectionofmindandeffortisasinconceivableasistheindependentcreationofeveryindividualspecies。Thetwofacts,evolutionanddesign,areequallypatenttoplainpeople。Thereisnoescapingfromeither。AccordingtoMessrs。DarwinandWallace,wemayhaveevolution,butareonnoaccounttohaveitasmainlyduetointelligenteffort,guidedbyeverhigherandhigherrangeofsensations,perceptions,andideas。Wearetosetitdowntotheshufflingofcards,orthethrowingofdicewithouttheplay,andthiswillneverstand。
Accordingtotheoldermen,cardsdidindeedcountformuch,butplaycountedformore。Theydeniedtheteleologyofthetime——thatistosay,theteleologythatsawalladaptationtosurroundingsaspartofaplandevisedlongagessincebyaquasi-anthropomorphicbeingwhoschemedeverythingoutmuchasamanwoulddo,butonaninfinitelyvasterscale。Thisconceptiontheyfoundrepugnantaliketointelligenceandconscience,but,thoughtheydonotseemtohaveperceivedit,theyleftthedooropenforadesignmoretrueandmoredemonstrablethanthatwhichtheyexcluded。Bymakingtheirvariationsmainlyduetoeffortandintelligence,theymadeorganicdevelopmentrunonall-fourswithhumanprogress,andwithinventionswhichwehavewatchedgrowingupfromsmallbeginnings。
Theymadethedevelopmentofmanfromtheamoebapartandparcelofthestorythatmayberead,thoughonaninfinitelysmallerscale,inthedevelopmentofourmostpowerfulmarineenginesfromthecommonkettle,orofourfinestmicroscopesfromthedew-drop。
Thedevelopmentofthesteam-engineandthemicroscopeisduetointelligenceanddesign,whichdidindeedutilisechancesuggestions,butwhichimprovedonthese,anddirectedeachstepoftheiraccumulation,thoughneverforeseeingmorethanasteportwoahead,andoftennotsomuchasthis。Thefact,asIhaveelsewhereurged,thatthemanwhomadethefirstkettledidnotforeseetheenginesoftheGreatEastern,orthathewhofirstnotedthemagnifyingpowerofthedew-drophadnoconceptionofourpresentmicroscopes——theverylimitedamount,infact,ofdesignandintelligencethatwascalledintoplayatanyonepoint——thisdoesnotmakeusdenythatthesteam-engineandmicroscopeowetheirdevelopmenttodesign。Ifeachstepoftheroadwasdesigned,thewholejourneywasdesigned,thoughtheparticularendwasnotdesignedwhenthejourneywasbegun。Andsoisit,accordingtotheolderviewofevolution,withthedevelopmentofthoselivingorgans,ormachines,thatarebornwithus,aspartoftheperambulatingcarpenter’schestwecallourbodies。Theolderviewgivesusourdesign,andgivesusourevolutiontoo。Ifitrefusestoseeaquasi-anthropomorphicGodmodellingeachspeciesfromwithoutasapottermodelsclay,itgivesusGodasvivifyingandindwellinginallHiscreatures——Heinthem,andtheyinHim。IfitrefusestoseeGodoutsidetheuniverse,itequallyrefusestoseeanypartoftheuniverseasoutsideGod。IfitmakestheuniversethebodyofGod,italsomakesGodthesouloftheuniverse。Thequestionatissue,then,betweentheDarwinismofErasmusDarwinandtheneo-Darwinismofhisgrandson,isnotapersonalone,noranythinglikeapersonalone。Itnotonlyinvolvestheexistenceofevolution,butitaffectstheviewwetakeoflifeandthingsinanendlessvarietyofmostinterestingandimportantways。Itisimperative,therefore,onthosewhotakeanyinterestinthesematters,toplacesidebysideintheclearestcontrasttheviewsofthosewhorefertheevolutionofspeciesmainlytoaccumulationofvariationsthathavenootherinceptionthanchance,andofthatolderschoolwhichmakesdesignperceiveanddevelopstillfurtherthegoodsthatchanceprovides。
Butoverandabovethis,whichwouldbeinitselfsufficient,thehistoricalmodeofstudyinganyquestionistheonlyonewhichwillenableustocomprehenditeffectually。Thepersonalelementcannotbeeliminatedfromtheconsiderationofworkswrittenbylivingpersonsforlivingpersons。Wewanttoknowwhoiswho——whomwecandependupontohavenootherendthanthemakingthingscleartohimselfandhisreaders,andwhomweshouldmistrustashavinganulterioraimonwhichheismoreintentthanonthefurtheringofourbetterunderstanding。Wewanttoknowwhoisdoinghisbesttohelpus,andwhoisonlytryingtomakeushelphim,ortobolsterupthesysteminwhichhisinterestsarevested。Thereisnothingthatwillthrowmorelightuponthesepointsthanthewayinwhichamanbehavestowardsthosewhohaveworkedinthesamefieldwithhimself,and,again,thanhisstyle。Aman’sstyle,asBuffonlongsincesaid,isthemanhimself。Bystyle,Idonot,ofcourse,meangrammarorrhetoric,butthatstyleofwhichBuffonagainsaidthatitislikehappiness,andvientdeladouceurdel’ame。Whenwefindamanconcealingworsethannullityofmeaningundersentencesthatsoundplausiblyenough,weshoulddistrusthimmuchasweshouldafellow-travellerwhomwecaughttryingtostealourwatch。
Weoftencannotjudgeofthetruthorfalsehoodoffactsforourselves,butwemostofusknowenoughofhumannaturetobeabletotellagoodwitnessfromabadone。
Howeverthismaybe,andwhateverwemaythinkofjudgingsystemsbythedirectnessorindirectnessofthosewhoadvancethem,biologists,havingcommittedthemselvestoorashly,wouldhavebeenmorethanhumaniftheyhadnotshownsomepiquetowardsthosewhodaredtosay,first,thatthetheoryofMessrs。DarwinandWallacewasunworkable;andsecondly,thateventhoughitwereworkableitwouldnotjustifyeitheroftheminclaimingevolution。Whenbiologistsshowpiqueatalltheygenerallyshowagooddealofpique,butpiqueornopique,theyshunnedMr。Spencer’sobjectionabovereferredtowithapersistencymoreunanimousandobstinatethanIeverremembertohaveseendisplayedevenbyprofessionaltruth-seekers。IfindnorejoindertoitfromMr。Darwinhimself,between1865whenitwasfirstputforward,and1882whenMr。Darwindied。Ithasbeensimilarly\"ostrichised\"byalltheleadingapologistsofDarwinism,sofaratleastasIhavebeenabletoobserve,andIhavefollowedthemattercloselyformanyyears。Mr。
Spencerhasrepeatedandamplifieditinhisrecentwork,\"TheFactorsofOrganicEvolution,\"butitstillremainswithoutsomuchasanattemptatseriousanswer,fortheperfunctoryandillusoryremarksofMr。Wallaceattheendofhis\"Darwinism\"cannotbecountedassuch。ThebestproofofitsirresistibleweightisthatMr。Darwin,thoughmaintainingsilenceinrespecttoit,retreatedfromhisoriginalpositioninthedirectionthatwouldmostobviateMr。Spencer’sobjection。
Yetthisobjectionhasbeenrepeatedlyurgedbythemoreprominentanti-Charles-Darwinianauthorities,andthereisnosignthattheBritishpublicisbecominglessrigorousinrequiringpeopleeithertoreplytoobjectionsrepeatedlyurgedbymenofevenmoderateweight,ortoletjudgmentgobydefault。AsregardsMr。Darwin’sclaimtothetheoryofevolutiongenerally,Darwiniansarebeginningnowtoperceivethatthiscannotbeadmitted,andeithersaywithsomehardihoodthatMr。Darwinneverclaimedit,orafterafewsavingclausestotheeffectthatthistheoryrefersonlytotheparticularmeansbywhichevolutionhasbeenbroughtabout,implyforthwiththereafternonethelessthatevolutionisMr。Darwin’stheory。Mr。Wallacehasdonethisrepeatedlyinhisrecent\"Darwinism。\"Indeed,Ishouldbebynomeanssurethatonthefirstpageofhispreface,inthepassageabout\"Darwin’stheory,\"whichI
havealreadysomewhatseverelycriticised,hewasnotintendingevolutionby\"Darwin’stheory,\"ifinhisprecedingparagraphhehadnotsoclearlyshownthatheknewevolutiontobeatheoryofgreatlyolderdatethanMr。Darwin’s。
Thehistoryofscience——wellexemplifiedbythatofthedevelopmenttheory——isthehistoryofeminentmenwhohavefoughtagainstlightandhavebeenworsted。ThetenacitywithwhichDarwinianssticktotheiraccumulationoffortuitousvariationsisonaparwiththeliketenacityshownbytheillustriousCuvier,whodidhisbesttocrushevolutionaltogether。Italwayshasbeenthus,andalwayswillbe;norisitdesirableintheinterestsofTruthherselfthatitshouldbeotherwise。Truthislikemoney——lightlycome,lightlygo;andifshecannotholdherownagainstevengrossmisrepresentation,sheisherselfnotworthholding。
MisrepresentationinthelongrunmakesTruthasmuchasitmarsher;henceourlawcourtsdonotthinkitdesirablethatpleadersshouldspeaktheirbonafideopinions,muchlessthattheyshouldprofesstodoso。Ratherleteachsidehoodwinkjudgeandjuryasbestitcan,andlettruthflashoutfromcollisionofdefenceandaccusation。Wheneithersidewillnotcollide,itisanaxiomofcontroversythatitdesirestopreventthetruthfrombeingelicited。
LetusnownotethecoursesforceduponbiologistsbythedifficultiesofMr。Darwin’sdistinctivefeature。Mr。DarwinandMr。Wallace,asiswellknown,broughtthefeatureforwardsimultaneouslyandindependentlyofoneanother,butMr。WallacealwaysbelievedinitmorefirmlythanMr。Darwindid。Mr。Darwinasayoungmandidnotbelieveinit。Hewrotebefore1889,\"Nature,bymakinghabitomnipotentanditseffectshereditary,hasfittedtheFuegianfortheclimateandproductionsofhiscountry,\"
{21}asentencethanwhichnothingcancoincidemorefullywiththeolderviewthatuseanddisusewerethemainpurveyorsofvariations,orconflictmorefatallywithhisownsubsequentdistinctivefeature。Moreover,asIshowedinmylastworkonevolution,{22}intheperorationtohis\"OriginofSpecies,\"hediscardedhisaccidentalvariationsaltogether,andfellbackontheoldertheory,sothatthebodyofthe\"OriginofSpecies\"supportsonetheory,andtheperorationanotherthatdiffersfromittotocaelo。Finally,inhislatereditions,heretreatedindefinitelyfromhisoriginalposition,edgingalwaysmoreandmorecontinuallytowardsthetheoryofhisgrandfatherandLamarck。Thesefactsconvincemethathewasatnotimeathorough-goingDarwinian,butwasthroughoutanunconsciousLamarckian,thougheveranxioustoconcealthefactalikefromhimselfandfromhisreaders。
NotsowithMr。Wallace,whowasbothmoreoutspokeninthefirstinstance,andwhohasperseveredalongthepathofWallaceismjustasMr。DarwinwithgreatersagacitywaseverontheretreatfromDarwinism。Mr。Wallace’sprofounderfaithledhimintheoutsettoplacehistheoryinfullerdaylightthanMr。Darwinwasinclinedtodo。Mr。DarwinjustwavedLamarckaside,andsaidaslittleabouthimashecould,whileinhisearliereditionsErasmusDarwinandBuffonwerenotsomuchasnamed。Mr。Wallace,onthecontrary,atonceraisedtheLamarckianspectre,anddeclareditexorcised。HesaidtheLamarckianhypothesiswas\"quiteunnecessary。\"Thegiraffedidnot\"acquireitslongneckbydesiringtoreachthefoliageofthemoreloftyshrubs,andconstantlystretchingitsneckforthispurpose,butbecauseanyvarietieswhichoccurredamongitsantitypeswithalongerneckthanusualatoncesecuredafreshrangeofpastureoverthesamegroundastheirshorter-neckedcompanions,andonthefirstscarcityoffoodwerethusenabledtooutlivethem。\"{23}
\"Whichoccurred\"isevidently\"whichhappenedtooccur\"bysomechanceoraccidentunconnectedwithuseanddisuse。Theword\"accident\"isneverused,butMr。Wallacemustbecreditedwiththisinstanceofadesiretogivehisreadersachanceofperceivingthataccordingtohisdistinctivefeatureevolutionisanaffairofluck,ratherthanofcunning。WhetherhisreadersactuallydidunderstandthisasclearlyasMr。Wallacedoubtlessdesiredthattheyshould,andwhethergreaterdevelopmentatthispointwouldnothavehelpedthemtofullerapprehension,weneednotnowinquire。Whatwasgainedindistinctnessmighthavebeenlostindistinctiveness,andafterallhedidtechnicallyputusuponourguard。
NeverthelesshetooatapinchtakesrefugeinLamarckism。Inrelationtothemannerinwhichtheeyesofsoles,turbots,andotherflat-fishtravelroundtheheadsoastobecomeintheendunsymmetricallyplaced,hesays:-
\"Theeyesofthesefisharecuriouslydistortedinorderthatbotheyesmaybeupontheupperside,wherealonetheywouldbeofanyuse……Nowifwesupposethisprocess,whichintheyoungiscompletedinafewdaysorweeks,tohavebeenspreadoverthousandsofgenerationsduringthedevelopmentofthesefish,thoseusuallysurvivingWHOSEEYESRETAINEDMOREANDMOREOFTHEPOSITIONINTO
WHICHTHEYOUNGFISHTRIEDTOTWISTTHEM[italicsmine],thechangebecomesintelligible。\"{24}WhenitwassaidbyProfessorRayLankester——whoknowsaswellasmostpeoplewhatLamarcktaught——
thatthiswas\"flatLamarckism,\"Mr。Wallacerejoinedthatitwasthesurvivalofthemodifiedindividualsthatdiditall,nottheeffortsoftheyoungfishtotwisttheireyes,andthetransmissiontodescendantsoftheeffectsofthoseefforts。Butthis,asIsaidinmybook,\"Evolution,OldandNew,\"{25}islikesayingthathorsesareswiftrunners,notbyreasonofthecauses,whatevertheywere,thatoccasionedthedirectlineoftheirprogenitorstovarytowardsevergreaterandgreaterswiftness,butbecausetheirmoreslow-goingunclesandauntsgoaway。Plainpeoplewillprefertosaythatthemaincauseofanyaccumulationoffavourablemodificationsconsistsratherinthatwhichbringsabouttheinitialvariations,andinthefactthatthesecanbeinheritedatall,thaninthefactthattheunmodifiedindividualswerenotsuccessful。
Peopledonotbecomerichbecausethepoorinlargenumbersgoaway,butbecausetheyhavebeenlucky,orprovident,ormorecommonlyboth。Iftheywouldkeeptheirwealthwhentheyhavemadeittheymustexcludeluckthenceforthtotheutmostoftheirpower,andtheirchildrenmustfollowtheirexample,ortheywillsoonlosetheirmoney。Thefactthattheweakergotothewalldoesnotbringaboutthegreaterstrengthofthestronger;itistheconsequenceofthislastandnotthecause——unless,indeed,itbecontendedthataknowledgethattheweakgotothewallstimulatesthestrongtoexertionswhichtheywouldnototherwisesomake,andthattheseexertionsproduceinheritablemodifications。Eveninthiscase,however,itwouldbetheexertions,oruseanddisuse,thatwouldbethemainagentsinthemodification。ButitisnotoftenthatMr。
Wallacethusbackslides。Hispresentpositionisthatacquired(asdistinguishedfromcongenital)modificationsarenotinheritedatall。Hedoesnotindeedputhisfaithprominentlyforwardandpinhimselftoitasplainlyascouldbewished,butundertheheading,\"TheNon-HeredityofAcquiredCharacters,\"hewritesasfollowsonp。440ofhisrecentworkinreferencetoProfessorWeismann’sTheoryofHeredity:-
\"Certainobservationsontheembryologyoftheloweranimalsareheldtoafforddirectproofofthistheoryofheredity,buttheyaretootechnicaltobemadecleartoordinaryreaders。Alogicalresultofthetheoryistheimpossibilityofthetransmissionofacquiredcharacters,sincethemolecularstructureofthegerm-plasmisalreadydeterminedwithintheembryo;andWeismannholdsthattherearenofactswhichreallyprovethatacquiredcharacterscanbeinherited,althoughtheirinheritancehas,bymostwriters,beenconsideredsoprobableashardlytostandinneedofdirectproof。
\"Wehavealreadyseenintheearlierpartofthischapterthatmanyinstancesofchange,imputedtotheinheritanceofacquiredvariations,arereallycasesofselection。\"
AndtherestoftheremarkstendtoconveytheimpressionthatMr。
WallaceadoptsProfessorWeismann’sview,but,curiouslyenough,thoughIhavegonethroughMr。Wallace’sbookwithaspecialviewtothisparticularpoint,Ihavenotbeenabletofindhimdefinitelycommittinghimselfeithertotheassertionthatacquiredmodificationsneverareinherited,orthattheysometimesareso。
ItisabundantlylaiddownthatMr。Darwinlaidtoomuchstressonuseanddisuse,andaresiduaryimpressionisleftthatMr。WallaceisendorsingProfessorWeismann’sview,butIhavefounditimpossibletocollectanythingthatenablesmetodefinehispositionconfidentlyinthisrespect。
Thisisnaturalenough,forMr。Wallacehasentitledhisbook\"Darwinism,\"andaworkdenyingthatuseanddisuseproducedanyeffectcouldnotconceivablybecalledDarwinism。Mr。HerbertSpencerhasrecentlycollectedmanypassagesfrom\"TheOriginofSpecies\"andfrom\"AnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,\"{26}
whichshowhowlargely,afterall,useanddisuseenteredintoMr。
Darwin’ssystem,andweknowthatinhislateryearsheattachedstillmoreimportancetothem。Itwasoutofthequestion,therefore,thatMr。Wallaceshouldcategoricallydenythattheireffectswereinheritable。Ontheotherhand,thetemptationtoadoptProfessorWeismann’sviewmusthavebeenoverwhelmingtoonewhohadbeenalreadyinclinedtominimisetheeffectsofuseanddisuse。Onthewhole,onedoesnotseewhatMr。Wallacecoulddo,otherthanwhathehasdone——unless,ofcourse,hechangedhistitle,orhadbeennolongerMr。Wallace。
Besides,thankstotheworksofMr。Spencer,ProfessorMivart,ProfessorSemper,andverymanyothers,therehasforsometimebeenagrowingperceptionthattheDarwinismofCharlesDarwinwasdoomed。UseanddisusemusteitherdoevenmorethanisofficiallyrecognisedinMr。Darwin’slaterconcessions,ortheymustdoagreatdealless。IftheycandoasmuchasMr。Darwinhimselfsaidtheydid,whyshouldtheynotdomore?WhystopwhereMr。Darwindid?Andagain,whereinthenameofallthatisreasonabledidhereallystop?Hedrewnoline,andonwhatprinciplecanwesaythatsomuchispossibleaseffectofuseanddisuse,butsomuchmoreimpossible?If,asMr。Darwincontended,disusecansofarreduceanorganastorenderitrudimentary,andinmanycasesgetridofitaltogether,whycannotusecreateasmuchasdisusecandestroy,providedithasanything,nomatterhowlowinstructure,tobeginwith?Letusknowwherewestand。Ifitisadmittedthatuseanddisusecandoagooddeal,whatdoesagooddealmean?Andwhatistheproportionbetweenthesharesattributabletouseanddisuseandtonaturalselectionrespectively?Ifwecannotbetoldwithabsoluteprecision,letusatanyratehavesomethingmoredefinitethanthestatementthatnaturalselectionis\"themostimportantmeansofmodification。\"
Mr。Darwingaveusnohelpinthisrespect;andworsethanthis,hecontradictedhimselfsoflatlyastoshowthathehadverylittledefiniteideauponthesubjectatall。ThusinrespecttothewinglessnessoftheMadeirabeetleshewrote:-
\"Insomecaseswemighteasilyputdowntodisusemodificationsofstructure,whicharewhollyormainlyduetonaturalselection。Mr。
Wollastonhasdiscoveredtheremarkablefactthat200beetles,outofthe550species(butmorearenowknown)inhabitingMadeira,aresofardeficientinwingsthattheycannotfly;andthatofthe29
endemicgeneranolessthan23havealltheirspeciesinthiscondition!Severalfacts,——namely,thatbeetlesinmanypartsoftheworldarefrequentlyblownouttoseaandperish;thatthebeetlesinMadeira,asobservedbyMr。Wollaston,liemuchconcealeduntilthewindlullsandthesunshines;thattheproportionofwinglessbeetlesislargerontheexposedDesertasthaninMadeiraitself;andespeciallytheextraordinaryfact,sostronglyinsistedonbyMr。Wollaston,thatcertainlargegroupsofbeetles,elsewhereexcessivelynumerous,whichabsolutelyrequiretheuseoftheirwingsareherealmostentirelyabsent;——theseseveralconsiderationsmakemebelievethatthewinglessconditionofsomanyMadeirabeetlesismainlyduetotheactionofnaturalselection,COMBINED
PROBABLYWITHDISUSE[italicsmine]。Forduringmanysuccessivegenerationseachindividualbeetlewhichflewleast,eitherfromitswingshavingbeeneversolittlelessperfectlydevelopedorfromindolenthabit,willhavehadthebestchanceofsurviving,fromnotbeingblownouttosea;and,ontheotherhand,thosebeetleswhichmostreadilytooktoflightwouldoftenesthavebeenblowntosea,andthusdestroyed。\"{27}
Weshouldliketoknow,first,somewhereabouthowmuchdisusewasabletodoafterall,andmoreoverwhy,ifitcandoanythingatall,itshouldnotbeabletodoall。Mr。Darwinsays:\"Anychangeinstructureandfunctionwhichcanbeeffectedbysmallstagesiswithinthepowerofnaturalselection。\"\"Andwhynot,\"weask,\"withinthepowerofuseanddisuse?\"Moreover,onalaterpagewefindMr。Darwinsaying:-
\"ITAPPEARSPROBABLETHATDISUSEHASBEENTHEMAINAGENTIN
RENDERINGORGANSRUDIMENTARY[italicsmine]。Itwouldatfirstleadbyslowstepstothemoreandmorecompletereductionofapart,untilatlastithasbecomerudimentary——asinthecaseoftheeyesofanimalsinhabitingdarkcaverns,andofthewingsofbirdsinhabitingoceanicislands,whichhaveseldombeenforcedbybeastsofpreytotakeflight,andhaveultimatelylostthepowerofflying。Again,anorgan,usefulundercertainconditions,mightbecomeinjuriousunderothers,ASWITHTHEWINGSOFBEETLESLIVING
ONSMALLANDEXPOSEDISLANDS;andinthiscasenaturalselectionwillhaveaidedinreducingtheorgan,untilitwasrenderedharmlessandrudimentary[italicsmine]。\"{28}
Sothatjustasanundefinedamountofuseanddisusewasintroducedontheearlierpagetosupplementtheeffectsofnaturalselectioninrespectofthewingsofbeetlesonsmallandexposedislands,wehavehereanundefinedamountofnaturalselectionintroducedtosupplementtheeffectsofuseanddisuseinrespectoftheidenticalphenomena。Intheonepassagewefindthatnaturalselectionhasbeenthemainagentinreducingthewings,thoughuseanddisusehavehadanappreciableshareintheresult;intheother,itisuseanddisusethathavebeenthemainagents,thoughanappreciableshareintheresultmustbeascribedtonaturalselection。
Besides,whohasseentheunclesandauntsgoingawaywiththeuniformitythatisnecessaryforMr。Darwin’scontention?Weknowthatbirdsandinsectsdooftengetblownouttoseaandperish,butinordertoestablishMr。Darwin’spositionwewanttheevidenceofthosewhowatchedthereductionofthewingsduringthemanygenerationsinthecourseofwhichitwasbeingeffected,andwhocantestifythatall,ortheoverwhelmingmajority,ofthebeetlesbornwithfairlywell-developedwingsgotblownouttosea,whilethosealonesurvivedwhosewingswerecongenitallydegenerate。Whosawthemgo,orcanpointtoanalogouscasessoconclusiveastocompelassentfromanyequitablethinker?
DarwiniansofthestampofMr。ThiseltonDyer,ProfessorRayLankester,orMr。Romanes,insistontheirpoundoffleshinthematterofirrefragabledemonstration。Theycomplainofusfornotbringingforwardsomeonewhohasbeenabletodetectthemovementofthehour-handofawatchduringasecondoftime,andwhenwefailtodoso,declaretriumphantlythatwehavenoevidencethatthereisanyconnectionbetweenthebeatingofasecondandthemovementofthehour-hand。Whenwesaythatraincomesfromthecondensationofmoistureintheatmosphere,theydemandofusarain-dropfrommoisturenotyetcondensed。Iftheystickleforproofandcavilontheninthpartofahair,astheydowhenwebringforwardwhatwedeemexcellentinstancesofthetransmissionofanacquiredcharacteristic,whymaynotwe,too,demandatanyratesomeevidencethattheunmodifiedbeetlesactuallydidalways,ornearlyalways,getblownouttosea,duringthereductionabovereferredto,andthatitistothisfact,andnottothemasterlyinactivityoftheirfathersandmothers,thattheMadeirabeetlesowetheirwinglessness?Ifwebegansticklingforproofinthisway,ouropponentswouldnotbelonginlettingusknowthatabsoluteproofisunattainableonanysubject,thatreasonablepresumptionisourhighestcertainty,andthatcryingoutfortoomuchevidenceisasbadasacceptingtoolittle。Truthislikeaphotographicsensitisedplate,whichisequallyruinedbyoverandbyunderexposure,andthejustexposureforwhichcanneverbeabsolutelydetermined。