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。