THE JAMES K. MOFFITT FUND. LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. GIFT OF JAMES KENNEDY MOFFITT OF THE CLASS OF '86. Accession No. Class No. fa, tU^tSt AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL AND FOE WEISMANNISM. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/againstdogmafreeOOcrofrich AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL AND FOR WEISMANNISM. BY H. CEOFT HILLEE, SECOND EDITION. V. \BRA OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IFOR^J WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; and 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 1893. toQFNTl LONDON : C. NORMAN AND SON, PRINTERS, HART STREET COVENT GARDEN. Betruateo, AS A TOKEN OF ESTEEM, TO J. P. NISBET, AUTHOR OF "THE INSANITY OP GENIUS " AND "MARRIAGE AND HEREDITY." 109332 PEEFATOKY NOTE TO FIEST EDITION. Some ingenious critic, after scanning the ensuing pages, may exclaim : here is a book against dogma, yet filled with dogma ! The writer's reply to such an exaggeration of fact would be : that the Dogma referred to in the title is the Dogma of ecclesiasticism ; that, to dogma, merely as dogma, he has no objection; that he is even prejudiced in its favour, provided the dogma be corroborated by Fact ; that he is quite content if his own dogma stands or falls with the evidence on which it is based. List of works from which the principal quotations in this booh have been extracted. Alviella (Count Goblet d'), Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Brussels. " Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Conception of God, as illustrated by Anthropology and History." Arnold (Matthew), Formerly Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford and Fellow of Oriel College. " God and the Bible," and " Literature and Dogma." Bain (Alexander, ll.d.), Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. " Mind and Body." 7th edition. Bastian (H. Charlton, m.a., m.d., f.b.s.), Professor of Pathological Anatomy and of Clinical Medicine in University College, London ; Physician to University College Hospital and to the National Hospital for the Paralyzed and Epileptic. "The Brain as an Organ of Mind." 4th edition. Drapeb (John William, m.d., ll.d.), Late Professor in the University of New York. "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science." 21st edition. Farrar (J. A.), " Paganism and Christianity." Till PREFATORY NOTE TO FIRST EDITION. Febbier (David, m.d., ll.d., f.r.s., f.r.c. p.), Professor of Neuropathology, King's College, London ; Physician to King's College Hospital and to the National Hospital for the Paralyzed and Epileptic. " The Croonian Lectures on Cerebral Localization." Luvs (J.), Physician to the Hospice de la Salpetriere. " The Brain and its Functions." Maudsley (Henry, m.d., f.r.cs.), Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in University College, London. " Responsibility in Mental Disease." Momerie (A. W., m.a., d.sc, ll.d.), Late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Late Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in King's College, London. "Inspiration, and other Sermons." Moobhouse (James, d.d.), The Eight Eeverend, Bishop of Manchester, " Dangers of the Apostolic Age." Nisbet (J. F.), " Marriage and Heredity," 2nd edition, and " The Insanity of Genius." Redfobd (R. A., m.a., ll.b.), Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologe- tics, New College, Oxford. " The Christian's Plea against Modern Unbelief." 3rd edition. Ribot (Th.), " Heredity." 2nd edition. Spenceb (Herbert), " First Principles." 5th edition. Wallace (Alfred Russel, ll.d., f.l.s.), " Darwinism." Weismann (Dr. August), Professor in the University of Freiburg in Breisgau. " Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems." Volume I., 2nd edition. Volume II, 1st edition. Edited by E. B. Poulton, m.a., f.b.s., f.l.s., f.o.s. Selmar Schonland, Ph.D., Hon. m.a. Oxon., and A. E. Shipley, m.a., f.l.s. " The Germ-Plasm." Translated by W. N. Parker, Ph.D., and Harriet Ronnfeldt, Ph.D. To all the above-mentioned authors, the writer of this book tenders his sentiments of obligation. Though his own views may cause pain to some of these writers, and may be expressed in a manner apparently opposed to appreciation of their works, the opposition is merely apparent. The writer is not too obtuse to realize that error, as well as truth, may bo honestly propounded with masterly ability; but, all the less, in that case, should he who believes he promulgates truth, scruple to use any deadly weapon at hand — only provided (would that pro- PREFATORY NOTE TO FIRST EDITION. IX mulgators of " truth M had always observed this proviso) the weapon kills phantoms, but harms no bodies ! To those scientists whose works confirm, and have en-» abled him to forcibly formulate his own views, the writer is under an inestimable obligation. Especially he begs to thank Drs. Weismann, Luys and Ferrier, from whose labours the views expressed in this treatise derive that scientific authentication, without which, they would be merely as trustworthy as the views, say, of a modern philosopher ! INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION. Since the first part of this work was published, a consider- able amount of criticism, some eulogistic, some cautiously dissentient, some blindly abusive, has been directed at the author. He has been taxed with mis-applying the scientific verifications which he promulgates; with propounding untenable socio-political doctrines ; with desiring to over- throw " morality n and religion. What, on the other side, he has been credited with achieving need not be here recounted. Views tending to radically modify long-accepted conven- tionalities must arouse opposition and even blind resentment. The writer is fully assured that those critics who have u brains n and honesty of purpose will ultimately recall their strictures. Therefore he accepts with equanimity their present " canister " (these abusive critics, be it observed, manifest a greater partiality for wild shooting with " canister " than for exact aim with " round-shot M or " bullets " !). On the other hand, the author is under obligation to some of the criticism because it has been the means of enabling him to further elucidate and establish certain propositions which, in the earlier treatise, were either discussed cursorily as being subsidiary to the main purpose, or, were not as fully expounded as they deserved. Such criticism was that which the writer fortunately provoked from the editor of the National Reformer, and to which criticism he was per- / I INTKODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION. xi mitted to reply in that organ. He is sanguine enough to hope that the controversy, now placed, as fully as practicable, before the reader, may strongly tend to establish the writer's propositions among the intelligent public. Again, as some of the main theses advanced in the earlier treatise are based on the researches of Professor Weismann, the author has been impelled to incorporate in this volume a sketch of Weismannism and two articles referring to that subject, which originally appeared in the National Reformer . It is hoped that the reader may thus be afforded a more coherent grasp of the newly-discovered biological facts than could be obtained from the necessarily incidental treatment accorded to the subject in the earlier treatise. Finally, as a reply to those critics who have taxed him with assailing " morality," the author has added the short essay entitled " Social Expediency." The writer will here express his obligation to Mr. W. Piatt Ball for reading the ensuing biological chapters and offering courteous suggestions of which the writer has gratefully availed himself. He further has a high apprecia- tion of the moral effect likely to ensue from the outspoken manner in which he has been supported by a scientist of Mr. Ball's eminence. Nor, on the other hand, can the writer deny himself the luxury of a little sentimental outpouring with regard to Mr. Robertson, whose unfailing courtesy, whose combative thoroughness, whose intellectual power, and, particularly, whose earnest criticism of proposi- tions which, at present, the Press seems discreetly anxious to keep at arm's length, have rendered to the writer, a hard duty, the adequate denunciation of Mr. Robertson's fallacies. The writer can readily appreciate Mr. Robertson's zeal to Xll INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION. maintain the subjective propositions for which he so strenuously contends as being essential to social advance. On the other hand, the writer feels assured that a man of Mr. Robertson's intellectual calibre will ultimately adapt himself to the conditions imposed by recent research, more especially, as these new conditions are inevitably destined to prevail and are not really antagonistic to Mr. Robertson's essential projects, but, on the contrary, are far better calculated to promote them than are the products of mere a priori ratiocination by which those projects have been, hitherto, to a large extent, supported. The writer regrets that the National Reformer is about to expire. During the few months he has known of its existence, he has read it with more interest than any other periodical literature. He hopes that its successor, the Free Review, may maintain the high level of intellectual and literary excellence which has characterized the National Reformer. September 9th, 1893. CONTENTS. AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL INTRODUCTION. PAGE The writer's scheme— Preliminary definitions of Truth, Nature, and the Law of Nature .... ... 1 CHAPTER I. The methods of Science contrasted with those of Dogma — The theories of Lamarck, Darwin, and Weismann considered in respect to physical, mental, and moral evolution — Their bearing on the metaphysics of Dogma — The "unstable equilibrium" of Society — Selfishness, the root-motive of humanity — Good and evil shown to be social expediency and inexpediency — Virtue and vice dependent on organism. ..... 8 CHAPTER II. Consciousness arises only after other cerebral actions — Metaphysics useless to prove " free-will " — The velocity of thought measured . 34 CHAPTER III. The brain can only think through co-operation of the peripheral sensibilities — Case illustrating this — The brain shown to be a machine — Cerebral heat considered in reference to " free-will " — Moral and sensuM pain — The genesis of right and wrong — Sacerdotalism and morality — Memory explained — The importance of the memorizing faculty — Hypnotism, in reference to " free- will " — Judgment, will, intelligence : what they are — The futility of trying to oppose Nature — Human achievements : what they are according to Science — The Inscrutable of Science contrasted with the deity of orthodoxy — Ferrier's experiments in cerebral locali- zation : their bearing on "free-will " — Pathology in reference to " free-will " — Embryology, in reference to an originally perfect man ........ 40 CHAPTER IV. Human Knowledge merely relative — The Deity of Science — The Eeligion of Science — Dogma and Eeason — Miracles — Visions — Prophets — Religion must satisfy Reason — Conscience : what it is — The expediency of fifty years hence . . . .95 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. PAGB Two representative views of "free-will": those of the Bishop of Manchester and Mr. Nisbet contrasted — The former shown a contradiction in terms — A supernaturally free will must be constant in action ; cannot vary with organism — No amalgama- tion possible of Science with the metaphysics of Dogma — We must either grant, or deny " free-will, * absolutely : a limited " free-will " is incomprehensible — Dogmatic and scientific religions irreconcilable ...... 106 CHAPTER VI. The genesis of " volition " illustrated — Dogma's " ego " assumed and shown incomprehensible and unnecessary — Human penalties more efficacious than the assumed supernatural, in restraining mankind — ' ' Everlasting puni shment " considered — Dogmatic religion has not changed human nature — The Keligion of Science opens "the bowels of compassion" — The old idea of creation exploded— Dogma has renounced the claim to a special inspira- tion of her traditions — What is the criterion by which men are now to decide her authority in matters outside the physical cosmos? — Prophecy and Mania — Why a later thinks as an earlier generation —The renunciation of "free-will" not equivalent to fatalism — The drift of social evolution . . . .118 CHAPTER VII. The anthropomorphism of Dogma irreconcilable with " free-will " — Expounders of " orthodoxy " are now superfluous — The com- parative claims of ecclesiasticism and Science on the intellectual respect of mankind — Ecclesiasticism exemplifies the unalterable edict of Nature : that men shall be selfish — How ecclesiastics can be honest— Science seeks to destroy no true religion . . 139 CHAPTER VIII. Ecclesiasticism is effecting its own disintegration— The " eminent Thirty-eight " — The anthropomorphism of modern orthodoxy compared with that of the ancient Jews — The Church of England must pitch overboard Dogma, or Dogma will send her to the bottom — A cursory consideration of the Canon, showing how rife was contention as to its authenticity — All religions, equally with all organisms, strictly the product of evolution . . 148 CONTENTS. XV WEISMANNISM. PAGE PEEFACE TO RUDIMENTARY WEISMANNISM 161 CHAPTER I.— RUDIMENTARY WEISMANNISM 161 CHAPTER II 168 CHAPTER III 175 CHAPTER IV.— SPENCER OR WEISMANN ? . 182 CHAPTER V.— WEISMANNISM AND ITS ADVERSARIES 187 INTRODUCTION TO WEISMANNISM AND SOCIOLOGY 197 CHAPTER VI.— WEISMANNISM AND SOCIO- LOGY 222 CHAPTER VII 230 CHAPTER VIII 234 CHAPTER IX.— SOCIAL EXPEDIENCY . . 245 CONCLUSION 265 APPENDIX.— ROMANES AND WEISMANN . 273 INDEX 287 CORRIGENDA AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. Note to page 125, as continuation of first paragraph : — With a refinement of diabolical ingenuity, it was even propounded that helpless babes were not exempt from these eternal tortures. Does not it arouse all the resentment in human nature to know that such lies as the following were foisted on the minds of grief-stricken mothers by a Church which professed to exemplify the doctrine of universal Love ? " Hold most firmly, and by no means doubt, that little children, whether they die before or after birth, pass, without the holy sacrament of baptism, from this world, to be punished with the everlasting punishment of eternal fire." (St. Fulgentius.) We can now treat this stuff with the contempt it deserves ; but think of the thousands upon thousands of mothers who believed it ! Think of the human agony represented by those few words, then ask yourselves whether that agony has been outweighed by the raptures of all the 11 saints " and " converted sinners " of Christianity. Note to page 141, as continuation of second paragraph : — Unless the bishop, as a true follower of Augustine, Calvin, and other vehicles of the revelation of vengeance, wishes us to believe that the Deity deliberately consigns certain creatures to perdition, we must infer that this " directive originating activity " is beyond the power and the knowledge of Deity : otherwise, that the Creator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. No verbal quibbles will enable us to escape this dilemma. Page 67, line 18 : — For Deldoeuf read Delboeuf . Bead, instead of text, page 71, lines 20-22 : — If reminiscent and peripheral excitations contend and neither prevail, volition is not manifested : the individual hesitates. If this is a marked characteristic of the cerebral conformation, the individual is said to be timid, irresolute, too cautious. Bead, instead of text, page 121, line 24 : — If it cannot fix human responsibility. AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. INTRODUCTION. The writer's original aim was, in a few lines, to place those who might witness or read a certain stage-play, at his own standpoint, in respect to the psychological problem involved in one of his characters — Fen ton. One cannot argne with a colonr-blind person about chromatics. The public are in much the same position with respect to certain psychical realities, as is the colour-blind man with respect to chromatics. Hence the writer intended, in a short preface to his play, to provide against inevitable misapprehension. However, as the subject widened out under treatment, he felt impelled to considerably diverge from his earlier intention. He realized that, to adequately express his views, a much more serious demand than origin- ally contemplated must be made on the reader's attention, and that if such views represent truth, as, after mature reflection and inquiry, the writer believes they do, then it was his duty to help, as others are helping, to propagate them. The world is now on the brink of an epoch-making renunciation of doctrines which, for centuries, have been the instruments of Nature in her work of evolution, but which, having served their purpose, are now destined to be thrown aside. It must be evident to every earnest person who can 1 Z INTK0DUCTI0N. recall his doctrinal convictions of twenty years ago, that time has played havoc with them ; that the blind trustful- ness which once rendered him a willing affirmer of dogmatic mystery, is now supplanted by disquieting doubts rendering him either a scoffer at, or merely a mechanical votary of his idol. These phases of mental condition represent its average contemporary character in relation to Dogma, and as Dogma, to the mass of mankind, through long-enduring custom, has represented the very essence of religion, the latter has naturally been prejudicially affected by the im- pending fall of Dogma. The mind of civilization is now awaiting a fresh revelation. This revelation Science is destined to afford. In the ensuing pages we purpose accomplishing what, so far as we are aware, has not, under like conditions and in the same manner, been attempted. We purpose to demolish the hypothesis of "free-will" and the dogmatic assumptions based on that hypothesis. We shall endeavour to achieve our end by utilizing the latest scientific verifica- tions, which we hope to place before the reader under new aspects and which we shall supplement by certain specula- tions not familiar to the general public, to the average scientist, or even to some philosophers. We shall meet the M free-will " advocate on his own ground ; we shall grant his premisses, and we hope, by his own premisses, to demonstrate the utter fallacy of his conclusions. The first research to which we shall devote attention will be Weismann's latest verifications respecting the origin of life and the factors of heredity. These go to the very root of organic existence, and must radically affect all our religious and sociological notions. Mr. Herbert Spencer's philosophy, based on the fallacy that extraneous influences may be transmitted hereditarily, will now need considerable modification, and we shall find that the reforming zeal so characteristic of contemporary society, is likely to develop unforeseen consequences. INTRODUCTION. 3 We shall next glance at Darwin 5 s theory of Natural Selection. This accounts satisfactorily for the evolution of 'all types of organism, and, we shall try to show, is incon- sistent with the prevalent conceptions of " free-will " and an anthropomorphic deity. Incidentally, in the course of our examination of the various branches of scientific research bearing on our sub- ject, we shall venture to expound, and, we trust, establish, certain ethical propositions of a novel and, we believe, vitally important nature. We hope to establish so firmly that the most sinuous verbal dexterity of opponents shall be powerless against our conclusions, the fact that the current notions of good and evil are radically false; that the conventional definitions of virtue and vice are entirely untrue ; that real morality is as different a thing from the "morality" of Dogma as is ethereal vibration from what we sensually apprehend as light; that all the deductions dependent on these conventions are, in the not distant future, bound to be discarded by thinking men. We fully apprehend the gravity of these pretensions which we deliberately make, and the issue of which we confidently await. As an inevitable inference from the new truth, it will become evident that what are euphemistically termed the rights of property are destined to suffer some hard rubs. As human faculties are entirely dependent on the accident of bodily conformation, society will soon decide that the material results of the successful exercise of such faculties belong rather to society than to the individual recipient of Nature's bounty. To what extent such reasoning will be carried into practice will depend on the needs of society and will vary with its fluctuating standards of expediency. The principle itself will be universally admitted. We shall prove, we believe, to demonstration, that every phase of cerebral action involving thought and what we call volition, is as strictly a natural phenomenon, entirely 1 * 4 1NTE0DUCTI0N. dependent on organic factors, as is the circulation of the blood. We shall satisfactorily account to reason — if not to emotion — for every action of what it has pleased certain theorists to define as a supernatural attribute, by the same methods which these theorists would apply to explaining the action of steam on a locomotive. We .intend that these methods shall as logically explain the phenomenon of mental, as of mechanical, energy. In furtherance of this purpose, we shall have to direct the reader's attention to the latest verifications of scientific psychology, a due comprehension of which will enable him to form the only possible rational conception of what it has hitherto been the business of metaphysics to involve in a hopeless maze of fallacious verbiage. Having considered all the departments of cerebral activity, we shall specially devote ourselves to an attack on dogmatic pretension, the absurdity of which we hope to effectually demonstrate. In the course of our work we shall be compelled to record a protest against some inconsistencies in the pro- cedure of certain eminent scientists and thinkers, who, while furthering the work of demolition, have shrunk from the logical issue of their own achievements. As seeking truth only, and as realizing to what extent truth has hitherto been shackled by the devices of the partisans of fallacy, we feel bound to deprecate any concession to the adversary, under whatsoever guise that concession may appear. We feel that the ground must be cleared of all obstructions to an accurate perception and a final settlement of the great issues : are the doctrines of " free-will " and an anthropomorphic deity longer tenable by thinking men ? If we may seem occasionally to lapse into an impetuosity of treatment of our subject^ unusual in logical controversy, it is because we believe that the advocate is the best fighter against popular prejudice. Our work aims at arousing society from a condition of lethargic insouciance towards exploded fallacy, to an intelligent appreciation of a newly INTRODUCTION. O acquired truth. There being no reason why the emotive should not help truth as it has helped Dogma, we have endeavoured so to combine the judicial with the rhetorical appeal that each may touch the mind specially responsive to its influence. It will be advisable here to define the meanings we attach to three terms which, being concise and expressive, will be freely used in the course of this treatise. By " Nature w we mean, not a metonymical confusion of cause and effect involving personification of the Cosmos, but, thei evolutionary method, so far as it has been ascertained by ) Science, of that mysterious Energy behind the universe. I We trust that the reader will bear in mind this definition, as a loose and utterly untenable significance, inducing trains of thought diametrically opposed to any reliable process of inquiry, is frequently attached to the term. By " Truth " we mean a conclusion verified by reason apart from emotion. Truth, as concerns humanity, can only be measured by consciousness. There may be, and probably there is, truth outside consciousness ; but if it cannot be authenticated by human apprehension, that truth is beyond the range of practical consideration. When man's sensibility impels him towards such problematical truth, the impulse merely induces a subjective conclusion absolutely derived from anterior subjective conclusions. Generations of men adopted the subjective conclusion that the sun moved round the earth ; even now, mere sensibility inclines us to adopt the illusion which only reason and experience enable us to discard. The human being untaught from birth the traditions of his time and country could not generate the emotional conclusions of his fellow-men. These he acquires solely through tutelage. Naturally, he adopts what error is inherent to those conclusions. As all our nineteenth- century sensibility is evolved from the sensibility of the first man, could we believe that this first man was the 6 INTKODUCTION. perfect being designated by Dogma, we might venture to infer that our sensibility was the reminiscence of some superior faculty, and we might honour accordingly its occasional transcendentalism. However, Science has placed beyond doubt the fact that this first man was scarcely distinguishable from the nineteenth century orang-outang ! So we cannot say much for the pedigree of our sensibility. Everything, in a sense, is, to the individual, truth, to which his sensibility impels him : the disordered visions of the lunatic, the dreams of the sane man, the distorted chromatics of the colour-blind, are all, to the individuals,, truth ; but they are fallacy to the collective normal reason and experience, and these are the only standards by which humanity, in the aggregate, can discriminate between truth and fallacy. In the course of this work we hope to clearly define reason, and to demonstrate its claim to override mere sensibility as a guide to certain truths which it is customary to relegate to the determination of this sensibility. Language is the only means by which reason can conceive or express truth. What we vaguely apprehend beyond the expressive power of language may be truth, or the reverse. Whether truth or fallacy, it is outside the domain of reason, and consequently cannot be identified as one or the other. Truth is occasionally felt by sensibility before it is apprehended by reason. Then, it can only be recognized as truth, after confirmation by reason. All truth within the grasp of humanity is transmuted reality. As this transmutation is a fundamental condition imposed by Nature, it follows that all truth within our apprehensive capacity must be merely relative. Neverthe- less, such relative truth is adequate to the needs of humanity ; man need not seek to transcend it. In this treatise we shall accordingly consider nothing Truth which may not be expressed by language and con- INTRODUCTION. 7 firmed by reason and experience. Restricted by these limitations, we hope to carry the reader beyond even the realms of emotion ; we shall render apparent to his reason more than Dogma has tried to picture to his sensibility. By the " Law of Nature," we mean the conditions under S which that orderly sequence of phenomena prevalent from the beginning of the universe, occurs. This law being demonstrably the very opposite of a mere chance sequence of events, we are constrained to consider it the effect of design ; and, as it is, so far as human reason can appre- hend, absolutely constant in operation, we are warranted in basing the widest deductions on its unvarying and universal operation and in rejecting any assumption of exception from its influence. Moreover, when we can explain a phenomenon by the operation of this law, it is evidently absurd to gratuitously import an outside factor to account for such phenomenon. This, we intend to prove, ^ is what mankind have, for several ages, been doing. The object of this work is not to destroy men's faith in the supernal. Eather it is to establish that faith. We wish to drive men to the only supernatural which, under the present conditions of knowledge, is possible as an object of real belief, to the mind of rational humanity. That supernatural is the Supernatural of Science. We shall try to render the Supernatural of Science so apparent to men's understanding that it becomes the one cogent fact of their existence, dwarfing into insignificance all their other actualities. We aim at the destruction of cant, pretence, and delusion. We fight for honesty, reason, and truth. If, in prosecuting our enterprise, we hurt many suscepti- bilities, we must plead that our cause is greater than the emotions of mankind, and that " Truth fears nothing but concealment." Of THE r .'rr.«. CHAPTER I. ( The only systematic methods of abstract inquiry known to the world originated from two Greek philosophers — Plato and Aristotle. Plato's system deduced from a primitive idea to particulars ; Aristotle's induced from particulars to general principles. Hence they may respectively be termed deductive and inductive methods. One was essen- tially based on the imagination ; the other on reason. Platonism reached its conclusions rapidly, but often inaccurately ; Aristotelianism, slowly, but accurately. One was brilliant, but delusive; the other unpretentious, but sure. Dogma is an example of the former; Science, of the latter method. To the deductive principle, prematurely adopted, man- kind owe most of the fallacies by which they have been transiently dominated ; to the inductive, all the verities destined for ever to sway the human mind. The greater the number of isolated facts we have collected tending to establish a general conclusion, the more assured we may feel of the truth of that conclusion. If we have accumulated an overwhelming number of facts, and all these facts tell the same tale, we may then reasonably assume that such tale is absolute Truth (always bearing in mind that this absolute truth is only absolute so far as concerns human power of apprehension, and that with absolute truth apart from this power of apprehension, we need not here concern ourselves), and we V CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. 9 may confidently predict from this Truth, the establishment of further , as yet unverified, conclusions. This is the Aristotelian method which, accordingly, embraces the Platonic, but with strict limitations. In thus predicting, we use the Platonic method which is then admissible, because, by sufficient induction, we have established an absolute verity. Step by step, proceeding on these principles, rigidly s rejecting what is unconfirmed by induction, Science has accumulated all the exact knowledge we now possess. Let us see how far these methods will carry us in trying to solve some problems of fundamental interest to .6 mankind. Let us see whether by induction from various ' sources of knowledge we can show that Dogma is a guide o^k such as no rational man would trust in the ordinary affairs of life. Lamarck, a French naturalist, propounded a theory that acquired qualities were transmissible by heredity. On the assumed truth of this theory has been built up all the socialistic speculation of modern times. Among other deductions made from it was one that the effects of education and other extraneous influences would be grafted into the nature of posterity. Lamarck's theory has been recently demolished. It is now conclusively shown that extraneous influences only affect the individual immediately subjected to them ; that, to permanently affect the type through heredity, the germ-cell must be modified before the individual is born, ■ and that no such modification can ensue from any influences affecting the individual during life. The research which has yielded these momentous results is that devoted to the infinitely little. The microscope, in conjunction with splendid scientific ability and heroic determination to probe, so far as she will permit, the mystery of Nature, has revealed the theory of " The con- tinuity of the germ-plasm," by which Weismann principally, 10 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. [CHAP. I. and Galton in a secondary degree, have demolished the assumption that extraneous influences affect the type. Science, unlike Dogma, is quite ready to renounce her most highly-prized convictions so soon as facts disprove them. She would, under similar circumstances, renounce the theory of gravitation as readily as she has Lamarck's. Weismann's theory is based on these facts. The original of terrestrial organic life was a one-cell being, with no faculties but those of assimilation and reproduction. This creature could not be said to die. One divided into two exactly alike. " In this way countless numbers of individuals arise, each of which is as old as the species itself, while each possesses the capability of living on indefinitely by means of division. . . . Each individual of any such unicellular species living on earth to-day is far older than mankind, and is almost as old as life itself. (Weismann on " Heredity.") After ages, a number of these cells clustered together, and as a result of relativity of position, lost their homo- geneity. Some were better adapted to nourishing, others to reproducing. From this division of function arose a differentiation of groups into somatic and reproductive. Very soon, the somatic surpassed in numbers the reproduc- tive cells, and through the principle of division of labour, became more diversified in tissue. Concurrently with these changes, the somatic cells lost the power of repro- ducing the whole organism, and only the reproductive cells proper retained this function. Thus arose the germ-cell, the potential reproducer of all the other cells of the organism. This germ-cell retains the potential immortality of the primal cell which the others have lost. This potential immortality does not mean that such cells cannot be killed — merely that they have no natural death. They die when the containing organism dies, but in the understood sense, this is accidental death to the germ-cell. Through this germ-cell, and through it only, can the type CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FEEE-WILL. 11 be' hereditarily affected. No influence, other than its own spontaneity, can modify it. Through such spontaneous change, under the law of Natural Selection, have been evolved all the different organisms peopling, or which have peopled the globe. "I believe that heredity depends upon the fact that a small portion of the effective substance of the germ, the germ -plasm, remains unchanged during the development of the ovum into an organism, and that this part of the germ- plasm serves as a foundation from which the germ-cells of the new organism are produced. There is therefore continuity of the germ-plasm from one generation to another. One might represent the germ-plasm by the metaphor of a long creeping root-stock from which plants arise at intervals, these latter representing the individuals of successive generations. Hence it follows that the trans- mission of acquired characters is an impossibility, for if the germ-plasm is not formed anew in each individual but is derived from that which preceded it, its structure, and above all its molecular constitution, cannot depend upon the individual in which it happens to occur, but such an individual only forms, as it were, the nutritive soil at the expense of which the germ-plasm grows, while the latter possessed its characteristic structure from the beginning, viz. before the commencement of growth. But the tendencies of heredity, of which the germ-plasm is the bearer, depend upon this very molecular structure, and hence only those characters can be transmitted through successive generations which have been previously in- herited, viz. those characters which were potentially con- tained in the structure of the germ-plasm. It also follows that these other characters which have been acquired by the influence of special external conditions, during the lifetime of the parent, cannot be transmitted at all." (Weismann.) All multicellular organisms are derived from eggs. 12 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. L These eggs are of two classes : sexual and asexual, or parthenogenetic. In other words : one class requires, in order to generate a being, fertilization by the male nucleus, or spermatozoon ; the other requires no fertilization. Each egg } of both classes, contains a substance called germ- plasm, from which the egg proceeds through certain phases of growth peculiar to itself, and then, having reached maturity as an egg, is ready to develop in another manner : into an embryo. The substance into which a part of the germ-plasm changes to cause the specialized egg-growth, is called ovogenetic nucleo-plasm. As soon as the sexual egg has reached maturity, it makes two nuclear sub- divisions of itself. These two sub-divisions are respectively composed of germ-plasm and ovogenetic nucleo-plasm, and are expelled from the egg as polar bodies. The first expulsion is of ovogenetic nucleo-plasm; the second, of germ-plasm. The significance of these two expulsions was an unsolved enigma, until Weismann discovered the solution. Here it is. When the histological development of the sexual egg is completed, the ovogenetic nucleo-plasm, into which one part of the original germ-plasm has changed, has done its work, and, if retained, would hinder the opera- tion of the remaining germ-plasm in evolving the embryo. Accordingly, as above remarked, the ovogenetic nucleo- plasm is expelled from the sexual egg, as the first of the two polar bodies. There is still the second expulsion to account for. Before Weismann had discovered the true reasons, eminent embryologists, such as Minot, Balfour, and Van Beneden, supposed that the expulsion of both bodies occurred merely to get rid of the male elements of the assumed hermaphrodite female egg-cell. Weismann has demolished this assumption by various objections fatal to it, and by showing that the first expulsion occurs for the above-mentioned purpose of getting rid of the ovogenetic nucleo-plasm, and that, with the second expulsion, as many different kinds of idioplasms, carrying hereditary CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. IS tendencies, are expelled, as are afterwards introduced by the entry of the male, or sperm-nucleus. This second expulsion thus ensures that half of the father's and half of the mother's hereditary tendencies are transmitted to the embryo. But, these halves of each parent's hereditary tendencies are, themselves, infinitely varied, that is : they do not, at successive acts of reproduction, combine the same specific tendencies. The chances are infinity to one against the same specific tendencies coalescing in any two halves of parent cells. Hereditary difference in offspring is thus conclusively explained by the expulsion of polar bodies from sexual eggs. The significance of the one expulsion from parthenogenetic eggs is that the ovogenetic nucleo-plasm only is eliminated. As no modification of plasm takes place in such eggs by interchange as in sexual reproduction, we see why the latter must ensure continuous variation and consequent potential adaptability and vigour of species; and why parthenogenesis must entail the reverse : sameness of offspring and resulting inadaptability and tendency to typical extinction. . This hypothesis has not yet attained the character of mathematical demonstration ; biological science is not yet in the condition to render possible such a result. Never- theless, the theory is essentially different from dogmatic assumption, inasmuch as it is a natural growth from a firm basis of experiment and actual observation of phenomena. It has none of the character of a subjective conclusion, but is a true scientific discovery developed by deduction ^/ from a vast accumulation of ascertained facts. If it were irreconcilable with but one of these facts, it would be at once discarded. The whole of Science has the amplest opportunity of scrutinizing the minutest details of this new revelation, and of detecting any flaw in its armour of truth. So far, although the most eager attempts have been made in this direction by the acutest scientific intellects of the age, Weismann's theory stands firm as the fundamentally 14 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WJLL. [CHAP. I. true explanation of facts, the significance of which had previously eluded the mind of man. ec The ideas developed in the preceding paragraphs lead to remarkable conclusions with regard to the theory of heredity, — conclusions which do not harmonize with the ideas on this subject which have been hitherto received. For if every egg expels half the number of its ancestral germ-plasms during maturation, the germ-cells of the same mother cannot contain the same hereditary tendencies, unless of course we make the supposition that corresponding ancestral germ-plasms are retained by all eggs — a supposi- tion which cannot be sustained. For when we consider how numerous are the ancestral germ-plasms which must be contained in each nucleus, and further how improbable it is that they are arranged in precisely the same manner in all germ-cells, and finally how incredible it is that the nuclear thread should always be divided in exactly the same place to form corresponding loops or rods, — we are driven to the conclusion that it is quite impossible for the ' reducing division'" (division of the nuclear rods, so that different ancestral plasms are distributed to each product of division. The reverse process is called "equal division." In this the nuclear rods split longitudinally, thus ensuring that similar ancestral plasms go to each product of division) ff of the nucleus to take place in an identical manner in all the germ-cells of a single ovary, so that the same ancestral germ-plasms would always be removed in the polar bodies. But if one group of ancestral germ- plasms is expelled from one egg, and a different group from another egg, it follows that no two eggs can be exactly alike as regards their contained hereditary tendencies : they must all differ." (Weismann.) A similar reduction, but brought about in a different way, of ancestral germ-plasms, also takes place in the sperm-cell (male cell). There is one important reservation to be observed in assuming this renunciation of the Lamarckian theory. In the earliest unicellular organisms which reproduce them- CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 15 selves by division into two identical halves, the Lamarckian principle would operate. In such organisms, extraneous influences are capable of hereditarily altering the succeeding generation, because, in them, there is no distinction between body-cell and germ-cell : any external influence changes the entire individual, which being nothing but reproductive element, must necessarily transmit the modifi- cation. By this fact, it is possible to satisfactorily account for the primal individual differences which laid the foundation for that infinite system of permutation which began to operate as soon as sexual supplanted asexual reproduction, giving scope for that adaptive energy, which, as explained by Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, accounts for all the species of organisms which exist or have existed under the conditions of sexual reproduction. There can be no adaptation, in the Darwinian sense, among parthenogenetic or asexual organisms which are bound to reproduce only those hereditary differences which existed in the originals of the type. All such species, according to Weismann, are doomed to extinction, because they cannot adapt themselves to new conditions and form new species. The true significance of sexual reproduction is that variability absolutely depends on it : only by it can a species accommodate itself to new conditions of life. u We are thus "driven to the conclusion that the ultimate origin of hereditary individual differences lies in the direct action of external influences upon organism. Hereditary variability cannot, however, arise in this way at every stage of organic development, as biologists have hitherto been inclined to believe. It can only arise in the lowest unicellular organ- isms; and when once individual differences had been attained by these, it necessarily passed over into the higher organisms when they first appeared. Sexual reproduction coming into existence at the same time, the hereditary differences were increased and multiplied, and arranged in ever-changing combinations." (Weismann.) Applying this 16 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I. theory to man, we can readily account for all the resem- blances, differences, reversions to ancestral characteristics in different individuals of the same family, and explain why no individual is an exact copy of another. The male and female idio-plasms are combined in each act of reproduction, vary in intensity at different times, and each plasm contains the hereditary qualities of numerous antecedent plasms, each of which was, itself, similarly conditioned. The number of generations which the specific hereditary tendencies of the first generation can influence is not exactly determined. Weismann states that certainly more than six are so affected. "When we remember that, in the tenth generation, a single germ contains 1024 different germ-plasms, with their inherent hereditary tendencies, it is quite clear that continued sexual reproduction can never lead to the re- appearance of exactly the same combination, but that new ones must always arise. ... In one child the characters of the father may predominate, in another those of the mother, in another, again, those of either the grand-parent or great-grand-parent. . . . We are thus led to the con- clusion that even in a few sexually produced generations a large number of well-marked individuals must arise ; and this would even be true of generations springing from our hypothetical species, assumed to be without ancestors, and characterized by few individual differences. But, of course, organisms which reproduce themselves sexually are never without ancestors, and if these latter were also propagated by the sexual method, it follows that each generation of every sexual species is in the stage which we have previously assumed for the tenth or some much later generation of the hypothetical species. In other words, each individual contains a maximum of hereditary tendencies and an infinite variety of possible individual characters. In this manner we can explain the origin of hereditary individual variability as it is known in man and the higher CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 17 animals, and as it is required for the theory which explains the transformation of species by means of natural selection." (Weismann.) It will be seen that this theory rejects any possibility that the transitory effects of an individual's life should modify his descendants, who can only be influenced through the parent, by those ancestral tendencies inherited by the parent which, again, in the children, may assume new forms of outward manifestation. Thus, the constitutionally pre- disposed drunkard does not transmit to his posterity a specific tendency to become drunkards. What he does transmit is an innate nervous idiosyncrasy which, in his case, has eventuated in the special vice, but which may, in his descendants, display itself in any one of a great number of unsound predispositions. The drunken father may have an imbecile, gouty or phthisical son, who, nevertheless, may be entirely free from his father's peculiar tendency. As each person contains a vast number of hereditary tendencies, it will be understood how almost impossible it must be to discover an individual absolutely free from congenital taint. Again, it will be seen that the only way to eliminate unsoundness from humanity, is to base marriage on physical fitness : to apply to it the same scientific principles which we apply to perfecting a breed of brutes. This will probably be impossible as long as society exists, and it is not at all certain that compensating disadvantages would not accrue from any such attempt to remodel humanity. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt as to the advisability of greater discrimination than at present prevails. Strong influence should be exerted to prevent the union of members of families in which pronounced and similar classes of innate degeneration exist. We thus see that all organisms have originated from one such unicellular being as that above referred to. All the different types have been produced by spontaneous varia- tions fixed by the operation of the law of Natural Selection 2 18 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I. and Survival of the Fittest acting through immeasurable periods. This law of Natural Selection was proved by Darwin's phenomenal industry and ability in collecting instances of the effects of spontaneous variation and natural surroundings on organism, and in formulating a scientific theory from his observations. As the theory is found to account satisfactorily for every variation, it is accepted by Science as a fundamental truth, such as Newton's law of Gravitation. Wallace and others have further developed and established Darwin's theory, proving that the dis- coverer himself had underestimated the universality of its operation. As Natural Selection accounts for all the effects previously attributed by Lamarck to use and disuse, or the inheritance of acquired qualities, it only needed Weismann's later verification of " The continuity of the germ-plasm" to give the final blow to the Lamarckian theory which Science has now discarded. Eyes, ears, teeth, nose, brain, nerve, stomach, liver, heart, lungs, kidneys — every difference, however minute, in colour or structure of every animal or vegetable organism — C have been evolved under the law of Natural Selection and ^ < Survival of the Fittest : otherwise the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. " The point I wish especially to urge is this. Before Darwin's work appeared, the great majority of naturalists, and almost without excep- tion the whole literary and scientific world, held firmly to the belief that species were realities, and had not been derived from other species by any process accessible to us ; the different species of crow and of violet were believed to have been always as distinct and separate as they are now, and to have originated by some totally unknown process so far removed from ordinary reproduction that it was usually spoken of as special creation. There was, then, no question of the origin of families, orders, and classes, because the very first step of all, the origin of species, was believed tn CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND PEEE-WILL. 19 be an insoluble problem. But now this is all changed. The whole scientific and literary world, even the whole educated public, accepts, as a matter of common knowledge, the origin of species from other allied species by the ordinary process of natural birth. The idea of special creation or any altogether exceptional mode of production is absolutely extinct ! " (Wallace.) We know what Dogma has to say about death. Now, let us hear Science. According to the latest biological research, the natural tendency of all the higher organisms is to as short individual life as is compatible with the preservation of species. The individual is of no account ; only the type concerns Nature. Assuming that the origin of hereditary disease was injury to the unicellular organisms from which all others sprang, and that such injury, metamorphosed in the later types, by heredity, has become the different forms of hereditary disease which affect organism, we have a clear explanation of the origin of such disease, and incidentally, of one form of death. Neverthe- less, this is not normal death. Apart from artificial con- ditions of existence, disease, hereditary or non-hereditary, is a comparatively trifling cause of death. It is only when natural conditions are modified by artificial arrange- ments, that we find disease an important factor in causing death. Thus, in man and domesticated animals, disease tends to become more and more the arbiter of individual existence. The reason is that these artificial oppose the natural conditions which suffice to preserve the type in its greatest efficiency by eliminating the defective individuals, which perish by more expeditious agencies than disease. Weismann, by incontrovertible evidence and reasoning, shows that natural life, in cases where the animal does not protect its young, is proportionate to the period of repro- ductive energy. Shortly after that ceases the animal dies. This has the force of an axiom: Nature wants normal individual life as short as possible compatibly with typical 2 * 20 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I.. integrity. It will be seen that man, by his efforts to preserve inefficient organism, directly opposes Nature. This crux, sooner or later, will have to be faced by society. It seems the most perplexing and, in some respects, the most important question, now before civilized communities. The more artificial we become, the more .able we are and the more we seem to desire to preserve the "unfit" organism which, again, tends to multiply its own defects in posterity. How will this end ? Nations are composed of individuals ; individual degeneration means national decay and extinction. Are we now helping forward our dissolu- tion by preserving the " unfit " ? Time will answer. Perhaps Nature will evolve a remedy for the physician's- remedies ! Natural death, according to Weismann, originated in the earliest multicellular organisms, when the somatic cells had begun to form the bulk of tissue in the creature. The reasoning by which this is established is too technical and involved to be discussed here, but the reader may safely accept Weisruann's conclusion. " Probably at first the somatic cells were not more numerous than the reproductive cells ; and while this was the case, the phenomenon of death was inconspicuous, for that which died was very small. But as the somatic cells relatively increased, the body became of more importance as compared with the reproductive cells, until death seems to affect the whole individual, as in the higher animals, from which our ideas upon the subject are derived. In reality, however, only one part succumbs to natural death, but it is a part which in size far surpasses that which remains immortal, — the reproductive cells." (Weismann.) As already stated, this death' which is natural to the somatic cells, involves the reproductive cells in accidental death. Just as these latter, in a unicellular organism might bo crushed to death, in spite of their potential immortality, so, in a multicellular being, they die, accidentally, through CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FEEE-WILL. 21 the death of the somatic cells. Weismann thus sums up his theory of Life and Death : — "1. — -Natural death occurs only among multicellular beings ; it is not found among unicellular organisms. The process of encystment in the latter is in no way comparable with death. "2. — Natural death first appears among the lowest Heteroplastid Metazoa, in the limitation of all the cells collectively to one generation, and of the somatic or body- cells proper to a restricted period ; the somatic cells after- wards in the higher Metazoa came to last several and even many generations, and life was lengthened to a corresponding degree. " 3. — This limitation went hand in hand with a differ- entiation of the cells of the organism into reproductive and somatic cells, in accordance with the principle of division of labour. This differentiation took place by the operation of natural selection. * 4. — The fundamental biogenetic law applies only to multicellular beings ; it does not apply to unicellular forms of life. This depends on the one hand upon the mode of reproduction by fission which obtains among the Mono- plastides (unicellular organisms), and on the other upon the necessity, induced by sexual reproduction, for the mainten- ance of a unicellular stage in the development of the Polyplastides (multicellular organisms). " 5. — Death itself, and the longer or shorter duration of life, both depend entirely on adaptation. Death is not an essential attribute of living matter ; it is neither necessarily associated with reproduction nor a necessary consequence of it. " In conclusion, I should wish to call attention to an idea which is rather implied than expressed in this essay : — it is, that reproduction did not make its appearance coincidently with death. Reproduction is in truth an essential attribute of living matter, just as is the growth which gives rise to it. 22 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. [CHAP. I- It is as impossible to imagine life enduring without repro- duction as it would be to conceive life lasting without the capacity for absorption of food and without the power of metabolism. Life is continuous, and not periodically inter- rupted : ever since its first appearance on earth, in the lowest organisms, it has continued without break \ the forms in which it is manifested have alone undergone change- Every individual alive to-day — even the very highest — is to be derived in an unbroken line from the first and lowest forms." (Weismann.) The importance of these verifications cannot be over- estimated. They upset all our preconceived sociological ideas, and reach the root of metaphysical doctrines of the highest moment to mankind. Much of Mr. Herbert Spencer's teaching is based on the assumption that acquired qualities are transmissible. He supposes that a nation may be "modified en masse by transmission of the effects " of its institutions and customs^ But, all such reasoning has now its foundations knocked away by Weismann, who has examined, in detail, the instances previously supposed to illustrate such transmission,. and has clearly shown that they are quite explicable by the effects of natural selection. Darwin, also, was under the- influence of the old illusion. He did not foresee its demoli- tion, to the consequent great advancement of his own theory. " I, for one, frankly admit that I was in this respect under the influence of Darwin for a long time, and that only by approaching the subject from an entirely different direction was I led to doubt the transmission of acquired characters. In the course of further investiga- tions I gradually gained a more decided conviction that such transmission has no existence in fact . . . But if the transmission of acquired characters is truly impossible, our theory of evolution must undergo material changes. We must completely abandon the Lamarckian principle, while the principle of, Darwin and Wallace — viz. natural CHAP. I.J AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 23 selection, will gain an immensely increased importance." (Weismann.)* * Since the above was written, the second volume of Professor Weismann's translated lectures has appeared. I might have expunged the account given above of the professor's earlier conclusions and substituted the results made public in the latest lecture, dated September 12th, 1891, and entitled '•Amphimixis, or the Essential Meaning of Conjugation and Sexual Reproduction." However, I prefer to retain the first account, for reasons stated by the professor, who, in referring to his later discoveries, remarks : " The fourth and last essay is not only the longest, but the one to which I attach the chief importance, because my views as to the essential meaning of so-called sexual reproduction, and the allied process of conjugation in unicellular organisms reach their final form in it, having been reconstructed on the basis of various new discoveries. I believe that I have solved, at any rate as regards the main points, the problem of the enigmatical double extrusion of polar bodies from the animal egg, and have explained why only a single division of the nuclear substance does not take place. I hope, furthermore, that I have thus confirmed my views upon the general significance of so-called sexual reproduction — as a means of producing hereditary individual variations, and for arranging these variations in ever fresh combinations. My hypotheses have been at times severely handled" (by Weismann himself) " when shown to be incorrect by the discovery of new facts, — even when these latter were themselves founded on my views My explanation of the formation of polar bodies by the egg was at first wrong, then only partially right, and claims to be correct only in the concluding essay. Let who will reproach me, I am not ashamed of this error ; on the contrary, I regard it with a certain satisfaction, for I believe it pointed the path to truth. I have left it unchanged in the essays of the first volume, not only for this reason, but chiefly because it is, I think, of great interest to trace the development of a scientific truth. Hypotheses, even when not absolutely right, may be of value in advancing our knowledge, if only they are relatively right, i.e. when they correspond with the state of existing knowledge. They are like the feelers which the short-sighted snail stretches forth on its darkened path, testing this way and that, and withdrawing them and altering its route as soon as they come across any obstacle ; just as an unyielding fact may show that we are on a wrong road. Eome was not built in a day, and no scientific truth is at once revealed without a prolonged previous history made up of mingled truth and error. The last word has not yet been spoken on the subject dealt with in these essays ; but if we remember the complete obscurity which, only ten years ago, surrounded everything which is now clearly revealed in the final essay, we shall not be able to refrain from an inward feeling of satisfaction." (Weismann.) If we contrast the above with Dogma's " inspired " protestations, we may readily perceive why the modest methods of Science are destined to dominate 24 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I. One of the first convictions likely to strike us after a careful survey of the theory and its verification, is that efforts to remodel humanity by means of education, and the various devices of would-be reformers, must fail to achieve their purpose. We may as well try to stay the tide with a mop, as expect, by artificial measures, to anticipate Nature. All our board-schools and moralizing experiments have not extirpated a single innate character- istic from a single human being. The most that may be reasonably conceded for such methods is that they may, when natural susceptibility to their influence exists, induce the individual to try to conceal his defects. Yet such effect will rarely prevail against counteracting circum- stances. Then, the latent potentiality will assert itself. What may be called hothouse virtue may be cultivated. the mind of humanity and supersede the pretentious charlatanry of so-called revelation. In the later lectures, Weismann has further established his position against the Lamarckian doctrine of inheritance of acquired qualities. This may now be considered as outside the range of practical science : it is a dead theory. What Weismann has now modified is his earlier explanation of the two polar expulsions from sexual, and the one expulsion from parthenogenetic, eggs. It is now proved that no expulsion of " ovo -genetic nucleoplasm " takes place from sexual eggs, but, that the two extrusions, as well as the one extrusion from asexual eggs, are of germ-plasm. The significance of the two separate expulsions in sexual eggs is to secure the greatest possible diversity in the plasms carrying hereditary tendencies. Weismann has also further advanced his position against the older-fashioned theory of a "male- principle" and a "female-principle." No such things exist. Fertiliza- tion is not dependent on the entry of a " male-principle " into a " female-principle." One nucleus enters another, but not in relation to reproduction, as cause, merely as a secondary adaptation ensuring varia- bility. " I maintained that the nucleus of an ovum " (so-called female- principle) " might be fertilized as fully by the nucleus of another ovum — i.e. might be rendered equally capable of development — as the nucleus of a spermatozoon" (so-called male-principle). "The passage in which I advocated this view runs as follows : — ' If it were possible to introduce the female pronucleus of an egg into another egg of the same species, immediately after the transformation of the nucleus of the latter into the female pronucleus, it is very probable that the two nuclei would conjugate just as if a fertilizing sperm-nucleus ' (male-principle) * had penetrated. If £HAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 25 The question is whether it is worth the trouble and expense of cultivation, and whether far-reaching and unexpected results of a grave character may not be the penalty for trying to forestall Nature. It is the merest truism to state that Nature has not intended men to be equal, intellectually, physically, or morally. What we call good and evil, morality and immo- rality, physical and mental strength and weakness, are factors of variability on which evolution depends. They are merely outward manifestations of variability in bodily tissue. If all men were " good," there could be no evolution, in the only sense which experience and reason tell us to apply to the term. Nature's procedure would need entire reversal before what we call " evil " could be extirpated from humanity. That Nature wants men unequal is demonstrated to this were so, the direct proof that egg-nucleus ' (female) ' and sperm- nucleus ' (male) ' are identical would be furnished.' Boveri succeeded in accomplishing this a few years later, although he made use of the nuclei of two spermatozoa" (male) " instead of those of the ova" (female). (Weismann.) Another earlier contention is now thus modified by Weismann : — " We can safely affirm that in parthenogenesis individual variation exists, which, as in bisexual reproduction, has its foundation in the composition of the germ-plasm itself, and thus depends on heredity, and is itself inheritable. I thus erred in former times, in believing that purely parthenogenetic species entirely lacked the capability of transformation by means of selection ; they do possess this power to a certain extent. I was, however, right upon the main point : for their capability of transformation must be much smaller than in bisexual species, as is evident from the observations described above as well as from theoretical considerations. The latter indicate that, in the course of generations, the constitution of the germ-plasm must ever become simpler ; while the observations confirm this suggestion, inasmuch as they prove that a remarkable similarity exists between the descendants throughout numerous generations." (Weismann.) The main fact that concerns the public is that the demolition of the Lamarckian doctrine is now complete. Nothing outside the germ-cell can be transmitted hereditarily, and no extraneous influence during the life of the creature can hereditarily affect the germ-cell. An apparent contradiction to this is the well-known transmission, from parent to child, of a certain disease : syphilis. This is merely the effect of direct infection of the germ- cell through the ovary. It is not true hereditary transmission. (H. C. H.) 26 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. [CHAP. I. common apprehension by the fact that no two human organisms are absolutely alike ; every such organism differing very materially from every fellow- organism. As every brute differs from every other brute of the same species, so every man differs from every other man, in organs, members, bones, muscles. "The variability of every part of man's structure is very great, and many of these variations tend to approximate towards the structure of other animals. The courses of the arteries are eminently variable, so that for surgical purposes it has been neces- sary to determine the probable proportion of each variation. The muscles are so variable that in fifty cases the muscles of the foot were found to be not strictly alike in any two, and in some the deviations were considerable ; while in thirty-six subjects, Mr. J. Wood observed no fewer than 558 muscular variations. The same author states that in a single male subject there were no fewer than seven muscular variations, all of which plainly represented muscles proper to various kinds of apes. The muscles of the hands aud arms — parts which are so eminently characteristic of man — are extremely liable to vary, so as to resemble the. corresponding muscles of the lower animals." (Wallace.) Science shows that such variability is universal through- out the types of organism. In many instances, it indicates reversion to an anterior stage of evolution. " It is quite incredible that a man should, through mere accident, abnormally resemble certain apes in no less than seven of his muscles if there had been no genetic connection between them. On the other hand, if man is descended from some ape-like creature, no valid reason can be assigned why certain muscles should not suddenly reappear after an interval of many thousand generations, in the same manner as, with horses, asses, and mules, dark-coloured stripes suddenly reappear on the legs and shoulders, after an interval of hundreds, or more probably of thousands of generations." (Darwin, u Descent of Man.") CHAP. I.J AGAINST .DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 27 Society is directly opposing Nature, inasmuch as it is trying to render men equal. No doubt, in the end, Nature will convince society that "the game is not worth the candle." Already, ominous rumblings presage a quake which may rend civilization. It seems as though the fires under the artificiality of mankind were being fanned preparatory to a new social upheaval. Neither nations nor individuals make their own destinies. Both struggle blindly, achieving what they did not foresee, and often reaping disaster from imagined triumph. A term used in mechanics — unstable equilibrium, will express the present condition of society. This " unstable equilibrium " implies that the balance of forces is so nicely adjusted that the least further interference will precipitate a catastrophe inducing radi- cally new conditions. The reason why society is now in this state of " unstable equilibrium " is that men have yet to realize that they cannot be educated equal. At present they are acting on the assumption that equal education is only needed to render Handicraft the equal of Intellect. Handicraft is trying to oust Intellect from the position hitherto assigned to it by the artifice of society. About that position, Nature does not care one jot. It is nothing to her that men estimate the value of a judge at £4000 per annum, and of a navvy at as many sixpences. But Nature will have men navvies as well as judges. If the navvies render themselves the social equals of the judges, they will change the " unstable equilibrium M into a catastrophe ; a new social fabric will be evolved. How long it will exist will be until circumstances convince society that Nature continues to evolve men unequal — intellectually, physically, and morally. This conviction will be forced down the throat of society, in rapidly increasing doses, from the first moment of the new experiment. From that moment society will require judges and navvies, as heretofore. If it pays the same price for the former as for the latter, circumstances will soon impress on society that judges at the price of 28 AGAINST DOGMA AND PEEE-WILL. [CHAP. I. navvies are a bad bargain. From that moment, society will begin to reconcile itself to the fact that Nature will have men unequal. It is now too late to tell enthusiasts "with a mission" that they had better look before they leap. They are already well over the brink, and apparently will drag society after them. The mischief is that society will bump more heavily than they ! We must acknowledge that all our philanthropy can have no particle of influence on the type. All it affects is the individual. His potentialities it may help to develop ; but it can neither increase nor diminish them. For each individual, at birth, all the social influences must start afresh their work. The young creature must learn them ; he won't inherit them. Whether his father be a judge or a navvy will, apart from surroundings, have no particle of effect on the future man. The perfection of social arrange- ment would be that which afforded the greatest possible scope for individual potentiality to benefit society, while not opposing Nature in her determination to have men unequal. The higher mathematics, taught in Board-schools, may enable us, now and again, to turn the son of a navvy into a wrangler. In the meantime, we have probably spoiled a few score potentially effective navvies. We can dispense with all the graduates in England better than with half the navvies. If the exigencies of society would permit men to act on the assumption that a navvy is intrinsically as valuable a commodity as a judge, there would be no danger in giving the education of a graduate to the son of a navvy. As, however, though navvies are as essential to its well-being as are judges, society is compelled to treat one of the latter as worth, say, two score of the former, society cannot afford to turn navvies' sons into graduates. Some may think this a cruel dispensation for the navvy. It is no such thing. To the individual, the best that life affords is happiness. There is no reason why the navvy should not have as much of it as the judge. The probability is that he will have more of it CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FEEE-WILL. 29' than the graduate. By turning a navvy's son into a graduate, we rob him of some chances of happiness. It would be an instructive comment on the vanity of human aspiration if one could dissect the minds of, say, five hundred graduates, and the same number of navvies taken haphazard from their respective spheres. Then we should be able to fairly estimate who gets the better bargain by his dispensation — the graduate or the navvy. There is much virtue in the old adage that silk purses cannot be made of sows' ears. How many graduates have discovered, too late, that they are " sows' ears " ? For how many is life an ignoble struggle in well-polished broadcloth ? Truly, education, like most other good things, may be loved to excess. As a servant, it is the best friend to humanity. As an idol, it may topple over and crush a nation ! Let us educate every child in the land ; but, let us so educate as not to oppose Nature's decree that men are unequal intellectually, physically and morally. Moreover, let us realize that society's artifice cannot affect the fundamentals at the root of each indi- vidual's existence. A man may develop his potentialities as effectually in the calling of a navvy as in that of a judge, and outside man's little social sphere, the one calling is as well remunerated as the other. Nature's wage to the navvy equals that to the judge, to the duke, to the monarch ! What applies to judges and navvies, applies throughout the whole range of avocation. Though the one is intrinsically no more valuable than the other, society cannot avoid re- munerating on a higher scale brain than muscle. If educa- tion tends to destroy the due balance between the brain and the muscle-power of a community, that education is sapping the social foundation. We judge mankind by the standards : " good " and " evil," and we hold men personally answerable for possess- ing the latter attribute. Now, what is " evil," as applied to man's moral nature ? Dr. Matheson, recently referring to the words : " Them 30 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I. that had gotten the victory over the beast and over his mark and over the number of his name/' in a text from Revelations, asked, What really was the number of the beast ? He observed : ' ' Many commentators have written page after page to elucidate this matter. I have hardly read one of them, but I will tell you the number of the beast. The name of the beast is Selfishness, and his number is Number One" ! It may be conceded that selfishness is tantamount to what we call moral evil. Let us see how far man is responsible for his selfishness, and how able he is to get rid of it. \/ We know that the law of Nature is change. Nature (by which, as already stated, we mean the method of Creative Energy) is continually groping to evolve fresh types. Selfishness is the greatest factor in superficially changing humanity ; therefore, we may reasonably consider it impor- tant in Nature's scheme. If men were absolutely unselfish, otherwise ideally " good," it is evident that social evolution could not progress on its present lines : the order of things would be practically reversed. The aim of most religious and socialistic schemes is to eliminate selfishness, otherwise, to fight against natural law. But, Science tells us, that inasmuch as man's devices can only touch the crust of humanity, and the kernel must be reached before Nature's enactment can be affected, such a struggle must be futile. For man to be habitually M good," Nature must repeal her own edict. She is in no hurry and abhors short cuts. She frittered away unnum- bered ages in giving a stomach and mortality to a bit of potentially immortal protoplasm, and we have every reason to suppose she has similarly procrastinated in all her later ploits. Now, ponder this stupendously significant fact: Nature, with all her inconceivable versatility displayed through inconceivable time, has been constant once, and once only. She has never dispensed with the instinct of -elf-preservation, otherwise selfishness. This, age after -CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 31 age, she has placed in the germ-cell of every organized type ; this, she must take away from the human cell before man becomes innately unselfish, otherwise, ideally ' ' good." We hear of numerous cases in which Nature is supposed to have so departed from her great precedent. We are told of absolutely unselfish men. For the moment, let us assume the existence of such. Can we infer from this that Nature is really busy evolving the first innately unselfish type ; or, are these " good " men merely sporadic devia- tions destined to initiate no new preponderating variation ? Unless, within measurable time, mankind have shown an appreciable advance towards altruism, we are bound to the latter conclusion. We should remember, in forming our estimate, the tremendous weight of precedent against the change, and we should allow for the sources of error arising from a complex civilization. We see civilized man under a veil of artificiality, his elemental character in the aggregate rarely even momentarily displayed. However, the question of life or death sometimes lifts the veil. When an angry, panic-stricken mob trample one another to death, civilized man displays his basilar character and, it must be con- fessed, leaves no reason for attributing greater elemental brutishness to the primitive than to the refined stock. So far, we have assumed the existence of ideal "good," otherwise pure unselfishness. The question now arises : are we justified in doing so ? Are we not assuming too much ? Is not selfishness, after all, the sole, absolute, predestined incentive of humanity ? Is not every a saint " an example of selfishness ? Let us think. He is " good." Why ? Because a divine message impels him. Does this message promise him a reward ? It does. And he hopes to win it ? He does. Now ponder ; it is a big issue. We will assume, for argument's sake, that another message convinces this " saint " that " good " is the way to eternal pain ; " evil " to eternal bliss. Remember, he has no scintilla of doubt. Will he hold to "good"? No! Or human nature J 32 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. I. is not his. His u goodness " is refined selfishness, nothing- more. " Good" is ace of trumps — all hail "good"! It is a common deuce — away with it ! Analyzing in this way all the different forms of " good- ness" — the pietist's, the philanthropist's, the moralist's — we find that the ultimate object of each is to serve Self: the identical person whom the burglar, the forger, and the murderer are so anxious to conciliate ! Science, moreover, tells us that it solely depends on a man's mental idiosyncrasy and circumstances whether he is to energize in one of the former or latter capacities — whether his life-drama is to be acted on the right or wrong side of the moral equator. But, how perplexing is the fact that almost every country and age has its own specially constructed moral equator ! England has a different one from that of France ; one part of the United States from that of another; what is "bad" to-day in England was "good" a century ago. We may safely assert that a moral equator for the world will be an accomplished fact at the Greek Kalends, not before. Why? Because " good " and " evil " are merely unstable concep- tions born of the ever-varying physical peculiarities and circumstances of humanity : they are the idealized expe- diency and inexpediency of their time and country. Nevertheless, if there is no universal moral equator, there is an effective substitute : one rough test which suffices to decide the point for the world. This test is the voice of the " haves." The " man in possession " is the despot whose verdict is final. From the moment he first asserted himself he has " ruled the roast," and rule it he will as long as the present dispensation lasts. Long before councils fulminated, long even before a decalogue became a factor in man's affairs, communities had their fashionable " good " and "evil." Such "good," broadly defined, was the interest of the " haves "; such "evil," the unholy desire of the "have-nots." From that CHAP. I.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 33 initial impulse along the path of selfishness man has never once swerved. Regenerators have come and gone ; philosophy has reasoned; emotion has appealed; man remains what he always was : an innately selfish animal. Should not the "good" man, as he contemplates his sane, far-sighted, warranted-to-wear selfishness, pity, rather than anathematize the weak-minded villain with his wishy- washy imitation ? Think, oh ' c good " man, with what " fitness " Nature has endowed you ! Ponder your acumen and the obtuseness of the "villain!" He, petty jobber, grasps at a puny present — you, at a beatified eternity ! We are prudent in conforming to this " good." Ex- perience proves that merely shamming it tends materially to our worldly welfare ; emotion tells us that the genuine article will do us a splendid service hereafter. Never- theless, it is nothing but specialized selfishness. The "good" man is selfish as the "bad"; the root-motive of both is the same. Then why is one exalted, the other crushed ? Because Nature, apparently, is inconsistent. She has decided that what may be called elaborated selfishness shall prevail, yet continues to evolve creatures adapted only to primitive. When any of these are powerless to conceal their " unfitness " — when they cannot sham adaptability — the " fit " majority hound them down : Nature's inconsistency is visited on the creature. Such an "unfit" creature is Fenton (the character previously referred to in the writer's drama). In con- templating this individuality, we cannot grasp its true significance unless we look at it from the biologist's standpoint. Merely to measure by conventional moral standards will lead us away from sound conclusions, because such standards are based on the false assumption that mental is less real than physical innateness. From the eminence to which science has now climbed we can detect — as we shall clearly show — this fallacy. We now understand that the obnoxious qualities displayed by a " villain " are 3 34 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. II. as much the necessary consequence of peculiar organism as are the opposite characteristics of a Manning or Spurgeon, or, as is consumption, of the phthisical diathesis. We may mask, but we cannot destroy the " unfit " predisposition. Medical science may palliate the potential phthisis; beneficent environment may similarly affect the potential moral " evil M ; yet, the potentiality, in either case, is only scotched, not killed. Science, which has only truth for her goal, is more chary of condemnation than the professed Christian ; more niggardly in commendation than the pronounced cynic. She is neither hero-worshipper nor executioner. She sees man the creature of his conformation : by his own volition merely able to hide or display what is fixed in him by a higher volition than his : the decree of that Power behind the universe. What Science sees to-day, mankind see to-morrow. CHAPTER II. If this position is established — and no unprejudiced inquirer who, by the aid of recent scientific research has fearlessly sought truth, can longer doubt such establishment — the doctrine that man is a free agent collapses. It must die like many other delusions which the emotional faculty has called into existence. Heart-burnings and tears notwith- standing, fallacy must perish. Noxious as she may at present appear to many noble minds, Truth must prevail. Some will hold to the end their precious legacy of delusion; some will profess to hold it when they have lost it ; some will cast it away eagerly. Each will act consistently as the creature of his environment and conformation. Whether the death be gradual or sudden, nobody can now reasonably deny that the receptivity which admits, or the scepticism CHAP. II.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 35 which rejects, the old doctrine, can only exist by virtue of a special physical organization. " Free-will " cannot induce us, in opposition to our intellect, to believe in il Free-will." Whether we accept or reject depends purely on ratiocination. We may acquiesce in what affronts our reason; we can only believe what satisfies it. Credulity which concurs in what it does not comprehend is outside the area which concerns creatures endowed with reflective capacity. Until lately such credulity induced men to accept as fact a particular theory they could not comprehend. Men cannot longer, as reasoning beings, make this glib concession to emotion. If we know the conditions under which steam acts on the engine, though we are ignorant as to the force behind those conditions, we are able to determine what is possible to the engine. Similarly, if the physical conditions under which the mind works have been ascertained, we have got so far towards the identification of the ego as to show what limits human freedom. We can now determine what is possible to mind, because we know the conditions under which force, otherwise nerve-current, acts on the brain. We know that consciousness, the assumed measure of responsibility, is merely a manifestation of cerebral nerve-action occurring after other nerve-actions have collectively affected the brain; that nerve -currents arouse to action certain fibres and cells in the brain, and that consciousness of this action is only possible to the individual after the action has begun. The individual thus responds to certain influences affecting special brain areas, much as the Eolian harp responds to the wind : in other words, he has begun to - €HAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 53 sophers of the eighteenth century were disinclined to see in it anything more than an artificial production, based on a primitive contract. Before their time, Pascal had advanced this theory in a famous passage, where he himself did but express a thought previously uttered by Montaigne : ' They do but trifle when, in order to give certitude to laws, they say that some of them are stable, perpetual, and immovable, which they call natural laws.' This scepticism has been opposed only by denunciation and denial, based on vague proofs. Perhaps if its opponents had accepted the evolution of moral ideas they would have found a better answer, because that analysis, penetrating to the very basis of morality, shows its nature and its stability. We might say that morality is natural, as is proved by the fact that it is an absolute condition of man's existence, and might establish our position thus : Man, considered as an intelligent being, can only live in a society; this is proved by the most positive facts. In a state of isolation man is without a mind. On the other hand, society, even in its simplest form, can only exist on certain definite conditions. Suppose a society whose members hold it to be right, or else simply indifferent, to murder and pillage one another; where parents abandon their children and children maltreat their parents, it is quite clear that such a society cannot subsist ; it will perish by a vice inherent in its very con- stitution. As well might we say that an acephalous or hydrocephalus monster can live and breed, which would be a physiological absurdity. It is inevitable that every monster and every organism outside of the normal con- ditions of existence shall perish ; and this is true also of the body social. But morality reduced to its essentials, that is, to those laws which excite Montaigne's merriment, consists in those essential conditions without which man disappears. Thus, to sum up, without morality no society, and without society no human race. Therefore we have h ere no convention, and we may say that it is immutable, 54 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. [CHAP. III. necessary, imperative ; not employing these terms in the vague transcendental and incomprehensible sense usually given to them, but in a precise, positive, and unambiguous sense ; for they signify that morality is as stable as nature, and its necessity is that of logic." (Ribot.) The gist of the above is that morality is an arrangement invented by man to enable him to live in community in conformity with the drift of evolution, which drift, again, has impelled man to invent the arrangement. In its funda- mentals, this morality is simply the constant groove of sensibility implanted in humanity, which we call common- sense. To this extent it is natural, just as eating is natural. We only begin to import error into our reasoning when we try to make morality supernatural and invent supernatural penalties for its transgression. The morality which bases its pretensions on being a standard of conduct suited to the collective physical idiosyncrasy of a com- munity is not a mere convention. The morality which pretends to be a supernatural revelation ratified and maintained by supernatural decrees and penalties is, most emphatically, a convention, pure and simple — and more- over a most preposterous one. Of course, there could be, no more, communities of men without standards of conduct preventing them from pillaging and murdering one another, than there could be communities of wolves without standards of conduct preventing them from killing and eating one another. Yet there is no more of the supernatural about the man's than about the wolf's standard of behaviour ; both are merely the effects of evolution on the respective types, one of which has evolved a very elaborate, while the other retains a primitive standard of behaviour. But while our morality, understood as expediency, is not conventional, our conceptions of " good " and "evil " must always remain conventional, unless we merely attach to them the signification of being the qualities which oppose or support our expediency. In this limited sense they are CHAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 55 not conventional; but, then, this is not the sense in which Dogma tells mankind to realize them. If this morality had the faintest claim to the character of a supernatural institution, how came it, among its ostensibly supernaturally appointed exponents, to strut about in this frowsy fashion ? " Some of the popes led scandalous lives, and the clergy who did abstain from marriage, kept concubines, sometimes in large numbers. A Spanish abbot was discovered in the year 1130 to have seventy concubines, and a Bishop of Liege in 1274 was deposed for having sixty-five illegitimate children. Enact- ments had to be passed forbidding priests to live with their mothers and sisters, because of the prevalence of incest among them ; nunneries and monasteries were hotbeds of debauchery; and congregations who had an unmarried priest to minister to them stipulated in some cases, with a view to the protection of their wives and daughters, that be should keep a concubine." (Lea's "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy," quoted by Nisbet.) "In a similar spirit it was decreed by a council that no priest should be allowed to go out at night without a candle." (Nisbet, " Marriage and Heredity.") One of the main causes of this state of affairs was that those supernaturally " inspired " Church fathers, to whose authority we are commanded by sacerdotalism to subject nineteenth-century reason, had ordained that marriage was a bestial institution meriting the strongest condemnation of Mother Church. Now, Mother Church designates it a solemn contract with Heaven, never to be cancelled on earth ! To show the amazing changes which men's minds have undergone with respect to one of the most important " moral " expedients, we will cite a further extract from Mr. Nisbet's book. u For many centuries after Christ, marriage was regarded as a purely civil contract. It was bitterly assailed in that form by the fathers of the Church, and there was a particularly nauseous element in the reforming zeal of 56 AGAINST DOGMA AND FEEE-WILL. [CHAP. III. these holy men. Chastity was preached, not because it was a good thing in itself, but because man's fall and the necessity for his redemption were traced to an indiscretion in the Garden of Eden. The polluting influence of passion was not thought to be redeemed by marriage. All inter- course between the sexes was discountenanced. It was taught that to have children under any circumstances was a sin, as it only supplied food for death, and that woman was an instrument of Satan .... St. Jerome in the fourth century, while treating simple marriage as evil and vicious in itself, reserved the worst vials of his wrath for what was called digamy M (second marriage). "Decrees were made forbidding married women to approach the altar or to touch the Eucharist, and it was even declared to be doubtful whether married persons cohabiting with each other could be saved. St. Chrysostom, in the fifth century, boldly averred that if man had not sinned the world would have been peopled by other means. All married persons were exhorted to pray for grace to keep themselves undenled, and wives were commended for declining the embraces of their husbands." (Nisbet.) Now, we all know what views are prevalent to-day on the subjects of marriage and chastity. But assuming that this morality really is a supernaturally ordained institution, how are we to know who are the correct exponents of Heaven's decree — the Church fathers who condemned marriage, and the popes and bishops who practised liber- tinage as a substitute, or the u purists M of to-day ? On the one hand we are told to accept the dicta of these " inspired " fathers with respect to what we must believe and not believe, and we are informed that these amorous popes and bishops were the supernaturally appointed expounders and exemplifiers of the doctrines of Christianity and its concomitant " morality M ; on the other hand we have modern sticklers for chastity furiously opposing the lessons inculcated by these sanctified churchmen. Who £BAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FEEE-WILL. 57 are they to whom has been revealed this real supernatural " morality " of sexual intercourse ? As this particular " morality " is one of the most important in the whole range of ethical so-called revelation, we think it a good test-case to be worked up by the advocates of the " supernatural " thesis. Let them show how it is that a supernatural " morality," as exemplified by super naturally appointed guardians and exponents, becomes, at certain periods, what we should now stigmatize as a disgrace to humanity. To assert that not the morality, but the instruments of its interpretation, became degraded, is merely to assert that this supernatural " morality " is dependent on the fluctuating tendencies of the creatures it is assumed to dominate. Now, such a " morality " as this is tantamount to an invention of men : it is the merest waste of words to attribute to it any divine character apart from the ordinary products of men's brains. We shall later apply similar reasoning to another supposed human attribute which it has pleased ecclesiasticism to designate as supernatural, viz. " Free-will." We shall try to show that it involves a contradiction in terms to impute super- naturalness to what depends for active manifestation on organic tendency, and is consequently a natural phenomenon. More than this cannot be rationally maintained : that the collective physical idiosyncrasies and experiences of communities have, in each age, enabled men to fashion their own from precedent moralities, and that each individual will, according to his potentiality, conform to the " morality " assigned to him by his surroundings. We are told by Professor Redford (or rather he expresses che idea in the course of a quotation from Luthardt), one of the ablest of the modern champions of dogma, that "this result of history proves that the two, religion and morality, are assigned to each other, that their truth is only found in their union." By "religion" is here meant, of course, •only the religion of Professor Redford. This position 58 AGAINST DOGMA AND FKEE-WILL. [CHAP. III. Mr. Bedford attempts to establish by, among other assumed proofs, the facts of ancient history. The writer denies that Greece of the Philosophic Age was one whit less "moral" than is the England of to-day. Anybody who desires an impartial statement of the facts should read " Paganism and Christianity," by J. A. Farrer. In that work the cobwebs, by which interested partizans have blinded mankind to the true state of the classical age, are brushed away. It is the merest proof of ignorance, or deliberate intention to mislead, to base any argument in support of the "moral" superiority of dogmatic teaching, on the assumed " moral " degeneracy of Athens, Sparta, or Rome. Compare such sayings as these: — "It is eminently humane and a clear sign of a truly generous nature, to bear the affronts of an enemy when you have a fair opportunity to revenge them. For if a man sympathizes with his enemy in his affliction, relieves him in his necessities, and is ready to assist his sons and family if they desire it, anyone that will not love this man for his compassion, and highly prize him for his charity, must have, as Pindar says, a black heart made of adamant and iron." (Plutarch.) " Some one is angry with you. Provoke him in return with kindnesses . . . Some one has struck you. Withdraw . . . A great mind that truly respects itself does not revenge an injury." (Seneca.) " Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans xii. 20.) Which of these sayings manifests the genuine Christian spirit, that which promises the heaping " of coals of fire " on your enemy's head, as an ultimate revenge for your present act of clemency, or any of the others ? Such comparisons made, not only of the sayings, but of the doings of Pagan, with those of professedly Christian mc-ii, clearly show that human nature has not been altered one jot by dogmatic religion. To any reader who wishes to know what the " morality" of Pagan times really was, and CHAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 59 what utterly fallacious hypotheses have been promulgated to its discredit, by unscrupulous, so-called Christian partisans, we strongly commend the perusal of Mr. Farrer's able and impartial work. To return to Professor Red ford : u The conscience of man requires both for its enlightenment and support the ideas and practice of religion. Where there is no kind of worship, no fellowship on any higher ground than social instinct or common earthly pursuit, it is difficult to see how moral sentiment can be maintained. Morality sinks into a calculation of advantages, or into the still lower depth of pride — the worship of our own greatness in isolation from our fellows. " We contend that the moral sentiment is maintained, has been maintained, and will be maintained without the practice of Professor Bedford's religion. We contend that, at the present moment, ninety-nine out of every hundred men are, according to their organic potentialities, practising " morality " without even taking to heart what Professor Bedford's religion means, and without even bestowing on its externals a tithe of the devotion which these men bestow on the everyday concerns of life. Wo contend that a majority of the professors of Mr. Bedford's religion to-day, make it " a common earthly pursuit " ; that they manifest as much soidid ambition in seeking its prizes as men manifest in the ordinary grovelling schemes of life. We contend that (< a calculation of advantages/' and "a still lower depth of pride — the worship of our own greatness," are as characteristic of the sacerdotalism of to-day — and have been of the sacerdotalism of the past — as of any body of men seeking self-aggrandizement in the professedly mercenary avocations. In other words, we contend that a professor of Mr. Bedford's cult is as much the creature of organism as is any other man. " But the great want of the human heart is an object of affection which, while lifting it to the highest thoughts, fills it with the most genuine emotion." If, for " affection w and 60 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. III. "emotion," we read "worship" and "reverence," the writer says " amen " to this ; and because Mr. Redford's cult fails to, but Science does provide him with such an object, he prefers the Inscrutable of Science to the anthro- pomorphic concoction of ecclesiasticism. Mr. Bedford proceeds to some wide generalizations respecting "atheism" which we are not concerned here to controvert. We will, however, enter a mild protest against Mr. Redford's misapplication of the term " atheism." According to Mr. Redford, and of course other champions of his cult, all are " atheistic " who do not hold the peculiar conceptions of " orthodoxy ." Now if the " doxy " which we will assume these gentlemen really to hold, be the only one outside the "atheistic " cult, the term "atheist," although a misnomer, cannot hurt many people, and as it apparently pleases Mr. Redford, he may fling it about to his heart's content. The great mass of men, however loudly they may protest their " orthodoxy," being inwardly convinced that this " doxy " is only a skin-deep affection, will assay at its true value the u atheistic " imputation cast at those who are not too dishonest to reject a skin-deep for a to-the-bone "doxy " ! Moral, like every other sensibility, has its periods of growth and decadence, and its various potentialities of manifestation. Some men are innately less moral than others : that is to say, they have, inherently, less than the average tendency to conform to the recognized expediency. Again, where there is average potentiality for moral sen- sibility, other sensibilities may nullify the former. Thus, the man whom trouble has rendered desperate becomes immoral. Again, as morality depends on sensorial sen- sibility and memorizing power in conjunction with intel- ligence, when these fail, moral sensibility follows step by step. Thus, the very old man loses his moral sensibility; but, as all his other sensibilities or appetites are likewise comparatively inert, the moral degeneration is only apparent in certain directions, which do not violently oppose the CHAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 61 collective expediency. "As a man advances in life, his sensibility becomes gradually lessened — the senses become dull, the sight loses its sharpness, the skin its impression- ability by external agents. A sort of general slackening of all his functions impends over the living creature thus arrived at the retrograde phases of his evolution. This condition of diminution of the peripheral sensibility is reflected in a similar manner upon the sensibility of the central regions. Moral impressionability and emotivity lose their energy as a man grows old. He is less and less interested in external things capable of exciting his mental activity. He is less sensitive, less impressionable, less curious as to knowledge and feeling, and, at the same time, his intellectual faculties are simultaneously impaired. Memories of the past, like phosphoric gleams, persist for a certain time, to the exclusion of more recent remem- brances ; but in the end even they are extinguished, so that the circle of bygone things narrowing by degrees, the individual feeds his sensorium only with the current opera- tions of life. Material life, with all its necessities — eating, drinking and sleeping — becomes, little by little, the favourite occupation of organisms in the period of decadence ; and as to moral sensibility, the old man, an egotist, with few exceptions, is reduced to vegetative life, and becomes once more a child, caring no longer for those who care for him day after day. He forgets his old friends, and the most natural family connections, for the sake of the newest comer, and, succumbing more and more to the interested demands of his personality, he arrives, as regards moral sensibility, at a true anaesthesia, which reflects the lan- guishing condition of the element of his nervous activity." (Luys.) Memory is the manifestation of the power of cerebral cells to store up nervous vibrations and reproduce them, as the collodion-plate reproduces the ethereal vibrations. This cerebral power is a scientifically ascertained fact. " This 62 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. III. carious property, which inorganic substances possess, of: preserving for a longer or shorter period a species of prolongation of the impressions which have first set them in motion, is found ... in the nervous elements. These are gifted with a sort of organic phosphorescence, and are capable of vibrating and storing up external impressions for a certain time in a sort of transient catalepsy, in the vibratory state into which they have been incidentally thrown, and of causing the first impressions to revive after the lapse of time. ... It has been calculated by Platau that this persistence of impressions may be estimated M (in the case of the retina) " at from thirty- two to thirty-five seconds. To this persistence of vibrations, and that special retentive force which the nervous elements possess, is due the fact that two successive and rapid impressions become confounded, and thus give a continuous impression : that a live coal whirled round at the end of a string gives the impression of a circle of fire : that a disc, painted with the colours of the spectrum, when in rotation gives only the sensation of white light, because all its colours are con- founded, and form for us a unique resultant, which is the idea of white." (Luys.) By means of tins cerebral capacity to accumulate and reproduce nervous movement, originally projected from the various peripheral sensibilities, which were themselves excited by the outside world, we learn to identify objects, to judge motives, to compare present with past impressions, to discriminate. According to its efficiency or inefficiency, we shape our conduct. We are absolutely the creatures of this mental apparatus. We cannot increase or diminish its potentiality. It is irrevocably the arbiter of our lives. By this memorizing faculty hereditarily developed through bygone ages, we perform all our automatic, and most of our conscious acts. By it we dream, somnambulate, place our hand in our pocket, twirl our walking-cane, solve complex questions, take momentous resolutions. With the intelligence, CHAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 63 it is the effective sum-total of humanity. Without them man becomes motiveless matter. What we conventionally call volitional acts are merely the outward manifestations of reactions of certain cerebral plexuses on one another, otherwise present experience affected by persistent reminis- cences over which the personality has no control. According to the abundance and integrity of these established channels of reminiscence, the individual is rash, or prudent, virtuous, or vicious. These reminiscent powers of the brain are exercised consciously and unconsciously. To prove the latter, there are abundant instances in medical records. Here are some : A soldier was shot in the head. His sensorium was almost cut off from external impressions. Sometimes he was impelled solelyby automatic reminiscence. A walking stick placed in his hand reminded him of a gun. He placed himself in the position of firing. A pen placed in his hand incited him unconsciously to make the motion of writing. Again : a ropemaker, seized with a fit of somnambulism while twisting a rope, would continue the operatiou when asleep. Again : a woman, formerly a bandage-roller at an hospital, blind, paraplegic and insane, would, while lying on her back, unconscious, proceed to automatically make a rolling motion on having a piece of linen placed in her hand. Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied. They show that, like the collodion- plate, or the phonograph, the cerebral plexuses have the power of retaining and reproducing impressions, and that such reproduction may be quite independent of the conscious personality. Indeed, we need not go to cases of cerebral degeneration to illustrate this automatism. It is manifested in each of us daily. We consciously, say, originate a thought only to abandon it. Soon we find it reappear, strengthened and completed by the automatic action of the reminiscent powers of the brain. As an instance of this class of mental action, we may adduce the common circumstance of ineffectually trying to remember a 64 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. III. name. All we are then conscious of is a vague effort which we continue for a short time, then abandon. " Ego " forgets the matter; brain, however, grips it with bull-dog tenacity, and using its automatic powers to good purpose, soon tells " ego " what he was utterly powerless to grasp by " volitional " effort. " Now it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for this fact upon any other suppo- sition than that a certain train of action has been set going in the cerebrum by the voluntary exertion which we at first made, and that this train continues in movement after our attention has been fixed upon some other object of thought, so that it goes on to the evolution of its result, not only without any continued exertion on our parts, but also without our consciousness of any continued activity. " (Carpenter.) Of course, this "voluntary exertion" to which Dr. Carpenter refers is really an unnecessary distinction. It is, in reality, no more characteristic of human personality than is the automatic exertion. Fundamentally, there is no more "ego" about the one than the other. Both, with other phases of activity, are equally, but nowise unequally, manifestations of that complex mechanism — human individuality. Let us see what "voluntary" means in the present instance. We want to remember this name, and we "volun- tarily " try to do so. But we do not " voluntarily," but " involuntarily," want to remember it. Desire is not an effect of "will." On the contrary, "will" is a consequence of desire, which is an automatic sensibility. Consequently, behind the " voluntary " trying to remember, there is an " involuntary " wanting to remember. Now, let us see whether there is anything behind this " involuntary " wanting to remember. Let us assume that this individual, a new acquaintance, has asked us to dinner. We now find that our "involuntarily" wanting to remember, and our ''voluntarily" trying to remember, are dependent on another CHAP. III.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 65 " involuntary " cerebral action : the anticipation of a dinner. Then this results : even if we grant this " voluntary " character to the action of trying to remember, we find that it is simply one of three sequential effects begun in the u involuntary M phase of mental effort : otherwise, that the ({ voluntary " is merely the issue of the " involuntary." There can, evidently, under these circumstances, be no reason why we should not discard the term " voluntary " as being here superfluous and implicative of fallacy. If we thus trace to their source all our so-called voluntary actions and thoughts, we shall always find that source to be cerebral automatism. Perhaps this will become more apparent when we have further considered the departments of cerebral sensibility. "The conductility and dispersion of sensibility in the sensorium, by means of the nerve-fibres, is so real that, in persons who have suffered amputation, when any irritation attacks the stump and engages the sensitive nerves, it immediately awakes and develops in the sensorium the old impressions in a posthumous form. It is not simply the painful state of the sensitive nerves that the patient feels ; it is the resurrection in the sensorium of a portion of himself, in consequence of the persistence of the conductors which formerly supported it, and in which this sensitive portion of his personality was incarnate." (Muller.) People thus mutilated, refer to sensations in their limbs just as if the latter existed intact. They say that they feel pain, tickling, itching in this or that toe or finger, exactly locating the sensation, which they seem to experience in the missing member. The reason of this is that, in the stump, all the nerves which convey the distinctive sensations of such parts are still effectively working, and the reminiscent automatic faculty still reacts as it did when the members existed. So long as communication with the central organ is preserved, the fact that the original termini are non- existent does not affect the reminiscence which is true to the original sensation. But let the nerve itself be merely 5 66 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. III. divided, then the non-communicating length is entirely devoid of sensibility. The nerve itself is dead to sensation unless in communication with the sensorium. A similar illustration is the operation of replacing a nose destroyed by disease or absent at birth. In such case a triangular piece of skin is cut from the forehead, so as to be attached only at its apex to the root of the nose between the eyebrows. It is then folded over downwards, and sown on to the skin of the face in a proper position. The new nose soon grows on completely, but this remarkable effect ensues — for a short time, until the individual has learnt to properly re-associate the altered locality of the skin, if the nose be irritated, say by pricking, he does not feel the sensation in it, but on the forehead. Hypnotism would seem to depend on the artificial excita- tion of a reminiscence strong enough to overpower ordinary morbid or normal impulses. Hypnotic subjects suffering from various forms of mental derangement, have their morbid impulses controlled and sometimes permanently nullified by the force of suggestion which arouses a pre- ponderant reminiscent impression opposed to the morbid impulse. Whenever the latter is excited, the artificially fixed impression, instead of the immediate impulse, affects the efferent nerves by which " volition" is manifested, consequently dominating the individual's thought and action. The success of hypnotic suggestion depends on the natural impressibility and retentive power of the cerebral areas, and, as this varies, the individual is more or less amenable to the influence. It has been suggested that the hypnotic state is tanta- mount to a reduction of the cerebral faculties to mere automatism ; however, this is only true to the same extent as with regard to normal cerebration, inasmuch as auto- matism is the foundation of all mental action, which, as already shown, depends for manifestation on a struggle between sensorial irritation and reminiscence. As the one UNIVfcRSITY *^h« Granting to Dogma the most absolute right to lop away as many of her specially devised creator-attributes as she likes, let us see whether a further sacrifice will not be needful. We have still the loving and merciful creator, who sends creatures into the world with the possibility that their involuntary entrance may earn them eternal torments. Of course, we know it is only a possibility, and that they may earn an eternity of bliss; nevertheless, this possibility is hard to reconcile with the love and mercy. Ordinary people would suppose that, under the circum- stances, more love and mercy would be shown were no such possibly doomed creatures to exist, even though the eternally-to-be-blessed were also non-existent. But Dogma is not an ordinary person ! No doubt, her native ingenuity will a.gain enable her to wriggle to victory — in her own opinion ! In the meantime, whatever her two conceptions may appear to the inspired brains of Dogma, to those of ordinary mortals they seem mutually destructive, and by advancing them, Dogma seems to be very effectually testifying for her antagonist — Science ! All our sensations are strictly subjective ; the reality 142 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. VII. which we think we perceive is merely what hereditarily developed organism has animalized, or imbued with its own specially conceived attributes. "What we call brightness does not exist outside ourselves. Colour is merely a subjec- tive impression, quite different from reality, which is diversity in extent, form and rapidity of ethereal vibrations. Sound is just as subjective. There is no such thing outside ourselves. If we could see what constitutes to us sound, we should find it a comparatively slow agitation, alternately compressing and dilating particles of air, independently of the inherent intensely rapid motions of such particles among themselves. Our classification of sounds according to pitch, loudness, or quality, is entirely subjective. The objective reality is variable rapidity and direction of aerial motions. "We feel pain from a blow ; yet, the motion of the stick is as different from our sensation as is the ethereal vibration from what we call sound and light. Hence, it is as contrary to reality to apply the customary meaning to light and sound as to call a moving stick pain. This applies also to all unscientific conceptions, even including those of Dogma I We may as well call a moving stick pain as allow the remotest approach to reality to the anthropomorphic notion of Dogma. To anybody who has the faintest inkling of the immensity of the scientifically verified Deity, the conception of Dogma must appear the veriest creation of infantile fatuity. "Many excellent people are crying out every day that all is lost in religion unless we can affirm that God is a person who thinks and loves. "We say, that unless we can verify this, it is impossible to build religion successfully upon it ; and it cannot be verified. Even if it could be shown that there is a low degree of probability for it, we say that it is a grave and fatal error to imagine that religion can be built on what has a low degree of probability. However, we do not think it can be said that there is even a low degree of probability for the assertion that God is a person who thinks CHAP. VII.] AGAINST DOGMA ANJ) FREE-WILL. 143 and loves, properly and naturally though we may make him such in the language of feeling; the assertion deals with what is so utterly beyond us. But we maintain that, starting from what may be verified about God — that he is the Eternal which makes for righteousness — and reading the Bible with this idea to govern us, we have here the elements for a religion more serious, potent, awe-inspiring and profound, than any which the world has yet seen." (Matthew Arnold.) This is the religion which Science is working to establish : a religion satisfactory to reason and experience ; a religion free from quackery ; free from the sensualities of carnal conception ; free from the dictatorship of "expert" pretentiousness; free to the hearts of mankind, unexpounded by sacerdotal ingenuity. Civilization is rapidly realizing that expounders of " ortho- doxy" are superfluous; that religion is not a craft or science which needs a schoolmaster ; that it is not even a vocation which men should adopt for the sake of earning their bread ; but, that it is the birth-right which every man may have for the asking, which every man is qualified to enjoy in his own way, and which, it is best, he should enjoy in his own way. It exists not by virtue of metaphysical definitions, not by virtue of a magnified man-fetish, but through the innate voice which tells humanity there is an inconceivably mighty Cause behind this universe. Let Ecclesiasticism console itself with this certainty : that though it go with Dogma to oblivion, religion will live as long as humanity ! The comparative claims of Ecclesiasticism and Science on the intellectual respect of mankind are forcibly illustrated in the following passage from Dr. Draper's book, " The Conflict between Eeligion and Science." Kemember that Ecclesiasticism, in every past age, has been eager to enforce its conclusions on mankind by the persuasive arguments of fire, axe, and torture. Whether disinclination, or inability, to-day prevents the employment of similar logic, by the militant Christian Church, let the past decide. 144 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. VII. " When Science is thus commanded to surrender her intellectual convictions, may she not ask the ecclesiastic to remember the past ? The contest respecting the figure of the earth, and the location of heaven and hell, ended adversely to him. He affirmed that the earth is an ex- tended plane, and that the sky is a firmament, the floor of heaven, through which, again and again, persons have been seen to ascend. The globular form demonstrated beyond any possibility of contradiction by astronomical facts, and by the voyage of Magellan's ship, he then maintained that it is the central body of the universe, all others being in subordination to ifc, and it the grand object of God's regard. Forced from this position, he next affirmed that it is motionless, the sun and the stars actually revolving, as they apparently do, around it. The invention of the telescope proved that here again he was in error. Then he main- tained that all the motions of the solar system are regulated by providential intervention ; the ' Principia ' of Newton demonstrated that they are due to irresistible law. He then affirmed that the earth and all the celestial bodies were created about six thousand years ago, and that in six days the order of Nature was settled, and plants and animals in their various tribes introduced. Constrained by the accumulating mass of adverse evidence, he enlarged his days into periods of indefinite length — only, however, to find that even this device was inadequate. The six ages, with their six special creations, could no longer be main- tained when it was discovered that species, slowly emerged in one age, reached a culmination in a second, and grad- ually died out in a third. This overlapping from age to age would not only have demanded creations, but re-crea- tions also. He affirmed that there had been a deluge which covered the whole earth above the tops of the highest mountains, and that the waters of this flood were removed by a wind. Correct ideas respecting the dimensions of the atmosphere, and of the sea, and of the operation of evapora- CHAP. VII.] AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. 145 tion, proved how untenable these statements are. Of the progenitors of the human race, he declared that they had come from their Maker's hand perfect, both in body and mind, and had subsequently experienced a fall. He is now considering how best to dispose of the evidence continually accumulating respecting the savage condition of prehistoric man." What institution, other than ecclesiasticism, could have survived a tithe of the above evidence ? Is it possible to adduce more cogent testimony to the entirely human nature of that institution, and to the preposterous vanity of its pretensions 'i I will supplement Dr. Draper's illustrations by one more which has come into prominence since his book was published. The ecclesiastic still asserts that man has a "will" which is " miraculously, supernaturally free." He must now con- sider how best to reconcile his idea with Darwin's verifica- tion respecting the " Origin of Species " ; with Weismann's theories of the origin of Life and " The continuity of the Germ-plasm n ; with Terrier's u Cerebral Localization " ; with the researches of Spencer, Bastian, Luys, Flourens, Huxley, Galton, Bain, Wallace, Eibot, Eomanes, and the whole host of Science busy supplanting the darkness of bigotry by the light of Truth ; busy showing that nothing created is "free " : that, from man to molecule, creation is the creature of Law. In the life-and-death struggle now raging between Sacerdotalism and Science — between Darkness and Light — who can doubt the issue ? Who can doubt which is u fittest to survive n : which, really, conforms to the drift of evolution ? Will the " Time-spirit " now tolerate despotism over con- science, reason, and experience by the system which argued with rack and thumbscrew ; which proved its doctrines by the evidence of "demons" and lunatics, and " infallible " 10 146 AGAINST DOGMA AND FREE-WILL. [CHAP. VII. Decretals (often reversed !) j which, by a man's ability or inability to float in hot water, to hold red-hot iron in his hand, to keep his arms extended like a cross, established his guilt or innocence of the crime of listening to reason ; which, after the verdict of guilty so obtained, condemned the prisoner in this sweet formula : to be punished " as merci- fully as possible, and without the shedding of his blood " (the Holy Church's method of condemning the prisoner to the stake !). To say that Ecclesiasticism would not do such things now, is merely to state it dare not. The principle is active as ever ; only the weapon is changed. In these days, the tools of Ecclesiasticism are excommunication, social ostra- cism, the imputation of " damnable heresy/' insidious appeals to the emotion of ignorance. Ecclesiasticism still exemplifies the unalterable edict of Nature. It is still endowed with the instinct of self-preservation. Like the individual man, it is still selfish. Still, its cry is : Perish Science, perish Truth, that Ecclesiasticism may live ! Though we ecclesiastics do not, ourselves, believe half we profess and preach — as we love our blessed calling too fondly to be honest — we must continue to profess and preach delusions, and what we believe delusions. Still, let us promulgate that precious dogma transmitted to us by the only creatures to whom The Almighty has vouchsafed Light : the popes, monks and fathers of that period of human enlightenment when the earth was "infallibly" decreed flat and the centre of the universe; when empty space was decreed the floor of heaven, the antipodes, the location of hell ! There is nobility in the selfishness which aims at ideal "good," looking for no reward but a Maker's; but, for the selfishness which promulgates, under the guise of divine revelation, what it knows to be the fallible concoction of partisan brains ; for the selfishness which, for the sake of emoluments, social position, sordid self-aggrandizement, is "bred in the bone," will society com- pletely modify the "volition" of its units. This it will achieve, not by what are euphemistically termed culture and moral incentives, and by penalties for the "unfit," but, by a judicious process of selection in respect to the procrea- tion of its units. When it is considered at least as essential to "polite culture" that the pupil should be taught physiology, embryology, and biology as geography, history and arithmetic, and far more necessary than that he or she should be taught to mangle Latin, Greek, or French, or tamper with art ; when every girl and lad can intelligently contemplate the stupendous facts of his or her evolution with a mind divested of the nauseous prudery bred of hypocrisy and ignorance — then, we shall be on the brink of that revolution which shall render men and women sane in " love " and society sound in body. 265 CONCLUSION. Having lately, by the courtesy of some unknown friend, received from America a copy of a high-class magazine called The Monist, in which iC philosophy " is a prominent item, the writer is prompted, before concluding his work, to add a few remarks on a subject to which some attention has already been devoted. In this work we have endeavoured to keep clear of " philosophy." What is not demonstrable to intellectual sensualism we are content to leave for decision to the " mental" idiosyncrasy of the individual, feeling assured that, in defiance of all the " philosophies u the world has produced, the individual will here only accept the decision of his " mental" idiosyncrasy. Those people who profess to weigh-up the universe with the Calculus and their own imaginations; who carry their mathematics about as a draper's assistant does his tape, labour under a great advantage compared with the observ- ing scientist, inasmuch as these mathematical idealists can never demonstrate to one another or anybody else that one or the other of them is right or wrong. A philosopher's lot is not so unhappy as is Mr. Gilbert's policeman's; " nominalists " and u realists " may " nominalize " and " realize " till " nothing but their tails is left " and be none the worse for their efforts ! The wrangling of these schoolmen makes vastly enter- taining reading for people who like the gas-light of intellectual sensualism better than the sky-rockets of " inner-consciousness." The humour inherent to the " parry and thrust " of two such giants of subjectivity as a Carus and a Peirce* almost reconciles us to its futility. The writer's subjectivity drives him after Dr. Carus (although he thinks Mr. Peirce the cleverer conjurer), but then, that is merely because he likes to look through Dr. Carus' * See The Monist, July, 1893, for their controversy. 266 CONCLUSION. spectacles rather than through Mr. Peirce' s (I would recom- mend this gentleman to alter the order of two letters in his name) . The writer, unlike some people, places an objective value on his "likes," consequently, instead of yielding himself to Dr. Cams, he feels a perverse hankering for the man with the cleverer trick, Mr. Peirce, the magician who has fabri- cated a nothingness which is a somethingness ! Such is the effect of "philosophy" on the writer. He cannot trust himself or anybody else when intellectual sensualism is not available to check the conclusion. What offends intellec- tual sensualism, organism compels us to renounce. What goes beyond intellectual sensualism, is decided merely by likes and dislikes, but these, unlike scientific likes and dislikes, we are unable to submit to any criterion satisfactory to organism. If Dr. Carus is right, Mr. Peirce is wroug. Both are great philosophers : probably neither is right ; yet, nobody will ever demonstrate either wrong ! An article in the same magazine, written by Professor Cope, in its " unphilosophic " appeal to intellectual sensual- ism, affords a stimulating contrast to the philosophers' duel previously noticed. In this article much is affirmed that the writer advocates in the present volume. Professor Cope's "consciousness" appears a near relative of the writer's "nerve-force" and " life -principle." Though they emanate from subjectivity, such conceptions satisfy intellectual sensualism, when they are propounded as phenomena. However, Professor Cope transcends the phenomenal in developing his " consciousness " into a deity. The writer cannot understand why men should be anxious to define deities. A deity which designed men to know its characteristics, yet, about which characteristics men should be perpetually squabbling; a deity which designed men not to know its characteristics, yet, which characteristics men did know; a deity which was powerless or indifferent in regard to men's know- ledge or ignorance of its characteristics, would be a poor CONCLUSION. 267 sort of deity. The highest and rational conception of Deity would seem to forbid definition. Whoever publicly propounds definitions of a deity merely exploits the product of his own prepossessions. No prepossessions of a modern, can be intrinsically more valuable than those of an ancient, "seer." Practically, modern prepossessions are the less valuable because they must be the less acceptable to the generality of mankind, to whom antiquity alone is too often the equivalent of verification. Whatever may be the objective reality or realities implied by such terms as consciousness, nerve-force, life- principle, it is demonstration that the product of the influence on organism of such reality or realities is all that men can practically deal with as a theory-basis. It is, further, demonstration that such product will vary with every responsive organism. Consequently, by it alone, no universally acceptable conclusion is attainable. What is demonstration to one organism is fallacy to another, according to their idiosyncratic response to " conscious- ness" or " nerve-force." The only possible universally acceptable propositions must be verifiable by empiricism. That a First Cause is, is, so far as research has yet carried us, one such proposition. At least, we may assert that the preponderance of evidence from empiricism appears to the great mass of humanity overwhelmingly antagonistic to blank denial of a First Cause. When, however, we begin to define by ratiocination, that First Cause, we cast ourselves adrift on the ocean of "pure reason," otherwise pure subjectivity. Then, the issue is futile. From every point of view, except that of the projector, modern, like ancient, " visions " are fantasies. Professor Cope's deified " con- sciousness " is merely another phenomenon-god. An emanation it may well be. It is no Deity. Professor Cope apparently maintains that matter is ob- jectively real ; that " consciousness," by entering matter, has transformed it; that "consciousness" is inherent to that 268 CONCLUSION. matter into which it has once entered. This " consciousness" is accordingly tantamount to " vital principle." It seems to the writer that such a theory will not bear the test of fact : " consciousness " and w vital principle " must be distinct factors in evolution, the one external, the other inherent, to living organism. u Consciousness " can only manifest itself subject to the activity of certain peripheral channels of communication between external excitation and the central cerebral system. (See case mentioned on page 41 and the various pathological and experimental examples given in this work.) This conditional manifestation of "consciousness" is consistent with the assumption of response by living organism to " consciousness " as an external stimulus, but not with the inherency of " con- sciousness" in living matter into which it has once entered. It seems to the writer that it is only consistent with facts to treat " consciousness " as an energy external to organism, leaving the evolution of organism, alone, to explain, by the various potentialities of response resulting from progressive cell - agglomeration into highly-specialized structure, the evolution of language and its inevitable consequence : reason. We have no reason to suppose that mind, as we conceive it, is the highest form of response to energy possible to organized matter. It is quite conceivable that some future type may grasp and verify by intuition what is now only appreciable by ratiocination. Then, " the forms of logic " which Professor Cope assumes as the feature distinguishing " mind " from " energy " would prove insignificant. Facts tend to prove that, when wo treat " mind" as a something, essential and inherent, instead of merely as idiosyncratic response to external energy, we are well on the way to self- delusion. No more than the eye, can " mind " see itself, except from a reflecting medium. Given such a medium to "mind," then intellectual sensualism might accept "mind's" account of "mind." Because "mind" cannot project CONCLUSION. 269 itself outside "mind" and there is no medium to reflect " mind/' we may as well ask digestion to define digestion as "mind" to define "mind." " Philosophical " definitions of " mind," like u philo- sophical " definitions of Deity, are mere products of organic idiosyncrasy. If a man's u philosophical eye " is n colour- blind " he will " see " his " mind " differently from the majority of his fellow " philosophers." If his " philosophical eye " is normal, he will " see " as his fellows " see." There is an overwhelming majority of "unphilosophical eyes" which *' see colours " in the same way. Hence, we have established satisfactorily to intellectual sensualism what is, say, a " red " impression and what is a " green " impression. There is no approach to such a consensus of u philosophical eyes," hence intellectual sensualism behaves as disrespectfully towards "philosophy" as towards "inspiration." It has been stated, above that organism may, at some future period, grasp by intuition what it can now only apprehend by ratiocination. Some acute commentator (probably a theological one) may reply: why, then, not accept as sporadic anticipations of such future evolution the organisms which have been able intuitively to define the deity of Dogma ? The answer to such a critic would be : evidence compels intellectual sensualism to dub these products of evolution, not anticipations of a future, but atavistic reminiscences of an effete stage of evolution. Of course, intellectual sensualism might be quite wrong in this deduction ; but, that would be the fault, not of intel- lectual sensualism, but of the dispensation which compelled it to believe in itself. Sometimes — or rather, very often — organism, nowadays, ostentatiously tries to disown its intellectual sensualism. Then organism shows what a very pretty hypocrite it can be. When intuition supersedes intellectual sensualism as a normal verifying factor, men will, of course discard intel- lectual sensualism which, through selection ceasing to operate on it, will become a lost product of evolution. At 270 CONCLUSION. present, men have no means of verifying, except intellectual sensualism. (" Philosophy " professes to have discovered an improved method, but then, u philosophy" is very sanguine !) Intuition, to be, nowadays, effective, must demand very moderate concessions from intellectual sensualism. Many people make valiant efforts to strangle the intellectual sensual- ism with which they are endowed. Thatis quixotic enterprise. Many, again, are content to allow their intellectual sensualism to rust, except in so far as it conduces to what men call success. These people often believe that "ignorance is bliss" when knowledge might detrimentally affect the pocket : they are too selfish to know. Even such as they would be too good, to be possible products of evolution, had nature produced none but the type they represent ! In taking leave of the reader, we ask him to try to be impartial in judging our conclusions. Especially, we warn him against the persuasion of his emotions, on the decep- tive nature of which we have throughout this work insisted. No doubt, he feels a yearning towards the makeshift of easy acquiescence in what his grandfather was able to really believe, but in which it is impossible for the enlightened adult of to-day to do more than affect belief. Let him carefully consider the evidence we have adduced, then ask himself whether that evidence does not sway his under- standing. Let him realize that merely to follow his emotions is but emulating the brute. Let him esteem reason (intellectual sensualism, as distinguished, on the one side, from mere sensorial perceptivity, and, on the other, from mere subjective projection into transcendentalism) as the capital prerogative of man, the only quality which raises him above the brute. Let him accept the guidance of his great prerogative. For the interested partisan of fallacy, we will briefly recapitulate the main facts which we ask his reason to demolish. Let him spare himself the labour of emotional ebullition ; we require less than transcendental annihilation, CONCLUSION. 271 we ask but extinction by disproof of the following scientific verifications : — 1. That man is the product of the commingling of parts of two cells in which are indelibly fixed all the potentialities of the future being. 2. That social environment affecting the human parent cannot affect the innate characteristics of offspring. 3. That social environment can neither annihilate any innate, nor cause to be evolved anything beyond innate, potentiality in the individual. 4. That social environment can modify the manifes- tation of innate capacity (but not the capacity itself) in the individual, only by involving more or less exercise of that capacity — in other words : social environment can only affect the individual by exciting the exercise of certain potentialities innate to that individual, and opposing the exercise of other innate potentialities. 5. That whether the individual responds or does not respond to social environment depends solely on innate physical idiosyncrasy. 6. That consciousness is the product of specific nerve- irritation to which the individual is not discriminatively sensitive until such excitation has been transmuted by the co-operation of successively active cerebral areas. 7. That such transmutation requires appreciable time for accomplishment. 8. That moral is coincident with intellectual change, " will "-tendency thus fluctuating with brain- tendency. 9. That, in short, the whole ascertained record of evolution leads us to deny : (1) the possible existence of any creature not bound to act, think and feel, according to its innate physical idiosyncrasy : (2) the possible existence of a human being whose actions and thoughts are modifiable by any influence except environment, and corollarily, who is endowed with a " free-will " involving the assumption of 18 272 CONCLUSION. faculty beyond automatic response of organism to externa] stimulus. Let the dogmatist controvert, to the satisfaction of reason, these verifications, and we shall hail him as an authority on those subjects beyond the grasp of reason — even then, however, reserving to ourselves the liberty of placing our own value on his testimony. Postscript. — Since the contents of this volume have been printed, the writer has been gratified by the perusal of Weismann's articles entitled " The All- Sufficiency of Natural Selection" (Contemporary Review for September and October, 1893), in which Mr. Spencer's propositions in his articles referred to in this volume are exhaustively met, and the last stronghold of Lamarckism, even to common apprehension, is demolished. 273 APPENDIX. ROMANES AND WEISMANN. At the moment of his book's going to press, the author has received Professor Romanes' volume, entitled, "An Examination of Weismannism." The writer has had no opportunity of doing more than hurriedly glance at its contents. From what he has read and considered, he is led to suppose that Professor Romanes' scrutiny is largely influenced by bias towards certain hypotheses of his own, and that, on this account, there are features in his critical method with regard to Weismann which tend to inspire mistrust of his conclusions. The writer will, in the course of these few pages, endeavour to justify this expression of opinion. As to the writer's application of Weismannism to his own doctrines, it may be well at once to state that Professor Romanes' arguments only tend to confirm the correctness of that application. All that Professor Romanes proves, if all his conclusions are accepted by scientists as valid, is that extraneous influence may affect the elements of repro- duction in a manner different from that assumed by Weismann. Professor Romanes maintains that Weismann's proposition of hereditary elements as being concentrated in the nucleus of only special cells is error. According to the Professor, the hereditary element is present in all cells. Instead of being absolutely stable as (so the Professor claims, although this is repudiated by Weismannism) is Weismann's germ-plasm, this other hereditary element is "l8 * 274 APPENDIX. only almost absolutely stable, and, being present in all parts of tlie organism, accordingly renders that organism almost absolutely indifferent, hereditarily, to external influence. As regards degrees of susceptibility to external influence, there seems no appreciable difference between Weismann's germ-plasm and Romanes' pangenes or promiscuous germs. It will be seen that the criticism of Professor Romanes has no bearing on the application of the Lamarckian theory to the effects of culture and personal effort. Moreover, before any use of Professor Romanes' doctrine could, be made by the Lamarckian sociologist, this altogether distinct hypothesis would need to be established : that the effects of " use " corresponded with the " use. 33 This point has already been strongly emphasized by the writer, and, as he reads Professor Romanes, he interprets him to deny the possibility of any such correspondence. Professor Romanes propounds an indiscriminate diffusion of hereditary elements (Pangenesis). The writer would like to know what he has to say respecting Boveri's experiment (see pages 171, 181, 185, 189 of this work); respecting the case of Volvocinos (page 1 95) j the cessation of reproductive energy in a healthy woman (page 169). Again, is not the above evidence for Weismannism far stronger than that assumed so destructive by Professor Romanes : the supposed u occasional effect of pollenization on the somatic tissues of plants " ? So far as the writer knows, Professor Romanes has taken no notice of any of the foregoing confirmatory evidence for Weismannism. Again, Professor Romanes repeatedly asserts that Weismann affirms invariability of organisms which are produced parthenogenetically. Weismann did affirm this. He does so no longer. " But something . . has been proved ; for we can safely afiirni that in 'parthenogenesis individual variation exists, which, as in bisexual reproduction, has its foundation in the composi- tion of the germ-plasm itself, and thus depends on heredity, APPENDIX. 275 and is itself inheritable." (Italics Weis mann's.) " I thus erred in former times, in believing that purely parthenogenetic species entirely lacked the capability of transformation by means of selection; they do possess this power to a certain extent." (Essays, Vol. II., page 166.) Again, Professor Romanes repeatedly asserts that Weismann attributes congenital variation solely to amphimixis, and the professor is very severe on Weismann because he has, in his latest work, assumed the possibility of variation inde- pendently of amphimixis. In an essay delivered thirteen years ago is the following : " But even if, as seems at present very probable, sexual reproduction is not the only origin of individual variability in the Metazoa, no one will deny that it is the chief means of increasing these varia- tions and of continuing them in favourable proportions. In my opinion, the importance of the role which sexual reproduction plays in shaping the material for the process of selection is scarcely diminished, even if we concede that some amount of individual variability can be called forth by direct influences on the germ-plasm. (Essays, Yol. II., page 95.) If we now contrast the above with a quotation from Professor Romanes, we may further justify ourselves in the assumption above expressed that Professor Romanes has a pet case of his own to which he is desirous of doing full justice. "The assumption is, that although germ-plasm is universally unstable, the degree of its instability is every- where restricted within the narrowest possible limits — so that sexual propagation is still necessary for the purpose of developing congenital variations to the point where they can fall within the range of natural selection, notwithstanding that they must all have been originated by external causes acting directly on a germ-plasm universally unstable within the narrow limits assigned. But clearly this assumption is arbitrary to the last degree, and, no less clearly, it is made by Weismann for the sole purpose of saving as much as he 276 APPENDIX. can of his previous theory of variation. His more recent speculations touching the mechanism of heredity are incom- patible with his former view of amphimixis as the (italics above, writer's) sole (italics here Professor Romanes') cause of congenital variations, and therefore he maizes this arbitrary assumption for the purpose of representing that amphimixis may nevertheless still be regarded as a (italics above, writer's) necessary con-cause." (italics here Professor Romanes'.) The Professor is very eager to bag the qnarry. The writer fancies that, in the end, the quarry will bag the Professor ! Nous verrons. The writer must confess that Weismann's objectivity of standpoint impresses him more forcibly than does the fervid method of Professor Romanes. This objectivity of stand- point, as Mr. Robertson has well pointed, is as characteristic of Weismann as of Darwin. We may obtain a fair idea of this contrast of method by comparing such a characteristic utterance as the following with the above "cock-crow" of Professor Romanes. This quotation appears on page 176 of the first volume of essays and is dated 1885. " It is nevertheless possible that continuity of the gerrn-plasm does not exist in the manner in which I imagine that it takes place, for no one can at present decide whether all the ascertained facts agree with and can be explained by it. Moreover, the ceaseless activity of research brings to light new facts every day, and I am far from maintaining that my theory may not be disproved by some of these. But even if it should have to be abandoned at a later period, it seems to me that, at the present time, it is a necessary stage in the advancement of our knowledge, and one which must be brought forward and passed through, whether it prove right or wrong, in the future. In this spirit I offer the following considerations, and it is in this spirit that I should wish them to be received." The writer would require strong evidence to convince him that a brain APPENDIX. 277 which approaches its studies in the manner of Weismann' s is the brain of a man who will flippantly alter his deliberate propositions " for the sole purpose of saving a much as he can of his previous theory." It seems, to the writer, that Professor Romanes has a grievance against Weismann for his theory-development, inasmuch as it tends to thwart Professor Romanes' " purpose of saving as much as he can of his (too ?) previous" criticism ! Professor Romanes' work is largely composed of statements and criticisms of propositions as of Weismann which he (Weismann) has long since discarded and, for discarding which, Weismann has given such adequate reason, as to constitute a waste of effort for both writer and reader, that any criticism should now concern itself with such discarded propositions. On the other hand, it is comparatively easy work to demolish propositions which their author has already demolished ! The writer thinks that Professor Romanes' criticism would have proved more permanently valuable had he concerned himself less with jubilantly giving prominence to what Weismann had discarded, and more fully, with impartially stating and examining the great mass of evidence from his own and others' observa- tions on cell-development which Weismann adduces in support of his latest conclusions. However, this is a matter with which Weismann himself will probably deal satis- factorily to himself if not to his critic. To give one from among a number of significant examples of the procedure of the Professor : Weismann's latest views on the subject of the extrusion of polar bodies are dismissed (see page 40) with the curtest reference, while great prominence is given to his views discarded so long ago as 1891 (see Essays, Yol. II, page 122, also pages 23 and 176-9 of this work), or rather, this prominence is given to Professor Romanes' criticism of certain inadequately stated propositions of Weismann. Only one scientist, so far as the writer knows, 2 78 APPENDIX. has displayed, with regard to his own theories, impartiality equal to Weismann's. This is additionally noteworthy since Weismann's work is of so highly speculative a nature as to offer more than ordinary immunity and inducement to an investigator prone to subjectivity and in love with his own theories rather than with truth. That Weismann tries to accommodate his hypotheses to fact rather than the reverse, is surely an admirable procedure. To judge from some parts of his criticism, Professor Romanes considers such procedure, on the part of Weismann, akin to criminal. As will be clear to the reader of this book, the main concern of the writer, with Weismann's theory, is the con- firmation it affords to his views that the effects of culture and effort, whatever they may be on the individual, are powerless to hereditarily affect offspring. If it were proved that they could thus affect offspring, the writer would then fall back on his further proposition that such hereditary effect on offspring could not correspond with the influence, and that unless such correspondence could be proved scien- tifically, it would be against social expediency that it should be assumed. The writer has already stated that no such assumption is deducible, even from the adverse criticism of Weismann's theory by Professor Romanes; he will now append some remarks of the Professor touching the main point at issue, so far as he is concerned. First, the writer will show that Professor Romanes does not countenance the assumption of correspondence. " For even though the isola- tion be frequently invaded by influences of body-changes on the congenital characters of this substance " (heivili- tary) " it does not follow that the body-changes must be transmitted to offspring exactly as they occurred in parents. They may produce in offspring what we have agreed to call ' specialized ' hereditary changes, even if they never produce ' representative ' M (corresponding) u hereditary APPENDIX. 279 changes." (Page 104.) From the foregoing, it will be seen that we may as well infer degenerative heredity, as the reverse, from the inherited effects, if such effects could occur, of culture or personal effort. We will now show to what extent Professor Romanes admits the possibility of somatogenetic heredity. For this purpose we will give a quotation from Galton as being representative of Professor Romanes' own views on this subject. This quotation appears on page 60 of "An Examination of Weismannism." " The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing arguments is, that we might almost reserve our belief that the structural (i.e. ' somatic ') cells can react on the sexual elements at all, and we may be confident that at the most they do so in a very faint degree; in other words, that acquired modifications are barely, if at all, inherited, in the correct sense of that word." It will be seen that there is small hope for the Lamarckian sociologists, even from the opponents of Weis- mann. The writer is now awaiting with interest the reply of Weismann to Professor Romanes. In the meantime, enough has been written in this work to show that, whatever may be the issue as between Weismann and Romanes, so far, nothing has been advanced not confirmatory of the socio- logical and ethical doctrines propounded in this volume. As to Weismann's main doctrine, the writer believes that it is merely passing through the transitory stages of critical onslaught as did Darwin's, and that, ultimately, it will emerge as triumphant as did Darwin's. On the other hand, the severer the criticism, the better will intellectual sen- sualism like the doctrine, if it survives. If it falls — still great is the ' ( Truth " of Intellectual Sensualism ! I do not know from what source Professor Romanes has obtained the extract cited on pages 1 86-8, as from Weis- mann' s reply to Professor Vines ; but, it differs materially 280 APPENDIX. from what appears on pages 82-4 of the second volume of Essays. To point one instance : on the last three lines of page 186 of Prof essor Romanes' book, a passage is rendered as being from Weismann : . . . " that the nuclear substance, the chromatin of the nuclear loops, was the carrier of heredity " On page 83 of the second volume of Weismann's Essays the passage appears as : " that the substance of the egg-nucleus, or, more precisely, the chromatin of the nuclear loops, formed the material basis of heredity " The writer has italicized those words to which he wishes particularly to draw the reader's attention in both quota- tions. Now, let us note this. In his comment on this controversy between Professor Vines and Weismann, Professor Romanes observes (page 189): "The difficulty is, in Vines' words above cited, ' to conceive that the germ- plasm of the ovum can impress upon the somato-plasm of the developing embryo the hereditary characters of which it (the germ-plasm) is the bearer. 3 " Again, the writer has italicized to call the reader's attention. Now, " the germ- plasm of the ovum" is not the "bearer of hereditary characters," at least not according to Weismann's remarks in the Essay quoted above. Nor, again, is it the "bearer," according to another quotation which shall now be given : . . . "for it has not been asserted that the nucleus alone is the bearer of the hereditary characters . . . but that the nucleus alone contains the hereditary substance." ("The Germ-plasm," page 26.) The writer has, again, italicized in the above. Now, it is evident that Weismann sees a great difference between statements which assert that the nucleus is the bearer of hereditary qualities and, that the nucleus contains the hereditary substance. Under these circum- stances the writer would like to know how Professor Romanes came to cite the quotation as it does not appear in the Essay, and as Weismann evidently does not intend it to appear. Let us now see whether this distinction has APPENDIX. 281 any real validity, or is merely a distinction without a difference. A certain combination of gases constitutes water; but, these gases, separated, are no longer water. Similarly, a certain combination of organisms composed of biophors, which organisms are called by Weismann, determinants, is germ-plasm. But, when these determinants are no longer combined, but are, to any extent, disintegrated, the result- ant is no longer germ-plasm, but another sort of plasm called by Weismann idio-plasm of a certain ontogenetic stage, and disintegrated determinants, or individually energizing biophors. Again, if these biophors, by their individual activities, cause somato-plasm to develop in a certain manner, these biophors do not on that account become somato-plasm. Hence germ-plasm may determine the character of somatic development without ever losing its validity as a factor entirely distinct from somato-plasm* To state the case in another way : The nucleus of a germ- cell has reached such a stage of development that it causes that cell to divide. Coincidently with this division, certain contents (determinants) of this nucleus have so developed that they become disintegrated into biophors which swarm through the nuclear membrane into each product of division. Then, there would remain in such divided nucleus, not all its original constituents, but, so many less as those gone to control the cell. Again, these biophors which originally were constituents of the germ- plasm, or, as the case may be, of any later stage of idio- plasm, would not become transformed into the somato-plasm or cell-body. As biophors of a germ-cell they would be as distinct from the body-material of the cell while struggling in it, as they were, when quiescent in the original germ- plasm. Again, as these biophors in their struggles con- stitute heredity itself, it will be seen that it may involve quite an erroneous conclusion to assert that the nucleus is 282 APPENDIX. the carrier of heredity. This will be made further clear by the following quotation, page 189, from Professor Romanes* work : " For whether we thus follow Weismann' s earlier terminology or his later, we are so far speaking about exactly the same thing, namely, the transformation of germ-plasm ' into all the constituent cells of the soma." We are, according to Weismann, doing nothing of the sort. We are not speaking of the ft transformation " of germ- plasm at all. We are speaking of the individual energies of factors, biophors, totally distinct from the soma in which they energize. The following additional quotation from Professor Vines (page 188 of Professor Romanes' book) will prove con- clusively that both these gentlemen have ideas in regard to Weismann's germ-plasm, which Weismann himself does not entertain. " The fate of the germ-plasm of the fertilized ovum is, according to Professor Weismann, to be converted in part into somato-plasm (!) M — note of exclamation Vines' — "of the embryo." It will be seen that Professors Romanes and Vines are here putting up skittles of their own and fathering them on Weismann ! It seems to the writer that in regard to such important issues as are involved in Weismann's theory, it is very desirable that eminent critics, before they publicly cast the weight of their reputations for or against, should have a fairly clear conception of the fundamental propositions which they profess to scrutinize ! In respect to scientific problems of vast importance, the writer dissents from critical procedure which concerns itself, as does a barrister, more with damaging the opposi- tion than with eliciting truth. Scientific criticism should be relentless, but it should not be perpetually waving aloft its brief. Of course, taken in the mass, scientific criticism does undoubtedly, in the highest degree possible to humanity, exemplify the elimination of the "personal APPENDIX. 283 equation." But it is very desirable that scientific criticism should do this individually, especially when the critic is an acknowledged master in his special walk. As the masses accept as gospel the ipse dixit of such a master, it is evident that the manifestation of the benefits of truth, as regards society, may be indefinitely postponed if such a master constitutes himself merely a prosecuting counsel. The writer has only been able to devote a few hours to examining Professor Romanes' work; nevertheless, he thinks he has shown, if in a merely desultory fashion, that the method of the Professor partakes too prominently of the forensic, to be the ideal of scientific criticism. Professor Romanes' volume contains 189 pages of matter relating particularly to Weismann. Of these, 116 pages are devoted to theories propounded by Weismann up to 1891. The remaining pages are devoted to Weismannism u up to date" (1893). I maintain that this procedure tends to veil the vital issues ; it involves a redundancy of critical energy prejudicial to the establishment of truth. To " flog a dead dog " is, in this case, more than merely useless ; it is obstructive to the best interests of society. All that the world is concerned with is Weismann' s theory "up to date." Had Professor Romanes concerned himself mainly with this, the writer thinks the result would have been more permanently consistent with the Professor's eminence as a scientist, though the display of energy involved in the flogging of Weismann' s " dead dogs " would, necessarily, have been foregone. Even in this business of "flogging dead dogs," the Professor does not limit himself to flogging Weismann's defunct animals, but he provides some of his (Romanes') own construction, which he belabours as vigorously as Weismann' s ! We have already given a few instances, some of which are perhaps attributable to misconception of Weismann's meaning ; but what are we to think of such a 284 APPENDIX. case as this which follows ? On page 89 of the Professor's book, headed " Weismann's Theory of Evolution (1891)/' appears the following : — u First, he alleges that there is a total absence (italics writer's) of variability on the part of all organisms which have been produced parthenogenetically . . . . "We may look in vain," he says, " for any individual differences (italics writer's) on the part of any multicellular organisms which have been brought into existence inde- pendently of the blending of germ-plasms in a previous act of sexual union." Now, let us carefully note the following. In Weismann's twelfth essay, the published version of which is dated September 12th, 1891 (Vol. 2, page 160), is this : " But now the case is different, and we may affirm that in parthenogenetic generations, the com- bination of idants in the different germ-cells of one and the same mother can vary. We can therefore attribute even to parthenogenetic species a certain power of varying (italics writer's), although not to anything like the same extent as in bisexual species." Now, what reliance can we place on criticism which propounds as a part of "Weismann's Theory of Evolution (1891) " what in Weismann's essay, dated 1891, is distinctly denied? It may be here stated that Weismann, even in his earliest essays, prior to 1891, did not attribute a " total absence of variability " of every kind to parthenogenetic species. He showed that such species might vary indi- vidually, but not phyletically or typically. That is : certain potentialities of variation might be derived by each individual from more primitive ancestors, but those potentialities could never exceed their original range so as to establish new species. Therefore, what Professor Romanes states, as above, is not even Weismann's theory prior to 1891. To sum up, for the present: Professor Romanes' criticism explains very little, ignores the strongest evidence for Weismann, and is too often mere dialectical strategy. APPENDIX. 285 Weismann's theory explains the fundamental phenomena of heredity and evolution, with which it is consistent. Both investigations — the one, practically ; the other, absolutely — deny the possibility of hereditary transmission through the soma. INDEX. A. Absolute reality and Sense-realism, 254 Abstract terminology, The delusion of, 243 Academic critics, 262 Academic nothings, 264 Achievement, The great, awaiting execution by social expediency, 261 Achievements, All human, the effects of molecular motions, 75 Acquired characteristics, What is meant by, 214 Acquired qualities, 185 Actuality, The stupendous, of the Deity of Science, 97 Adulterer, The, compared with the murderer, 263 Agraphia, Amnesia, Aphasia, 86-92 inconsistent with " free-will," 86-92 Aim, The, of this work to establish faith in the supernatural, 7, 263 Alchemy, The mysterious, of the brain has had a deal to answer for, 233 Alcohol and the germ-plasm, 223 Alcoholism, how it may affect the embryo, 212 Alviella, D', Professor, on the evolu- tion of religions, 159 Amalgamation, No possible, of science with the metaphysics of Dogma, 113 Amphimixis, 23 — see also Weis- mannism, 171-3, 214 has but slight significance in respect to multiplication of indi- viduals ; it generally means the reverse, 171 The simplest form of, 173 Ancestral hereditary elements, 239 — see also Weismannism Animals, Domesticated, 19 Anthropomorphic, The, deity of Dogma, 132 Anthropomorphic deity, What scep- tics demand in respect to the doctrine of an, 132 The, notion equally inexact as to call a moving stick pain, 142 Anthropomorphism, The, of Dogma examined in connection with the doctrine of "free-will," and the two shown mutually destructive, 139-43 Anti-Weismannite, Let the, denuc- leate an egg and prove, if he can, its capacity to become an embryo, 190 Apes and men erroneously compared in respect to the mathematical capacity, 209 Aristotle, his system, 8 Arnold, Matthew, and the anthropo- morphism of Dogma, 142 his criticism of the Bible, 154 Arrangement, The perfection of social, 28 Art, Music as an, 220 enthusiast, The philosophical, 220 Article, The 38th, of Eeligion, 135 The 6th, and the Canon, 155 Atavism, 214 Athlete, The, what he can transmit to offspring, 225 Automata, Conscious, 262 Automatic, The, machinery of the brain, 64-71, 116-18 B. Bain, Professor, on the number of cells and fibres in brain, 36 Ball, Mr. Piatt, on use-inheritance, 183-4, 191 Ball's, Mr., articles, Extracts from, 212 Support of the writer, 200 Beethoven, How Haydn affected, 219 Bible, The books of the, written by men liable to err, 131 19 288 INDEX. Bible, Rev. A. W. Momerie on the, 131 What sceptics ask about the, 132 Bigotry, The, of prejudice, 235 Biological, The main, point, 222 The, evolution of humanity proceeds independently of social changes, 226 Biophors, 162-4, 170-5, 227 determine the character of the cell, 162 bound by rigid laws, 163 living organisms with likes and dislikes and selfish, 163 how they determine the cell, 164 How originally immortal might become mortal, 168 Blood-corpuscles, 173 Board-school curriculum and the university, 207 Board-schools do not affect innate tendency, 226 How long shall we cling to the superstition that, will regenerate humanity? 193 Board-school teaching, 241 Body, The, furnished with cells and fibres conducting vibration, 40 Boveri's experiment, 25, 171-4, 181, 185-6, 189-91 Brain, The, how only it can generate thought, 40-41 a machine, 43, 49 compared with locomotive, 49 No particular part of, contains metaphysical "mind," 74 an automatic mechanism, 112 and liver compared, 208, 237-9, 244 The mysterious alchemy of, has had a deal to answer for, 233 , a physical agency, 233 compared with the stomach, 233 Brain-stuffing, Indiscriminate, 203, 206, 235 Bramwell, Dr., his hypnotic experi- ments, 67 Brightness does not exist outside ourselves, 142 Budding and regeneration of lost parts, 176 Butterflies, Changes in colouring of, 212 Effect of heat on the germ- plasm of, 214 Butterflies' wings, Colour changes in, 242 Candidates for the priestly office, 256-7 Canon, The Old Testament, 154 The New Testament, 154-9 Papias on the, 156 First declarations of, 156 St. Jerome on, 156-7 The African Synods and, 156 Matthew Arnold on, 156-8 Eusebius and Origen on, 158 Catastrophe, How the new adjust- ment may occur without, 261 Capital and the " have nots," 261 Cell, The, a combination of biophors, 166 Every germ-, of a sexual organism must now possess its maximum number of ids, 179 The germ-, not wholly composed of hereditary principle, 186 The primary, 194 The, compared with man, 247 Cells, Germ, are only those contain- ing in an active state all the determinants necessary to the formation of a complete individual, 195 Germ-, 162, 165, 170-1, 176 Somatic, 162, 165, 170, 176, 195 Sperm, 175-7 Egg, 175-7 Ultimate, 176 Mother-, 176-7 Immortal and mortal, 162 dividing into two alike and dissimilar, 162 Multiplication of, determines character of organism, 162 Formation and multiplication of, contrasted, 162-3 Evolution of germ-, 164 derived advantage from cluster- ing together, 166 in a colony specially adapted for foraging, 166 with nutritive faculty, how they lost the power to reproduce, 166 Primitive, of colony could reproduce colony, 166 Somatic, how they originated, 166 Germ and somatic, The mortal- ity and immortality of, 167-9 INDEX. 280 Cells, The immortality of, does not imply eternity of duration, 167-70 Somatic, mortality of, 167-70 How the death of somatic affects germ-, 168 Somatic, constitute bulk of organism, 168 Germ and somatic, not alike, 170 Fusion of, 173 carrying latent germ-plasm are somatic cells, 194-5 Transitions between germ and somatic, never occur, 195 Cell-colony, The, 170-3 The, the basis of evolution of elephant and polype, 171 The, as distinct from individual cell, 166 The, with differentiated cells would preponderate in struggle for existence, 166 Cell-generation, One, can only pro- duce its pre-ordained successor, 185 Cell-individual, The million, and the million-man individual, 261 Cerebral action, All, founded on animal sensibility, 49, 64, 116 Faculties, Localization of, 77 Ferrier's experiments, 78-85 Charity and the " have-nots," 261 Child, How social expediency will appeal to the, 247 Children, Gifted, 204 of the same parents, Differences in, 238 — see also Weismannism Choice but not "free " choice, 252 Citizen, -The, compared with savage, 249 Climbing and pure air have no hereditary effect, 209 Colour-changes in butterflies' wings, 242 Combinations, How variety of he- reditary, is ensured, 179 Common-sense, 72 Communal efficiency, The highest, 264 Community, Potentialities which the, should specially develop, 236 Company-promoters, Pious, 236 Complexity of function, 166 Conception, The fundamental, of Weismannism, 161 Conditions, Natural and artificial, 19 Conduct, Difference as to, between avowing hunger and hatred, 93 Congenital taint, 17 Conscience, 104 Consciousness, 243 a delusive guide, 112 only arises after other cerebral actions, 35 cannot simultaneouslyapprehend several impressions, 39 Continuity of the germ-plasm, 180 — see also Weismannism Controversy, 197-245 Corporate existence outside the individual, 247 Creation, Doctrine of a special, exploded, 18 Criminal, How social expediency will appeal to the, 247 why punished, 248 Criminals, 246 Culture and " moral " incentives cannot eliminate " unfit," 264 Polite, what it should embrace, 264 Culture-environment, 243 D. Darwin and Weismann, 221 Darwin's theory, 11, 15, 17, 22, 26 Death, The common phenomenon of, 167-8 of immortal cells, 167-9 According to Weismann, 19, 22 — see also Weismannism Debauchees, Puritanical, 236 Deity, The, of science, 96 does not inspire abject fear, 97 reconcilable with biblical nar- rative, 97 The immensity of scientifically verified, 142 The assumed propitiation of, 251 Delboeuf, Dr., his hypnotic experi- ments, 67 Demonstration cannot be rejected because supposed to clash with "morality," 246 Determinants formed of biophors,, 163 — see also Weismannism how they control the cell, 173 Throwing-off of, 175 Determinants, 165, 170-6, 177, 188, 194, 239 ]9 * 290 INDEX. Development over normal endowment not transmissible, 232 Excessive, of faculties, its result, 244 Dialectics cannot modify Weis- mannism, 217 Differences, Primal individual, how accounted for, 215 — also Weis- mannism Differentiation first observable in cells, 164 Disease, Hereditary and non-heredit- ary, 19 Diversity of organism, how it arose, 180 Division of labour in nature, 166 Division, Reducing, 179 — see also Weismannism Doctrine, The author's, in respect to religion and social life, 263 Dog, The, and " moral responsi- bility," 251 Dogma must go, 103, 123 and the truths which science can and cannot examine, 130 obnoxious to present methods of thought, 133 Doubling of idants, 176-80 Drama and romance, Rank growth in, 221 Drunkenness and social propa- gandism, 227 Duval on sight, 37 E. Earth, The sane man ready to prove the, a plane, 246 Ecclesiastic, The, let him remember the past, 144 Educate, Let us, so as not to oppose nature, 29 Education cannot hereditarily affect the type— see controversy The higher, its application at the State's expense, 207 The degree of, adapted to the navvy's son, 207 If, were hereditarily cumulative in action, 207 — see also controversy cannot react backwards on nucleus, 223 may beneficially affect mankind without hereditary effect, 226 Objection to gratuitous ad- vanced, 235 cannot affect the germ-plasm, 242 Education dedicated to veneering with academic nothings, 264 will not regenerate humanity, 250 Egg, Sexual and asexual, 12, 14 — see also Weismannism The germ-plasm and soma in, 238 Segmentation of, 238 nucleus, 175-6 — see also Weis- mannism Ego, Literature about the, 42 Elements, Hereditary, 175 — see also Weismannism Elevated character, 126 Embryo, 12 — see also Weismannism Huxley and Wallace on the human, 94 how affected by alcoholism, 212 Defective nutrition of, distinct from heredity, 223 Toxical effect on, 223 unaffected by the mother's state of mind, 232 Only what existed in the paren- tal, transmitted to offspring, 232 — see also Weismannism Embryogeny, 177, 180, 194 < Embryology concerned with cell- multiplication, 162 "Eminent, The, Thirty-Eight," 148 Their declaration and the circular of the Chicago Committee, 149 and the Rev. A. W. Momerie, 150 Emotion, 239 Religious, what it has done for humanity, 123 Emotional influence on the mother, 232 Emotions, To follow the, but emulat- ing the brute, 266 Energy, Reproductive, proportionate to duration of life, 19 England, Church of, must adapt itself to drift of evolution, 153 Englishmen, are they better to-day than formerly ? 227 Enthusiasts who lead crusades against nature, 75 Environment, How the type will con- form to, 210 compared with a drug, 240 Social, and alcoholism, 223 Good and bad, cannot modify the type, 240 IKDEX. 291 Environment acts solely on the in- dividual, 245 after innate tendency, the sole determining factor, 249 Our cerebral machinery re- sponds to, 249 Ergotism and the embryo, 212 Error, The fundamental error from which metaphysics argues to "free- will," 112 Eternal punishment the mainstay of sacerdotalism, 124 Origen on, 125 The Bishop of Manchester on, 125 Eternity inconceivable, 167 Ether not physically demonstrable, 165 Evil and good, 29, 33 Evil, Evolution impossible without, 30 Evolution and religion, 125 The drift of, in relation to society, 138 The great feat of, 171 A factor in, beyond the cogniz- ance of science, 227 The new social, 260 Expediency half a century hence, 105 Experiment showing identity of male and female reproductive element, 171 Too eager enthusiasts and social, 260 Extraneous influence, 182-3 — see also Weismann and sociology, 223 has no effect on offspring, 230 — see also Weismannism Granted the transmission of, no reason to assume correspond- ing effects, 230 and typical degeneracy, 231 Extrusion, The, of Polar bodies, 239 Fact, The cardinal, which ecclesiastic- ism must realize, 153 Facts, The main, awaiting disproof by opponents, 266 Faculty, how affected by use and disuse, 166 Faculties, No reason why the exercise of, should involve their intensified evolution, 240 The excessive development of, 244 Families, orders, classes, Origin of, 1 8 Farrer on pagan morality, 58 Fatalism ? Does renunciation of " free-will " amount to, 138 Fertilization, 12 — see also Weis- mannism Ferrier's experiments in cerebral localization, 78-85 Fire, The belief in everlasting, by historical Christianity, 125 Fish, Colour changes in, 214 Fission of cells, 162 — see also Weis- mannism "Fit," The, specimen of manhood and Dogma, 123 majority, 138 Flaws in the scheme of priestly emu- lation, 257 Foresight is unconsciously resusci- tated experience, 252 Formula, The mumbling of, 134 Free mixing of types, 167 " Free-will," Whether we accept or reject, depends purely on ratiocina- tion, 35 now in the region of fact, 35 inconsistent with cerebral heat, 47 no more reason to assume it in brain than in liver, 74 of the philanthropist, 105 cannot "blow hot or cold" according to physical accident, 109 unnecessary as a restraint, 121 Fundamental conception of Weis- mannism, The, 161 Fusion of cells, 173 Complete, impossible in complex organism, 173 G. Gemmule, The, theory, 182 Generation, The present, live for themselves as well as for posterity, 260 " Genius," The duplication of a, practically impossible, 220 The honest, compared with the vagabond, 126 Germ-cell, Increased cerebral com- plexity dependent on modification of, 39 Germ-cells evolved under natural selection, 164 See Weismannism 292 INDEX. Germ-cells, Immortality of, 167-9 and somatic cells not alike, 170 Not the whole of, composed of hereditary principle, 186 are only those containing in an active state all the determinants necessary to the formation of a complete individual, 195 Transitions between, and soma- tic cells never occur, 195 No doubt as to which are, 195 Germ-plasm — see Weismannism continuity of, 180 assimilates food and grows, 180 is transmitted unalterably from parent to child, 180 Transfer of inactive, 194 Cells carrying latent, are soma- tic cells, 194 Modifications of the, 214 Effect of heat on the, 214 Climatic effects on the, 216 and syphilis and alcohol, 223 latent and in states of disinteg- ration, 238 not modifiable by education, 242 not modifiable through the soma, 243 affected by temperature, 243 is all except the soma, 238 how immortal, 167-8 Germ-tracts, 194 apparently favour Mr. Spencer's hypothesis, 194 of De Vries contrasted with Weismann's, 195 " Gift," A, for poetry, 210 Good, 29-33 and evil, idealized expediency and inexpediency, 32, 54 For man to be habitually, 30 Why man is, 31 When a saint will reject, 31 The, man should pity villain, 33 Shamming it, 33 Goodness is refined selfishness, 32 of each individual determined by law, 127 Graduates, Society can dispense with, better than with navvies, 28 Greece ? Are we, as a nation, better than ancient, 227 II. Halving of ids, how it became neces- sary, 178 Harvest from the gratification of emotion and animality when op- posed to reason, 264 Hatred, Natures adapted to open, 93 Have-nots, The selfishness of, able to cope with " haves," 261 and the priests, 256-8 how helped by competing selfishness of "haves," 261 Haves, The selfish, and the priests, 256-8 Haydn and Beethoven, 219 Heat, 44, 46 Cerebral, and molecular motion, 46,48 the invariable concomitant of cerebral action, 46 may directly affect germ-plasm, 243 Hereditary endowment, Surplusage over, not inherited, 225 elements — see Weismannism are individual organisms, 239 never the same in any two ova or spermatozoa, 239 faculty and musical tradition, 219 Music as a product of, 220 Heredity and the defective nutri- tion of embryo, 223 and toxical effect, 223 Theory of, rests on difference between germ and somatic cells, 165 Basis of, lies deeper than effects on multicellular organisms, 188 Historical qualities of organism, 228 — see also Weismannism Honesty and social development, 259 Humanity, Impossible to remodel, by artificial measures, 24 Human Nature, Man cannot alter it, 74 Hunger and thirst compared with love and hatred, 92 Hypnotism inconsistent with " free- will," 67 Id, The, the fundamental biological structure of a multicellular or- ganism, 177 — see Weismannism Idant, An, may be cut up yet evolve complete organism, 177 INDEX. 293 Idants — see Weismannism are organized combinations of biophors, 173 A special number of, normal to each species, 174, 5 Splitting of, 176 Idealists, Mathematical, 265 Ideology and science, 220 Idioplasm, If the nuclear, be taken away rest of cell inert, 186 Ids, Halving of, 178-80 cannot be divided without in- validating their efficiency, 177 Immortal, An, substance, how con- verted into mortal, 167-8 Immortality of germ-cells, 167-70 Individual, The, of no account in nature, 19 solely affected by environment, 245 how affected by environment, 245 Selfishness of the, to be count- eracted by selfishness of body- social, 261 How the, might help to elimi- nate the " unfit," 264 Inebriety, Conversion from, 227 Influence, No reason to suppose that good, produces corresponding effect on germ-plasm, 244 Social, must start afresh on each individual, 28 Innate predisposition of parent trans- mitted to child, 232 tendencies of posterity not affected by environment, 245 tendency — Apart from, the in- dividual has no power of selection whitherwards he shall strive, 249 tendency not affected by social changes, 226 Inscrutable, The, of science apparent to reason, 97-8 offers no excuse for me- chanical religion, 98 Intelligence, 73 Intellectual sensualism, 265-6 Judgment, 71 K. Keats, John and George, 216 Knave, The, compared with invalid, 248 Knowledge, Human, merely relative, 95 adequate to man's needs, 96 Lamarck no help to the sociologist,224 Lamarckian, The, principle, when it would operate, 215 Lamarck's theory, 9 — see also Weis- mannism Language the sole machinery by which man has raised himself above the brute, 86 Law, The, of nature defined, 7 The same, operative before and . after cell formation, 163 Life-principle, Elements endowed with a, 161 Life in a stone, 162 in a sentient being, 162 on earth will have an end, 167-70 is continuous, 22 atoms, Primary — see Weismann- ism Liver and brain, 208, 237, 239, 244 Logic-chopping, 252 Lombard on cerebral heat, 46 11 Love", When men and women will be sane in, 264 Love and hatred, automatic and un- controllable, 92 Lungs, The, not hereditarily affected by climbing and pure air, 210 Luys on sight, 37 on nerve fibres, 48 on the cortex, 48 on moral sensibility, 61 on the memorizing faculty, 62 M. Machines, Men are, 245 Male reproductive element the same as female, 23, 171 Man compared with biophors, 163 an agglomeration of cells, 168, 247 how he is mortal, 168 will think and act in conformity with his conformation, 245 The individual, compared with society, 248 Manning, Cardinal, on rich ecclesi- astics, 147 294 INDEX. Man's resemblance to apes, 26, 94 " Mare's nest," A, 215 Marriage precautions advisable, 17 The Church's former attitude towards, 55 The regulation of, by society, 264 Maternal impressions, 216, 237 " Beneficial," 233 Mathematical, The, capacity, 209 idealists, 265 Memory, 61-70 Duration of, in sensorial im- pressions, 61, 69 Discrimination, an effect of, 62 Our actions dependent on, 62 and intelligence the effective sum-total of humanity, 62 Instances of automatic action through, 63-9 Carpenter on, 64 Association by, so that pain is felt as if in absent members, 65 Men not intended to be equal, 25 cannot respect what fact has demolished, 113-17 and apes in relation to the mathematical faculty, 209 Mental conditions, 243 idiosyncrasy decisive as to man's good and evil, 32 Meredith's, Mr., nescience, 216, 233 Merit, The intrinsic, of one person the same as of another, 260 Metaphysics, The fundamental error of, 112 of Dogma, No amalgamation of, possible with science, 113 Dogma must find some other means than, to authenticate " free- will ", 35 Methods, contending claims of the antique and modern, 255 Millionaires, 207 Million-man individual, The, 261 Mind, The potentiality of a, the same as of a brain, 237 and the eolian harp, 35 We can now determine what is possible to, 35 like body, a transmuting agent, 74 Miracle, 99-102 Molecules, 47 Clerk-Maxwell on, 47 Nervous, 48 Molecular constitution of germ-plasm — see Weismanni8m Monads, The influence of selection on, 188 Moorhouse, Dr., his views combatted, 107 supposed of another mental type, 109 Moral ? Does education render men, 236 equator, Every country has its own, 32 sensibility has its periods of growth and decay, 60 Luys on the, 61 verifications, Fundamental, 72 conclusions the outcome of previous conclusions, 93 the result of growth under law, 93 Morality and immorality, 25 Kibot on, 52 an arrangement invented by man, 54 Supernatural, a fallacy, 54 to what extent it is a conven- tion, 54 if supernatural, how reconcilable with clerical profligacy ? 55 Supernatural, incompatible with morality dependent on organic idiosyncrasy, 57 Conventional, and the punish- ment of criminals, 247 ? Who is to decide the real, 56 Pagan, as compared with ours, 58 and religion, Kedford on, 57 The individual will conform to the prevalent, 57 Mother's, The, state of mind no effect on embryo, 232 Mountain-climbers, how they become adapted to environment, 210 Movement but not cataclysm, 260 Muller on cerebral sensibility, 65 Murderer compared with adulterer, 263 Music as a product of hereditary faculty and tradition, 220 The evolution of, according to Weismann, 225 Musical tradition, 219 Mutilations, Tales of the transmis- sion of, 232 N. Natural selection, 11, 15, 17, 21, INDEX. 295 Natural Selection, The germ-plasm evolved under, 164 preserves faculties, 166-7 if not operative will ensure deterioration of faculties, 166 how its absence destroyed reproductive faculty in cells, 167 before the advent of Dar- win, 228 unavailable under present social conditions, 242 Nature, Highly gifted freaks of, 208 1 Definition of, 5 The law of, 7 has only been constant once, 30 Navvies' sons and the higher educa- tion, 216 Navvy, junior, when he may aim for the ermine, 229 Neo-Lamarckians contrasted with Weismannites, 189 Nerves and cells and a " gift " for poetry, 210 Nerve-current, Action of, accounts for all attributed to " free-will," 35 Nerve-fibres analogous to insulated wires, 48 Luys on, 48 Nervous System, The, is soma, 238 organization, A refined, and suicide, 236 development, a somatic result, 238 Nuclear rods — see Weismannism substance, Elimination of the, ensures no development, 186 thread, 14 — see also Weismann- ism Nucleus— see Weismannism not affected by education, 223 contains the germ-plasm, 238 0. Object, To serve self the ultimate, of moralist, pietist, philanthropist, 32 Ocular demonstration that the nucleus is the type-determinant, 171,4 Observers, Objective, should curb their sympathies, 260 Offspring of talented men often commonplace, 244 can only transmit germ-plasm derived from parents which -the parents derived from their parents, and so on, 180 Offspring of the same parents, Cause of difference in, 211 One-cell organisms only apparently homogeneous, 170 Division of, could ensure no great typical diversity, 170 being, 10 — see also Weismann- ism Ontogeny —see Weismannism Opinion, Mere, 229 Optimist, The, and "advance," 227 Organic life, Origin of, 10 — see also Weismannism Organism, Unfit, Preservation of, 20 not modified by use-inheritance, 213— see also Weismannism Defective, of criminals, 246 Orthodoxy, Expounders of, unneces- sary, 143 Ova — see Weismannism Over-population, One way of remedy- ing, 236 Ovum, Only the original impregnated, contains all the elements neces- sary to the formation of a complete organism, 175 Oxygen when a liquid, 168 P. Pain, 50 When all men normally sensi- tive to, mankind nearer Christian ideal, 50 Moral, what it is, 51 Panmixia, 196 Parthenogenesis, 12 — see also Weis- mannism Perfect man, An originally, fallacy, 93, 127, 130 Huxley on, 94 Wallace on, 94 Owen on, 95 Personal equation, Science and the, 254 Personality, the effect of transmuta- tion by brain, 40 Philanthropy cannot affect type, 28 Philanthropist's, The, ultimate object to serve self, 32, 72 Philosopher's, The, happy lot, 265 Philosophy, Conventional, 221, 265 Phosphorescence, or reminiscent power of brain, 68 of gustatory and auditory plex- uses, 69 296 INDEX. Phosphorescence, Nervous, as evident as that of collodion-plate, 69 Luys on, 69-70 exemplified by exercises per- formed automatically, 70 Physiological compared with social structure, 261 Plato, his system, 8 Poetry, A " gift " for, 210 Point of view or doctrine to blame ? 246 Polar bodies, 12 —see also Weismann- ism really are germ-cells, 177 Political activities and the nucleus, 223 Potential immortality, 10, 20 — seealso Weismannism Pownall, Dr., The case of, 111 Potentialities, What, should the state develop ? 236 Pretension, Dogmatic, why men have so long endured it, 135 Priest, The, will have to prove that he is honest, 257 When society will again coddle the, 257 Priests of the antique and science, 255 Potentiality of carnal affluence of, 255 and their " verifications," 255 and society, 256 the product of evolution, 262 Priestly office, Candidates for the, 256 emulation, 257 Primitive cell — see Weismannism historical variation, 171-3 Principles of inquiry, Deductive and inductive, 8 Progress merely change, 250 The doctrine of, 227 Prophets, 100 Protoplasmic existence, Altered con- ditions of, 167-8 Psychology, Scientific, and the trans- mutation of external phenomena, 211 Transcendental, and Weismann- ism, 218 Psychology, Scientific, and Weis- mannism destined to remodel civilization, 229 Punishment, The old doctrine of, 121 Farrer on, 122-3 Q- Quagga markings case instanced by Mr. Spencer, 183-7 Weismann's remarks on, 187 Qualities, Acquired, 9-18— sec also Weismannism not transmissible hereditarily, 18 — see also Weismannism Rascals too clever to be found out, 236 Reason, the capital prerogative of man, 266 71 The lust of, according to Dogma, 98 Keducing, The, division, 176-80 Kefiection absolutely dependent on activity of organism, 39 Eejuvenescence, The old theory of, 171 Religion, The future of, 258 The summum bonum of, 258 A higher, will be manifested through science, 259 will live as long as humanity, 259, 143 A, that affronts reason, intoler- able, 259 The, of science enslaves reason, 98 A, based on impersonal verifica- tion contrasted with one based on personal assumption, 103 No reconciliation possible be- tween dogmatic, and science, 117 The, of science opens the bowels of compassion, 127 Maudsley on, 134 People afraid of pursuing their, to its logical end, 134 the birthright of every man to enjoy as he likes, 143 and science, Draper on, 143-4 Religions, The evolution of all, 159 Reproductive energy, The primitive form of, 170 in healthy woman, Cessa- tion of, 169-70 element, Male and female essen- tially alike, 171 elements distinct from somatic, 186 INDEX. 297 Reproductive, The, nucleus not affected by use and disuse, 189 Only by influencing the, can heredity be affected, 189 element, Organisms composed of nothing but, 215 Eeproduction, The earliest mode of, 172-3 Research cannot reach the origin of the simplest phenomenon, 211 The effect of recent scientific, 137 Eesurrection not mentioned in Old Testament, 154 Rewards, Dogma's system of, is it a high inducement ? 124 Rhetoric, Conclusive and inconclu- sive, 235 Right merely an animalized concep- tion of an indeterminate issue, 51 The tiger's conception of, and man's, 51 Only Dogma has hitherto tried to determine, 52 must be maintained at all hazards, 52 The assumption of a super- naturally defined, ridiculous, 52 Robertson, Controversy with Mr., 197-245 Roman Catholicism the only sacer- dotalism safe from its friends, 152 Romanes, Prof., and the unknown biological factor, 228 on Mr. Spencer's arguments, 188-90, 193-4 Rudimentary Weismannism, 161 S. Sacerdotalism and science, 143-5 Saint, The, when he will adopt evil, 31 Savage, The, compared with the citizen, 249 Scepticism, The greatest blow which the Church could deal to, 135 Schiff on cerebral heat, 46 Science, The verifications of, how differing from those of Dogma, 71 overawed by antique delusion, 113 infers a Law- Maker, 96 tends to eliminate the personal equation, 254 The ultimate verifications of, may be subjective, 254 Science the means by which will be manifested a higher religion, 259 dreads invoking the unknown, 228 Scientific, The, method, what is and is not, 220 age, The, 221 method, The, and tradition, 254 Scientists, Candour desirable in, 241 love their theories, 189 Secondary training, 207 Segmentation of the egg, 238 Selection operative throughout evolu- tion, 188 Selfish animal, Man an innately, 33 Selfishness assumed tantamount to evil, 30 shown the sole incentive of humanity, 30-1 Aim of religious and socialistic schemes to eliminate, 30 The unamiable, of society, 106 the great incentive which keeps humanity at the pull, 139 Sacerdotal, 146 Selfishness of the haves and have- nots, 256-8 not the endowment of one more than of another part of community, 260 of the individual to be counter- acted by that of body- social, 261 of the well-to-do no longer dominates society, 261 of the have-nots can cope with that of haves, 261 of rival politicians, how it affects haves and have-nots, 261 destined again to place society in unstable equilibrium, 261 Self-despatch, when it will become fashionable, 236 Sensations, All our, strictly subjective, 141 Senses, Delusion of the, 252 Sense-realism and reality, 254 Sensibility, Take away peripheral, man reverts to automatism, 40 (Case, 41) 49 Luys on, 49 Sense-organs are themselves devoid of perceptivity, 50 Sensualism, Intellectual, 265-6 Sexual reproduction — see Weis- mannism 298 INDEX. Sexual reproduction, The term, im- plies fallacy, 171 True significance of, 172 Sincerity has an impressive effect, 258 Six-days' creation, Doctrine of a, 127 Astronomy and, 128 Geology and, 129 Social expediency as a guiding con- ception, 247 the factor that moulds society, 259 and the criminal, 263 and the adulterer, 263 structure, More extended unity in, 261 compared with physio- logical structure, 261 Socialism and education, 207 Socialist if transformed into baronet, 260 Society opposes nature in trying to render men equal, 27 cannot afford to turn navvies' sons into wranglers, 28 will rob the philanthropist of his vocation, 105 The, of the future and the aspirations of navvy, 229 an organism, 229 will discourage attempt of foot to usurp function of hand, 229 and navvy's son, 230, 236 a product of evolution, 247 enforces social expediency, 248 evolves its own destiny, 249 and the priests, 256 When, will again coddle the priest, 257 Unstable equilibrium of, 260 compared with the individual, 248 How, might eliminate the unfit, 264 and the regulation of marriage, 264 must hold itself responsible for existence of unfit, 264 must act on recognition that volition is innate, 264 When, will be sound in body, 264 Sociological activities and the nu- cleus, 223 Soma — see Weismannism Effects on the, 238 Somatic characters, 214 — see also Weismannism cells — see Weismannism result, Nervous development a, 238 Sonata-form, The, 219 Sophistry and the punishment of criminals, 248 Sound, a subjective phenomenon, 142 Specially gifted children, 235 Species derived from other species, 18 Spencer, Mr. H., on Weismann's " Immortality," 169 his philosophy assumes the error of transmission of acquired qualities, 22 on physical and mental forces, 43-4 and Dogma, 113, 116 on the expression of opinion, 116 on Weismann's Panmixia, 196 Spencers', Mr., argument for Lam- arckism, 182-97 theory approximates to Darwin's gemmule theory, 182 Spiritual notions contrasted with conscience, 104 State-schools, 203, 235 What potentialities the, should develop, 236 Strasburger's experiment, 174, 181 Strength,Physical and mental,factors of variability, 25 Strive, Why we, 249 Structure, Man's variability of, 25 Wallace on, 26 Darwin on, 26 Variability of, universal, 26 Structures, Simple and complex bio- logical, 164 Subjective conclusions hard to extir- pate, 70 Subjectivity the measure of new conditions, 227 Testing by, 245 Suffering the birthright of organism 248 not a matter of " will," 50 Supernatural, The, of petty entities, 263 of science, The, 7, 96, 228 Survival of the fittest stronger than " morality," 248 Syphilis, how it may affect embryo, 212 and the germ-plasm, 223 INDEX. 299 Teaching, Indiscriminate gratuitous, 242 Terminology , The delusion of abstract, 243 Theological people and " freedom," 251 Thought, Kapidity of, measured, 38 and emotion, 239 Toryism, 228 Toxical effect distinct from heredity, 223 Tradition, Musical, 219, 220, 225 Tradition discredited by experience, 130 Transcendental, The, prizefighter, 220 Transmission, Tales of the, of muti- lations and of the efficacy of maternal impressions, 232 Truth, Definition of, 5 Twins, 180 Type, The human, not modifiable by environment, 240 how affected by mountain- climbing, 210 Typical degeneracy, 231 U. by Unfit, The, is he restrained Dogma's terrorism ? 124 The mentally, suffers as does the physically, 138, 248 How the, might be eliminated, 264 Society must hold itself respon- sible for the existence of, 264 Unhistorical.The, period of evolution, 172-3 Units, Biological and physiological, 164 — see also Weismannism Biological, as real as ether, 165 Unstable equilibrium, The, of society, 27, 260 Use- inheritance assumed, 183 — see also Weismannism The only effective way of re- suscitating the doctrine of, 190 inheritance worth nothing to sociology, 230 The folly of contending for, 231 and disuse, The effects of, can- not be transmitted gradually or suddenly, 213 Variability, Structural, in man, 26 Variation is the aim of evolution, 170 — see also Weismannism Vibration, Nervous, must occur sub- ject to law, 120 assumed "free" to show fallacy of "free-will" assumption, 120 if law-bound, inconsistent with doctrine of rewards and punish- ments, 120 Violet, The, and crow, 18 Visions, 100-3 Philosophical, 252 Virus, A specific, and heredity, 223 Vital elements, 162 — see also Weis- mannism Darwin's, Spencer's, Nageli's, Haeckel's, 162 truths rather than academic nothings, 264 Vocations, The comparative values of, 235 Volition, " bred in the bone," 264 Voluntary, a term suggesting fallacy, 64-5 Voluntary and involuntary acts, automatic, 64, 118, 119- action, The genesis of, 64, 118, 119 Volvocinae, Illustration from the case of, 195 W. Wealth, With the present distribu- tion of, the higher culture, when not applicable, 207 Weismann, Manipulated quotations from, 218 a biologist, not a psychologist, 219 Mr. Bobertson's opinions of, before and after, 221 has not developed his theory towards sociology, 224 and the evolution of music, 225 his discoveries, 9-25 — see also Weismannism and the unknown factor in evolution, 227 on maternal impressions, 232, 237 on hereditary elements, 239 on the germ-tracks of De Vries, 195 300 INDEX. Weismannism, 161-97 and sociology, 197-245 involves such questions as edu- cation, 203, 208, 235 The essence of, 213 Wild shooting at, 217 and transcendental psychology, 219 Pretenders who discuss, 238 and nervous development, 238 and socio-political doctrines, 241 and morality, 246 Weismann's theory and Toryism, 259 achievement, 165 "immortality," 168-70 demolition of the rejuvenescence theory, 172 theory accords with all observed facts, 181 remarks on the gemmule theory, 182 theory ignorantly assailed, 222 Weismannites and Darwinians, 187 Will, The, 72 , a gratification of the organic sensibility, 72 of philanthropist, pietist, moral- ist, a gratification of self, 72-3 Luys on, 72-3 has no existence apart from brain, 111 is as dependent as sight or hunger on cerebral excitation, 106 assumed a faculty separate from every other, 106 Woman, Cessation of reproductive energy in a healthy, 169-70 Women, Married, refused the Eucha- rist, 56 Wrong merely an animalized con- ception of an indeterminate issue, 51 Wundt and others and "free-will," 113 O. NORMAN AND SON, PRINTERS, HART STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON. 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London; 20, South Frederick Street, Edinburgh. CATALOGUE OF SOME "WORKS PUBLISHED BY WILLIAMS & NOBGATE. Ainsworth (W. M.) A Memorial. Being a Selection of his Sermons, Prayers, and Letters of Travel. Edited, with a Memoir, by James Harwood. (Portrait.) Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. Alviella (Count Goblet d') Lectures on the Evolution of the Idea of God. Translated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. (Hibbert Lectures, 1891.) 8vo. 10s. 6d. Barrow (E. P.) Eegni Evangelium: a Survey of the Teaching of Jesus Christ. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. Baur (F. C.) Church History of the First Three Centuries. Trans- lated from the Third German Edition. Edited by the Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s. Baur (F. C.) Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, &c. Edited by E. Zeller. Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 21s. Beard (Eev. Dr. C.) Lectures on the Eeformation of the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. Hibbert Lectures, 1883. 8vo, cloth. (Cheap Edition, is. M.) 10s. Qd. Beard (Eev. Dr. C.) The Universal Christ, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. Beard (Eev. Dr. C.) Port Eoyal, a Contribution to the History of Religion and Literature in France. Cheaper Edition. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 12s. Beard (Eev. Dr. J. E.) The Autobiography of Satan. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. Bleek (F.) Lectures on the Apocalypse. Edited by T. Hossbach. Edited by the Rev. Dr. S. Davidson. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Booth (C.) Life and Labour of the People. Vol. I. The East End of London. Third Edition. 600 pp. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6 d. Vol. II. London (continued). With Appendix of coloured Maps. 2 vols. Cloth. 21s. 2000/10/W2 Catalogue of some Works Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Alone to the Alone. Prayers for Theists, by- several Contributors. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, gilt edges. 5s. Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Hopes of the Human Pace, Hereafter and Here. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Darwinism in Morals, and (13) other Essays. 400 pp. 8vo, cloth. (pub. at 10*'.) 5s. Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Duties of Women. A Course of Lectures delivered in London and Clifton. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Peak in Darien, and other Piddles of Life and Death. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Broken Lights. An Inquiry into the Present Condition and Future Prospects of Religious Faith. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5& Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Dawning Lights. An Inquiry concerning the Secular Results of the New Reformation. 8vo, cloth. 5s. Copner (Eev. Jas.) The Faith of a Pealist. By the Eev. James Copner, M.A., of Bedford. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. Davids (T. W. Ehys) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Eeli- gion, as illustrated by some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism, Hibbert Lectures, 1881. 8vo, cloth. Ws. 6d. Drumraond (Dr.) Philo Juda3us ; or, the Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion. By James Drummokd, LL.I)., Principal of Manchester New College, London. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 21*. Evolution of Christianity, The. By Charles Gill. Second Edition, with Dissertations in answer to Criticism. 8vo, cloth. 12a Ewald (Professor H.) Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Tes- tament. Translated by the Rev. J. Fred. Smith. Vol. I. Yoel, Amos, Hozea, and Zakhaiya ix. — xi. Vol.11. Yesayah, Obadya, Mi