olution Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES GIFT OF CAPT. AND MRS. PAUL MCBRIDE PERIGORD (T?tfTVFT?S!TY of CALIFORNIA EVOLUTION IN SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND ART EVOLUTION IN SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ART POPULAR LECTURES AND DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THE BROOKLYN ETHICAL ASSOCIATION NEW YORK D- APPLETON AND COMPANY 1891 145617 COPYRIGHT, 1891, BY THE BROOKLYN ETHICAL ASSOCIATION. PEEFACE. THE doctrine of Evolution, representing as it does Nature's uniform method whereby all progressive changes are accomplished, whether in Physics, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, or Ethics, is susceptible of an infinite variety of expository illustrations. The present volume, which is the natural successor of previous courses of lectures before the Brooklyn Ethical Association on Evolution and Sociology, exemplifies the workings of this universal law in some of the special departments of Science, Philosophy, and Art. The seventeen lectures herewith presented may be naturally segre- gated under these several heads. To the department of Science be- longs the able exposition and critique of the contributions of Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the law of Natural Selection, to the doctrine of Evolution, by our foremost Amer- ican biologist, Prof. Edward D. Cope, together with the monographs on the evolution of Chemistry, Electric and Magnetic Physics, Botany, Zoology, and Optics, and Mr. Potts's interesting discussion of the devel- opment of Form and Color in Nature. To the department of Philosophy may properly be assigned the ex- position of the life, work, and philosophical system of Prof. Ernst Haeckel, the eminent German evolutionist, in the lecture of Mr. Wake- man and the appended discussion, Dr. Abbot's exposition of The Sci- entific Method, Mr. Underwood's able presentation of the principles of Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Dr. Janes's application of the philosophy of Evolution to the Art of Life, and the noteworthy discussion of The Doctrine of Evolution, its Scope and Influence, by Prof. John Fiske, our ablest American exponent of this doctrine in its ethical and philosophical aspects. The final outcome of these lectures constitutes, it is believed, a complete refutation of the charge of ma- terialism sometimes unjustly made against Mr. Spencer and the whole modern school of evolutionists. This is a matter of great interest and profound significance, to which we commend the thoughtful attention of the reader and reviewer. vi Preface. All lovers of art will be glad to read the lectures on The Evolution of Art, of Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, and Music, wherein the progress of art in general and of these special arts has been traced by able and sympathetic pens. Though aware of many gaps and imper- fections in the discussion of themes so vast and various, it is believed that the average merit of these lectures as a whole is fully up to the standard of previous years ; and it is confidently hoped that they will prove wisely educational, stimulating, and suggestive to thoughtful and inquiring minds. The important bearing of many of the topics herein treated on human life has also been constantly borne in mind, with a view to giving to these discussions a value not merely speculative, but also practical and useful. CONTENTS. Preface, ALFRED EUSSEL WALLACE, 3 His life and work ; his relations with Darwin and to the doctrine of evolution ; his defense of Darwinism ; his scientific discov- eries ; his religious and philosophical views. BY EDWARD D. COPE, PH. D. ERNST HAECKEL, 21 His life and work ; his contributions to biology and embryology ; his discussion with Prof. Virchow on Freedom in Science and Teaching ; his religious and philosophical opinions. BY THADDEUS B. WAKEMAN. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, * 61 The difference between knowledge and ignorance; how knowl- edge is obtained ; the logical tendencies of idealism ; hypothe- sis with verification the 'true method; the consensus of the competent. BY FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT, PH. D. HERBERT SPENCER'S SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY, . . 85 Its historical antecedents ; the relation of Spencer to Hume and Kant ; his synthesis of transcendentalism with experientialism ; his doctrine of " transfigured realism " ; his views not material- istic. BY BENJAMIN F. UNDERWOOD. THE EVOLUTION OF CHEMISTRY, 125 Its relation to alchemy ; notable contributors to its progress ; how it illustrates the doctrine of evolution ; the atomic theory ; relation of chemistry to common life. BY DR. EGBERT G. ECCLES. viii Contents. THE EVOLUTION" OF ELECTKIC AND MAGNETIC PHYSICS, 153 Growth and history of this science ; electricity and magnetism ; their contributions to human welfare ; the future of this sci- ence ; how it illustrates evolutionary principles. BY ARTHUR E. KENNELLY. THE EVOLUTION OF BOTANY, 173 Its early and later history ; notable names of its expositors ; its relation to medical science ; its contributions to human wel- fare ; how it illustrates the principles of evolution. BY FREDERICK J. WULLING, PH. G. THE EVOLUTION OF ZOOLOGY, 203 Its pre-eminent place under evolution and as including man; why it was necessary to have the brutes for our ancestors ; in them the foundations of body, mind, and soul ; this inheritance in us to be respected ; our duties toward animals ; philanthro- py to widen into philzoony. BY REV. JOHN C. KIMBALL. FOKM AND COLOK IN" N~ATUKE, . . 235 The physiology of sense-perception; nature of light and color; warning and protective coloration ; fertilization of plants by insects ; morphological evidences of evolution. BY WILLIAM POTTS. THE EVOLUTION" OF OPTICS, 263 History and growth of the science; the phenomena of vision; evolution of the eye; the eye as an optical instrument; its structural modifications in different animals ; defects of vision ; evolution of the color-sense. BY DR. L. A. W. ALLEMAN, M. A. THE EVOLUTION OF AKT, 297 Changing ideals of art in different ages and as related to differ- ent stages of culture ; relations of art to civilization ; to natu- ral science ; to morals ; to religion. BY JOHN A. TAYLOR. THE EVOLUTION" OF AECHITECTUKE, 321 Architecture of prehistoric races ; of Egypt and Greece ; of the middle ages and the renaissance ; origin of Gothic architect- ure ; evolutionary phases of the art ; Are we to have an Amer- ican type of architectural development I BY REV. JOHN W. CHADWICK. Contents. ix THE EVOLUTION OF SCULPTURE, 345 Characteristics of different periods; Egyptian and Assyrian types; Greek and Roman sculpture; place of the art in the evolution of man's psychic nature. BY THOMAS DAVIDSON. THE EVOLUTION OF PAINTING, 363 Its earlier and later phases ; history of the art ; its leading repre- sentatives ; its growth hampered and encouraged by religion ; its relation to culture and morality. BY FOEEEST P. RUNDELL. THE EVOLUTION OF Music, 385 Subjective nature of the art; development of melody; ethnic contributions to the art; development of harmony and poly- phony ; the melodic-polyphonic stage ; music's wonderful dem- onstration of the law of evolution. BY Z. SIDNEY SAMPSON. LIFE AS A FINE ART, 407 The art of right living ; empirical, scientific, and artistic or phi- losophical ideals in the government of life ; these ideals tested by the principles of evolution ; their true ethical significance. BY DE. LEWIS G. JANES. THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION : ITS SCOPE AND IN- FLUENCE, 435 New method of writing history; modern conceptions of space and time relations ; the new astronomy and geology ; zoology and embryology ; contributions of Darwin and Spencer to the doctrine ; Herbert Spencer its true father ; growth of the con- ception in his mind; alleged materialism of his philosophy refuted. ' BY JOHN FISKE, M. A. Index, . 467 ALFRED EUSSEL WALLACE EDWARD D. COPE, PH.D. AUTHOR OF ORIGIN OP THE FITTEST, THE DESCENT OF MAN, ETC. COLLATERAL READINGS RECOMMENDED: Biographical sketches of Alfred Russel Wallace, in American Cyclo- paedia and Popular Science Monthly ; Huxley's Evolution, in Encyclo- paedia Britannica, and article Evolution, in American Cyclopaedia; Wallace's Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection, Island Life, Tropical Nature, Malay Archipelago, Geographical Distribution of Plants and Animals, Bad Times, A Defense of Modern Spiritualism, and If a Man die shall he live again ? ; Wallace and Dyer's The Distri- bution of Life. ALFRED UUSSEL WALLACE. ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, LL. D. BY E. D. COPE. ALFRED KUSSEL WALLACE was born at Usk, Monmouth- shire, in England, in the year 1822, and he is therefore at present in his sixty-ninth year. As I saw Mr. Wallace in London in 1863, and in America in 1889, I can speak of his appearance "from autopsy." He is above medium height, not of stout build, and with a slight stoop of the shoulders. His head is neither long nor short, and the face is rather round than long. The forehead is fuller at the base than at the summit, and prominent eyebrows overhang eyes which have a vivacious twinkle. The mouth is large and amiable, and is surrounded by a full beard. The complexion is pale, and the expression is a combination of bonhommie and open honesty of character. Dr. Wallace's prominence as a teacher of biology is not due to original researches in paleontology or embryology, or extended papers in comparative anatomy ; but it rests on his extensive investigation of living beings in their mutual relations in actual life. This science, which has been termed hexicology, owes its most important development to his la- bors, and to those of his contemporary, Charles Darwin. It is only possible to pursue it on an extended scale by the observation of Nature under many aspects in many regions, and it is therefore desirable that its cultivators shall be trav- elers. Such have been both Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace's explorations have been principally in the trop- ics of both hemispheres. In 1848 he visited the Amazon and some of its tributaries, where he remained four years. He made extensive collections in zoology during this time, but they were most unfortunately burned in the vessel in which he was making the return voyage. He published an account of his observations in a popular book, which I read as a boy with great interest. He also published a brief account of the palms of the Amazons. In 1854 Dr. Wallace visited the Malaysian Islands, where he remained eight years. The collections and observations which he made during this exploration gave him occupation 4 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. for many years after his return. His collections were espe- cially important in ornithology and entomology, and his ob- serrations brought to light many new facts in the life-history of animals of all branches. Among a multitude of new species discovered by him I only mention now the beautiful and chastely colored paradise-bird from New Guinea, the Semioptera wattacei Scl. When on the Amazon, Wallace had the opportunity of verifying and extending the observa- tions of Bates on the remarkable phenomenon of mimetic analogy presented by the Lepidoptera of that region. In Malaysia he discovered many equally striking examples of the same thing. He observed not only cases of mimetism between living species of insects, but also wonderful mim- icry of inanimate objects and plants by living animals. His studies of the variations of species by this time led him to formulate a theory to account for their origin and persist- ence identical with that given to the world by Mr. Darwin under the name of Natural Selection. Dr. Wallace's first statement of this theory was contained in a letter to Mr. Darwin, written at Ternate in 1858. This letter was afterwards published in the Proceedings of the Linnsean Society of London for 1859 (read August, 1858), under the title On the Tendency of Varieties to depart in- definitely from the Original Type, in conjunction with two papers on the same subject by Mr. Darwin. The letter was shown to Sir Charles Lyell and to Dr. Joseph D. Hooker, who were familiar with the views of Mr. Darwin on the same subject. Mr. Darwin had written a paper as early as 1844, in which essentially the same views were propounded, which had been read to Dr. Hooker, but which had never been published. A letter containing the same general views had been also written by Mr. Darwin to Dr. Asa Gray in 1857. These two papers were published in connection with Mr Wallace's letter in the Proceedings of the Linnaean So ciety, as above mentioned, by Sir Charles Lyell and Dr. J. D. Hooker. Dr. Wallace's paper endeavors to demonstrate the evolution of species in ordinary descent by the action of two factors : First, that species tend naturally to produce varieties or variations of character ; and, second, that if any of these variations or varieties present superior advantages in the struggle for existence over those possessed by its parent, it will separate or replace the latter, thus accom- plishing the introduction of a new form or species in place of the old one. He cites among his various illustrations the Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 5 following : " Even the peculiar colors of many animals, es- pecially insects so closely resembling the soil or the leaves or trunks on which they habitually reside, are explained on the same principle, for though in the course of ages varieties of many tints may have occurred, yet those races having colors best adapted for concealment from their enemies would inevitably survive the longest." The way in which Mr. Darwin reached the same result in his letter of 1844, above mentioned, is slightly different only in being a little more comprehensive, as it includes one more factor viz., the necessarily enormous increase of ani- mals and plants by reproduction and the consequent sever- ity of the struggle for existence. He applies the Malthusian idea to the lower creation, and shows how that any one of the numerous species which exist would soon fill the earth were not checks present on every hand which only permit the survival of those individuals which possess exceptional facilities for success in the pursuit of subsistence. In this way profitable variations of structure have survived and been perpetuated ; in other words, new species have originated and continued. The two papers by Drs. Darwin and Wal- lace embrace all the factors involved in the process of natu- ral selection. Later elucidation of the doctrines of these two able expositors, and by others subsequently, have con- vinced thoughtful persons that it is an expression of a great fact of the evolution of life. Its acceptance has been gen- eral, and the impetus given to research and to thought has been great. In the acceptance of the doctrine of natural selection the public has often confused it with the general doctrine of the evolution of animals by descent, of which natural se- lection is an explanation. The general doctrine of descent is as old as human thought, but it awaited the expositions of Darwin and Wallace before receiving general acceptance. Even the authority of Lamarck, who formulated it a half- century previously, was not sufficient to gain credence for it. Lamarck's principal explanation of the process, the change .of structure through use and disuse, lacked the necessary evidence, and, although he taught the law of natural selec- tion as a corollary, it did not compel assent as did the mas- terly presentation of Darwin and Wallace. Dr. Wallace's first book on evolution was published in 1870, and was entitled Contributions to the Theory of Natu- ral Selection. This work contains the germs of all of his 8 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. In 1878 Dr. Wallace published his two volumes On the Geographical Distribution of Animals. His original re- searches on the distribution of animals in the Malaysian Archipelago furnished the starting point of this work. It is an excellent general exposition of the subject, which has, however, from the nature of the case, become in some points superannuated. The systematic relations of many groups of animals are now better understood than they were then, and paleontology has made great advances be- yond the state of knowledge recorded in this work. In 1878 the work of a popular character on Tropical Nature appeared. His book on Island Life was published in 1880. Here we have a discussion of the faunae of islands, a very fertile subject in the evidence it contributes to questions of distribution in past and present time, and in the restricted, and therefore more comprehensible, fields which it offers for the solution of questions of subsistence, selection, etc. He here brings into final order the evidence as to the primitive separation of the Oriental and Australian faunae which now approach each other so closely in the Malaysian Islands. He found during his residence in Malaysia that the islands of the respective groups were separated from each other by comparatively shallow seas, while a deep channel divides the two groups as a whole from each other. This channel, which passes between Celebes and Borneo at the northwest, and Lombok and Bally at the southwest, is known as Wal- lace's Channel. The fauna of Celebes is, however, some- what intermediate in possessing some types of both faunas. In 1889 Dr. Wallace's last work, Darwinism, appeared. In this book he summarizes the facts and inferences which bear on evolution. As before, natural selection is regard- ed as the leading factor in structural evolution. The sub- jects treated of are arranged in the following order : Chap- ter I. What are Species, and what is meant by their Ori- gin. II. The Struggle for Existence. III. The Variability of Species in a State of Nature. IV. Variations of Domes- tic Animals and Cultivated Plants. V. Natural Selection by Variation and Survival of the Fittest. VI. Difficulties and Objections. VII. Infertility of Crosses between Dis- tinct Species, and the Usual Sterility of Hybrids. VIII. The Origin and Uses of Color in Animals. IX. Warning Coloration and Mimicry. X. Colors and Ornaments Char- acteristic of Sex. XI. Special Colors of Plants, their Ori- gin and Purpose. XII. The Geographical Distribution Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 9 of Organisms. XIII. The Geological Evidence of Evolution. XIV." Fundamental Problems in Relation to Variation and Heredity. XV. Darwinism as applied to Man. XVL Criti- cisms. "XVII. Forces other than Natural Selection. The scope of Darwinism is wider than that of any of Wallace's previous books, and he gives attention to the voluminous literature which had grown up during the in- terval which had elapsed since his first general synopsis published in 1870. The most important part of the book is the large portion which is devoted to the nature and uses of colors in animals and plants. In this field "Wallace's original contributions both to fact and theory are very in- teresting and valuable. His chapter on the geological (i. e., paleontological) evidence of evolution was hardly up to the times, as the American work had not sufficiently at- tracted his attention at the time of his writing. In his criticisms of Spencer, Cope, Semper, and Geddes he denies the efficacy of the Lamarckian factors use and disuse, and the direct effect of the environment on organic structure, but accounts for all variations in the latter by natural selec- tion. Thus Cope had endeavored to explain the origin of the divergence of the diplarthrous ungulate mammalia by supposing that the even- toed line (Artiodactyla) were pro- duced by walking in muddy ground, which spreads the toes equally in all directions, while the odd-toed (Perissodactyla) have descended from forms that walked on dry ground, so that the stimulus of impact and strain was felt by the long- est toe, which was accordingly developed at the expense of the others, thus producing the horse. Dr. Wallace says that such an explanation is not proved, and is unnecessary, since it is evident that it was only necessary for variation in these two directions to have appeared to have been at once taken advantage of by natural selection. The odd- toed type, being best adapted for progress on hard ground, would survive, and the even- toed be eliminated ; while the reverse process would take place among the types that in- habited soft places. To the general proposition involved in this explanation I will return ; but will only say now, in passing, that Dr. Wallace does not thus explain the origin of the" two variations in question ; nor is it certain that, having once originated, the even-toed is not quite as effect- ive as the odd-toed for rapid progress on hard ground. In his Chapter XV, Wallace again expresses his dissatis- faction with natural selection as an explanation of the 10 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. origin of the human mind; and from this standpoint he takes a retrospect of the forces of creation in general. He says : " These three distinct stages (life, consciousness, and intellect) of progress from the inorganic world of matter and motion up to man point clearly to an unseen universe, to a world of spirit, to which the world of matter is alto- gether subordinate. To this spiritual world we may refer the marvelously complex forces which we know as gravita- tion, cohesion, chemical force, radiant force, and electricity, without which the material universe would not exist for a moment in its present form, and perhaps not at all, since without these forces, and perhaps others which may be termed atomic, it is doubtful whether matter itself could have any existence. And still more surely can we refer to it those progressive manifestations of life in the vegetable and the animal, and man, which we may classify as uncon- scious consciousness and intellectual life, and which proba- bly depend upon different degrees of spiritual influx. I have shown that this involves no necessary infraction of the law of continuity in physical or mental evolution, whence it follows that any difficulty we may find in discriminating the organic from the inorganic, the lower vegetable from the lower animal organisms, or the higher animals from the lowest types of man, has no bearing on the question. This is to be decided by showing that a change in essential na- ture (due probably to causes of a higher order than those of the material universe) took place at the several stages of progress which I have indicated a change which may be none the less real because absolutely imperceptible at its point of origin, as is the change which takes place in the curve in which a body is moving where the application of some new force causes the curve to be slightly altered." Dr. Wallace, like other lovers of his kind, has interested himself in some questions of political economy, and has written on Land Nationalization (1882) and on Bad Times, an Essay on the Depression of Trade (1885). He also wrote a book in opposition to vaccination in 1885. He is known to be a believer in the verity of some of the phenomena of Spiritualism or Spiritism, and was a coadjutor of Prof. Crookes in the conduct of some of his experiments in this field. Without being a Swedenborgian, he is an adherent of one of the leading tenets of the founder of that body viz., of the influx, upon man at least, of an influence from with- out him, from a personal spiritual source. Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 11 In reviewing the work of Dr. Wallace one can assert that it furnishes an admirable illustration of the intelligent spirit which is rife in the Indo-European of the nineteenth cent- ury. The desire and the determination to know is its actu- uating motive, and the good of mankind is its ostensible end. It is sustained by the faith that knowledge can not harm us, but that it is, on the other hand, necessary for our safe conduct through time, both as individuals and as a race. The labors undertaken with this end in view have been many and arduous, and Dr. Wallace's illustrate this aspect of the times as much as those of any other man. His work is a life labor conducted with persevering consistency to at- tain a definite result. His life is an excellent illustration of his own doctrine, that all force is will-force. The utility of his life is self-evident, and the effects of it on human thought, and therefore on human action, will remain as long as man- kind thinks and acts. As regards the position occupied by Dr. Wallace among the architects of our knowledge of the doctrine of evolution, I do not hesitate to say that, like that of his great coadjutor Darwin, he has occupied himself with a part only of the work. Like the builder engaged on one side of a building, he has been so attracted and impressed by the rich materials ready to his hand that he has not given heed to the other side of the edifice ; and the higher he has builded, the less has he been able to see the hidden portions. This is natu- ral, and perhaps beneficial, for had he seen the whole eleva- tion in a mental coup ffml, he might not have worked so well at his own nearest portion, and he might have been dis- tracted by the multiplicity of his thoughts and ambitions. But it is certain that admirable powers of observation do not always coexist with the highest logical capacity. Whether this is because of the complementary relation of parts of the mental organism, or because constant occupation with the arrangement of sense impressions excludes the present ac- tivity of logical reflection, and vice versa, we do not know ; but the two faculties are often dissociated in human minds. It seems to have very rarely occurred to Mr. Darwin, and still more rarely to Dr. Wallace, to reflect on, or at least to discuss, the question of the origin of the variations con- cerning which they have said so much and so convincingly. In the writings of both we frequently meet with the ex- Eression that such and such a character has been " caused y natural selection." So habitual did this idea become 12 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. that it is now the creed of a scientific school of the country- men of Darwin and Wallace, and it has influenced the thought of English-speaking people everywhere. That natural selection is not the primary but a secondary factor in evolution it has been my aim to show in various pub- lications since 1868, and an active school of evolutionists in America, England, and Germany occupies this position. In Germany, Nageli and Eimer ; in England, Spencer, Henslow, Turner, and Geddes ; and in America, Hyatt, Jackson, Packard, Osborn, Kyder, Sharp, and Ball, have made important contributions to this doctrine ; and as, in the case of most of these writers, their doctrine includes the essential of the position of Lamarck, the term Neo- lamarckian is appropriate to this school and to its opinions. To the opposite school the term Neodarwinian or Postdar- winian has been applied. The failure of the Neodarwinian school to enter into a consideration of the origin of variation has precluded them from researches into the mechanical causes of modifications of structure, whether proceeding from the movements of the organism in relation to its environment, or whether due to the action of the environment on the organism. Yet they have occasionally slipped into Lamarckian explana- tions of the structures and colors of animals. Lankester has admitted that the spiral coil of the gastropod mollusca was due to an unsymmetrical position of the shell of the animal during growth. Wallace has suggested that the ro- tation of the eye of the flat-fish from one side of the head to the other was due to the effort of the animal to direct that eye upward, as the body gradually acquired the habit of lying and swimming on one side. Poulton ascribes the imitative colors of the pupae of certain butterflies to the effect of the colors of the environment on the nervous organism of the caterpillar when about to change. But these explanations have been abandoned by Lankester and Wallace as implying the insufficiency of the action of natural selection to pro- duce the observed results. The opinions of Weissmann lend support to the Neodar- winians. This author declares that acquired characters can not be inherited, so that if use and disuse should produce modifications in the structure of adult animals, they could not be transmitted to their descendants. If this be true, the Lamarckian position is founded on error. This doc- trine is accepted by Wallace in his last work (Darwinism). Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 13 Weissmann and the other Postdarwinians, however, admit the acquisition and inheritance of what they call " congeni- tal " characters, which appear only in the reproductive ele- ments, and which they distinguish broadly from the char- acters which may be acquired by the body in general through use and disuse, and which they call " somatic characters." They endeavor to prove their hypothesis that the latter are not inherited by endeavoring to reproduce mutilations, such as by the breeding of mice from which the tails have been amputated, etc. It is, however, evident that the distinction between "congenital" and "somatic" acquired characters does not exist, since evolution shows that all characters have been acquired at some period of time, and that the only difference in such characters is their greater or less antiquity. The non-inheritance of mutilations illustrates the principle that the general relations of the organism contribute to the production of a change of character, and that no isolated and sporadic, and therefore superficial, change affects the re- productive elements sufficiently to be transmitted. Pale- ontology shows that the causes which have been sufficient to produce inheritable changes of structure have been in daily or hourly operation for long ages ; and that the results have been the gradual evolution of mechanisms especially adapted to the needs of their possessors in their relations to the en- vironment. We rise to another stage of the subject if, when we grant that the movements of the organism have produced the changes observed and which constitute progressive evolution (and vice versa), we seek for the causes that underlie ani- mal motion. The inference on the part of those who ob- serve living animals is that their conscious states influence their movements. To this two answers are made. One of these is by a school of physiologists who declare that a con- scious (i. e., a mental) state can not influence (i. e., control or direct) the motion of a material body. The other objection is that animal movements are not nearly always consciously performed. To the latter objection it is replied that un- conscious (automatic or reflex) acts are simply the product of education during conscious states, and that a designed act could not have originated in any other way. The first objection that consciousness can not affect motion of mate- rial bodies is a theoretical inference based on the supposed impossibility of violating the law of the conservation of en- ergy. It is a special statement of a general principle viz., 14 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. that mind can not control matter. An equally necessary conclusion is that matter can not control mind. This is not the place to enter into a discussion of this broad question, so I will only refer to Dr. Wallace's position on this impor- tant subject. Dr. Wallace has perceived the necessity of some agency other than mechanical energy to account for the intelli- gence displayed by animals and men. As he does not admit the Lamarckian idea of use and disuse, he finds no direct use for animal consciousness in the premises. He criticises the position of the writer of the present paper (Darwinism, Chapter XIV), that consciousness, and consequently intelli- gence, have been the determining causes of animal move- ments. He well remarks that since evolution has produced the vegetable kingdom and the lowest animals, intelligence can not well have been a factor, and that, this being the case, it is not necessary to suppose it to have been so in the case of the higher animals, as one rule must have governed all cases at the basis. Dr. Wallace does not appear to have taken into consideration the fact, however, that the simplest sensations belong to the department of mind, and that it is highly probable that the lowest animals and their almost indistinguishable vegetable allies give evidence of such rudi- mentary sense-perception; and sensation and memory are sufficient for the evolution of mind. The vegetable king- dom displays^for the most part characters of degeneracy, its entire " efficient " cause being the reproductive function, which has speedily become automatic and unconscious. The rational mind which has not surrendered to the idea of fortuity seeks some explanation of the ever-increasing in- telligence found intimately associated with the evolution of animals. Prof. Haeckel conceived his theory of the " plas- tidule soul " to meet the difficulty ; but the idea is indefi- nite, and would not probably have been entertained by its distinguished author if he had followed up the subject of animal psychology. It still remains in the limbo of unreal- ized fancies. But Dr. Wallace cuts the Gordian knot by the introduction of the idea of " influx " of a mind-energy from without. I can say of this proposition that it appears to be an unnecessary interjection into an otherwise continu- ous operation of known and visible causes. The presence of sensation and memory in very low animals is too well as- sured to render any external influence necessary except that of the environment ; and the process of education is well Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 15 known to produce types of energy which may run on in their unvarying automatic courses to eternity for aught that we know without betraying any indication of consciousness ex- cept that their nature can only be explained on the supposi- tion that consciousness was present at their inception. It is also a self-evident proposition that the automatization of en- ergy must be the cause of the non-adaptability of an organ- ism to changes in the environment, and therefore the cause of the destruction or degeneracy of organisms. The oppo- site proposition is equally self-evident viz., that conscious- ness or sensation is a guarantee of persistent life and adapta- bility to changed environment, and therefore of progressive evolution. In conclusion, I present a table of the alternative posi- tions held by opposite schools of evolutionists, which cor- respond in the main with the Neolamarckian and Neodar- winian. Although particular men may not hold all the affirmations of either side, they form two distinct and con- sistent bodies of doctrine. NEOLAMARCKIAN. 1. Variations are not promiscu- ous, but definite. 2. Variations are caused by the interaction of the organic being and its environment. 3. Acquired variations may be inherited. 4. Variations survive directly as they are adapted to changing environments. 5. Cause of inherited variation is physical and mechanical inter- action of being and environment. 6. Movements of the organism are caused or directed by sensa- tion and other conscious states. 7. Conscious experience has de- veloped habitual movements of the body. 8. The rational mind is devel- oped by experience i. e., memory and classification, NEC-DARWINIAN. 1. Variations are promiscuous or multifarious. 2. Variations are " congenital " and are not caused by the inter- action with the environment. 3. Acquired variations can not be inherited. 4. Variations survive directly as they are adapted to the envi- ronment. 5. Cause of inherited variation is unknown or is the mingling of J and $ characters in reproduc- tion. 6. Movements of organism are not caused by sensation or con- scious states, but are a survival by natural selection from multifari- ous movements. 7. Conscious experience has de- veloped mental habits only. 8. The rational mind is devel- oped by natural selection from multifarious mental activities. 16 Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. DR. MARTIN L. HOLBROOK : In listening to the able and interesting lecture of Prof. Cope, I could not help wishing that he had given us more detailed information about the personal life of Mr. Wallace Knowledge of the personal characteristics of a writer often greatly helps us to an understanding of his thought and to a due appreciation of the value of his opinions. From a friend who knows Mr. Wallace well, I have obtained some facts concerning him which may be of interest. This friend describes him as a tall man, of distinguished appearance, and excellent balance of temperament. He is a good listener, but not gifted in conversation. When he speaks, however, his words carry conviction, on account of his evident sincerity and intelligence. Mr. Wallace became a spiritu- alist, as Dr. Cope has intimated, through the influence of a very inti- mate friend, who is possessed of mediumistic powers, so called, and he is now as firm as a rock in his belief in the general truth of the spirit- ualistic doctrine. As a scientific observer, he was as accurate and painstaking as Mr. Darwin, and, with him, is entitled to the honor of the discovery of the law of natural selection. EX-SURROGATK AfiRAM H. DAILEY : I think I was invited here this evening under a misapprehension. I have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Wallace. I only know him through his writings. I have fallen on a similar line of investigation in the phenomena of spirit-communication with Dr. Wallace, and have come to similar conclusions. It is greatly to be regretted that a con- dition of society exists which deprecates such investigations, and that it requires moral heroism in a man like Mr. Wallace to proclaim his belief in the spiritualistic phenomena. I have no reason to doubt that he has exercised the same care in these investigations that he has in his biological studies. MR. THADDEUS B. WAKEMAN : The lecture of the evening is an able and valuable contribution to the literature of evolution. In his personal character Mr. Wallace stands as high as Darwin. Evolutionists have nothing to apologize for in the characters of the leading advocates of this doctrine. All men, however, have their limitations. Darwin was a great observer Alfred Russel Wallace, LL. D. 17 and discoverer, but not a theorist or philosopher. The development of a consistent philosophy based upon the facts of evolution was impos- sible to him. Mr. Wallace is more inclined to philosophical specula- tions, but he has never been trained in the scientific study of mind, and has therefore fallen a prey to the false theories and conclusions of spiritism. This is his limitation. For myself, I believe that Prof. Haeckel, about whom I am hereafter to speak to you, stands high and clear above all the other advocates of this doctrine as a philosophical evolutionist. Da. LEWIS G. JANES : It is interesting to note that the subject of this lecture has con- sidered the doctrine of evolution in its higher aspects as related to sociology and religion as well as in its merely physical relations. In biology Dr. Wallace is more of a Darwinian than was Mr. Darwin himself. He attributes to natural selection alone many of those alterations in the structure and coloration of birds and animals which Darwin attributed to sexual selection. In reading his latest work, soon after its publication, under the influence of his cogent arguments backed, as they were, by a strong array of facts, and charmed by his delightfully perspicuous style it seemed to me that his conclusions in most of the cases cited by him were fully justified. At all events, his . arguments must be squarely met by a fair appeal to the facts, in order to invalidate their conclusions. In regard to the question of heredity, however, and the effects of use and disuse in determining variations, I can not help thinking his judgment is at fault. He adopts the doctrine of Dr. Weissmann, that acquired characters are not inherited ; but this doctrine has been recently and, as it appears to me, successfully com- bated by Prof. Theodor Eimer, and the facts with which I am familiar seem to be decidedly against it. Nevertheless, the judgment of so good an observer as Mr. Wallace is entitled to most respectful con- sideration. PROF. COPE thanked the audience for their attention and briefly closed the discussion. ERNST HAEOKEL BY THADDEUS B. WAKEMAN COLLATERAL READINGS RECOMMENDED: Haeckel and Virchow, in Contemporary Review, vol. xxxiii, p. 540 ; Darwin and ffaeckel, by Prof. Huxley, in Popular Science Monthly, vol. vi, p. 592 ; article Haeckel, in American Cyclopaedia ; Haeckel's History of Creation, Evolution of Man, General Morphology of Organ- isms, Freedom of Science and Teaching, and India and Ceylon. PROF. ERNST HAECKEL, SIS LIFE, WORKS, CAREER, AND PROPHECY. BY THADDEUS B. WAKEMAN. IT has been wisely arranged that this course of lectures shall be enlivened from time to time by some account of the distinguished naturalists and philosophers whose dis- coveries and labors have given evolution its modern and scientific form. Thus, very appropriately, in the first course of this series in a former year, the pastor of this church gave an admirable discourse upon the personal career, dis- coveries, and influence of Charles Darwin. And equally appropriate was the most interesting account of the life, re- searches, and services of Alfred Kussel Wallace, by our American scientist, Prof. Edward D. Cope, which opened the course of the present season. Next after these two co- discoverers of the great law of natural selection, no one has done more to sustain, explain, and defend evolution than Ernst Haeckel, the famous Professor of Zoology at the Uni- versity of Jena. He is the leading exponent of evolution upon the continent of Europe, and has carried its conquests far beyond the concepts of Darwin or Wallace. This evening is, therefore, properly devoted to an effort to get as near as possible to him, his discoveries, his phi- losophy or view of the world, and his religion. We can ap- proach him best for this purpose if we consider his career first as a man and naturalist, then as the exponent of the monistic philosophy, and lastly as the prophet of " monism " as a religion for he has brought into use this word " mo- nism " to designate the final philosophy and religion of evolution and science. First, then, we must regard him as a man and a natu- ralist, for these two, man and naturalist, in his case, have never been separated ; and, as such, there are few personal characters in the world really more worthy of our acquaint- ance and study than this same German professor, now at the age of fifty-six, working busily as a bee at his pleasant villa, or in his lecture hall and museum, on the banks of 22 Prof. Ernst Haeckel the Saale River, or wandering over Europe, Asia, or Africa as the knight-errant of Science, or defending her latest ac- quisitions against retrogrades and Philistines in the scien- tific assemblies of Germany and Europe, and finally receiv- ing their honors. He was born at Potsdam, near Berlin, February 16, 1834, within a day of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Bruno (February 17, 1600) and two years after the death of Goethe, who is still remembered as the presiding genius of the Saale Valley of Jena and the neighboring Weimar. Haeckel's chief characteristic we may say inheritance as a child seems to have been a love of nature, which justi- fied his being called a German Linnaeus. His love of flow- ers began in the cradle. When but twelve years of age, we are told, he was quite a botanist, and had collected two herbariums one official, in which he had placed what were then called typical forms, all carefully labeled as sepa- rate and distinct species, while in the other, a secret one, were placed the " bad kinds," presenting a long series of specimens transitional from one good species to another. Such discoveries were at that time the forbidden fruits of knowledge, which, in leisure hours, were his secret delight a delight which grew from year to year. While at the Gymnasium, or high school, he prepared a botanical work for publication. At the university he de- termined to enter upon the medical profession as the open gateway to the secrets of nature. As a student he seems to have enjoyed rare advantages. Under the distinguished professors Kolliker and Leydig he studied physiology and anatomy at Wurzburg, and then under Prof. Johannes Miiller at Berlin, an instructor to whom he gives generous meed of praise as his great teacher for in this tone he feel- ingly refers to him in his reply to, or rather duel with, the celebrated physiologist Rudolph Virchow in 1878. Whereof he then spoke he must have known well, for he was also the student and assistant of this same redoubtable Rudolph Virchow, and apparently a favorite of his, until his course of preparatory medical studies closed. At their conclusion we find him settling down as a practicing physician at Ber- lin in 1858. But it was evident to his instructors and friends, and finally to himself, that he was called by nature to, let us say, a different rather than a higher work for can there be a higher than the worthy practice of medicine ? As early Prof. Ernst Haeckel 23 as 1854 he had been engaged with Professors Kolliker and Miiller pursuing experiments and researches in animal tis- sues. In 1857 he published his first biological essay on the tissues of crabs. Two years after, in 1859, we find him withdrawing from his professional practice and spending fifteen months in Italy, engaged in special zoological re- searches. On his return, in 1861, he submitted the results of his studies and experiments to the University of Jena, especially in an essay on Khizopods. This appears to have been the turning-point in his career, for in the next year (1862) he was appointed Professor Extraordinary at that university ; and there he has ever since remained, and has been steadily advanced from one position of honor and use- fulness to another, until it would seem that pretty much all that a naturalist, philosopher, and author could desire has fallen to his lot. During the thirty years of his professorship he has had many calls to other and foreign institutions, but nothing could equal the attractions which bind him to this favored, we may say, to him, almost sacred locality ; for, by singular good fortune, his " earthly days" are spent under the shadow of those Thuringian mountains where his great protagonist and inspirer, Goethe, dreamed and lived, and prophetically poetized the religion of evolution ; and there he works, too, in that very same old independent University of Jena which Goethe directed for years with the expressed hope that it would some day open up this new science of evolution to the world. How deeply this landscape and these associations affect and inspire our professor is seen by his touching fare- well to them on his departure .to India and Ceylon in Octo- ber, 1881. Take this page, for instance, which, as if a cur- tain were raised, opens our view at once into the very heart of the man (page 11) : "My arrangements at last completed, and the sixteen boxes sent in advance to Trieste, I was ready to take leave of dear quiet Jena on the morning of the 8th of October. When the last moment arrived, I found that a six months' absence from home would be no easy task for the father of a family who had already attained the age of forty-seven years. With what different emotions would I have taken my departure twenty-five years ago, when a tropical journey was the chief aim of my life ! True, the experience of twenty-five years of teaching and zoological study would enable me to accomplish more than I could have done 24 Prof. Ernst Haeckel a quarter of a century ago. But I was twenty-five years older ! Would the concrete wonders of tropical nature pos- sess the same fascination for me, now that I had penetrated the abstract domains of natural philosophy ? "These and kindred thoughts, together with the most doleful impressions of my last farewells to home and friends, passed through my brain as the train bore me through the cold gray autumnal mist which enshrouded my beloved Saale Valley. " Only the tallest peaks of our magnificent MmohelkcdTc mountains rose above the misty sea ; on the right, Haus- berg, with his ' rosy, radiant summit,' the proud pyramid of the Jenzig, and the romantic ruins of Kunitzberg. On the left stretched the wooded heights of Rauthal ; and, further on, Goethe's favorite retreat, charming Dornberg. I waved an adieu to these dear old mountain friends, and promised to return to them in good health and richly laden with In- dian treasures. " As if to ratify the promise, they gave me their friendli- est morning greeting ; the dense mist suddenly fell from their shoulders, and the triumphant sun rose into a perfect- ly cloudless sky. Thousands of dew-drops blazed like jewels in the azure cups of the lovely gentians decorating the grassy slopes on either side of the iron road." In these words we have recalled the exquisite landscape, with the mists and inspirations, of Goethe's Novelle, The Tale (Mdhrchen), and his final, noble, wisest Letter from Dornberg Castle, in those " saddest days " of 1828. Before this scene, and as its product largely, we see our heart-and- headful professor and his lovely family so clearly, lovingly depicted that ordinary details must not dim the picture. At this university, Goethe's university, his scientific ca- reer began. Here his early enthusiasm was sheltered when, in 1861, he came from Italy with his love of nature kindled to a flame by his personal explorations, and not less, per- haps, by that wonderful epoch-making book, Darwin's Ori- gin of Species, which had appeared during his absence in 1859. He saw at once that the simple but far-reaching dis- covery of the law of " natural selection " (implying " sexual selection" and so much more afterwards given to the world) contained in this work was the corner-stone upon which materials collected by others, and recently by himself, couM finally be raised into a complete and noble science of biolo- gy ; a solution of the problems of the whole organic world. Prof. Ernst HaecM. 25 To this achievement he determined to devote himself as his lifework. Wonderful has been his success, because he has brought to bear upon it a rare genius sustained by a phe- nomenal industry In order to gather some notion of what is meant by " phe- nomenal industry," we need but to glance over his works and explorations for a few years. In 1862 he presented to his university a celebrated work on the IZadialaria, for which a gold medal was awarded. In this work new genera and species were described and the whole subject newly classified in accordance with the new philosophy of the genealogical descent of organisms, by which he justified his adhesion to the new and then unpopular Darwinian doctrine of the origin of species. In 1863, before the Convention of German Physicians at Stettin, he introduced and stood almost alone in advocating the new views and discoveries of Darwinism as the solving and renovating power in the biological sciences, and as tributary to medicine. In 1864 he published in illustration of the descent of species, an important work on the Crustacea. In 1865 appeared another work on the Medusa. The result of these publications and of his teaching was such that the University of Jena began to be recognized as the unrivaled school of zoology, comparative anatomy, and Biology. A regular professorship was created for him. A museum was established with a lecture hall, and his friend and co-worker, Prof. Gegenbaur, was appointed his as- sistant. The next year (1866) the first of his larger works ap- peared, The Organic Morphology, in two large volumes, with hundreds of charts and illustrations, which astonished the proverbially patient and industrious Germans by their ex- tent, thoroughness, novelty, and general importance. Their main purpose was to prove that the whole domain of com- parative physiology, anatomy, and embryology was scien- tifically reduced to successive order by the new views, which made correlative ' changes and functions the solution of the forms of all living organisms. By this law of evolution he proved that the changes in the development of the embryo epitomize the successive changes which the genus to which the animal belongs has undergone in its world-history. This law of comparative embryology at once gave to biologists an immense power of prevision and discovery; for the tribal 26 Prof. Ernst HaecTcel history of every animal could be largely sketched out by indications and changes in the embryo, and then be verified by actual research and observation in nature. Thus the genesis of the tribe (Phylogenesis] and of the individual ( Ontogenesis) were made to throw light upon and to reveal each other. Another view of great interest was presented in this woik, that the simpler organisms or microbes represented a primi- tive condition of life not only below the distinction of sex, but also below the distinction of animal and vegetable life, and were really such simple forms of protoplasm that they constitute a kingdom by themselves, which he calls the Pro- tista and regards as the common foundation and source of both animals and plants. Prof. Huxley expressed the sen- timent of those capable of judging when he pronounced this Morphology to be one of the greatest scientific works ever published. Its influence was largely instrumental in turning the tide of German thought in favor of the new biology. Certainly after such a display of genius and labor the re- quirement of some rest would appear reasonable, but it seems that Prof. . Haeckel never rests. His vacations are spent in excursions for scientific research and verification. In the winter of 1866 he was at work among the Canary Islands, and upon his return he published an interesting re- port of his explorations there and on the Atlantic coasts. In 1867-'68 he determined to give a popular exposition of the new philosophy the new view of the world. A course of lectures was accordingly delivered, reported, and published, which are now known the world over as The Natural" History of Creation. This work has gone on through revised editions from the first to the 'eighth, and has been translated into English (in two volumes, by the Appletons) and into every modern civilized language. Ex- cepting, perhaps, some of Darwin's works, it has done more than any other to make evolution known as the fundamental law of the organic world. Of it, in the preface to his De- scent of Man, Darwin uses these remarkable words : " The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclu- sion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers for instance, by "Wallace, Hux- ley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Buchner, Eolle, and especially Prof. Ernst HaecTcel 27 by Haeckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work, Generalle Morphologic (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edition, 1870) published his Natural History of Cre- ation, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine." "When we consider from whom these words come, they are the highest encomium a work of that kind could receive. In 1869 Prof. Haeckel published an essay upon the evo- lution of the SiphonophoreS) which was awarded a gold medal at Utrecht. In 1870 he published biological studies on the Monera and Protista of the Catallacts, a new group of Protista. In 1871 he spent March and April on the Dalmatian coast near Trieste, and August and September on the coasts of Xorway, in scientific researches. In 1872 he visited the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean for similar purposes. During these three years he delivered courses of lectures at Jena and Berlin, and published arti- cles on the division of labor in nature and in human life ; also on life at great sea depths, on the genealogical tree of the human race, and on the relationship of the sponges and corals. In 1872 appeared another of his great works viz., The Calcareous Sponges, in three volumes, with sixty plates. This, like his Morphology, is an epoch-making work. It answered the demand of those who insisted upon " actual facts " as the only proofs of evolution by showing the his- tory, connection, and descent of the species of sponges in such masterly detail that ignorance of the work was the only escape from conviction. With its publication evolu- tion was generally admitted to have passed from the stage of hypothesis and to stand forever as a verified law of biol- ogy its fundamental law. In 1874 he published essays upon the Gastraea, or stom- ach, theory ; The Phylogenic Classification of Animals ; and the Homology of Germ-layers of Animals. All these were preparatory to the great work which followed. In 1874-'75 appeared his celebrated Anthropogenic, or Evolution of Man. This is a popular exposition of the ori- gin and evolution of man as a race (phylogenic), and of 28 Prof. Ernst Haeckel man as an individual (ontogenic), with all his organs, com- pared together step by step. It is the true Book of Gen- esis in the Bible of Nature, and proves how much more strange, wonderful, and interesting truth can be than mira- cle, fiction, tradition, and mythology. It is going through as many editions as the Natural History of Creation, and should be read directly after it, as its counterpart and con- clusion. (Published by D. Appleton & Co.) In 1877, before the Association of German Naturalists and Physicians (the leading scientific body of Germany), our knight-errant of evolution was called upon to enter the lists with the celebrated pathologist, Eudolph Virchow, his former instructor, and the leading spirit of the uni- versity and scientific coterie of Berlin. In this duel, as Mr. Gladstone would call it, our knight bore himself right gal- lantly and well, as all may see in his work which resulted from it, which appeared in 1878 as the Liberty in Science and Teaching (published also in English by the Appletons), with a noble and useful introduction by Prof. Huxley. Of this work and its bearing upon philosophic thought more must be said when we touch his philosophy. We have noticed enough of his publications from year to year to show what an indomitable man, naturalist, and worker this Ernst Haeckel must be. His past assures us that he will go on learning, teaching, and publishing to the end of his days, and that he will never touch any topic that he will not enlighten and adorn. In a letter to an American friend, written by his own hand, he classifies his important works to date as follows : I. General Biology and Philosophical Works. 1. General Morphology, 1866. 2. Natural History of Creation, 1868, etc. (8 edi- tions, 12 translations). 3. Collected Popular Essays, 1878. (Bonn, 2 vols.) II. General Zoological and Phylogenetic Works. 1. Gastraea Theory, 1873. 2. Studies of the Monera and other Protista, 1870. 3. Anthropogenie, 1877 (3 editions). III. Zoological Monographs. 1. Radiakria (35 plates), 1862. 2. Calcarspongiae (60 plates), 1872. 3. Medusas (72 plates), 1877. 4. Siphonophoras (64 plates), 1869, 1888. Prof. Ernst HaecM. 29 IV. Reports on the Zoology of H. M. S. Challenger. 1. Deep-sea Medusa (32 plates), 1880. 2. Deep-sea Keratorae (8 plates), 1889. 3. Siphonophorse (50 plates), 1888. 4. Kadialaria (740 plates), 1887. V. Vogages and Travels. 1. Articles on Corfu, Brussa, Teneriffe, Norway, etc., from the Deutsche Rundschau, 1866 to 1878. 2. India and Ceylon, and Egypt (published in Ger- man, English, etc.), 1882. To those who wish to be introduced to our author per- sonally, we say read his India and Ceylon, and he will live with you as a delightful friend and companion ever after. No book of travels is superior to it not even Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, said to be the best of all. In it we learn to admire the physical courage and dexterity which served him so well in the moving incidents of flood and field. We see in him a good physical type of the German, a little over six feet tall, body well proportioned, firm but not gross, with brainy head, straight face, auburn hair, grayish-blue eyes, and sanguine temperament of the true knight ; ready for the contest with Virchow at Munich, the elephant hunt on the Ceylon mountain, or the dangers of the coral grove in the depths of the Indian Ocean. To ap- preciate these physical and mental qualities, think of a Ger- man professor naked and open-eyed in such a water-world as this 1 We quote from his experience at Punta Gallia : " The entire attraction of a coral bank can not be seen from above, even though you float .immediately over it at ebb-tide, and the water is so shallow your boat scrapes against the points. A descent into the fluid element is therefore necessary. Not possessing a diving-bell, I at- tempted to swim to the bottom, keeping my eyes open, and after considerable practice accomplished this feat. Quite wonderful, then, is the mystical green glimmer that illumines the whole of this submarine world. The fascinated eye is continually surprised by the most remarkable light-effects, quite different from those of the familiar upper world with its ' rosy radiance ' ; and doubly curious and interesting are the forms and movements of all the thousand different creat- ures swarming in the coral gardens. The diver is in a new world. Here are multitudes of remarkable fishes, crabs, . 30 Prof. Ernst Haeckel. snails, mussels, star-creatures, worms, etc., whose nourish- ment consists exclusively of the flesh of the coral animals on which their habitations are fixed ; and these coral-de- vourers one may appropriately term them ' parasites ' have, through adaptation to their peculiar mode of life, ac- quired the most astonishing forms, and have been furnished with weapons of defense and of offense of the most singu- lar shapes. " But, if the naturalist may not ramble free from danger among palms, neither may he swim unmolested among coral banks. The Oceanidce, who jealously guard these cool fairy regions of the sea, threaten the intruder with a thousand dangers. The fire-corals (Millepora), as well as the medusas swimming among their branches, sting, when touched, like the most resentful nettles. The floating cilia of many of the mailed fishes (Synanceia) inflict wounds that are as painful and dangerous as those of a scorpion. Many crabs nip in the severest manner with their powerful claws. Black sea-urchins (Diadema) bore their barbed spines, a foot long, into the flesh, where they break off and cause annoying sores. But the worst damage to the venturesome diver is inflicted by the corals themselves. The thousands of sharp points on their calcareous structures cut and abrade the skin in various ways. In all my life I never had such an excoriated and lacerated body as when coral-fishing at Pun- ta Gallia, and I suffered from the wounds for several weeks. But what are _ these transitory sufferings to the naturalist whose whole life has been enriched by the marvelous experi- ence and natural enjoyments of his visit to the wonderful banks of coral ! " Nature may well be willing to reveal her secrets to those who woo her in this courageous way. Nor is it less the delight of such lovers of nature to make the treasures they acquire the common possession of their kind, and such a treasure he is now preparing. The work of the professor now passing through the press is upon the organic world beneath the sea.* In this blessed work of acquiring and imparting knowl- edge our author-hero spends his days, and we may almost say his nights too, surrounded by a happy family and a cir- cle of friends to whom he is the most loveable and therefore *, V fc appear . ed to January, 1891, entitled Plankton-Studien-that is, Sea-Drift h- lfl~ a ^ 1S ^ emarkab le contribution to the wonder- world of protoplasm, Tee a tSat' ' ^" 16 sea ' world hidden from our e y es - We h P e soon to Prof. Ernst Haeckel 31 the most beloved of men a circle that bids fair to include the enlightened world ; and some parts not so enlightened, if we may judge from his difficulty in tearing himself from the embraces of his dusky Ceylonese attendants when he had to bid them a sad farewell ! So also we must part from our consideration of him as a man, to greet him as a phi- losopher. But, in so doing, let us say : Fortunate it is for " the new thought " that he is not alone or singular among evolutionists and scientists, in being worthy of a new order of sainthood, in which devotion to truth and humanity is a saving grace to them, and to themselves for others. So was it with Darwin and Lyell, and so is it with their living co- workers and followers generally. There is no discount to be taken from their personal or general worth. When these pure nature- worshipers enter the Heaven where the whole human race appears in the Pantheon of memory, how soon will they rise above those ancient, mediaeval, abnormal, sickly fanatics who have been canonized as " saints " ! And now, secondly, let us turn to the philosophy of these men, and especially of Prof. Haeckel, to find, if we can, the life motive, or religion, which inspires such noble results. They are all, indeed, scientific evolutionists ; but, of them all, Haeckel appears to be the persistent, consistent, and complete evolutionist, and as such he is entitled to name this new philosophy and religion. The name which he has bestowed upon it is Monism. The only complete evolution- ist ? Darwin, Lyell, Huxley, Hooker, Gray, and others never went far beyond their special sciences never assumed to be general philosophers, much less prophets and teachers of religion. Of those who have expressed " religious " views, we notice that Alfred E. Wallace, who shares with Darwin the discovery of natural selection, has become fatally in- volved in spiritualism and the ghost world, so that he be- lieves that we can not reach the human Ego by natural selec- tion. That assumption is, of course, fatal to his consistency and usefulness as far as general science and complete evolu- tion are concerned. We follow him gladly until his appeal to our rational nature vanishes in the shadowy realms where superstition defies science. Then, like Newton, before the " Prophecies," his observing intellect is powerless. In a sim- ilar way Herbert Spencer starts out grandly, in his scheme of universal evolution, but develops his doctrine of the " Un- knowable " before he reaches the human Ego, and thus his 32 Prof. Ernst Haeckel. system becomes a duality which denies that the Ego is a correlate of the known or knowable world. His philosophy, therefore, leaves the backbone of the world of causal-se- quence broken at the vital point where the objective and subjective unite in Humanity, but not in any Unknowable. The human head is thus fatally dissevered from its world- body. That is to say, he assumes that everything is only a symbol of reality; that every phenomenon is related to a " noumenon " ; and that the consciousness of man is not a correlate of nerve and world changes ; and so between the world and man lies an unaccountable gulf, which is an open gateway through which Eiske and Wallace and the clerical and spiritual "mediums" have (doubtless contrary to his intention) brought back the whole ghostly tribe of entities and spirits, gods and devils, to torture and rob the human race again. The trouble is, that Mr. Spencer, in assuming an " infinite and eternal energy " back of " all things," an ab- solutely unknowable, inscrutable, unhuman noumenon, has lost his grip on the infinite and eternal causal concatenation of things. He has run science ashore on the old sand and fog bank of superstition. There is nothing to do but to pull off, and to change our course under the true lights and verifiable methods of the correlation of " all things." * Let us be thankful, then, that there is one complete evo- lutionist who knows that there is " a causal sequence of phe- nomena " from the farthest star up to and including the mind of man ; and that phenomena are not metaphysical appear- ances or " symbols," but facts, events, changes, processes, realities ! This avowal of the universality of the law of equivalence and correlation in the works of Prof. Haeckel renders them epoch-making books in philosophy and reli- gion as well as in science. According to that law, which has no limit, no exception (not even of the human con- sciousness or Ego), THE WORLD is ONE ; this doctrine is MO- NISM. All of the world's changes are held together by this one fundamental law of causal correlation, from our mind that thinks (the true noumenon), ever on in boundless space and time. Others had said the same thing partially, or in whispers. Haeckel said it boldly, and with an evident de- * It may seem ungracious to refer thus to the " Prophecies " of Newton, the "Papacy" of Comte, the "Spiritism" of Wallace, and the "Unknowable" of Spencer and Fiske. But the errors of great men do great harm. Gratitude to them for their pre-eminent services, and protection from the harm of their errors, both require a fearless appeal to science, evolution, and their practical results. Sufficient time has passed to show, in the opinion of the writer, that none of the ideas above quoted can stand such an appeal. Prof. Ernst Haeckel 33 termination to endure the consequences. The religious and political leaders of Germany were therefore not a little agi- tated when he came forward at the Association of German Naturalists and Physicians at Munich, in the autumn of 1877, with a paper that actually favored the practical teach- ing of evolutionary science and philosophy instead of the old-time theories. Thereupon, before the same assembly, as we have stated, Virchow was put to the front to defend the conservative, or status in quo position, against the incom- ing tide of evolution and monism. Haeckel replied, in a discourse known to the world as the book on Freedom in Science and Teaching. Together with Prof. Huxley's careful introduction, it should be familiar to all our readers. By this discussion the thinking world was brought face to face with monism as a philosophy, and thoughtful men everywhere are trying to answer the question, Can it stand ? Prof. Haeckel has chosen this term monism, so, as he says, to break away from the errors of the past, as indicated by the terms theism, materialism, spiritualism, etc., and also from complications pro or con with other modern phi- losophies, such as the positivism of Comte, the synthetism of Spencer, and the cosmism of Fiske, with whose systems any evolutionary philosophy must be nearly allied. But he prefers a new name and a fresh start, and takes it accord- )th in Europe and in America monism has already a con- siderable and an influential following. The weekly paper and quarterly review, The Open Court and The Monist, under the very able editorship of Dr. Paul Carus, of Chi- cago, are devoted to the new philosophy, and may be taken as illustrations of the hold and ground which this new phase of scientific thought is gaining in America and else- where. "We can no longer ignore it or be indifferent to it. We must squarely meet the question, Can it stand ? * Monism claims to be the last and most consistent word of science in philosophy. As above noted, it grows out of the extended application of the fundamental law of science that of the equivalence and correlation of all knowable phe- nomena or changes possible to the whole world thus bind- ing it all together ad infinitum as a unity. The advocates * Fundamental Problems, by Dr. Paul Carus, published by The Open Court Company, Chicago (price, $1), is the important opening work on monism in America. 34 Prof. Ernst Haeckel. of this philosophy are waiting for some one to bring forward .good reasons for not assenting to this completed phi- losophy of science. Let us see how it stands : The world is divided, as Aris- totle of old said it, into matter, not living, and living. How does this doctrine apply to each? In the inorganic or material world, or world of not living matter, this law of the equivalence and correlation of changes or phenomena is universally accepted. The volume of essays by Grove and others, on The Correlation and Conservation of Forces, col- lected years ago by our friend Prof. E. L. Youmans (pub- lished by D. Appleton & Co.), swept the field and prepared the way for monism in this country. That is the sub- stance of the story of our science, both of the least and of the greatest world-changes ; they are all " correlates." The pull or push and the consequent motions, revolutions, and changes of our sun and of the solar system are they not the correlates of other far-off celestial changes? Our earth and its surface, and all that takes place upon it are these phenomena not correlates of the solar heat ? Those mechanical and other changes as to the masses of matter of which we read in physics, as to its elements, of which chem- istry informs us, and its modes of motion or processes, called heat, light, electricity, etc. are they not correlates all ? As to non-living matter, the question, therefore, is settled. Next, as to living matter, or protoplasm, known only on the surface of our little earth, yet the most wonderful of all substances, " the physical basis of life " can there be a dif- ferent verdict? Its chemistry shows it to be a nitro-carbon in unstable chemical equilibrium (C, 0, H, N", P, and S). Its changes are not only those chemical and physical changes attending other colloid or jelly forms of matter, but they include that wonderful process called life, which is the con- stant adjustment, reaction, and interaction of the organic mass, with its environment, including the processes of as- similation, growth, and division into cells and special or- gans. But these vital processes are manifest correlations of the changes occurring in the body of the organism and in the course of its ancestral development, or in the environ- ment. Protoplasm is the material upon which the impinging world environment plays the music of life and ultimately the symphony of consciousness. That life-music is the cor- relate of the two series of changes viz., the protoplasmic changes and the world changes. Life is not an entity, a Prof. Ernst HaecM. 35 substance, or spirit, or ghost, or spook ; still less is con- sciousness such an entity. The latter as a correlate is sui generis. But if it must be compared to anything, let it be not to any gas or material substance, however impalpable, but to the imponderable agencies or forces electricity, heat, light, etc. The life of man is a process resembling electric phenomena more than a rarefied gas, but it is distinctly cor- related with certain physical conditions, and neither a gas, ether, nor electricity, nor anything but itself ; and we must get rid of such gross materialism in dealing with the subject as that involved in the conception that life is a substantial entity. A state of consciousness is not a property or qual- ity, or even a process of matter, but a sui generis correlate of such processes, and in no sense one of them or like them else it could not be their correlate.* We must also thoroughly recover from the crude idea that correlates are mechanical mixtures, or we shall be ma- terialists or spiritualists and not understand monism. The law is, that no correlate ever resembles its antecedent cor- relates, but is entirely distinct from them. For instance, water is the result of the chemical combination of oxygen and hydrogen gases, but is entirely different from them, and so it is with every other chemical, vital, or mental process and product. In regard to vital and social phenomena, they are in a still higher degree disparate and entirely different from, and wholly incomparable with, the materials and changes from which they result. There is no " music " in the player or the piano, nor in the vibration of the air caused by the playing ; but the correlate of that vibration, as it affects our nervous system, is the state of consciousness which we call music ; and it resembles nothing whatever which has pro- duced it, not even the changes in the nerve-cells imme- diately preceding or attending the consciousness. The pas- sage from the physiological change to its psychical cor- relate, as Prof. Tyndall says in his Belfast address, is " un- thinkable," but yet, as he says, it is a correlate ; it " has its correlative in the physics of the brain " and that is the all- important fact.f All correlations are in the same sense * " My final conclusion, then, about the substantial soul is that it explains noth- ing and guarantees nothing. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as psychology can empirically do." (Principles of Psychology, Chap. X, by Prof. William James, of Harvard University.) t See his Fragments of Science, fifth edition (Appleton's), pp. 419, 420, 463, 524, and to the end of the volume. 36 Prof. Ernst Haeckel " unthinkable." The music sensation is the resultant, the unthinkable correlate, of just such a concomitant nerve- change, and no other ; and that nerve-change dep'ends upon the correlation of the whole world, which stands behind and accompanies it. The consciousnesses of man, and the co- operation by which they become the Ego, may be called the felt music which the world constantly plays on our nervous systems, sensitive and quivering with their own unstable and assimilative life processes. Or, to say it again, like the color music, when the apparently solid rainbow springs from the falling drops as the sunlight plays upon them. That the psychical changes are " co-related " to the physical changes in the nerves,_ Mr. Spencer would doubtless admit, but the correlation is only complete when we take into account the generally omitted factor, the world environment, which really plays the music. Speculations on this subject are generally vitiated by the omission of or failure to realize this factor. Thus it is in the organic world of nerve-action, and the mental world of consciousness, correlation is the bond of unlikes. Nor less is it true in sociology. The " body cor- porate and political," the Leviathan, as Hobbes calls it, exists as the co-operation of all the individuals and sub-organiza- tions which compose it and influence its action. But the city, county, state, and nation is not to be found by any analysis of those parts. There is no city or quality of a city in any one citizen no "teaminess" in one ox. Yet we have anarchists constantly reminding us that the whole can not be greater than all its parts ! Just as though it could be anything like them, or they greater than it or like it? It is necessary to bear in mind this law of the unlikeness of inseparable correlates, or monism can never be under- stood. When it is understood, the ever-varying world is made one, and is at the same time unlocked by it. Haeckel has beautifully illustrated this law in biology, where he has frequently made discoveries that would make the fortune and fame of ordinary naturalists. Take, for instance, his Evolution of Man, and follow the relations of the race in history and of the individual in embryo through the twenty- two stages. (On pages 44 and 189, vol. ii, of the Evolution of Man.) _The formation of cells is correlated to their past and to their environment in the four simpler states. Then the inner and outer skins change forms, and develop into four Prof. Ernst HaecM. 37 other and higher stages. Then come the vertebrates in six grand divisions ; then the mammals in eight higher classes, ending in man. Then every organ of the human system the eye, ear, heart, lungs, etc. is traced back to its original formation, and its changes are given till it evolves into its present form. The masterly way in which this is done we can hardly appreciate until we see it restated by other com- petent naturalists ; for instance, in a pamphlet which I hold in my hand, by Prof. Lester F. Ward, of the Smithsonian Institution of Washington, entitled Haeckel's Genesis of Man, which I hope you may see, and which you may doubt- less obtain from him on application. But still more wonderful than this physical correlation is the constant increase of the mental correlation in proportion to the rise and complexity of the physical organization of animals until, finally, the highest individual manhood and socially the highest civilization is reached. Each of the twenty-two steps which lead from protoplasm to man has its " soul," the psychical correlate of its own physical state, its conditions, and its world environment. In all this Haeckel follows the plain intimation and conclusion of Dar- win, and leaves the world of matter, life, and mind a unity and not a duality. He traces mental evolution back to the protozoa, and thence, step by step, up to the highest " crea- tions " of Shakespeare or Goethe. There is no break, no duality in this world, and no limit to its correlated phenom- ena. The is is ever the child of the was. There is no cre- ation other than causal, efficient, inevitable correlation. In nature every transaction is a reality a complete effect and cause. Phenomena are not appearances in the sense of being symbols of an unknowable reality, as Herbert Spencer and his agnostic disciples would make us believe, but they are actual events of which our sensation is a direct correlate. There can be, therefore, no " unknowable," for everything, including the mind of man, being a correlate of every other thing, may be brought into correlation with it and with our consciousness. The unknown may be practically affirmed to be infinite, but there is no break in or duality between the mind of man and the world of which it is a correlative part. To the agnosticism of Huxley and Dr. Oarus as a confes- sion of intellectual modesty, monism would answer, Yes. To that of Spencer (or Huxley) as an assertion of an unknow- able " entity," " energy " or " power," back of phenomena, 145817 38 Prof. Ernst HaecM. "from whence all things proceed," and beyond possible cor- relation and knowledge decidedly, No ! * By the same law, the spiritism of Wallace and the super- natural beings and entities of theologians and metaphysi- cians are simply impossible. They are all illusions, or the results of illusions or delusions, which have been explained or are to be explained by science. The verdict of the law of scientific correlation remands them at once to the limbo of all spooks the world of the imagination. You might as well argue, in favor of the astronomy of Ptolemy because the sun rises in the east, as to argue in favor of the existence of disembodied ghosts because of the common illusions of our senses. There are illusions, delusions, and frauds, natu- rally enough and in abundance, but there can be no genu- ine " spiritual phenomena." There is no chance of a pos- sibility for such a thing as a spirit, a ghost, or Spencer's unknowable " entity" to exist, for there is nothing left over, and no chance-work possible between correlations under this law of correlation. Existence and correlation are one and the same thing. There can be no life to come, except as it may be a correlate of this life. There can be no dual- ity in the universe. Belief in duality is a sin against sci- ence. Everything, ad infinitum, is conceivable as correla- tion, and therefore it is reality or nothing. There is no possi- ble room for an extra-mundane God, a ghost, or a spook any way or anywhere The true God is the totality of the corre- lated universe the divine reality. The monistic concep- tion is not of a " first cause," " power," or " energy " outside of all things, " from whence all things flow," but that the only cause and causes are in things all things. Every change is effect and cause in never-ending correlation, of which no exception or limit is conceivable. The phenomenal world is a reality having its noumenon in the human intellect, its correlate and its interpreter. Such is the philosophy of monism. In it we have the philosophy of Bruno, Spinoza, and Goethe extended and made exact by the discoveries of modern science the inde- structibility of matter and the equivalence and correlation of all knowable world-changes or " forces," as they are some- times _ dangerously called, for some people are in danger of thinking of force as an entity and not a change. * See Fundamental Problems, by Dr. Paul Carus, especially the chapter on Agnosticism and Phenomenalism. The Stronghold of Mysticism, pp. 137-154- 162, and passim. See, also. Discussion on the Nature and Reality of Religion, between Herbert Spencer and Frederick Harrison, pp. 35, 166, 172, and passim. Prof. Ernst HaecTcel 39 But if this philosophy must stand, where are we ? "What is left for human consolation? Well, things may not be so very bad, after all. " There is no wisdom save in truth." We used to be frightened by ghost stories, but now people seem to be frightened when science tells them that they are realities and not spooks. They seem to think that life becomes too terrifically earnest when we consider it so, and a flight back into some " unknowable " mys- tery is sought as a relief much as we seek shade from the glare of the sun. When each Ego sees itself as the burn- ing point where the infinite world correlates into conscious- ness, it naturally at first looks around for a more modest and less responsible position. But, again, correlation is our refuge and defense. The freedom of the will is the grate- ful illusion which gives us a little world of our own, by which we relieve our fatality and bring our light to bear upon the great objective world, and weave our existence into it as a satisfying immortal creative power. Thus, life is worth living, and insures immortality by its beneficence ; thus, religion and morals receive a solid, scientific founda- tion. For the 'will, scientifically explained, becomes the basis of the world of human effort our subjective world. The freedom of the will results as a practical fact from the law that correlations are distinct from each other. The will, as a faculty of the life, mind, or soul, has, and can have, no consciousness of its own origin, and so is, as to itself, free. As such, it acts apparently independently in the order of affairs, and counts for much (in Prof. Huxley's phrase) " in the order of events." In this way it becomes the founda- tion of morals and discipline and practical life. In a simi- lar way, the rising of the sun in the east founds our practi- cal almanacs and daily duties ; but objectively the sun does not rise at all ; so our will is disclosed by science to be a re- sult of our own life and mind and the world about us. Thus will, free as a correlate, becomes the base of moral relations ; but all those relations are shown by science to be subject to objective law, which underlies the human will just as it does the " rising sun." The illusions are explained, the lights remain ! The objections to this monistic philosophy generally come from those who fail to comprehend or to realize the free-will and moral results of its fundamental laws of corre- lation, and especially the fact that no correlate resembles its antecedent correlates. Prof. Haeckel is by no means clear 40 Prof. Ernst Haeckel of confusing expressions. For instance, he speaks of " me- chanical life phenomena," " atom soul," all matter being considered " equally living," " molecule soul," " carbon soul," etc., which enable objectors like Virchow and others to ob- tain the only advantage they have ever obtained in their discussions with him. But until life and mind are found to be the correlate of non-living matter, and not of the or- ganic action of protoplasm only, such expressions by Prof. Haeckel and other monists are to be limited to the proto- plasmic matter the brains of animals, where only sentiency and thought do exist. Otherwise they are simply poetical expressions as though they were used by the poets Goethe or Wordsworth, or by Comte, " subjectively," as when, for " worship " purposes, he styles the earth " Le grand fetich." So the word " mechanical " is often used by Haeckel to mean natural, causal, correlative. Objectors who have noth- ing better than criticisms of such verbal errors of expression have need to remember logician Mill's rule of safety in such discussions, viz. : " Unless you refute your opponent at his best, you are refuted by him." Haeckel is a German and a specialist, and thus, as a monist, may have sometimes hazy or limited modes of expression and exposition, but, at his best, he stands on the verified, irrefragable, invincible, inex- pugnable law which makes realities of and unifies the facts and processes of the whole world, and compels us to conceive the world as an objective unity, and not as a duality. There- fore, until this law of correlation can be shown to have a limit or an exception, the philosophy of monism stands im- pregnable ; and Haeckel, who gave it this name and recog- nized its scientific completeness, is rightfully regarded as its latest leading champion. For, thirdly, Prof. Haeckel is prominent as a religionist and a reformer-prophet. The position of Prof. Haeckel as a leading naturalist and philosopher would doubtless be gracefully acknowledged by the conservative and even the retrograde influences if he would not, as he does on every fitting occasion, lift up the voice of & prophet and insist that this " monism " is also a religion. In a word, that it is the future Eeligion of Science and Humanity, now in its nascent state. This fact makes him a sort of terror to the spiritual, political, and temporal " powers that be," and a subject of greater interest to us. For if the philosophy of monism is scientifically sound there is no escape from monism as the religion of scientific people Prof. Ernst HaecM. 41 that is, of people really intelligent on this subject. All religion has been very well defined as some philosophy of the world applied in practice and warmed by the consequent emotions. Our morality we may then call our individual practice of such religion in social life and intercourse. Back of every religion, therefore, lies some view and theory of the world, a cosmology or philosophy, by which each peo- ple or sect ciphers out, as best it can, some tolerable rela- tion to the mighty world and the social organism and all their fellow human beings. We find the religious history of our race to consist, therefore, of a gradual evolution of its leading peoples from a broad base of general animism and fetichism, thence to astrology, thence to polytheism, thence to monotheism, and thence to scientism, expressed chiefly to us in the pantheism of Goethe, the positivism of Comte, the synthetism of Spencer, the cosmism of Fiske, and finally by the monism of Haeckel. He proposed this word monism as expressive of the world-unifying law of science, as the summary of all that was true and good in the other philosophic names proposed by the philosophers just named, while it excluded what he regards as the crude and vulgar notions of materialism, spiritualism, and dualism. Our professor is very brave, like many Germans, in in- venting new words instead of adding new meanings or shades of meaning to old ones. If scientific people would take religiously to this name, monism, it would certainly help to clear up things wonderfully, for it excludes at once a mass of old errors and misconceptions which will hang around the old words ; but to many it is just this protective twilight of uncertainty in philosophy and religion half concealing and half revealing which makes old names, symbols, and ideas alternately repelling and attractive, tan- talizing and comforting. Our monist prophet has brought us well out of this twilight, and the situation looks better the clearer it is seen. Every clear view of the world is fol- lowed by a sincere conviction, and such conviction becomes a " faith " and an enduring well-spring of energy and con- solation. Monism in that view rises above all religions as the culmination of all. If anything can be, it is the uni- versal faith. Because it is based upon verified science, it is positive monism; because it depends upon the objective anity of the world, it is monistic positivism. By one name or another the highest scientific solution of the world, so- ciety, and man, when scientific methods are carried to their 42 Prof. Ernst HaecM. final results over every known domain, must result in a sci- entific faith. This scientific faith, or faith according to knowledge, is certainly the rising faith of mankind. It received its solid, everlasting foundation when Copernicus, Bruno, and Gali- leo gave us the true solar system, which revealed to us a new earth and a new heaven, and consequently a new philosophy, finally to lead to this new religion. From Des- cartes, Spinoza, Bacon, and Diderot, Goethe received this new world of science, barren and forlorn, as it rose out of the chaos of the French revolution. He was the first great creative and furnishing soul that fully moved into it to stay. He peopled it with enduring and even human char- acters, sowed the seed to cover the naked landscape with use and beauty, and made the very clouds glow with a light that foretold a higher heaven than Iramanity had ever dreamed. Haeckel is fond of quoting Goethe ; and well he may be. As we recede in time, the distance brings out, mountain- like, the true height of this poet-prophet of the new faith of the new era. We begin to see how he, in science, had a sure prevision of the results of our evolution ; in politics, he discounted the French revolution and the metaphysical anarchy of his and even of our time ; in religion, he rightly estimated all the theologies, and sung the emancipation of erring man (Faust), from the very devil to whom he had sold himself, and the conquest of a heaven of ever-increas- ing progress and blessedness by his own victorious striving to accomplish the good. In a wonderful poem called In- heritance ( Vermdchtniss) Goethe expressly dates the new era from " the sage who showed the earth to circle around the sun and taught her sister orbs their paths." These triumphs of astronomy, followed by similar prog- ress in physics and chemistry, made sure the material foundation of the scientific faith at the close of the last century. Our century opened with the great triumphs in biology, or the organic world, led by Oken, Goethe, and especially the unappreciated Lamarck. They laid the foun- dation of the new faith in the vital world, upon which Dar- win and Haeckel have well-nigh completed the structure. From Lamarck's Philosophic Zoologique (1809) Haeckel quotes this biological foundation in a useful summary, as follows (History of Creation, vol. i, p. 112) : " The systematic division of classes, orders, families, genera, and species, as well as their designations, are the Prof. Ernst HaecM. 43 arbitrary and artificial productions of man. The kinds or species of prganisms are of unequal age, developed one after another, and show only a relative and temporary persist- ence. Species arise out of varieties. The differences in the conditions of life have a modifying influence on the organi- zation, the general form, and the parts of animals, and so has the use or disuse of organs. In the first beginning only the very simplest and lowest animals and plants came into existence ; those of a more complex organization only at a later period. The course of the earth's development, and that of its organic inhabitants, was continuous, not inter- rupted by violent revolutions. Life is purely a physical phe- nomenon. All the phenomena of life depend on mechanical, physical, and chemical causes, which are inherent in the nature of matter itself. The simplest animals and the simplest plants, which stand at the lowest point in the scale of organization, have originated and still originate by spon- taneous generation. All animate natural bodies or organ- isms are subject to the same laws as inanimate natural bodies or organs. The ideas and actions of the understand- ing are the emotional phenomena of the central nerve system. The will is in truth never free. Eeason is only a higher degree of development and combination of judg- ments." Thus was the truth spoken, but none then had ears to hear. Next as to the sociological foundation : In 1857 Auguste Comte, another unappreciated French- man, had done for sociology what Copernicus did for as- tronomy and Lamarck had done for biology. He had named and outlined and misapplied that science. He dis- covered that man was not the product of Nature only, but of society and its continuity and solidarity ; that there was no solution of man without society : " Entre Vliomme et le monde il faut Vhumanite" Between man and the world, he said, there lies, and there is need of, humanity, as the solution of the world and the saviour of man. Comte, if he did not originate, brought into order the first positive philosophy, and on it founded his " positive " religion. We have from him some indispensable things lying at the very base of monism, which, because of his papistic notions, are fatally overlooked, but without which monism can not be understood or appreciated, viz. '. 1. A truer view of the relativity of knowledge ; that it re- lates to man and not to any objective " noumenon." 44 Prof. Ernst Haeckel 2. A true correlative classification of the special sciences, viz., astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, eth- ics, psychology ; that is, from the greater and general to the smaller and more complex i. e., from the star- world down to the mind of man. 3. The law of the " three states," or of " deanthropo- morphization," as John Fiske states it with his peculiar brevity. That is, that man's philosophical conceptions develop from theology to metaphysics, and finally to sci- ence. 4. The supremacy of humanity ; as the solution, guaran- tor, and chief factor of human life and human affairs. 5. The general law of interdependence ; that the higher rests upon the lower, buc that both are for each other. 6. That rights and duties are the two sides of the same relation under the love, order, and progress of scientific so- ciology. The French people are slow to discover their great men. Lamarck and Cointe have never been understood by theo- logical and metaphysical France ; and the France of science, aside from narrow-minded specialism, has yet chiefly to come. The works of Herbert Spencer and of our own John Fiske are also able approaches to monism, and are too well known in this country to require lengthy exposition here. They have added materially to the better understanding of the new philosophy and religion of science, and, as commen- taries upon and contributions toward it, are invaluable. We have noted the error that seems to many common to them both, so plainly pointed out and dwelt upon by Frederic Harrison, the English positivist, in his celebrated religious discussions with Mr. Spencer viz., the unwarranted assump- tion of an unknowable " entity " or " energy " back of phe- nomena and back of human consciousness. This seems to be plainly irreconcilable with the doctrine of universal corre- lation. And that it is as plainly " unreligious " in its practi- cal consequences, I think Mr. Harrison has made equally manifest in the Discussion referred to. The cosmic emotion, with its wonder, awe, and venera- tion, is excited and best sustained by The All the world of correlation and not by any " energy " outside of it : " from whence all things flow," as Mr. Spencer tells us. The " all things " which does not include all possible " energy " is an incomplete schedule. " Energy " is a correlated part of " all Prof. Ernst Haeckel 45 things " or it is nothing. It is this uncorrelated nothing which is the nest-egg of all superstition and which breeds uncertainty and terror instead of true, healthy world-wor- ship, the cosmic emotion of Goethe, Shelley, Byron, Words- worth, and of the modern school of natural poetry and painting the proper emotional side of modern science. Fortunately, Prof. Haeckel* is not bothered by the "un- knowable noumenon," nor was Comte or Goethe. All expressions from their works that seem to imply that they placed a " noumenon " outside of the world, mankind or the Ego, are, in religion, as in philosophy, to be reconciled with science or read as poetry. As scientists and religionists they held no parley with "unknowable" energies, entities, or spooks of any kind, following strictly Faust's last advice to man: " Wenn Geister spucken, geh' er seinen Gang." When ghosts spook, let him go straight on his way. Or, again 1 Willst du in Unendliches schreiten f Geh' nur in eudlichen nach alien Seiten ! ' In the Infinite wilt thou stray f Through the Finite take thy way ! The astonishing thing about Goethe, Comte, and Haeckel is that they in religion so thoroughly emancipated them- selves from theology and metaphysics ; and two of them were Germans ! The result is, that they and their school of general scientists and reformers are, as we enter the new era, the chief sources of any true enlightenment or guidance, especially in religious, social, or political affairs. Of course these men are in no sense to be regarded individually as models, but they had reached the scientific, historical spirit, which is always integrative, saving, and yet progressive. Take, for example, Comte's view of sociology and politics. These, like the conception of God and every other subject, according to Comte's law, evolve through the three stages of theology, metaphysics, and science. The old theologic phase or method in sociology and politics is that of divine command or authority. " Thus saith the Lord," etc. Then comes the metaphysical stage and phase, which is one of defiance, rights, revolutions, " administrative nihilism," re- fusal to co-operate or do anything but to agitate, fume, and grumble. This spirit of anarchy, now rampant among our reformers, is in many respects more destructive and unpro- 46 Prof. Ernst HaecM. gressive than the old principle of authority. It can never agree upon any proposition for social reform but not to do it. Eights are fatally divorced from duties. But there is a third view and spirit in regard to social and political affairs a spirit of science, which breathes from the works of the great men we have named. That spirit is evolutionary. It is integrative and yet differentiative, con- servative and yet progressive laying the sure foundation of the real liberty and welfare of the individual in the social, integrative order, which, no matter what the form of govern- ment, can alone make such liberty and welfare possible. Take, for instance, Goethe's remarkable letter from the Dorn- berg Castle in 1828, to which we have referred, on the death of the Duke, upon the administration of the little world of the Duchy of Weimar, and compare its far-reaching wisdom, resting upon the continuity and solidarity of society, with the shallowness of the French social philosophy of that day or of our current metaphysical anarchism. Or do the same with the sociology of Comte excepting, of course, his pa- pistic Utopia, which belongs only to the past polity of the Latin races, as to which he was misled, largely by De Mais- tre's work on the Pope. Then turn to the latter part of Haeckel's Freedom of Science and Teaching, and see how under the scientific spirit he, too, preserves the integrative and the differenti- ative sides of social progress, and refuses to be driven into anarchy by the taunts of Virchow, who evidently sought in that way to compass his destruction. Haeckel had never the time to study deeply history, law, statesmanship, or poli- tics, yet his scientific instinct and spirit enabled him to apply in sociology the law of biology ; that true progress in the social, as in the animal, world must be an ever-in- creasing integration of the functions of organs ever increas- ing in their freedom of individual action. This law, stated by Goethe fifty years ago and quoted from him by our Carey as the basis of his great work on Social Science, is just as true of a jelly-fish as of an elephant of a Eoman Empire as of a man ; it is true of every social organism ; of the Re- public of the United States, or of the Republic of the World ! If some intimation of this law could reach our anarchistic reformers, how soon their metaphysical bubbles would col- lapse ! Finally. It we turn to the treatment of the religious progress of mankind under this scientific spirit of evolu- Prof. Ernst Haeckel. 47 tion, we find the wisdom and influence of the same great men a source of real health and strength. They only give us religion without the superstition of theology or the an- archy of metaphysics. It seems clear that from them and their spirit we must learn or go on from bad to worse. The religion which is the social, integrative, co-operative, and saving element of human nature can no longer be fed and sustained by ghostly gods, spooky devils, categorical im- peratives, or inscrutable unknowables. Voltaire (as quoted on the title-page of his Biography by James Parton) asks the pertinent question which he could not answer : " Tis a pity to spend half of our life in destroying enchanted castles. Far better to establish truths than to examine lies but where are the truths?" Thanks to evolution, the truths have come and are coming in their good time. Up to Voltaire's day the known world had been little more than an enchanted, or rather ghost- haunted, castle of existence. His German successor, Goethe, used the true to realize the good and beautiful. He ac- cepted this life in the monistic spirit as the real fact, and the whole world and God as one The All. The concep- tions of God from the Hebrew prophets down, when freed from limitations and anthropomorphisms, end in this object- ive conception of God as The All ; not as a ghost, spirit, or spook, outside of the universe, but as reality itself, infinite and eternal. "We have thus the scientifically revised defi- nition : God is the world, infinite, eternal, and unchange- able in its being and in its laws, but ever varying in its cor- relations. Goethe, by true and grand expressions of divine and cos- mic emotion, raised aloft as the true revelation of God the monistic concept which has been worked out by the modern objective sciences still in their glorious career of progress. The next great fruitful religious development of our time seems to come from the Latin race through the word of Comte, that the true Christ is Humanity itself. " Between man and the world there lies, and there is need of, humanity"; this can not be repeated too often. The organic action of society is the foundation of all social and individual progress. Only by this mediator and saviour > Humanity, is there any real hope or salvation for the individual. Only by this Son of Man and of God can we come unto the Father the 48 Prof. Ernst Haeckel. divine universe. Herbert Spencer, though often dissenting from M. Comte's ideas, bases his own best work upon his sociological principles. Notice, for instance, his splendid demonstration of the organic nature of society and history in his Sociology, and his often-repeated proof that the "in- nate ideas" are the results of race-inheritance instead of individual experience. In all such cases he is following the line of the great inspirations of our day, which are based upon the continuity and solidarity of mankind. Our great American patriots and orators from the Revolution to Lin- coln, and especially in the grander orations of Daniel Web- ster, have these fundamental ideas and sentiments as their inspiration. The generations past and to come underlie, sustain, and consecrate every appeal to duty and patriotism. Thus, as the conception of the Christ as a man, under evo- lutional criticism, vanishes from history, the ideal Messiah, which gave rise to the belief that there was once such a man, has become incarnated in the history and fact of the evolution of the race itself, revealing it as our ever-living Saviour. The next person of the old religious Trinity is no longer the Holy Ghost, but the holy life of man, in which we all partake, and which is the most precious thing in the world human life ! Its co-operative altruistic power is our true sustainer and " comforter." The " Holy Mother " of the Roman faith is enlarged, as in the concluding line of Faust, into the " Eternal-woman- ly " that leads humanity ever upward and on. In a word, she is Womanhood continuous, replacing, sustaining, glori- fied as " Maiden, Mother, Queen, and Goddess." The true Bible is no longer those old Hebrew and Greek documents, strangely bound together as one book ; but the books, good and true, of the whole world and of all time. The (Jreed is not any number of Church Articles, but the conclusions of science, ever being revised, and expressed in a positive philosophy as the best description of the know- able world. Of the Heavens and Hells, " the places that knew them once now know them no more." But in the misery and joy, the remorse and blessedness of the human hearts they have their new location ; and between them stands every day as the Day of Judgment. There is scarcely a name, symbol, or line of the old faiths which can not be thus found to be replaced and enlarged Prof. Ernst HaecM. 49 by the new and true view of the world and of human life and destiny. There is no time nor need to continue further here these old religious names, once believed in as facts, and which now are of value only as symbols of the grander truths since evolved, but which they, if still used, may express. How to thus translate them, these hints only must suffice. The illusions depart, the truths remain ! When the old religions fall, what will you give in their place ? We answer. Religion I Look around ! The en- chanted castle of existence of the past was but a half-seen, discolored prophecy of the truth which is replacing it, with a grandeur and a reality that terrifies the soul at first. Peo- ple are frightened when science tells them that this world is the real one, and " the other " its shadow. -But this true world includes all is The All ! It brings with it a new phi- losophy, religion, morality, life, and motive, which is an en- during well-spring of energy, consolation, and hope not of pessimism nor optimism, but of ever-victorious meliorism. Do not as an ethical society fear that the old moral lights will be blown out and darkness result. The true scientific foundation will replace the old, as in our cities the scientific electric light has come to take the place of the old smoky lamps. To secure such replacement, throughout the whole individual and social domain of human affairs, is the motive and inspiration of those scientists who, in Europe and Amer- ica, put their conclusions before the people in the simplest language, yet ever eloquent with these new purposes and hopes. Of the noblest of such teachers and prophets none stands forth more prominently than Ernst Haeckel. From his concluding words at that Munich contest rings out the motto which, in a word, expresses the impulse of his own life, and of the creative era of the new faith of Monism : Impavidi progrediamur ! " Undaunted we press ever on ! " But in this motto we can not escape the echo of a verse of Goethe's magnificent " Symbol " of the progress of man progress between "the great silences" of the stars and the grave a poem which Carlyle has called, and made im- mortal to us as, the deepest, grandest word of our time : Die Zukunft decket The future hides Schmerzen und Gliicke. Sorrows and gladness. Schrittweis dem Blicke, Stepwise to the sight, Doch ungeschrecket, Yet undaunted, Dringen wir vorwarts ! We press ever on J 50 Prof. Ernst Haeckel ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. MR. NELSON J. GATES : The intelligent world owes a debt of gratitude to Prof. Haeckel. It is due to his labors, mainly, that the doctrine of evolution is now as well established as Kepler's laws of the motions of the planetary bodies, or Newton's law of gravitation. No careful student of modern scientific thought now doubts that the law of cause and effect prevails through- out all phenomena, whether physical or mental. Every effect is the exact product of antecedent causes. Thought is as much the product of the condition's under which it arises as is the formation of a crystal or the growth of a tree. There is no room for supernatural interfer- ence anywhere. Though the natural evolution of living forms out of non-living matter has not been demonstrated as a fact of present oc- currence, there is no doubt in the mind of consistent evolutionists that the most primitive organisms were originally produced by spon- taneous generation. Prof. Haeckel's investigations in embryology constitute a most important confirmation of the Darwinian theory, and entitle him to be placed in the front rank -of experimental scientists. PROF. P. H. VAN DER WEYDE : Dr. Vander Weyde exhibited a series of drawings enlarged from plates contained in the works of Prof. Haeckel, illustrative of human evolution. The lowest form of mankind was shown to be scarcely as intelligent in appearance as the higher apes, and the brain capacity of the lowest races was but little superior to that of the highest non- human mammals. He also explained, by the aid of a map, Prof. Haeckel's theory as to the geographical distribution of the human race. Dr. Van der Weyde saw no difficulty in conceiving that all living things, including man, were developed from eternally existing matter only the matter itself must have been living matter, not dead and inert, as was formerly believed. DR. ROBERT G. ECCLES : Mr. Wakeman wholly misunderstands Mr. Spencer's position as to the nature of mind or consciousness. Mr. Spencer does not regard consciousness as an entity, but as a phenomenal process. Mr. Wake- Prof. Ernst HaecM. 51 man's position respecting consciousness as a temporary phase of being, causally correlated with brain changes, positively implies the miracle of creation and opposes the doctrine of natural evolution. The physi- cal facts of extension, motion, and time involved in the molecular or functional activities of the brain can by no possible conjuring be con- ceived of in terms of consciousness. Between the two series of pro- cesses there is an impassable gulf in thought. No thinkable arrange- ments of the former can enable us to conceive the latter as being caused thereby. An unthinkable proposition is a false proposition, if we can place any reliance on reason. He wants us to believe that when matter and motion are properly arranged together in the brain, and played upon by the changes of the external world, by some " presto, change " process, we get mind ; and yet he holds that neither matter nor motion contains any distinctly psychic elements when apart or combined in any other manner than in the brain. His statement is exactly equivalent to saying that by certain arrangements of the parti- cles of two mountains they could be set side by side without a valley between. We know that Nature changes her form incessantly, but we have no evidence that she ever creates anything new. The substance, time, space, motion, and consciousness of things may assume endless guises, but we have no reason for supposing an increase or diminution in quantity of either. Modes of consciousness, like modes of motion, may change, but both, so far as we know, persist everlastingly in some form; at least, such is the logical conclusion of the evolutionist. When Mr. Wakeman tells us that there is no room anywhere in the universe for a god or a spook, he arrogantly assumes knowledge which man neither does nor ever can possess. What can a finite creature with finite knowledge ever know about the possibilities of the infinite I Has he grasped every fact of nature to enable him to tell whether his stupendous assumption does or does not agree with them I A more modest man might make his statement as a mere unverified belief, for which he alone is responsible, but to put it forward as established truth is preposterous. We know nothing of the universe as it exists apart from our own consciousness, which is finite and lim- ited in its modes of activity. Our knowledge is necessarily limited to the narrow range of our experience. What we know, therefore, is in ourselves. We can know the external universe only symbolically. As well might the eyeless worm try to picture the world as we see it, as we to picture the actual totality of conditions of the Universal Being in which we are incessantly enveloped. 52 Prof. Ernst Haeckel DR. LEWIS G. JANES : Evolution has a very broad back. It can carry all sorts of theories of the universe, and not break down under the load. Our biographical lectures have at least been successful in demonstrating that the doc- trine of evolution can be held in connection with a great variety of theological and anti-theological speculations. Yet, when any complete philosophical statement of the doctrine is attempted, we find, I think, substantial agreement in fundamental principles. Darwin, as has been said, did not assume to have any consistent, well-ordered explanation of the general philosophy of evolution. He appeared to incline at one time to theistic, at another to materialistic views of the world, yet he named Herbert Spencer " our greatest philosopher," and did not ex- pressly dissent from his main doctrines. Asa Gray was a pronounced theist, who did not regard the doctrine of evolution as inconsistent with his Presbyterian profession of faith. Wallace is a spiritualist, and Prof. Haeckel a monist, but not more of one, as I understand it, than Darwin or Spencer. The doctrine of evolution is unquestion- ably indebted to Prof. Haeckel more than to any living biological investigator for an immense and orderly array of facts in its support. He has also contributed something of value to its broader field of philosophical thought. Mr'. Wakeman's interpretation of Haeckel's monisfic philosophy, however, to my mind, is not entirely correct or adequate. It is not, as I understand it from his writings, inconsistent with the recognition of the psychological principle of the relativity of our knowledge, on which rests Herbert Spencer's doctrine of the un- knowable. On the contrary, it expressly recognizes this principle. Prof. Haeckel clearly states the doctrine of relativity in numerous passages in his writings. In his History of Creation he says : " We nowhere arrive at a knowledge of first causes. ... In explaining the most simple physical or chemical phenomena, as the falling of a stone, or the formation of chemical combinations, we arrive ... at other remoter phenomena which are in themselves mysterious. This arises from the limitation or relativity of our powers of understanding. We must not forget that human knowledge is absolutely limited, and pos- sesses only a relative extension. It is, in its essence, limited by the very nature of our senses and of our brains." He also evidently be- lieves that life is no mere by-play of nature, as Mr. Wakeman has represented it to be, but a constant and eternal ingredient in the uni- verse. He speaks of " the animating of all matter, the inseparability of mental power and corporeal substance." He quotes approvingly Goethe's assertion that " matter can never exist and be active without mind, nor can mind without matter." With Mr. Spencer he recognizes Prof. Ernst Haeckel. 53 mind and matter as the eternally related but opposing sides of one substantial reality. He calls his philosophy a " mechanical " philosophy, it is true using this term, as I understand him, in common with a school of European thinkers, to indicate the universality of the prin- ciple of causation of what we term " law," as opposed to chance, caprice, or miracle. In this respect, too, he is in entire agreement with Mr. Spencer. The doctrine of the unknowable does not imply any interference with the causal correlation of phenomena. It does not open the door, as Mr. Wakeman has implied, to the primitive ghost or " spook " idea. Prof. HaeckePs views are not, in the old-fashioned "metaphysical" terminology, materialistic, any more than are Mr. Spencer's. In his reply to Prof. Virchow he says: "All human knowledge as such is subjective." He declares gravitation a mere hypothesis, and says : " All the conceptions which we possess of the chemical structure and affinities of matter are subjective hypotheses, mere conceptions as to the positions and changes of position of the various atoms, whose very existence is incapable of proof." It would be easier to construct a system of idealism on such foundation prin- ciples than a materialistic system. Both Herbert Spencer and John Fiske, the ablest exponents of the philosophy of evolution in England and America, have expressly disclaimed the alleged materialistic im- plications of this philosophy. Neither mind nor matter, according to Mr. Spencer, is a substance or " thing in itself " ; both are phenomenal, symbolically representative of one unknowable reality. The 3penceri- an philosophy is a monistic system, based upon this unknowable reality. The proof that this reality is unknowable, in its essential nature, is not metaphysical, but purely scientific, depending as it does upon the sci- entific demonstration of the nature and limitations of our modes of sense-perception. The pictures which we form of the external world are simply synthetized symbols of the psycho-physiological sensations which we derive from contact with it. As the symbols are constant, however, we recognize the order of nature as steadfast, we accept it as a real, objective fact, which corresponds with our symbolical conceptions. The world, therefore, is not an illusion ; our knowledge is a real, though representative and symbolical, knowledge of real objective relations. MR. WAKEMAN, IN REPLY : My thanks are due to Mr. Gates for his very concise, clear, and able statement of the general conclusion set forth in my lecture, and which, I believe, w.ill in time become the conviction of all who carefully think and investigate. I am also under deep obligations to Prof. Vander Weyde for his kind and sustaining words, as often I have been during many years of pleas- 54 Prof. Ernst HaccM. ant and helpful intercourse with him in matters of science and reform. We all recognize in him a worthy representative may we not almost say, in view of his advanced years, survivor ? successor, certainly, of Huygens and the great physicists and discoverers, who have made his native Holland glorious as the nursery and home of science and liberty. His remarks this evening have not only been in the line of my lecture, but his charts and drawings have made evolution visible to the eye and mind at once, and so have done what no lecture otherwise could. But what shall I say of my two opposing critics, Dr. Eccles and Dr. Janes ? Fortunately, by taking the last first, they help to explain the lecture, and to extinguish each other. Dr. Janes, for instance, well confirms all I said about the great va- riety of limited and incomplete evolutionists ; and he joins with me in placing Prof. Haeckel in the front rank as a naturalist and philosopher. That the lecture was " inadequate " may be true, for the whole of a new system of philosophy and religion could hardly be adequately pre- sented in one lecture, and I claim to deserve well of you that I did not further try to insert in it the " whole world and the rest of mankind.'' Whether what I did insert is "correct" or not must not be left to critics prepossessed by opposite views, but to an impartial view of the whole field. I was trying to see how the science, philosophy, and re- ligion of positive monism, or monistic positivism either will do could be held in its extreme and most thorough statement, and without re- gard to captious and verbal objections which could be picked out of Haeckel or any master. I am familiar with all these clauses the doctor has cited, and think they amount to nothing but the using of Haeckel's words in an anti-monistic sense. For instance, he invokes " The Rela- tivity of Knowledge." Yes, certainly ; but relative to what ? Why, as the rest of the sentence shows, "to our senses and brains," the human mind ; as all monists say : but not at all to any " unknowable entity." Then the doctor mistakenly makes me say that life or con- sciousness is a " by-play of nature." No expression could be more anti-monistic. Nature, as Goethe and Haeckel teach, has no by-plays nor inside nor out. Life, mind, and the Ego are the outflowering cor- relate and glory of all nature, and no by-play at all ! But for that very reason they can not be a constant, universal, eternal " ingredient " in nature any more than the flower and fragrance of the plant are ingredients in its roots, or the earth out of which it grows. Of course, we also say: " Mental power and corporeal substance are inseparable." But this substance is no unknowable entity or spook, but the prior correlations from which mental action is the caused and causal se- quence. The doctor then makes a fog by confounding what Goethe, Haeckel, Prof. Ernst Haeckel 55 and other poets and philosophers have said about matter being " alive." This he does by overlooking the distinction between the spontaneous motion, or " life," of 'inorganic matter, and the vital and psychic life found only in organized matter i. e., protoplasm. Goethe, Haeckel, Carus, and the rest of them are constantly comparing these very dis- parate processes ; but no one now, with a bit of sense left, ever really confounds them. They are compared for poetic piirposes, as Goethe does artistically and avowedly, or for pseudo-religious purposes, as some modern .theological " apologists " do. Dr. Carus (Fundamental Problems, pp. Ill, 114, 128, 130, etc.) thus states the proper distinction, made by common sense every time : " We must well distinguish this kind of life in a broader sense (which is an inherent quality of matter) from the vegetable and animal organisms. The former is elementary and eternal ; the latter is complex and unstable, because produced by a combination of the former. Spontaneity is an inherent quality in all matter, and if spontaneously moving bodies have to be called 'alive,' we must acknowledge that nature throughout is alive. . . . The word life, however, as commonly understood, is applied to or- ganized life only. . . . The essential difference is the absence of or- ganic growth and psychic life in one, and its presence in the other.'' Then he speaks of " all organized and psychic life as evolved from the general life of the universe," and he adds that a " psychic life, con- sidered as foreign to our world," is the " corner-stone of dualism." This is the monistic view, and Dr. Carus expressly states in The Open Court of March 13, 1890, after a personal interview with Prof. Haeekel at Jena, that this professor agrees with this version of monism, and not with agnosticism at all.* Now, all this is stated by monists to refute and rule out " the un- knowable, substantial, inscrutable reality " which Dr. Janes gives us from Mr. Spencer, and which on one side, Spencer and he say, gives us matter, and, on the other side, mind. But as correlation does the whole business, whence comes this fifth wheel, " inscrutable," and what for t And being inscrutable, how do we know that it has sides and gives us matter or mind or anything else t It can not be the correlate * Dr. Paul Carus, in The Open Court of March 13, 1890. says : "Prof. Ernst Haeckel is again and again erroneously quoted as an authority in support of ag- nosticism. When I visited him in Jena last summer he very warmly expressed his sympathy with the attitude of The Open Court for taking such a decided and unmistakable stand against the ignorabimus (we can not know) of agnosticism. He called my attention in this connection to his own controversies with Virchow and Du Bois-Reymond (especially Freie Wissenschaft und Freie Lehre)." The first number of The Open Court, page 17, contains the following quotation from Haeckel without reference : " I believe that my monistic convictions agree in all essential points with that natural philosophy which in England is represented as agnosticism. ..." Prof. Haeckel declared that he did not remember ever having written a sen- tence to that purport, and I come to the conclusion that there is something wrong about the quotation. 56 Prof. Ernst Haeckel. of anything ; for then it would be, as such, knowable. Can we not see that "unknowability " is not a thing, but an adjective word, simply descriptive of our ignorance, and exists nowhere but in our minds ; when, therefore, it is applied to the objective world it is a misty an- thropomorphism ; and as the basis of a philosophy an intellectual fog plainly derived from theology ? Therefore the positivists as, for instance, Mr. Frederic Harrison in the Religious Discussions with Mr. Spencer cleared Comte from this fog, and all the monists and clear objective scientists have done the same. That was " the parting of the ways " between them and the Spencerians, and there is no danger of those ways ever uniting again, for they all see that the Spencerian philosophy as " a monistic sys- tem, based upon this unknowable reality," as Dr. Janes repeats it, is a hopeless duality. The limitations of our faculties are modestly ac- knowledged, but they in no wise prove that the law of correlation has an exception or a limit, much less that it ends in an entical " Un- knowable," or leaves room for that, or for any one of the countless varieties of spooks which have led up to that pseudo-idea. But those limitations do prove that all our knowledge is "relative" to our- selves, and " subjective and hypothetical," as the doctor states, and that " atoms " are not only " hypothetical," but extremely dubious, as he quotes from Prof. Haeckel, doubtless for the enlightenment of our atomic friend, Dr. Eccles, who often in these lectures trots out those submicroscopic spooks, as though they were realities. These remarks clear up Dr. Janes's quotations, and do much also to relieve the terror which the thunder of Dr. Eccles's adjectives, so for- midable, but unnecessary, might otherwise inspire. Certainly, I have not (as he says) misunderstood Mr. Spencer. I have used the very words quoted and used by Dr. Janes, and which are taken from the close of Mr. Spencer's First Principles, his Psychology (pp. 206, 504, 627, and 469, 475, 487, third English edition), and his own articles printed in his Discussion with Mr. Harrison. Certainly Spencer says mind is a " phenomenal process," is " co-related with nerve changes," but not causally correlated with them and the world, but " flows," as do " all things," from the " infinite eternal unknowable energy." Not a friend or opponent of Mr. Spencer fails to understand this posi- tion. As a friend, Mr. Fiske gives us from it The Unseen World and The Idea of God, and Mr. Harrison, as an opponent, makes this whole unknowable energy, power, substance, and entity religiously absurd ; but neither misunderstand him nor it ; nor do I, or you, or Dr. Eccles. We all take what Mr. Spencer says in this regard for what we think it is worth. There is no misunderstanding, but a dif- ference as to facts, judgment, and conclusions. Whether the mind is Prof. Ernst HaecM. 57 merely attendantly co-related, or causally correlated, or how related to or with this Unknowable, must, according to Mr. Spencer, be forever unknown, because it by this explanation becomes an unknowable " por- tion " of this unknowable. Therefrom Mr. Spencer informs us that it " flows," but Mr. Fiske says it " wells up." We give it up ! Science, philosophy, religion, have no refuge before this entical explanation except the old awe, terror, or horror of the old superstition and devil worship. The theologs, mediums, and " medicine men " very naturally resume their ghost dance before this unknowable spook back of their knowable world, which is always their god. How different are all such feelings from the healthy, rational, sustaining, scientific, cosmic- emotion excited by Goethe and the monistic theory of The All, the world, as a possibly knowable, an ever-correlated and an ever-causal cosmos of law and order ! Eead, for instance, Goethe's poem Inherit- ance, to which I have referred. The doctor next tries to misappropriate the law of correlation so as to exclude mind, because we can not " think " how its previous condi- tions and correlates actually make it, and so he thinks that as an in- dependent entity it " may persist everlastingly in some form." Well ! what correlations are thinkable ? We have answered, None ! I have pointed out, for instance, how the will can not think how it comes, and so it is seemingly free. We learn by science to gradually think out and know correlations, like the rainbow, music, or our thoughts, until we can oversee, but probably never can exactly grasp, each detail of the wonderful complexity. To grasp the law is the triumph of science ! But how can a scientist, a correlationist, like Dr. Eccles, talk of mind as not a correlate of the correlated world, and yet as ' persisting ever- lastingly," and so consequently flitting about forever as persisting and yet in " Erehwon " (Nowhere), and not see the absurdity of the situa- tion f In a universe of solid correlation, where is the " needless point " left for his uncorrelated spook? If, as he says, I am " arrogant " and " preposterous " because I can not appreciate this position except as an absurdity, remember that I am not alone. The whole school of scientific psychologists from Bain and Mill and Maudsley down to the last work of Prof. James,* of Har- * In justice to Prof. James, as he has been twice quoted by Mr. Wakeman in support of his views, he should be briefly heard in explanation of his own posi- tion. In a note to Dr. Janes he says : " Empirically, everything points to brain- activities as being conditions of our thoughts. There is thus a ' correlation ' in the sense of invariable antecedence or concomitance, which must be written down as a scientific law. Such a law of concomitance says nothing of deeper relations of causation, identity, etc. ; nor, in scientific exactness, can we say any- thing rational about the relation of brain to thought. If we remain positivist ic. we will write down the correlation and pretend to no further knowledge. We can't help postulating, however, that there is further matter to be known. . . . Everything points to some sort of idealism. But the question of immortality doesn't seem to be soluble either by science or philosophy ; it is a teleological 58 Prof. Ernst HaecM. vard University, to say nothing of the distinguished positivists, sci- entists, and monists I have already named all deserve the same "pre- posterous" epithets. But why are such epithets used? Evidently they are inspired in our otherwise gracious friend by his unfortunate belief in " the unknowable "the very same unscientific faith which placed more than burning words around Bruno and Servetus. Does not this lapse and the tendency of that faith also show that Mr. Harri- son was right in his contention that the friends of science and human- ity have no more pressing duty than the exorcism of this last of the unknowable spooks from a haunted world 1 hope, which, if the world have a Ideological constitution, may have propl;efc THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT, PH. D. AUTHOR OF SCIENTIFIC THEISM, THE WAY OUT OF AGNOSTICISM, ETC. COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Spencer's First Principles and Essay on the Classification of the Sciences, in Recent Discussions ; Abbot's Scientific Theism, and The Way out of Agnosticism ; Fiske's Cosmic Philosophy ; Jevons's The Principles of Science ; Clifford's The Teachings of Science ; Picton's The Mystery of Matter : Hinton's Life in Nature ; Mill's System of Logic ; Bacon's Novum Organum. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. BY FRANCIS ELLIJJGWOOD ABBOT, PH. D. Is there any such thing as ignorance ? Is there any such thing as knowledge ? Is there any real difference between the two ? Is there any possibility of learning that is, of passing gradually from ignorance to knowledge ? Surely these are strange questions to put, especially to an intelligent audience; but they go deep and mean a great deal. Perhaps it is not so easy to answer them as it appears to be, or at least to give adequate, conclusive, and satisfac- tory reasons for the answers. In order to bring out the significance of the questions, allow me to take a concrete instance. Several years ago a negro preacher of Eichmond, Rev. Mr. Jasper, created amusement throughout the country by stoutly maintaining that " the sun do move " that the sun revolves around the earth, not the earth around the sun. What created the amusement was Mr. Jasper's unconscious and courageous ignorance. Everybody laughed to see a public man defend astronomical notions of his own which every school-boy knew to be untrue, and laughed all the harder the more vigorously he defended them, for knowl- edge, unlike religion, has never yet persecuted any one ; it subjects ignorance to no worse persecution than the ordeal of laughter. Now, Mr. Jasper was a preacher, not a philosopher. If he had been a modern idealist or individualist we can easily imagine him turning upon his hilarious opponents and ad- dressing to them arguments to which merriment would be no reply. " You call me ignorant," he might have said, " but you do not know yourselves what ignorance is. Each of you fan- cies himself to be the standard of knowledge, and dubs me ignorant simply because I differ from himself. Now, knowledge is nothing in the world but thought, and your knowledge is nothing but your individual thought. There is nothing whatever above individual thought ; there is no 62 The Scientific Method. criterion of knowledge above it or beyond it, no authority to appeal to, no tribunal to decide betwixt you and me. The right of private judgment is absolute, and there exists no objective standard of truth to limit or control it. If there does exist any such standard, tell me, if you can, what it is. But you can not. When two individuals differ, it is simply absurd for either to claim for his own thought any higher authority than itself. It is simply absurd for any one to say ' I know ' in any higher sense than ' I think,' or to assert that his neighbor is ignorant merely because they two think differently. Now, I think that the sun revolves around the earth ; you think that the earth revolves around the sun. Very well, we think differently ; that is all. Who has any right to decide between us ? Nobody. You have no more right tc call me ignorant because I think different- ly from you than I have to call you ignorant because you think differently from me. There is and can be no igno- rance at all unless there is a standard of knowledge over and above all individual thought. Yet what standard of knowl- edge do you confess to be superior to your own thought? None whatevei ! Then you can not prove me to be igno- rant; you can only assert it without a shadow of proof. The plain truth is that, except as mere individual opinion, mere assertion by the individual on the sole warrant of his own individual thought, there is no such thing as either ignorance or knowledge. So long as you have no standard of knowledge higher than yourselves, you have no right to call me ignorant, I deny the jurisdiction of the court which has rashly undertaken to try me. I, too, am an in- dividual, and all individuals are equal before the laws of thought." If Mr. Jasper had defended himself at the time in this fashion, he might not have convinced his critics, but he would certainly have puzzled them and abated their compla- cent merriment. How many of them could have refuted his idealistic individualism ? Suppose that they had tried to reply to him as follows : "You declare that all individuals are equal before the laws of thought. Granted. But no individual is equal to all individuals. You are in a minority of one against the civilized world. Therefore we laugh at you as ignorant just because you fancy yourself wiser than all mankind." Would this reply have silenced our imaginary philosoph- icalJasper? Not at all. The Scientific Method. 63 " You now assert," he would coolly have retorted, " that mankind, a mere multitude of individuals, are wiser than any one individual. But no crowd is so tall as its tallest man ; no army on the march can keep up with its stoutest pedestrian; no multitude of individuals is so wise as the wisest man in it. But, waiving this point and conceding your argument to be sound, you now refute yourselves and prove me to be in the right, for your own boasted Coper- nicus, when he first broached his nonsensical notion that the earth revolves around the sun, was himself in a minor- ity of one against the civilized world. By your own argu- ment, then, Copernicus was ignorant ; and the civilized world of his time, whose verdict of condemnation I do but echo, was wiser than he, and alone understood the matter. It is time for you to laugh at yourselves, not me, as igno- rant. A mere majority of individual votes may elect a member of Congress, but never yet established a truth." Biting as this retort appears, the critics of Mr. Jasper, who were undoubtedly in the right, would not quite yet have surrendered their case. We may conceive them as making some such rejoinder as this : " Very well, then ; we give up our argument on that point. We appeal now, not to the verdict of a mere majority of individuals, but to the verdict of the facts of the uni- verse. These facts prove that the sun does not revolve about the earth, but the earth about the sun. When you maintain the contrary, you fly in the face of the facts them- selves ; and the facts themselves prove you to be ignorant. In those facts the universe speaks for itself, and you are in a minority of one against it. Therefore we now laugh at you because you fancy yourself to be wiser than the whole uni- verse." Would our idealist Jasper be silenced by this argument ? Not in the least. His counter-argument would be ready thus : " How do you know these ' facts of the universe ' of which you talk so glibly ? It is a very pretty figure of speech to say that the universe speaks for itself ; but the figure is just as empty as any other ' iridescent dream.' I know nothing about the facts of the universe except what I myself ob- serve ; you know nothing of them except what you observe ; no individual either does or can know anything about them except what he himself observes ; and one individual's observation is just as good as any other's. Now, my own ob- 64 The Scientific Method. servation of the universe convinces me that the sun revolves about the earth ; I see it rise in the east, traverse the sky, and set in the west. The inference of my own thought from my own observation is that 'the sun do move.' Against this thought of mine you have nothing whatever to oppose except your own thought ; but one individual's thought is just as much knowledge as another's. You may multiply your mere thought by a thousand million, but that does not make it either ignorance or knowledge. Individu- als differ just as much in their observations as in their in- ferences ; and there is no judge, no criterion of knowledge, to appeal to in either case. Hence your ' facts of the uni- verse ' exist only as my own observations and inferences in a word, as my own thoughts ; and it is inane for you to appeal from my thoughts to my thoughts, as if you could array me against myself. " But this is not all ; I go still further. What do you mean by your ' universe ' anyhow ? You mean a real ex- ternal world, wholly outside of your own consciousness, and wholly independent of it. It is absurd to postulate any such world as that. If there is any truth whatever in the doctrine of the relativity of knowledge (which you will not venture to call in question), you can not possibly know anything whatever of an external world. You can only know certain changes or affections of your own conscious- ness, caused you can not tell how. The individual mind can know nothing but its own changing states of conscious- ness. It can never know anything external to those states. All its observations, all its inferences, all its knowledge, all its ignorance, lie solely within the sphere of that conscious- ness, and have no meaning at all Avith reference to any ex- ternal world lying beyond that sphere. In fact, to be per- fectly candid, I am bound to deny, and I do deny, the very possibility of any external world beyond my own individual mind ; for, if I admit that an external world may possibly exist and that I may yet be ignorant of it, I thereby con- tradict my fundamental principle that knowledge and igno- rance have no possible reference to anything outside of in- dividual consciousness. If knowledge is nothing but thought (and who disputes that?), then ignorance, the absence of knowledge, can only be thoughtlessness, the absence of thought can only be unconsciousness, the absence of con- sciousness. If knowledge were thinking rightly, then igno- rance would be thinking wronyly ; but this would imply a The Scientific Method. 65 standard of truth above mere thought as such, and this, as we all agree, is absurd. Hence I conclude that those ' facts of the universe ' to which you so confidently appeal do not exist at all except as my own thoughts ; and, since I know my own thoughts better than you do or can, I maintain that the ' facts of the universe ' are all on my side and sus- tain my astronomical theory. Wherefore, laughing phi- losophers, I am not ignorant ; and your laughter, like the laughter of fools, is the crackling of thorns under the pot." And would this pgean of triumph end the controversy ? Far from it. The critics of our imaginary Jasper, however checked in their mirth by that last unkindest cut of all, could hardly fail to perceive their advantage and close in upon the doughty idealist in some such terms as these : " You now explicitly concede that you know no real world external to your own thought in fact, that no such world can possibly exist without upsetting your whole philosophy. In this confession you are either more candid or else more clear-headed than some other philosophers of your tribe. But we now put your candor or your clear-headedness, whichever it may be, to a still severer test. Do you claim that we, too, your critics, have no existence except as your own thoughts or conscious states ? Are we real beings like yourself, or are we mere phantoms of your thought, mere creatures of your imagination, mere things in your dream ? Answer this question frankly, and give a reason for your answer ; for we are only a part of your external world, and, if your philosophy has any coherence with itself, it must treat the question of our reality just as it treats that of the reality of a material world." To this crucial question let us imagine that Mr. Jasper gives a bold, logical, and unequivocal reply. If so, he can reply only in these terms : " Your challenge, I admit, is a perfectly fair one. It would be unspeakably absurd, because self -evidently contradictory, to say that the whole external world, as I know it, is only my own conscious thoughts or states, and yet to say that you, as I know you, are real beings independent of my con- scious states. Other idealists are all guilty of this absurdity and self-contradiction, but I scorn to be guilty of it myself. Therefore I tell you unflinchingly that you are in no sense real beings outside of my thought. You are only phenomena of my individual consciousness, mere creatures of my own imagination mere things in my own dream. If I argue 66 The Scientific Method. with yon, and thereby seem to treat you as real beings, it is only to amuse myself with a conversation which is, in fact, only a soliloquy, just as in dreams I seem to talk with per- sons who seem to be real, yet are nothing but myself in dis- guise. However harsh this conclusion may be, it is the only logical consequence of the fundamental principles of ideal- ism namely, that my knowledge is only my thought, and my ignorance is only my ceasing to think. These principles I apply rigorously to every problem without exception, and therefore I do not hesitate to declare myself a solipsist that is, one who denies all real existence except his own. So long as these principles stand unshaken, it is absurd to call me ignorant merely because I assert that ' the sun do move ' ; for this assertion, being my expressed thought, is a part of my knowledge, not of my ignorance. And you, gen- tlemen phantoms, whom I indulge in this pleasant pastime of calling me ignorant, only betray your own phantasmal and untrustworthy character when you utter that very amus- ing bit of nonsense. Laugh as you may, you can never begin with the principle that knowledge is nothing but thought, and yet end with any other logical conclusion than mine." The last word in this instructive controversy, however, lies not with the idealist Jasper, but with his realist critics. The idealist has been at last driven to a frank avowal of solipsism or absolute individualism to a frank confession that he knows nothing but himself and denies the existence of anything but himself. But this is the reduction of ideal- ism itself to glaring absurdity ; for thus idealism denies all universal science, the surest fact of human life, the knowl- edge by all men of a real universe in which the individual is only a part, and a very small part at that. Hence the con- troversy comes to a necessary close in this final response of the critics : " We admit your candor, your courage, and your logical consistency, in starting with the principle that knowledge is nothing but your own thought, and ending with the con- clusion that the universe is nothing but yourself. There stands the whole philosophy of idealism, carried out heroic- ally to its only logical completion. But now we join issue on your original first principle. We deny that your knowl- edge is nothing but your individual thought, and your ig- norance nothing but your ceasing to think. Knowledge is thinking rightly, and ignorance is thinking wrongly ; and The Scientific Method. 67 the objective standard of knowledge high above all individ- ual thought, the objective criterion of truth by which right thinking and wrong thinking are accurately distinguishable, is the Scientific Method, the universal learning process by which every individual acquires whatever knowledge he pos- sesses, and by which science itself has become a vast body of solidly established truth, over and above all individual ac- quirements. Through the scientific method, the private thought which is active in innumerable individuals becomes vitally organized into public thought; and the supreme organism of universal human reason gives authoritative law to all individual thinking. Do you fancy you can think like a fool and not be found out ? Science is universally verified knowledge of a real universe which includes count- less individuals ; and the very definition of a fool is one who conceives himself wiser than 'science. The scientific method of observation, hypothesis, and verification, by which alone truth has ever been or can ever, be learned, and the validity of which is itself the most certain of all facts known to man, is the organic life-principle of universal human reason. You are an ignorant man because you despise this universal reason because you reject this universal law of all truth- seeking and truth-finding ; and the fit reward of your igno- rant self-conceit is the inextinguishable laughter of gods and men." Here, then, if you please, we will drop the curtain upon the stage and put an end to our little philosophical drama. It has well served its purpose if it has brought clearly be- fore you the irrepressible conflict between modern philo- sophical idealism and modern scientific realism, and em- phasized the importance, so far as sound thinking is con- cerned, of a sound intellectual method in the pursuit of truth. The question of method in this issue between sci- ence and idealism is, at bottom, a question of fundamental principles respecting the nature of ignorance and of knowl- edge. The fundamental principle of idealism underlying all its forms subjective, objective, absolute, or what not is that knowledge is nothing but thought and ignorance nothing but ceasing to think in other words, that the individual mind knows only its own conscious states, and, from the very nature of knowledge, can never know any reality ex- ternal to itself. Hence no living or thinking man can be 68 The Scientific Method. ignorant the only ignorant man is the corpse. But ideal- ism, as we find it, always professes to believe in external reality, at least in the form of other human consciousnesses or of an infinite consciousness, on the sole warrant of some alleged inference, postulate, assumption, deduction of reason, or act of faith. All these, however, it holds to fall far short of knowledge ; and knowledge, the supreme ground of certi- tude, it finds exclusively in self-knowledge in that imme- diate self-consciousness which can never know anything be- yond itself. Now, since no form of philosophy has ever maintained that the individual does not know his own conscious states, it is clear as day that the only distinctive principle of ideal- ism is a merely negative one, and lies nowhere but in its ab- solute assertion that the individual can never know an ex- ternal world. Further, since all self-consciousness or self- knowledge is simply self-observation, and since, therefore, observation alone is knowledge, as distinguished from infer- ence, assumption, postulation, deduction, or faith, it follows that the whole essence of idealism is summed up in this short and perfectly intelligible statement the individual can never observe an external world. The whole activity of idealism has been an attempt, forever hopeless as it ^, to reconcile this statement with the fact of universal human knowledge. For it is precisely at this point that idealism comes into deadly collision with science and the scientific method. The whole essence of science is summed up in this equally short and intelligible statement maw, both individual and ge- neric, can and does observe an external world. Idealism declares that such observation is impossible, and therefore can not be actual; science declares that such observation is actual, and therefore must be possible. Idealism, culmi- nating in the Kantian theory of knowledge, declares that man has no faculty by which he can observe an external world, and therefore knows none ; science, culminating in the scientific method, declares that man already knows an external world, and therefore must have some faculty by which he can observe it. This is the exact issue between the two, and it turns on the essential nature of knowledge and ignorance. Is knowledge nothing but thought, con- sciousness, self-observation? Or is it at once both self- observation and world-observion ? Is ignorance nothing but mere ceasing to think ? Or is it ceasing to think ac- The Scientific Method. 69 cording to the known facts and laws of a known real uni- verse ? Now, if knowledge is nothing but self-observation, ideal- ism is right ; but, if knowledge is both self -observation and world-observation, science is right. Since they directly con- tradict each other, both can not be right. The issue is simply one of fact ; for, if science plants itself upon world- observation as a fact, idealism plants itself upon self -obser- vation, not only as a fact, but also as the only possible fact. Despite its lofty claims and its affected contempt for science as founded on a "mere brute fact" or a "mere physical fact," idealism, just as much as science, rests on a fact of precisely the same nature ; for how is the individual ever to prove that he knows his own conscious states ? If he does not know his own consciousness without proof by reason, proof by reason will not help him in the least. To attempt, to prove consciousness by reason is merely to beg the ques- tion, for reason presupposes consciousness. Hence it is an amusing affectation for idealism to claim an ultimate ground in reason ; its ultimate ground, just like that of science, is a mere fact and nothing but a fact. The real question, therefore, is simply whether self-obser- vation, which nobody disputes, is the whole fact or only half the fact. This question can not be settled by argument directly. But we have at least one direct and decisive test to apply to all possible answers to it namely, the true an- swer, whatever it may be, must be consistent with itself, and not self -contradictory. This is the test of logic, of reason, of all thought ; and this test idealism, which professes to build upon thought alone, can not reject. Now, it is the application of the logical test which proves absolutely fatal to idealism, for it shows that idealism, when (as it always does) it rejects absolute individualism or solip- sism, commits logical suicide. Plainly, if I say that I know nothing whatever except my own thoughts or conscious states, I do but say in other words that whatever I know, whether Nature, Man, or God, is nothing more than my own thoughts or conscious states can exist only in myself can not exist outside of myself ; I do but say in other words that I myself, in my poor little individuality, am the whole real universe. Idealism and solipsism can not be separated logic- ally, for they are one and the same thought. Yet idealism as it is presented by all idealists undertakes to separate them, and rejects solipsism. It thus says yes and no in one breath, 70 The Scientific Method. and, to the question whether self-observation is the whole fact of knowledge or only half that fact, it has no answer except one which contradicts and destroys itself. This amazing internal self-contradiction in the answer which idealism gives to the fundamental question of all philosophy namely, " What can I know ? " is, of itself, the unanswerable refutation of its claim to be philosophy at all. Yet let us look further, since idealism and its offspring are the only dangerous opponents of the scientific method out- side of the circle of theological dogmatism. The scientific method is essentially summed up in the three words observation, hypothesis, verification. The data of observation, including both self-observation and world- observation, comprise the whole materials of knowledge. These materials idealism arbitrarily cuts down by half, and its declaration that the individual can not observe a real ex- ternal world is the distinctive idealistic principle. Since, however, this principle, if logically carried out, asserts the absolutely solitary existence of the individual thinker, and therefore denies the existence of all other individuals, ideal- ism, in order to rescue itself from patent and ridiculous ab- surdity, supplements its idealistic principle by the realistic inference that is, it allows itself to concede the existence of a real external world so far as other individuals are con- cerned, as a mere inference, postulate, or hypothesis, which can never be converted into knowledge by any possible ob- servation. We have seen that the idealistic principle destroys itself by self-contradiction unless it is rigorously carried out into positive denial of the existence of all individuals except the solitary thinker ; or, in other words, that solipsism is the only self -consistent form of idealism. But now let us ask, What is the value of its alleged realistic inference ? I answer that this practical concession of the existence of other individuals is no inference at all, has no logical value whatever, and is at bottom nothing but a mere common- sense belief, precisely similar to that " naive realism " which idealists themselves are never tired of satirizing. The act- ual existence of other individuals is not a question of infer- ence at all, but a question of fact ; and no fact can be logic- ally inferred from another fact. Inference remains mere hypothesis until it has been converted into knowledge by verification ; and all verification is fresh observation. That is, mere unverified inference does not and can not infer a fact, except as a merely possible fact ; it takes the verifica- The Scientific Method. 71 tion of positive observation to convert a possible fact into a known fact. The scientific method nevei infers one fact from another fact, except as a simple hypothesis. If it sus- pects the existence of a hitherto undiscovered fact, it de- vises and makes a new observation, and accepts or rejects the new fact according as it is verified or not verified by the new observation, The logic of knowledge permits no other course. Now, idealism professes to infer an external world, spiritual if not material, from merely internal conscious states, while yet it denies that this new fact can ever be verified by observation. It is this acceptance of an unveri- fied inference as a satisfactory proof, this treatment of a mere hypothesis as an established fact, this rejection of every observation which could prove, establish, or verify, that renders idealism hopelessly illogical and unscientific, and its method thoroughly irrational in the eyes of all who value either logic or science. In truth, this professed infer- ence of outside consciousnesses is as clear a case as was ever seen of a thoroughly naive and uncritical realism. Strip it of its borrowed peacock plumes of idealistic phraseology, and we see at once that familiar old bird, the jackdaw of com- mon sense. In short, the idealistic principle is suicidally self-contradictory, unless carried out boldly into solipsism, while the realistic inference is no rational ground of belief, unless supplemented and verified by that world-observation which idealism groundlessly declares impossible. The sci- entific method, which no more begins with a " mere fact " than idealism itself does, but which is wise enough to take the whole of the fact instead of mistaking, as idealism does, the half for the whole, begins with the primal fact of world- observation, and uses inference, hypothesis, all free intel- lectual activity, as a mere means to fresh world-observation in the final fact of verification. Such, and such alone, is the method by which all knowledge of the world, including our own knowledge of ourselves as part of the world, has ever been or ever will be won. Idealism garbles the great world-fact, throws away all knowledge of it that comes to us from without, and limits us strictly to that which we originate by our own thought-activity within ; but, instead of adhering to the logic of this idealistic principle and de- claring that the individual is himself the whole universe which he thus actively creates within his own being, it fal- ters, fears, and, contrary to its own testimony, admits that, after all, we are in vital relation with at least a spiritual 72 The Scientific Method. world outside of us, and that our whole morality and religion consist in somehow putting ourselves into right relation with it. Science, however, accepts unmutilated the great world- fact, studies it unhampered by this confused and halting theory, and gives us that knowledge of it without which we never could put ourselves into right relation with it. Which of the two better subserves the cause of truth, morality, and religion ? Verily, it demands only a clear head and a sound conscience for truth to answer that question in favor of sci- ence and its matchless method. Idealism and science both rest ultimately upon a mere fact one and the same fact the fact of observation or direct knowledge. But, while idealism curtails this fact by half and arbitrarily limits it to self-observation, or direct knowledge by the individual of his own consciousness or thought, science takes it in its fullness, comprehensiveness, and unity, as world-observation, or direct knowledge by the human race of the world itself, including the individual and his self-consciousness. With this difference in starting-point corresponds neces- sarily a difference in method. Immured hopelessly in his own consciousness, as inclusive of all that he can observe or directly know, the idealistic individual struggles in vain to arrive at knowledge of a real universe by the method of inference alone that is, by the method of hypothesis with- out verification. Denying all direct observation of a real world, he can neither begin with observation nor end with observation, except within the limits of his own individual consciousness ; and this gives him no other individual, no Nature, no God. Unable, however, to remain content with himself as a substitute for universal being, and eager to ar- rive at some solid ground for ethics and religion, he forgets his logic, and tries to make faith do the work of knowledge. But, as the whole history of thought proves, this attempt eternally fails ; hypothesis without verification can be con- verted into knowledge by no device of inference, postulate, deduction, or faith, and the idealistic method of pure indi- vidualism breaks down in utter failure, theoretically and practically alike. But science is fettered by no such arbitrary and ruinous curtailment of its method. The scientific individual begins with direct observation as knowledge in the first instance, and he proceeds to enlarge this original knowledge by the scientific method of hypothesis with verification that is, he The Scientific Method. 73 subjects every inference to the test of verification by fresh observation. No scientific individual ever aspires, as the idealist invariably does, to begin with himself alone and merely infer his way to real knowledge of a real universe ; the first step he takes is to recognize the existence of a vast accumulation of universal human knowledge, acquired be- fore he was born, and now to be enlarged a little by him, if he can only add a little new knowledge to the world's great stock of it. He observes, he hypothesizes, he verifies by observing once more how far his hypothesis agrees with the real world ; and then he is ready to offer his modest con- tribution of discovery to his fellow-men. Now begins a process, a most important process, of which no idealist can conceive even the possibility ; for, denying that the individual can acquire one iota of knowledge of an external world, he, of course, denies that the individual can contribute one iota of it to any general treasury of world- knowledge. But the scientific man, when he has made a real discovery and verified it carefully and conscientiously, knows well that verification for himself is by no means verification for mankind. Convinced as he may be of the truth of his new observation, he nevertheless knows well that it can not yet be declared or treated as a part of uni- versal human knowledge. The new discovery must be flung into the arena of the world, and battle for its life against the wild beasts of ignorance, indifference, incredulity, preju- dice, jealousy, envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitable- ness. Before the new truth, no matter how well verified to the discoverer's own mind, can become verified to the world's mind, it must run the gantlet of universal criti- cism ; it must be doubted, denied, assailed, maligned, and hustled about unmercifully ; it must be subjected to fresh verification by every trained investigator who suspects that it may be indeed a truth ; it must thereby conquer here and there a new adherent, and prove itself to be a truth in- deed by conquering at last the adhesion of all who are com- petent to be its judge. This process by which a new discovery, after meeting suc- cessfully the severest tests of fresh examination, and after being confirmed by the independent investigations of all whose judgment is entitled to weight, passes gradually into the category of established truths this process by which verification for the individual is slowly deepened and ex- tended into verification for the race, through the slowly 74 The Scientific Method. formed opinion of all whose proved acquirement has made them lawful judges in that special department of investiga- tion this process, I say, is an integral part of the scientific method, and constitutes its irrefutable superiority to the method of idealism or pure individualism. Idealism con- ceives no higher authority, criterion, or test of truth than the private reason of the individual ; but science, developed into philosophy, conceives the organization of innumerable private reasons into the one universal reason of the race, and, in this organized reason of mankind, which is infinitely removed from a mere multitude of individual reasons as such, discerns that supreme authority, test, or criterion of truth from which dissent is ignorance, in its only intelligi- ble sense. In the unanimous agreement of all who, by actual achievement or by admirable work done, have com- pelled universal recognition of their right to pass a weighty judgment in any branch of science that is, in the unani- mous consensus of the competent lies the supreme tribunal which alone can decide authoritatively what is known and what is not known. All questions remain open questions in science until absolute unanimity is reached; no judg- ment can be claimed to have been authoritatively given until dissent has already died down into silence among the judges themselves. But their unanimous voice is the high- est authority or test of truth to which man, for whom there is no infallibility anywhere, can possibly appeal. It is in virtue of this authority alone that schools and universities exist ; for how could they exist if there were no solidly es- tablished truth to teach ? On the wall of Science Hall, at Smith College, I read, a few weeks since, this simple and impressive inscription : " The Gift of Alfred Theodore Lilly, to teach the Truth in Nature." Yes, to teach the truth in Nature, not, as idealism con- fusedly claims, on the warrant of any individual's deduction, inference, assumption, postulate, or faith, but on the war- rant of the consensus of the competent alone, on the au- thority of that organic reason of humanity which the con- sensus of the competent alone has any shadow of right to represent, to interpret, and to expound to teach the truth in Nature; for that, and nothing else, every school and every university exists, even when ignorant and incompe- tent professors deny all knowledge of that truth, and teach their own empty vagaries in its stead. It is not an open The Scientific Method. 75 question whether such truth exists ; it is not an open question whether such truth is known and can be taught ; every uni- versity in the civilized world is demonstration that it exists, is known, can be taught. Strange indeed it is, strange be- yond belief, that the existence of the knowledge of Nature should be denied in the name of "philosophy, falsely so called." The time is fast approaching when all such phi- losophy will melt away like mist before the sun. The next age will be the age of the scientific method, and not much longer will the philosophy of the scientific method tarry beneath the horizon ; for nothing save the scientific method, the work of no individual man, but the grand self-affirma- tion of the living and organic reason of the universal hu- man race, can declare authoritatively what is that truth in Nature which is the solid ground of all true ethics nd religion ; for nothing else can ever emancipate man from the delusive idealisms, individualisms, agnosticisms, posi- tivisms, and mysticisms which now tyrannize over his half- taught mind. It will take more than idealistic sophistry to put down the scientific method, or the philosophy which it is destined to create. This is not the place or time to tell my dream of what its teachings will be, nor is it needed that I should do so; enough to know that they will be more beautiful than any or all of our dreams, and bring out of the universal soul of man the sublimest thoughts about God and Nature, about man the individual and man the society, about freedom, courage, and hope, and duty, and about destiny, which can spring out of the concentrated wisdom of the'universal reason of the race. And best of all is it to know that the sublimest thoughts of man, wrought out by his sublimest instrument, the scientific method, fall infinitely short of the truth as it is in Nature. 76 Tlie Scientific Method. ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. MR. GEORGE ILKS : Among the recent decisions by that supreme court of reason -which Dr. Abbot has so impressively described to us is the one which this society exists to teach and to enlarge evolution. As that truth has dawned upon the world, the atmosphere of controversy has undergone a notable change. Old elements of irritation have melted away, and the clearing air gives inquiry a keener edge than it ever had. Before the latter half of this century, when, for example, a man of science argfied with a theologian about miracles, the debate was apt to turn upon the direct issue of truth or error. The man of science would ad- duce grounds for holding that miracles never did or could happen, and very probably add to his case the innuendo that belief in miracles was based on fraud and sustained by willful ignorance. To-day claims con- tinue to be made by powerful institutions around us of access to high- er sources of knowledge than mere observation, hypothesis, and verifi- cation. We are pointed to revelations of supernatural descent as the only sources of light regarding man's relation to the all and the high- est. Here the method of science departs from the old controversial practice. The leaves of human history are turned, and from such of them as may be deciphered we read how the supernatural came to be believed in. And as the time and place of birth of that belief are gradually restored to us, then, incidentally, the question of truth or error is settled. To disprove an error is much, to explain how it came to be deemed truth is more, to rightly appraise inheritances of mingled truth and error is most of all. When our fathers in the long ago beheld lightning and tempest, were awed by the starry heavens, felt the suggestions of the closing grave, knew that good men were often miserable, and the wicked often pros- perous, they interpreted the facts as they saw them. Their eyes may have been dim, their reasoning capacity defective, yet their method, if by stretch of courtesy we can call it such, was the scientific method in the making. The claim of unalterableness, of infallibility, marks the earliness of the age which proclaimed it. Men of old thought of truth as of a thing they might grasp as fully and perfectly as a child's hand holds a pebble. They had no conception of the infinity and complexity of the universe as we see it, its every thread interlaced with every other, so that we think of truth as of the shimmering face of a star, The Scientific Method. 77 discerned through difficulties of distance, distortions of media, defects of the seeing eye. It is as if the tree of knowledge had been uprooted as a sapling, labeled Ultimate, and now were made to do duty for tho thing of life and infinite expansion which knowledge really is. The conflict we hear so much about is really, then, a conflict between new science and old, or rather between new science and old guesses. Yet, after all, too much must not be made of the war so strenuously waged against theology ; it is but a particular case of the antagonism between belated thought and new thought, which we can see just as plainly in the exchanges, the courts, the legislatures, as in the churches ; views essentially transient become crystallized into institutions and remain long after their usefulness has departed. Of derivative alliance with the claims we have been glancing at is the intuitional philosophy once counting many disciples in America, but now a philosophy we hear comparatively little about. It ceased to thrive when evolution explained intuitions as due to experiences, not always either profound or clear which had coalesced in consciousness so long as to have forgotten their age, and at last come to deny ever having been born at all. To the objections of the intuitionalist* were often joined those of other critics ; it was said man has other modes of apprehension than by his intellect, and therefore the scientific meth- od, intellectual as it is, can not have sway in more than a province of human experience. For man feels no less than reasons ; indeed, he feels more than he reasons. To this the answer is modern psychology, so fast becoming an ordered, coherent, and luminous body of truth. Emotion, sentiment, will, may count for the larger part of man, yet is intellect their observer, examiner, and judge. The scales may balance many things weightier than themselves. Science acknowledges no limits to its jurisdiction, sets no bound to its future conquests. Dr. Abbot has effectively gainsaid the position that knowledge can be phenomenal only. We know a thing in its appearances, and if there be no unknowable, then every problem of nature and life offers itself for solution to faithful inquiry and patient thinking. In this connection let me say that an important educational ad- vance in the scientific method is taking shape in the neighboring city. For some time past Prof, Felix Adler. leader of the Society for Ethical Culture, has been advocating the establishment of a School of Philos- ophy and Applied Ethics. In this school it is proposed that the lead- ing phases of philosophy shall be taught by men who are disciples of the thinkers they expound. Religion is to be studied from the his- torical standpoint, and the comparative method will be applied to the study of the evolution of religious doctrines, institutions, and cere- monies. 78 The Scientific Method. The department of Applied Ethics is intended to embrace educa- tion, economics, and practical reforms. The method of artificially pro- tecting the truth, or what is supposed to be the truth, from contact with error is to be abandoned for the better plan of inviting the dif- ferent systems of thought to enter into free competition with one an- other, in the expectation that that which is intrinsically the strongest will prevail, and that a higher and larger form of truth will be the outcome of the conflict of ideas. No student is to be pledged before- hand to arrive at certain conclusions. No professor or instructor shall be appointed or excluded because of any opinions he may or may not hold. Intellectual and moral fitness are to be the only tests applied. Toward the realization of these plans progress is being made. On De- cember 5th the convention of ethical societies will meet in New York, and then it is expected that definite steps will be taken to give Amer- ica its first free college. REV. JOHN W. CHADWICK: I am extremely glad that we have had the privilege and pleasure of hearing Dr. Abbot speak. I have heard him many times, and never without satisfaction and delight, though sometimes when he has said " Come right along," and has gone through the philosophical stream without wetting his feet, I have found the waters over my head. I have watched the growth of his philosophic system with the greatest interest and perhaps with a too lively confidence, it has tallied so agreeably with the predilections of my own mind and heart. We have had many essays about philosophers read to the association from the first, and they have been very fine and good, but I must say that it is particularly good to have a real live philosopher expounding to us his own system. And yet I must make bold to say that if Dr. Abbot's system were something quite peculiar to himself I should distrust it as I do not now. I should fear it might be his idiosyncrasy come in the line of the world's growing thought. I do not know a truer judgment than that of my friend Joseph Henry Allen when he says : " The only intel- lectual scheme that history respects is that which grows by its own slow irresistible process from the contributions of millions of honest, intel- ligent, thinking men who do each his best to shape his own thought to the demand of his own time." Now. while Dr. Abbot's thought im- presses me by its originality and by the force and clearness of his ex- position, what I value it most for is for that element it has in common with the philosophy of many other thinkers in our time, that element in which science and philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, are find- ing the adjustment of their long-standing differences and dislikes the idea of organic evolution which resolves matter and spirit ultimately The Scientific Method. 79 into one substance which is more than either and includes them both, for which we have no better name than God. If I have any criticism to make on Dr. Abbot and this may be more of his two noble books than of the lecture of to-night it is with reference to his seeming implication that the world must wait for science to give it assurance of a God, and that the world's belief in God has been heretofore without any real legitimacy. I do not believe this. I believe that the world has experienced religion, that it has experienced God, that the unscientific man has a belief in him which is perfectly legitimate a belief which science may clarify and confirm, but which it has not given and which it can never take away. I speak under cor- rection, and if there is not the implication I have mentioned I am very glad. Perhaps Dr. Abbot would say that as there is much uncon- scious cerebration, so is there much unconscious science which in the past has anticipated rudely what scientific realism or relationism has made wholly clear and bright. REV. THEODORE C. WILLIAMS : * The lecture of Dr. Abbot, while it illustrates to my mind the saying that " the knowledge of God is full of difficulties," also encourages me to believe that we can finally work through the difficulties and not be compelled to rest content in the negative attitude of agnosticism. I believe that a reconciliation is coming between philosophy and science, though I am not able to believe that it will be brought about in the way set forth by Dr. Abbot. My criticism upon his essay would be that he has spent too much time in knocking down a man of straw, which exists only in his own hypersensitive imagination. I came here to-night hoping to be enlightened by a clear presentation of the lecturer's own theory of knowledge, and have been somewhat disap- pointed that he has spent so much effort in exposing the fallacy of " solipsism," in which no sensible idealist believes. A resume of the history of philosophy shows that all the great metaphysicians have been working at this problem. Dr. Abbot has not done justice to their work, nor has he, as far as I can see, given us any new idea. I suppose modern psychology has hardly advanced in its theory of knowledge beyond the statement of Ferrier, which I learned in my school days that the ultimate psychic act makes known to us both subject and object. Beyond this we can hardly go ; and in * No complete report of Mr. Williams's remarks was made at the time of their delivery. The accompanying abstract, much condensed, is made up from very insufficient data, hut has b.-rn submitted to Mr. Williams and is recognized by him as substantially correct, though necessarily incomplete. Mr. \v illiams gave a very interesting resumt of the history of philosophy in the course or nis re- marks. 80 The Scientific Method. the recognition of this fundamental principle we find a corrective of the tendency to solipsism which Dr. Abbot has endeavored to combat, as well as a justification for a rational idealism, which, I think, is the accepted philosophy of the present day. DB. ROBERT G. ECCLES: I agree almost perfectly with the last speaker, though I am no ideal- ist. It seems to me that the principles which he has laid down and indorsed are those which must underlie all scientific conceptions of the nature of knowledge, but that their logical outcome is not solip- sism or any extreme form of idealism, but the " transfigured realism " of Mr. Herbert Spencer. I can not agree with Dr. Abbot that the true test of scientific knowledge is the " consensus of the competent." Who are " the competent " f Those whom the world has recognized as " the competent " in past ages have been the persecutors of science ; they have condemned the men who were actnally in the right to the dungeon and the stake. The criterion set up by the lecturer seems to me to be no true test of knowledge because it is itself in need of a test whereby to establish its claims. Who shall decide who "the compe- tent " are in any given instance ? We need another " consensus of the competent " to decide who the competent are, and so on ad infinitum. D^r. Abbot's test actually relegates the criterion of truth to the bar of individual opinion, and is therefore not a scientific test at all. Each man will decide for himself who are the competent according to his own individual bias. The true test of the scientific value of opinions is the agreement thereof with objective facts. That theory is true and has scientific justification which agrees with all the facts to which it relates, no matter if the promulgator be in a minority of one. Bruno and Galileo are thus justified, though the theories they promulgated were new to the world and were rejected by " the competent," or those recognized as such, in their own time. DR. LEWIS G. JANES: To me, I must confess, Dr. Abbot's doctrine of the " consensus of the competent" as the ultimate criterion of knowledge has always seemed the strongest part of his system. Dr. Eccles's remarks appear to me somewhat hypercritical. Dr. Abbot's rejection of the Spencerian " unknowable " seems to me to be based on an imperfect comprehension of that doctrine, and of the psycho-physiological principles and facts upon which it is based. Admitting the arbitrary limitations of the human faculties of sense-perception, whereby we have contact with an external reality, this doctrine follows as a logical and inevitable deduction. I sympathize strongly with Dr. Abbot, however, in his The Scientific Method. 81 affirmation of the competence of the human reason to deal with these great problems of thought. Ma. RAYMOND S. PERRIN: Mr. Perrin complimented Dr. Abbot on his able and interesting lecture and briefly commented thereon, in the main agreeing with the lecturer. HERBERT SPENCER'S SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY BY BENJAMIN P. UNDERWOOD COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Spencer's First Principles, Principles of Biology, Principles of Psy- chology, Principles of Sociology, Data of Ethics, and Chapters on Jus- tice, in Popular Science Monthly ; Fiske's Cosmic Philosophy ; Thomp- son's A System of Psychology ; Cazelles's Evolution Philosophy ; E. L. Youmans's Lecture on Herbert Spencer and the Doctrine of Evolution^ in Gazelles. HERBERT SPENCER'S SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY.* BY B. P. UNDERWOOD. THE movement imparted to philosophy by the applica- tion of the " Newtonian method " to philosophical problems gave rise to that form of sensationalism which originated with Locke and culminated with Hume. Its motto was : Nihil est in intellects, quod non fuerit in sensu. Before this movement was started philosophical tenets were principally deduced from "innate ideas." Descartes had appealed to the innate idea of God as ens realissimum, as supreme truth, with which all philosophy had to con- form ; and to Leibnitz innate ideas afforded the main prem- ises for philosophical deductions. But, of course, if there is nothing in mind but what enters into it through the senses, there can not be any innate ideas, such, for instance, as an innate idea of " God " or of " immortal soul." All knowledge must, then, be derived from sensorial experience. The negative or destructive phase of the sensation phi- losophy resulted consistently in the annihilation of all ideas not sense-derived. Its positive or constructive phase con- sisted in the attempt to build up knowledge out of sensorial data alone. Berkeley dissipated the idea of the " extended substance," or matter as externally subsisting, by showing that the sen- sorial elements entering into the idea of matter its primary qualities, such as extension, form, etc., as well as its second- ary qualities, such as hardness, color, etc. that all these elements, without exception, are subjective, mere modes of feeling; that the belief that there exists an extended, formed, hard, and colored substance outside the perceiving mind is an illusion. Berkeley made use of this way of rea- soning to combat materialism, and to glorify the idea of God and of the immortality of man. With him it was God who awakened the sensorial perceptions in us, and our im- mortal soul that perceived them. * This lecture is intended not merely as an exposition of the Synthetic Philoso- phy, but also as a history of its origin, and its relation to other systems, especially to those of Hume and Kant. 86 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Hume, following Berkeley's manner of reasoning, aimed to show that our belief in the " thinking substance " or soul is just as much an illusion as our belief in the extended substance or matter ; and that no sensorial experience can bring us any knowledge of supreme being awakening per- ceptions in us. The sensation philosophy had thus run out in complete nihilism a godless, soulless, matterless world, consisting of nothing but sensorial elements more or less closely connected by mental links, so as to form a somewhat consistent experience. Amid these nihilistic implications of the sensation phi- losophy it remained clear beyond doctrinal cavil that the sensorial particulars leave faint copies behind them in mem- ory; and that these faint copies, called ideas, enter into manifold combinations among themselves, and also with the direct or vivid sensorial feelings. The question concerning the nature of the bond of connection between experiential data became from now on the principal question in philoso- phy. Hume had rendered it evident that the connection between the direct, vivid, matter-of-fact data is of an essen- tially different kind from that between the faint remem- bered copies of them different, above all, from mere logical connection. In modern philosophy, through the influence of Descartes and Leibnitz, the method of acquiring knowledge was held to be exclusively that of deduction, as taught by formal logic ; the ancient and current method of syllogistic reason- ing from universals to particulars. Hume's argumentation left no doubt that direct matter-of- fact knowledge is derived in an opposite manner namely, by beginning with particular sensorial feelings, whose con- 'nection is not ascertained by a process of thought, but is entirely given in direct sensorial experience. Not because I originally have the general idea that fire burns do I know that this particular fire will burn when I touch it : but be- cause I have numbers of times experienced that particular fires burn, have I formed the general idea that all fires burn. This means that the logical connection found to exist in the realm of ideas is secondary to the real connection found to exist in the realm of sensorial experience. The connec- tion between natural events or matter-of-fact occurrences can be derived solely through sensorial experience, and can not be arrived at by purely logical or mental processes. Causal connection differs toto genere from logical connection. Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 87 The relation of cause and effect consists merely in the succession of our impressions and ideas. The sequence is ideal and its order has become established by a habit of ex- pectation derived from many and frequent experiences of a definite succession of impressions. Thus the sight of a flame having been uniformly followed by the feeling of heat, this feeling will always in the future arise vividly whenever and wherever a flame is seen. The connection of cause and effect is therefore only ideal, having no relation to an invariable permanent objective order, being only a subjective bond be- tween the transitory particulars of sense and their reflected remembrance. Besides the fundamental distinction between causal con- nection and logical connection implied in Hume's argumen- tation, the derivation of all ideas from sensorial experience purely experiential links forming the connection between these data of knowledge gave rise to what is known as English experientialism, or the association philosophy. The aim of this philosophical method is to discover the general laws that govern the association of ideas experientially de- rived, and to show that all our complex ideas are formed by association of experienced particulars, in accordance with those general laws. It was Hume's elucidation of the process of matter-of-fact experience that awakened Kant from the " dogmatic slum- ber " into which he had been rocked by the purely logical or deductive philosophy of the Leibnitz- Wolffian school, " leading him," as Dr. Edmund Montgomery says, " to dis- cover the enchanted path traveled by so many since, on which the charmed wanderer is carried, far away from real nature, to the mystic realm of transcendental idealism." By this school of thought it has been taken for granted incon- testably that the general ideas or so-called concepts, found ready-made in our mind when we begin to philosophize, are eternal and universal verities implanted in us independently of all external experience, and that our understanding of truth is arrived at solely by deriving it from these pre-exist- ing concepts by means of syllogistic reasoning. Kant was the first fully to appreciate the important im- plications involved in Hume's experiential derivation of all knowledge ; for if there is really no other way of arriving at the knowledge of truth than that of accepting it as it comes to us in sensorial experience, and if the knowledge of such truth consists simply in an experienced connection of 88 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. eensorial and therefore wholly natural data, then all meta- physical conceptions out of which philosophy had been hitherto constructed could be nothing but idle illusions, and all existing metaphysics nothing but a baseless dream, a mere castle in the air. Kant's life-long and most earnest endeavor was to extricate philosophy from these God and soul eliminating implications of sensorial experientialism. With him the problem assumed the following form : Is our mind endowed or not endowed with a faculty of forming a priori synthetical propositions? Or, in other words, is it or is it not capable of forming knowledge of some kind without the existence of sensorial experience ? If not, then the cause of metaphysical philoso- phy is hopeless. Kant believed that in pure mathematics he had discovered a kind of knowledge constructed wholly from a priori data by the mind without the aid of sensorial experience. That the truths of pure mathematics consist of such a priori syn- thetical propositions is the fundamental assertion upon which the entire Kantian philosophy is grounded. To make good his case, he had first to show that space and time, in which all mathematical constructions take form, are them- selves a priori possessions of the mind, and he had further- more to show that the synthetic power the power which combines particular data into systematic knowledge is like- wise an a priori possession of the mind. Philosophers in Germany before Kant had looked upon perception, or the manifold of experience which appears in time and space, as merely an indistinct kind of apprehen- sion, whose clear and distinct knowledge they held to con- sist exclusively in concepts. Kant now declared perceptual sensibility to be a fundamental faculty of the mind alto- gether distinct from its conceptual apprehension. > Accord- ing to him, this original or pure perceptual sensibility of the mind consists in the empty forms of space and time, which he calls the outer and the inner sense, respectively. Into these a priori forms of our sensibility all sense-derived ma- terial, all a posteriori or externally imparted sensorial data, are received. This occurs in a purely receptive manner without the active part of our nature coming into play. The active part of our nature Kant declares to be intelligence exclusively. In his view sensibility is an entirely passive faculty, all activity being exclusively a matter of intellect. It is this lodging of all activity, of all combining and ap- Herbert Spencers Synthetic Philosophy. 89 prehending power in nature, in a special faculty called in- telligence, and believed to constitute mind proper, that inevitably leads to pure transcendental idealism, such as was taught by the late Thomas Hill Green, and is taught at present in many of the universities ; for, if our knowledge is in fact out and out, and through and through, a synthe- tized compound, it follows that intelligence being declared the only synthetical power extant our knowledge must be oat and out, and through and through, a product of intelli- gence. And this means that thought and being are identi- cal, that the world consists of nothing but thought. Kant himself abhorred pure idealism. He firmly believed that sense-material is given to sensibility from outside ; that there exists actually a realm of things in themselves, of the true nature of which, however, he was positive that we can know nothing, and this because space and time, the forms in which the sense-given material appears to us, and the different modes of combination, the so-called categories, through which this raw material is elaborated into system- atic knowledge, are faculties belonging to our own mental nature. Moreover, though Kant believed that pure mathematics is constructed a priori by force of our sensorially unaided, mental endowments, he came to the final conclusion that our combining faculty, in order to constitute real knowl- edge, requires imperatively sense-given material to work upon ; that constructions formed of any other material are baseless. It is, however, important to notice that Kant be- lieved the combining categories or synthetical functions of the intellect to inhere in an intelligible Ego, belonging to a supernatural sphere of existence. In spite of his complete overthrow of the old metaphysical idols by force of his theoretical speculations, Kant had in reserve a loop-hole through which he was convinced he could more effectively than ever establish connection with the intelligible world, the real existence of which he had never doubted. God and the immortal soul of man, as intelligible or supernatural existences, were to him primordial verities, attested beyond contention by the moral law, in obedience to which our own intelligible nature has power to determine the course of nature by means of free volitional causation. Leibnitz, having become acquainted with Locke's sensa- tionalism, modified considerably his view of innate ideas. He changed, however, the motto of the sensation philosophy 90 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. by adding a clause to it, which made it read : Nihil est in in- tellectu quod non fuerit in sensu, nisi ipse intellectus. Thus changed, it became the motto of Kant's transcend- ental idealism, and this view of innate faculties, instead of innate ideas, distinguishes the Kantian view, on the one hand, from the old Leibnitz-Wolffian philosophy that rested entirely on innate ideas, and on the other hand from Hume's sensorial experientialism, which denies the existence of any sort of innate possession, whether in the form of ready-made ideas or of mere potential faculties. Kant undertakes to show that the mind brings with it certain elements of a priori knowledge in which no empirical influence, personal or ancestral, is traceable. " Experience," he says, " consists of intuitions which are entirely the work of the understand- ing." " Experience consists in the synthetical connections of phenomena (perceptions') in consciousness, so far as the connection is necessary (Prolegomena 1, sec. 22, 23). " The reader had probably been long accustomed to consider experience a mere empirical synthesis of perception, and hence not to reflect that it goes much further than these ex- tend, as it gives empirical judgments universal validity, and for that presupposes pure unity of the understanding which precedes a priori" (ibid., sec. 26, Mahaffy's translation). " It is the matter of all phenomena that is given to us a posteriori; the form must be ready a priori for them in the mind." " Before objects are given to me, that is a priori, I must presuppose in myself laws of the understanding which are expressed in conceptions a priori. To these conceptions all objects of experience must necessarily conform " (Preface to second edition of Kritik). We are affected by objects, he argued, only by intuition, which is always sensuous. The faculty of thinking the object of sensuous intuition is the understanding. " Understanding can not intuit, the sensibility can not think. In no other way than from the united operation of both can knowledge arise." Thus Kant maintains that before sensuous impressions can be changed into experience they must be molded by the mutual forms of sensible intuition and logical concep- tion. It is universally admitted among thinkers that Kant tried to hold positions that are contradictory ; but on this point I can not dwell here. The post-Kantian philosophers aimed to overcome the new dualism implied by Kant's contention that not only Herbert Spencers Synthetic Philosophy. 91 sensations as such, but also space and time, the very media in which they appeared, and their whole synthesis in con- sciousness, are products of the feeling and thinking indi- vidual, and by his insisting on the existence of an outside realm of things-in-themselves affecting the individual's sen- sibility. Fichte tried to prove the synthetical power of the individual to create the objective world ; Hegel, by identi- fying thought with being, and subjective thought with uni- versal thought (transcendental^ idealism) ; Schelling, by making the subjective and objective both inhere in one and the same all-comprising hyper-subjective and hyper-object- ive substance or subject-object (transcendental realism). Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, all founded their systems on Kant's a priori elements in knowledge. The main line of descent from Hume in England was repre- sented by Hartley, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill ; and none of them were able to reconcile with their experiential philosophy the fact of a priori forms of intuition on which Kant had rightly insisted. It remained for Herbert Spencer to apply the principle of evolution to mind and to show that Kant's " forms of thought," although a priori in the individual, are experi- ential in the race in other words, were acquired in the evolutionary process. Long before Spencer, instincts were regarded as acquired mental habitudes that had become organically fixed. Conscious experience and conscious memory of it were thus held to pass, by means of organic fixation and subsequent transmission of the modified struct- ure, into organized experience and memory. This concep- tion forms the nucleus of Spencer's mental philosophy. Thus Herbert Spencer, " our great philosopher " as Darwin called him in his Principles of Psychology, published be- fore Darwin's Origin of Species had appeared, assuming the truth of organic evolution, endeavored to show how man's mental constitution was acquired. Spencer, recognizing the existence of the subjective forms, with a grasp of thought and philosophic insight never surpassed, shows that while in the individual they are a priori, in the race they are ex- periential, since they are constant, universal experiences or- ganized as tendencies and transmitted, like any of the phys- ical organs, as a heritage ; that thus such a priori forms as those of space, time, causality, etc., must have had their origin in experience. Says Dr. Carpenter : " No physiolo- gist can deem it improbable that the intuitions which we 92 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. recognize in our mental constitution have been acquired by a process of gradual development in the race corresponding to that which we trace by observation in the individual. . . . The doctrine that the intellectual and moral intuitions of any one generation are the embodiment in its mental con- stitution of the experience of the race was first explicitly put forth by Mr. Herbert Spencer, in whose philosophical treatises it will be found most ably developed. Lewes remarks : " Such is one of the many profound con- ceptions with which this great thinker has enriched philoso- phy, and it ought to have finally closed the debate between the a priori and the experiential schools, in so far as both admit a common ground of biological interpretation, though, of course, it leaves the metempirical hypothesis untouched." Spencer saw that this conception affords a solution of the problems of sensorial experience and innate faculties, and is a compromise between Locke's and Kant's school of thought ; between the sensation philosophy and transcendental ideal- ism. With Hume, and against Kant, this view maintains that all knowledge is derived from sensorial experience. But with Kant, and against Hume, it asserts that we are, nevertheless, born with predisposed faculties of thought, which necessarily constitute a preformed recipient and norm for all new experience. As regards the inseparable bond of connection between experiential particulars, it holds that it is, indeed, estab- lished through habit, but by means of generical inherit- ance, and not merely during individual life ; that it is, how- ever, certainly not established through the functional play of faculties inherent in mind prior to all experience, indi- vidual or ancestral. Hume ignored completely the existence of anything be- yond consciousness. He does not assume powers outside of us awakening our sensations. He takes account of nothing but vivid and faint ideas and their combinations. Spencer, on the contrary, assumes with Kant the existence of a realm external to us that has power to affect our sensibility. But, unlike Kant, who allows these affections to fall chaotically into empty space and time, and to receive all their signifi- cance solely from the combining, systematizing, and appre- hending power of the intellect, Spencer teaches that the or- der found obtaining among conscious states has been estab- lished by vital and organic adjustment to a corresponding order obtaining among the forces that constitute existence Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 93 outside of consciousness. Life, with all its mental as well as vital manifestations, consists with him in the adjustment of internal or subjective relations to external or objective relations. The psychological fact is that the forms are connate, therefore a priori; the psychogenetical fact is that the forms are products of ancestral experience, and therefore a posteriori. Locke was right in claiming that all knowl- edge is ultimately derived from experience, from intercourse between organism and its medium. Kant was right in rec- ognizing the fact that there are definite tendencies or pre- dispositions in the individual at birth. Locke was wrong in denying that there is any element in mind a priori to the individual. Kant was wrong in ignoring the results in the individual mind of ancestral experiences. Says Mr. John Fiske : " Though Kant was one of the chief pioneers of the doctrine of evolution, having been the first to propose and to elaborate in detail the theory of the nebular origin of planetary systems, yet the conception of a continuous development of life in all its modes, physi- cal and psychical, was not sufScientlv advanced in Kant's day to be adopted into philosophy, ifence, in his treatment of mind, as regards both intelligence and emotion, Kant took what may be called a statical view of the subject ; and finding in the adult, civilized mind, upon the study of which his systems of psychology and ethics were founded, a num- ber of organized moral intuitions and an organized moral sense, which urges men to seek the right and shun the wrong, irrespective of utilitarian considerations of pleasure and pain, he proceeded to deal with these moral intuitions and this moral sense as if they were ultimate facts, incapable of be- ing analyzed into simpler emotional elements. ... So long as the subject is contemplated from a statical point of view, so long as individual experience is studied without reference to ancestral experience, the follower of Kant can always hold his ground against the followers of Locke in ethics as well as in psychology. When the Kantian asserts that the intuitions of right and wrong, as well as the intuitions of time and space, are independent of experience, he occu- pies a position which is impregnable so long as the organi- zation of experiences through successive generations is left out of the discussion. . . . Admitting the truth of the Kantian position that there exists in us a moral sense for analyzing which our individual experience does not afford 94 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. the requisite data, and which must therefore be regarded as ultimate for each individual, it is, nevertheless, open to us to inquire into the emotional antecedents of this organized moral sense as indicated in ancestral types of physical life. The inquiry will result in the conviction that the moral sense is not ultimate, but derivative, and that it has been built up out of slowly organized experiences of pleasures and pains." Says Dr. Edmund Montgomery, learned in all the schools of philosophic thought : " Philosophy, after twenty-four centuries of most diversified trials, had failed to discover the ways of knowledge. In no manner could it be ade- quately extracted from reason, and just as little could it be fully derived from the senses. Nor had any compromise at all succeeded. Nativism and empiricism remained funda- mentally irreconcilable. Suddenly, however, light began to pierce the hitherto immovable darkness. It was Mr. Her- bert Spencer who caught one of those rare revealing glimpses that initiate a new epoch in the history of thought. He saw that the evolution hypothesis furnishes a solution of the controversy between the disciples of Locke and Kant. To us younger thinkers, into whose serious meditations Darwinism entered from the beginning as a potent solvent of many an ancient mystery, this reconciliation of trans- cendentalism and experientialism may have consistently presented itself as an evident corollary from the laws of heredity. But what an achievement for a solitary thinker, aided by no other light than the penetration of his own genius, before Darwinism was current, to discover this deeply hidden secret of nature, which with one stroke dis- closed the true relation of innate and acquired faculties, an enigma over which so many generations of philosophers had pondered in vain ! " Du Bois-Reymond disputes the priority of this foreshadow- ing insight. In his lecture on The Physiology of Exercise he says : " With Mr. Herbert Spencer meeting me in the same thought, which I believe, however, I have more sharply grasped, I deduced on a former occasion how, in such trans- missibility of educationally derived aptitude, possibly lies the reconciliation of the great antithesis of the theory of knowledge of the empirical and the innate views." I am not able to judge as to the justice of Du Bois-Rey- mond's claim, but evidently he had no clear conception of the subject such as alone could have enabled him to make Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 95 the discovery a consistent part of a scientific theory or a philosophical system. As regards the intimate nature of the ultimate reality represented in consciousness, Spencer, like Kant, professes complete ignorance. He holds it to be wholly unknowable. Yet, unlike Kant, who derives his God from the existence of the moral law, he concludes that the noumenal power be- hind phenomena, though unknowable, is an all-efficient Absolute, a First Cause or Supreme Power, from which all natural phenomena proceed, they being manifestations of the same. Spencer maintains, with Kant substantially, that external things are known to us only as states of consciousness, alike in their so-called primary and secondary qualities. What things are in themselves can not be represented by feeling. Matter, space, motion, force, all our fundamental ideas are derived from generalizing and abstracting our experiences of resistance the ultimate material of knowledge " the primordial, universal, ever-present constituent of conscious- ness." To us, matter is a congeries of qualities weight, resistance, extension, etc. ; and these are names for different ways in which our consciousness is affected. If we were destitute of sight, touch, smell, taste, and hearing, these qualities would cease to exist, although the external reality which causes these groups of sensations would still exist. To beings organized differently from ourselves so differ- ently that their mode of being could not be conceived by us the objective reality might give rise to states of which the word "matter" would to our minds convey no idea. Nevertheless, the fact that we have sensations that come and go independently of our volitions is evidence of something that determines them. The doctrine of the relativity of knowledge necessitates the postulation of an unknowable existence beyond consciousness. Aerial vibrations communicated to the acoustic nerve give rise to the sensation known as sound. Without a nerve of hearing there can be no sound ; for sound is a sensible phenomenon and not something external to the hearer. Color is also a subjective affection; and particular colors depend upon the particular velocities of the waves of atten- uated matter gathered together by the optical apparatus of the eye, and which impinge upon the retina, affecting the optic nerve and giving rise to what appear objectively as colors blue, green, violet, etc. but which are known to be 96 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. sensations or conscious states. In some persons, vibrations as different in velocity as those which commonly cause red- ness and greenness awaken Identical sensations. Luminous- ness is a sensation produced by the action of waves of ether upon the retina and fibers of the optic nerve. This sensa- tion may.also be produced by a blow or by electricity, which, singularly enough, while it causes luminous phenomena through the eye, brought in contact with other parts gives rise to quite different sensations sounds in the ear, taste in the mouth, ticklings in the tactile nerves. That tastes and odors are not intrinsic in things with which we associate them is very evident. The sweetness of sugar and the fragrance of the rose are sensations in us caused by these objects, the one appreciated by the sense of taste, the other by the sense of smell. Heat, too, is a sensation, and is conceivable objectively only as a mode of motion. Another quality which we ascribe to things is hardness ; but hardness can not be intelligently conceived except as a feeling. When we say that a stone is hard we mean that, if we press against it, we experience a sensation of touch, a feeling of resistance, which is designated by the word " hardness." To illustrate that both hardness and form be- long to the groups of our conscious states which we call sensations of sight and touch Huxley observes : " If the sur- face of the cornea were cylindrical we should have a very different notion of a round body from that which we possess now ; and if the strength of the fabric and the force of the muscles of the body were increased a hundredfold, our mar- ble would seem to be as soft as a pellet of bread crumbs." What we call impenetrability is the consciousness of exten- sion and the consciousness of resistance constantly accom- panying one another. What we call extension is a con- sciousness of relation between two or more coexistent states produced through the sense of sight or the sense of touch. Even the conception of vibrations among particles of mat- ter, mentioned above as objective factors in the production of ^ sound and color, is but an inference from states of con- sciousness caused in us by vibrations which have been ap- preciated by the optic or tactile nerves ; in other words, by subjective experiences produced in us by some unknown cause. Thus, what are popularly believed to be qualities and states of matter sound, color, odor, taste, hardness, exten- sion, and motion are names for different ways in which Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 97 our consciousness is affected; and, were we destitute of hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch, the supposed quali- ties of matter would not, so far as we can know or conceive, have any existence whatever, for by psychological analysis they are reducible to states of consciousness. As to space and time, whether we regard them with Kant as forms of sensibility belonging to the subject and not to the object, or adopt Spencer's theory that space is the ab- stract of all relations of position among coexistent states of consciousness or the blank form of all these relations, and that time is the abstract of all relations of position among successive states of consciousness or the blank form in which they are presented and represented, and that both classes of relations are predetermined in the individual, so far as the inherited organization is developed, when it conies into activity, while both have been developed in the race and are resolvable into relations, coexistent and sequent, between sub- ject and object as disclosed by the act of touch whichever of these theories Ave adopt or whatever theory be affirmed, still we know space and time only as subjective forms, not as external realities. Both space relations and time rela- tions vary with structural organization, position, vital activ- ity, mental development, and condition. How great in childhood seemed the height and mass of buildings which now seem small or of but moderate size ! How long the days seemed when we were young! How short now ! How rapidly time passes in agreeable company, how slowly in waiting for a delayed train ! That there is equality or likeness between our differently estimated lengths of distance or duration but so many variations of subjective relations and any nexus of external things there is no reason to believe. Inability to banish from the mind the idea of space illus- trates Spencer's prime test of truth viz., the inconceiva- bility of the negation of a proposition. " If space b.e an universal form of the non-ego, it must produce some corre- sponding universal form of the ego a form which, as being the constant element of all impressions presented in experi- ence, and therefore of all impressions represented in thought, is independent of every particular impression ; and conse- quently remains when every particular impression is as far as possible banished." Space intuitions are " the fixed func- tions of fixed structures that have become molded into corre- spondence with fixed outer relations " pre-established so far 98 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. as the inherited organization is developed at the time it comes into activity. Thus the consciousness of space is reached through a process of evolution. But does not the mind possess a synthetic power by which it can put together the materials furnished by the senses, and thus enable us to realize and understand the objective world as it actually exists? Is there not in the mind a faculty by which we can discover relations as they are be- yond consciousness ? If we do not know the nature of nou- menal existence, we can not know anything about its rela- tions. Kant dwelt upon this subject for years ; and, although he believed in an existence transcending sense and under- standing, the conclusion of his years of laborious thought was that we can only put together the materials furnished by the senses, and that we can know nothing of the world as it exists, unmodified by and independent of conscious- ness. To the same conclusion, after years of profound thought, came Herbert Spencer. Mr. Spencer holds that things in themselves are not per- ceived, yet that they correspond with perceptions, and are known symbolically only ; that " there exist beyond con- sciousness conditions of objective manifestation which are symbolized by relations as we conceive them." The object- ive existences and conditions which remain as the final necessity of thought are the correlatives of our feelings and the relations between them. There is no valid reason for the belief that the objective existence is what it appears to be, nor for the belief that the connections among its modes are what they seem in consciousness. There is cpngruity, but not resemblance, between the external and the internal order. " Inner thoughts," says Spencer, " answer to outer things in such wise that cohesions in the one correspond to persist- ences in the other," but this correspondence is only sym- bolical. Such, briefly stated, is the view which, in distinc- tion to crude realism and idealism, is called Transfigured Kealism. " It recognizes," to quote again from the great thinker, "an external, independent existence which is the cause of changes in consciousness, while the effects it works in consciousness constitute the perception of it ; and the inference is that the knowledge constituted by these effects can not be a knowledge of that which causes them, but can only imply its existence. May it not be said that in thus in- terpreting itself subjective existence makes definite that dif- ferentiation from objective existence which has been going Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 99 on from the beginning of evolution ? " (Spencer's Principles of Psychology, vol. ii, p. 555.) What may be called, with propriety, Relatiouism, the doc- trine that we know objective relations as they actually exist, belongs to crude realism, and it has no philosophical basis whatever. The theory that the intellect alone constitutes relations, that we intellectually reconstitute and therefore understand the relations making up the noumenal constitu- tion of things, is an old conception, sometimes put forward in these later days as original, in a phraseology which at first makes difficult the immediate discovery of its identity with a system that has been weighed in the balance aud found wanting. One of these relational philosophers main- tains that space relations belong to the noumenal world. But these are relations constituted by the facts of sensibility, and the theorist referred to does not allow sensibility to contribute to knowledge. He can not, therefore, consist- ently maintain that space relations are knowingly apper- ceived by us. Although there seems to be almost a complete unanimity among the great thinkers of the world that we can form no conception of the objective world apart from the conditions imposed upon it by our intelligence, and that changes of consciousness are the materials out of which our knowledge is entirely built, let no one hastily conclude that there is. anything in this position inimical to, or inconsistent with, what is called " objective science." Prof. Huxley, one of the greatest of living scientists and a philosophic thinker of no mean ability, pursuing the " scientific method " with which he is supposed to be well acquainted, comes to the conclusion " that all the phenomena are, in their ultimate analysis, known to us only as facts of consciousness." George Henry Lewes, eminent as a physiologist and psy- chologist, as well as a remarkably acute analytical thinker, declares, in his Problems of Life and Mind : w Whether we affirm the objective existence of something distinct from the affections of consciousness or affirm that this object is simply a reflection from consciousness, in either case we declare that the objective world is to each man the sum of his vis- ionary experience an existence bounded on all sides by what he feels and thinks a form shaped by the reaction of his organism. The world is the sum total of phenomena, and phenomena are affections of consciousness with exter- nal signs " (vol. i, p. 183). 100 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Dr. Maudsley, the distinguished physiologist, who is no more than Spencer or Lewes a subjectivist or idealist who, indeed, is commonly regarded as a materialist says : "After all, the world which we apprehend when we are awake may have as little resemblance or relation to the external world, of which we can have no manner of apprehension through our senses, as the dream-world has to the world with which our senses make us acquainted ; nay, perhaps less, since there is some resemblance in the latter case, and there may be none whatever in the former. . . . The external world as it is in itself may not be in the least what we conceive it through our forms of perception and modes of thought. No prior experience of it has ever been so much as possible ; and therefore the analogy of the dreamer is altogether de- fective in that respect " (Body and Will, p. 51). Now Mr. Spencer's conclusions from relativity are in or- der. He says : " If, after finding that the same tepid water may feel warm to one hand and cold to another, it is in- ferred that warmth is relative to our nature and our own state, the inference is valid, only supposing the activity to which these different sensations are referred is an activity out of ourselves, which has not been modified by our own activities. " When we are taught that a piece of matter, regarded by us as existing externally, can not be really known, but that we can know only certain impressions produced on us, we are yet, by the relativity of our thought, compelled to think of a positive cause. The notion of a real existence which generated these impressions becomes nascent. The momen- tum of thought inevitably carries us beyond conditioned existence to unconditioned existence ; and this ever persists in us as the body of a thought to which we can give no shape. ... At the same time that, by the laws of thought, we are rigorously prevented from forming a conception of absolute existence, we are, by the laws of thought, prevent- ed from ridding ourselves of the consciousness of absolute existence, this unconsciousness being, as we see, the obverse of absolute existence " (First Principles, p. 396). The absolute existence, then, can be known only as it is manifested in consciousness, only as it is colored and modi- fied, so to speak, by the conditions of the organism. It can not be identified with what we call matter, for that we know only as a series of phenomenal manifestations, or, psycho- logically speaking, only as the coexistent states of conscious- Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 101 ness, which we call resistance, extension, color, sound, or odor. It can not be identified with mind, for that we know only as the series of our own states of consciousness. Says Spencer : " If I am asked to frame a notion of mind, divested of all those structural traits under which alone I am conscious of mind in myself, I can not do it. . . . If, then, I have to conceive evolution as caused by an ' originat- ing mind,' I must conceive this mind as having attributes akin to those of the only mind I know, and without which I can not conceive mind at all. ... I can not think of a single series of states of consciousness as causing even the relatively small groups of action going on over the earth's surface. . . . How, then, is it possible for me to conceive an ' original mind,' which I must represent to myself as a single series of states of consciousness, working the infinitely multiplied sets of changes simultaneously going on in worlds too numerous to count, dispersed throughout a space that baffles imagination? If to account for this infinitude of changes everywhere going on * mind ' must be conceived as there under the guise of simple dynamics, then the reply is that, to be so conceived, mind must be divested of all attri- butes by which it is distinguished, and that when thus divested of its distinguishing attributes the conception dis- appears, the word ' mind ' stands for a blank." According to Spencer, force, matter, space, time, motion, are but forms which the indeterminate substance assumes in consciousness. But matter and movement he reduces as is sufficiently evident from the foregoing to manifesta- tions of force ; and space and time are cohesions one of coexistence, the other of succession in the manifestations of force. Force then remains the primary datum, but that we know only as states of consciousness in other words, as the changes in us produced by an absolute reality of which in itself we know nothing. It may be well to illustrate a little more fully that, ac- cording to Spencer, we know matter only as co-existent states of consciousness : " A whiff of ammonia coming in contact with the eyes produces a smart, getting into the nostrils excites the consciousness we described as an intolerably strong odor, being condensed on the tongue generates an acrid taste, while ammonia applied in solution to a tender part of the skin makes it burn, as we say." This illustra- tion from Spencer's Principles of Psychology shows that one and the same external agency produces m us different 102 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. sensations, according to the avenues through which it affects our consciousness. Which of these feelings, so widely dif- ferent, does the external cause resemble? Probably none of them. What it is, independently of consciousness, we never can know, owing to limitations imposed by the very constitution of the human mind. The effects produced on our consciousness different feel- ings can be compared and classified ; but how can we com- pare and classify that of which nothing can be known ? Knowledge consists in the classification of experiences. We observe distinctions existing between phenomena, and group together those that are similar. Anything newly dis- covered is known only when it can be classed with some other thing which is known ; in other words, only when the impressions it produces can be recognized as belonging to an existing group of impressions. " Whence it is manifest that a thing is perfectly known when it is in all respects like certain things previously observed ; that in proportion to the number of respects in which it is unlike them is the extent to which it is unknown ; and that hence, when it has absolutely no attribute in common with anything else, it must be absolutely beyond the bounds of knowledge." With- out distinction, which implies limitation, of course, knowl- edge would be impossible. All that we can compare and classify are phenomena, between which are distinguishable various degrees of likeness and unlikeness. These phenom- ena are effects produced in us by that which is manifested objectively as matter and force, and subjectively as feeling and thought. We can think of matter only in terms of mind, as, indeed, we can think of mind only in terms of matter. That of which both are manifestations can not be known. " The antithesis of subject and object," says Spen- cer, " never to be transcended while consciousness lasts, ren- ders impossible all knowledge of that ultimate reality in which subject and object are united." There are those who, after making use of the doctrine of the relativity of knowledge to prove that we know only our conscious states, deny or question the existence of any ob- jective reality that produces these states. But relativity implies object as well as subject, and it would have no meaning unless there were existence, known only as it affects us and unknown as pure object. The statement that a house of a certain size, form, color, etc., is what it is con- ceived to be only in relation to consciousness, implies that Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 103 there is something beyond consciousness that exists per se y and that, as such, it is unknown. The statement that knowl- edge is relative involves the statement that there is absolute existence existence that does not depend upon our con- sciousness, and of which we know only its effects upon us. If, in asserting the relativity of knowledge, we do not postu- late absolute existence, the relative itself becomes absolute ; and that involves a contradiction of the doctrine of rela- tivity the very indisputable doctrine by which the so-called qualities of matter are shown to be sensible phenomena. An oyster is conceived as having some vague sort of con- sciousness of its environment. In this consciousness man is not included. If we conceive the oyster as a creature out of whose consciousness we exist, is it not a trifle absurd to say that there is no objective reality ; that our conception of the oyster, instead of being the product of the co-opera- tion of the mind with an external something, is only one of the modifications of ourselves, uncaused by anything ex- isting objectively ; and that, therefore, the oyster exists only in our own minds? And other human beings than our- selves can only be regarded as but so many modifications of our own consciousness. The truth is that, while we know directly only our own conscious states the material out of which is woven all thought we know by inference other human beings, although, of course, relatively only; and that which is not known is the reality which awakens in us all similarly perceptive activity. The conviction " that human intelligence is incapable of absolute knowledge," says Spencer, " is one that has been slowly gaining ground as civilization has advanced. . . . All possible conceptions have been, one by one, tried and found wanting ; and so the entire field of speculation has been gradually exhausted without positive result, the only one arrived at being the negative one above stated that the reality existing behind all appearances is, and must ever be, unknown. To this conclusion almost every thinker of note has subscribed. 'With the exception,' says Sir William Hamilton, * of a few late absolutist theorizers in Germany, this is, perhaps, the truth of all others most harmoniously re-echoed by every philosopher of every school.' " To Herbert Spencer belongs the great credit of having formulated the principles of universal evolution and shown that what von Baer demonstrated to be true in the develop- ment of an animal is true of worlds, of all life, of society, 104 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. of all thought, of language, religion, literature, government, art, science, philosophy, etc. viz., that progress is from a homogeneous, indefinite, incoherent condition to the hetero- geneous, definite, and coherent condition. The rhythm of evolution and dissolution, completing itself during short periods in small aggregates, and in the vast aggregate dis- tributed through space completing itself in periods which are immeasurable by human thought, is, so far as we can see, universal and eternal, each alternating phase of the pro- cess predominating, now in this region of space, and now in that, as local conditions determine. Von Baer, and doubtless others before Spencer, had glimpses of this law beyond its application to organic de- velopment, but it required the cyelopasdiac knowledge, philo- sophic genius, and synthetical powers of a Spencer to illus- trate and prove the law of universal evolution, as it re- quired a Darwin to establish the principle of natural selec- tion. Von Baer, as a writer in the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, " prepared the way for Mr Spencer's generalization of the law of organic evolution as the law of all evolution." But this fact no more lessens the credit due Spencer for his great contributions to thought than the fact that many investigators prepared the way for Darwin's researches di- minishes the credit to which the great naturalist is fairly entitled. "A great method is always within the perception of many," says De Morgan, " before it is within the grasp of one." Prof. Owen, the paleontologist, expressed himself, in correspondence with the editor of the London Review, so as to convey the impression which he afterward said was not intended that he claimed to have promulgated the theory of natural selection before Darwin had done so. This led Darwin to say : " As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Prof. Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Mathew." Darwin quotes even from Aristotle's Physical Auscultations, and adds : " We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth," etc. Doubtless many had thought of the principle of natural selection, but they lacked the knowledge to under- stand it with its many implications, the wonderful powers of patient observation and laborious experimental investiga- tion necessary to the study of details, and the verification Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 105 of what was conjectured or but dimly perceived, as well as the wonderful powers of generalization required to classify the multitude of facts and bring them together in a com- prehensive unity so as to make clear and certain the princi- ple underlying them. These qualifications were possessed in an eminent degree by Darwin, and they enabled him to prove what others had but imagined to show that natural selection was a great factor in evolution, and to put or- ganic evolution upon an impregnable foundation. But Dar- win's work would not have been possible if the labors of others had not led up to them, and the acceptance of evo- lution would have remained confined to but a few if the scientific mind had not been, through the work of others, prepared for the change. Buffon, Lamarck, Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire, Goethe, Erasmus Darwin, the author of the Ves- tiges, with others, are entitled to the credit of having helped to prepare the way for Darwin's work and for the adoption, with comparatively little opposition, of the doctrine of de- velopment in the place of belief in special creations. Yet Darwin's name will be forever identified with natural selec- tion. And as Prof. Youmans says : " The same ethical canons of research . . . which gave to Copernicus the glory of the heliocentric astronomy, to Newton that of the law of gravi- tation, to Harvey that of the circulation of the blood, to Priestley that of the discovery of oxygen, and to Darwin that of natural selection, will also give to Herbert Spencer the honor of having first elucidated and established the law of universal evolution." Prof. Huxley, in his Survey of Fifty Years of Progress, says : " Evolution as a philosophical doctrine applicable to all phenomena, whether physical or mental, whether mani- fested by material atoms or by men in society, has been dealt with systematically in the Synthetic Philosophy ^ of Mr. Herbert Spencer. Comment on that great undertaking would not be in place here. I mention it because, so far as I know, it is the first attempt to deal on scientific princi- ples with modern scientific facts and speculations. For the Philosophie Positive of M. Comte, with which Mr. Spencer's system of philosophy is sometimes compared, al- though it professes a similar object, is unfortunately per- meated by a thoroughly unscientific spirit, and its author had no adequate acquaintance with the physical science even of his own time." 106 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. I will now endeavor to give a brief synopsis of Mr. Spen- per's doctrine of evolution. 1. Under the appearances which the universe presents to our senses, there persists, unchanging in quantity but ever changing in form and ever transcending human knowledge and conception, an unknown and unknowable power or real- ity, which we are obliged to recognize as without limit in space and without beginning or end in time. Matter, motion, space, and time are forms which the un- knowable reality assumes in consciousness. Matter and motion are manifestations of force, and space and time are cohesions one of coexistence, the other of succession in the manifestation of force. Force, then, is the primary da- tum, but that we only know as states of consciousness ; in other words, as the changes in us produced by an unknow- able reality, of which our conceptions of matter and mo- tion are symbols. That which appears to be, outside of con- sciousness, as matter and force, is the same as that which appears in consciousness as thought and feeling. In Spen- cer's own language : "A power of which the nature re- mains forever inconceivable, and to which no limit in time and space can be imagined, works in us certain effects. These effects have certain likenesses of kind, the most gen- eral of which we class under the names of matter and force, and between these effects there are likenesses of kind, the most constant of which we class as laws of the highest certainty." 2. The field of science and philosophy is in the phenome- nal world. It is the function of philosophy to give to knowl- edge a unity that shall comprehend the fundamental truths of all the sciences, as the general definitions and proposi- tions of each include all the diversified phenomena of its recognized province. The sciences deal with different orders of phenomena, and their formulae are those which express the changes and relations of these orders respectively. Phi- losophy is a synthesis of all these sciences into a universal system. 3. Force is persistent, and is revealed to us under the two opposite modes of attraction and expansion in the ceaseless redistribution of matter and motion, which extends through- out the universe, involving, on the one hand, the integra- tion of matter and the dissipation of motion, and on the other a disintegration of matter and absorption of motion. 4. Where the integration of matter and the dissipation Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 107 of motion predominate, there is evolution. Where there is a predominant disintegration of matter and absorption of motion, there is dissolution. In that portion of the universe observable by us attraction predominates now, as seen in the integration of matter and the evolution of forms. In other regions expansion may exceed attraction, dissolution may predominate over evolution. In ages inconceivably remote, the elements of our system, now undergoing evolution, were doubtless subject to the opposite process. Every condition grows out of pre-existent conditions. 5. Of beginning there is no indication. The evolution of a world from the " chaos " of star-dust involves a " begin- ning " only as the formation of a crystal from the " chaos " of a solution implies a beginning. There is, according to Spencer's philosophy, as little need of a " supernatural fac- tor " to explain evolution as there is to explain the opposite process, dissolution; and one is as little indication of a " beginning " as the other, except the word " beginning " be applied to certain rhythms of motion, certain manifesta- tions of force, certain forms of matter, which, nevertheless, were preceded by and sprang from other rhythms, manifes- tations, and forms, all due to and dependent upon self-ex- istent, inscrutable power. As Spencer said, in reply to a critic : " The affirmation of a universal evolution is in itself the negation of an ' absolute commencement ' of anything. Construed in terms of evolution, every kind of being is conceived as a product of modifications, wrought by insensible gradations on a pre-existing kind of being; and this holds as fully of the supposed ' commencement of organic life ' as of all subsequent development of organic life." 6. "When the formation of an aggregate proceeds uncom- plicated by secondary processes, as in the crystallization of carbon into a diamond, evolution is simple. 7. When, in the process of evolution, there are secondary rearrangements of matter, and sufficient retained motion to admit a redistribution among the parts of the body as, for instance, in the growth of an animal there is exemplified not only the integration of matter and the dissipation of motion, the primary law of evolution, but also an increase of complexity. When this is accompanied with increased coherence, definiteness, and mutual dependence of parts, and the subordination of the parts to the movements of the whole structure, there is progress. Thus we have evolution 108 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. as a double process a movement toward unity as well as diversity. The following is from an article which appeared in The Index (Boston), in 1880, in which I reviewed at consider- able length Prof. Van Buren Denslow's essay on Herbert Spencer, contained in his work entitled Modern Thinkers : Prof. Denslow says : " Given space, matter, force, motion, and time as the factors, would all progress be found to consist in evolution of forms, organisms, motions, and activities from the homogeneous or simple into the heterogeneous f It must be conceded that the array of instances in which this is true dazzles and almost bewilders the im- agination by its variety and beauty. . . . But if it shall appear that each instance he (Spencer) adduces as an illustration of differentiation of the simple into the complex also illustrates a unification of previ- ously differentiated and diverse elements into one simple and homo- geneous entity or substance, is it quite clear that we have made any advance in our knowledge of the principles of universal science f ?> (pp. 218, 222). To strengthen his objection, the author selects one of Spencer's own illustrations, furnished by the differentiation of the bean seed " into vine, leaf, blossom, and ultimately the new fruit," and calls attention to what he declares is a fact that this process equally illustrates the unification of diverse elements into one homogeneous substance. That in the growth of the bean plant diverse elements are united in one structure is very evident ; but the correctness of characterizing as a " homogeneous entity " a complex production, in which several ele- ments united in different proportions have produced all the variety afforded by the root, vine, leal, blossom, and fruit of a bean plant, is by no means apparent. On the contrary, a bean plant is, in substance, as well as in form and activity, a very heterogeneous structure. The chemical differentiations produced in plants generally by rearrange- ments of the chemical elements and by modification of tissues and organs are well described by Spencer. "In plants," he observes, "the albuminous and amylaceous matters which form the substance of the embryo give origin here to a pre- ponderance of chlorophyll and there to a preponderance of cellulose. Over the parts that are becoming leaf-surfaces, certain of the materials are metamorphosed into wax. In this place, starch passes into one of its isomeric equivalents, sugar, and in that place into another of its isomeric equivalents, gum. By secondary changes, some of the cellu- lose is modified into wood, while some of it is modified into the allied substance, which in large masses we distinguish as cork. And the more numerous compounds thus gradually arising initiate further un- likenesses by mingling in unlike ratios." "(First Principles.) In the inorganic world there are compound substances, like water, produced by the union of different elements, which to all appearances are homogeneous as to substance ; but we must not expect to find such homogeneity in highly evolved organisms like the bean plant. And how the integration of a number of diverse elements into one structure diminishes the weight of Spencer's claims it is not easy to see. Spencer's primary law of evolution is not, as Prof. Denslow seems to Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 109 think, change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, but the in- tegration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, which we see exemplified in the concentration of units that form a crystal as well as in the combination of elements that compose the structure of a complex organism. And consider a moment how the integration of matter, the combinations of several elements into one body, gives rise to heterogeneity and differentiation in the inorganic as well as in the organic world. Think of the different combinations and transposi- tions of which the elements admit, and the multitude of substances thus produced. Add a molecule of carbon to a hundred molecules of iron, and a peculiar hardness is produced by the conversion of the iron into steel. Carbon in variously proportioned combinations with oxy- gen and nitrogen develops the several properties of wood, fruits, grain, grasses, tobacco, and opium. Carbon united with oxygen as carbonic-acid gas combines with molecules of the metal calcium in forming lime-rocks and marbles, the bones of animals, and beautiful translucent pearls. A triple alliance of molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon imparts a wonderful diversity of proportion to a multi- tude of organic substances, as wood, vegetable oil, animal flesh, and fat. Hydrogen molecules united with oxygen are converted into acids, and, combined with nitrogen, are converted into alkaloids, as in the formation of ammonia. If the proportion of molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, composed by weight of nitrogen seventy-seven and of oxygen twenty-three, be reversed to oxygen seventy-seven and nitrogen twenty-three, nitric acid is developed. Vinegar, burnt sugar, butter, animal fat, nutmeg oil, are all composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in different proportions. Opium and quinine contain the same elements in different proportions. It is un- necessary to multiply illustrations to show that the union of diverse elements in different proportions gives us compounds more or less homogeneous in substance, but all differentiated from one another as to substance as well as in form and motion. The number of such sub- stances is limited only by the inconceivably immense number of com- binations and varying proportions in which between sixty and seventy elements may unite. So the combination of heterogeneous elements in substances less heterogeneous is a process by which variety, differ- entiation, and heterogeneity, in substance as well as in form, have been produced. By this process has grown, from a nebulous mass, a planet with all its variety of water, land, and sky, fitted for the habita- tion of living creatures, themselves an exemplification of the same process. It is the primary law of evolution. 8. In the process of evolution, increase of heterogeneity results from " the multiplication of effects," for in "actions and reaction of force and matter an unlikeness of either of the factors necessitates an unlikeness of the effects." All parts of a body can not be conditioned precisely alike with reference to the environment, since the parts must be sub- ject to unlike forces and to different intensities of the same force. Exemplifications of the instability of the homogene- ous are afforded by the rusting of iron, the uneven cooling 110 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. of molten lead or sulphur, and the impossibility of keeping a body of water free from currents. The more heterogene- ous a body becomes, the more rapid the multiplication of effects. Every event which involves the decomposition of force into several forces produces greater complication and increased heterogeneity ; and, when this process of differen- tiation combines with the process of integration to make the change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous at the same time as that from the indefinite to the definite, we have compound evolution. Mere increase of heterogeneity and multiformity of parts does not constitute progress. A cancer introduces into an organism changes that make it more heterogeneous, yet it may cause death. The anarchy resulting from a revolution makes a state more heterogene- ous, yet it may be the precursor of its dissolution. The law of passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is a law of progress, but not the law of progress. The primary law of progress (or evolution, which in his later works Spencer substitutes for the word " progress ") is the inte- gration of matter and the concomitant dissipation of mo- tion, which is alike exhibited in the crystallization of carbon into a diamond and the growth of an animal from a germ ; but when, as in the field of biology, there is with continual integration of matter increasing heterogeneity of form, progress is possible only when there is also increasing co- herence, definiteness, and mutual dependence of parts and a subordination of the various parts and manifold functions to the movements of the whole structure. Cancers produce differentiation ; but, as they can not be integrated in har- mony with the rest of the body, they result not in progress but in death. Thus it is seen that evolution is a double process a movement toward unity as well as diversity. In- tegration, the primary process, under certain conditions the most completely realized by organic bodies, is accompanied by a complementary process from indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to definite coherent heterogeneity. Variety increases with the unity it accomplishes. The evolution of an animal from an egg or a tree from a seed occurs by the integration of various elements into a complex structure, in which at the same time go on continual differentiations and local integrations, making the whole a compact aggregate that presents great heterogeneity in itself and at the same time a wide differentiation from all other aggregates. 9. The field of this compound evolution is among bodies Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Ill of differing densities, between gases wherein the molecular motion is too rapid to admit of a structural arrangement, and solids in which the amount of retained motion is too small to admit of molecular rearrangement. Spencer ob- serves : " A large amount of secondary redistribution is possi- ble only where there is a great quantity of retained motion ; and, on the other hand, these distributions can have promi- nence only when the contained motion has become small, opposing conditions that seem to negative any large amount of secondary redistribution." It is in organic bodies " that these apparently contradictory conditions are reconciled," for their peculiarity consists in the concentration of matter in a high degree with a far larger amount of molecular mo- tion than is found in other bodies of the same degree of concentration. 10. All living forms have been evolved in accordance with the above-mentioned laws. The most complex are the product of modifications wrought on pre-existent animals. The evolution of species goes on, not in ascending lineal series, but by continual divergence and redivergence. Com- plexity of life and intelligence is correlated with complexity of structure. The highest form of intelligence, the human, has been reached by modifications wrought through ages upon pre-existing intelligences. 11. The mental faculties of man, not less than his brain and nervous system, are the product of innumerable modi- fications in the evolution of the highest creatures from the lowest. Experiences registered in the nervous system produce structural changes and are accompanied by mental modifi- cations. The aptitudes and intuitions of the human mind are the product of accumulated human experiences, trans- mitted and organized in the race. Even the " a priori forms of thought " have been slowly acquired. Whatever in the mind transcends the experience of the individual is never- theless the product of ancestral experiences. I'-i. Xot only is it true that our highest conceptions of morality have been evolved in accordance with these laws, but even the moral sense has been formed by accumulated and multiplied experiences, registered in the slowly evolving organism and transmitted as intuition, as sensitive in some persons to a moral wrong as the tactile sense is to the sting of a bee. The ultimate basis of morality is the source of all phenomena, " an inscrutable power," as John Fiske well 112 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. says, " of which the properties of matter and motion necessi- tating the process of evolution, with pain and wrong as its concomitants, are the phenomenal manifestations." 13. The religious sentiment, equally with the moral sense, has been evolved through psychical conditions represented by all the stages of life below man. The object of religious sentiment is the unknowable reality. The essential truth of religion is involved in a recognition of an absolute upon which all phenomena depend, while its fundamental error begins with investing this reality with anthropomorphic qualities. 14. All conceptions and systems, philosophical, ethical, and religious ; language, government, poetry, art, science, philosophy, and industrial pursuits; all human activities, equally with animal and vegetable forms, plants, solar and stellar ^systems have been evolved from a homogeneous, indefinite, and incoherent condition to a heterogeneous, definite, and coherent state. Such is the merest abstract, and a very imperfect one, of the doctrine of evolution as maintained by Herbert Spencer. The doctrine of the unknowable is unwelcome to theolo- gians generally and to those theologically inclined, because it is opposed to all systems and theories based upon the as- sumption of the knowledge of God his nature, attributes, purpose, etc. It is opposed by others of anti-theological views, because they think, especially when they see Unknow- able printed with the initial letter a capital, that it implies the existence of a God more or less like the theological conception which they have renounced. Both classes may, when they come to appreciate fully the reasoning by which the conclusion has been reached by men like Kant and Spencer, reconsider more carefully their objections, and adopt the view in which are united all that is tenable in the affirmation of the theist with all that is warranted in the criticism of the atheist. One anti-theological writer characterizes Spencer's thought as a " spook " philosophy ; on the other hand, an idealist, a disciple of the late Prof. Thomas Hill Green, in the latest number of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy (date, January, 1888), speaks of " the philosophy of scientific ma- terialism and agnosticism, of which Mr. Herbert Spencer is the most distinguished exponent," of the "full-fledged scientific materialistic philosophy of Lewes and Spencer and their adjutants," ignoring the fact that in Spencer's phi- Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 113 losophy conceptions of matter and motion are treated merely as symbols of an ultimate reality which is manifested be- yond consciousness as matter and motion and in conscious- ness as feeling and thought. Some writers have character- ized Spencer's philosophy by the word dualism, to make it appear to be in opposition to what they call " monism," whereas Mr. Spencer is thoroughly monistic, since, as he says : " I recognize no forces within the organism or with- out the organism but the variously conditional modes of the universal immanent force; and the whole process of organic evolution is everywhere attributed by me to the co- operation of its variously conditioned modes, internal and external." Quite a common impression is that the doctrine that all knowledge is relative, that we can not know the absolute, carries with it the implication somehow that there is no possibility of any plane of intelligent existence except that known. There is nothing in the doctrine of the " absolute " or the " unknowable," as expounded either by Kant or Spencer, that is inconsistent with the continuance of life under other conditions than those of the present state of being. There is nothing in this doctrine which implies that man does not survive physical death or that there are not higher planes of existence than are known here. The philosophy of the absolute or the unknowable merely teaches that all knowledge is relative, that in perception there are two fac- torsthe mind and the objective reality and that, instead of actually perceiving the objective reality as it absolutely is, the mind perceives a phenomenon, an appearance, a repre- sentation symbolical of and corresponding with, but not a likeness of, the objective thing. The " substratum " of men- tal phenomena is no more known than is that of physical phenomena. As Daniel Greenleaf Thompson says : " The truth is, we are forced by the laws of cognition to postulate an unknown reality behind the known reality, both of mat- ter and mind, a dark side of the material world and of in- telligence, an imperceptible substantive being, put of which somehow comes the perceptible, and into which it disap- pears, a source of both material and mental phenomena, a cause of their effects, a permanent in which alone change is possible, a possibility for all actualities and a power which transcends knowledge but which is presupposed in all knowledge. This is the meaning of the paradox." 114 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. This philosophy does not make conceivability, much less sensibility, the test of possibility. On the contrary, it recog- nizes the fact that there are many motions of the universe to which the dull senses of man make no response whatever. There are a great number and variety of movements of which sense-bound beings can take no cognizance. With superior sensorial perceptions man would be able to discern many of these movements which are now incognizable. " Indeed," says Tyndall in the Eeade Lectures on Kadiant Heat, " the domain of the senses in Nature is almost infi- nitely small in comparison with the vast region accessible to thought which lies beyond them. From a few observa- tions of a comet when it comes within the range of his tele- scope, an astronomer can calculate its path in regions which no telescope can reach ; and in like manner, by means of data furnished in the narrow world of the senses, we make ourselves at home in other and wider worlds, which can be traversed by the intellect alone." And Lewes remarks to the same purport : " We do not actually experience through feeling a tithe of what we firmly believe and can demonstrate to intuition. The invisi- ble is like the snow at the North Pole ; no human eye has beheld it, but the mind is assured of its existence ; and is, moreover, convinced that if the snow exists there, it has the properties found elsewhere. Nor is the invisible confined to objects which have never been presented to sense, al- though they may be presented on some future occasion ; it also comprises objects beyond even this possible range, be- yond all practicable extension of sense." But however extended is man's knowledge, it is always knowledge possessed under the conditions of knowing, which include a relation between the me and the not-me, and perception and thought according to the mental consti- tution. As Mr. E. D. Fawcet says, Kant, who denied that the mind could know things in themselves, " expressed himself favorable to the view that a world of supersensuous beings environs this planet, and that the establishment of commu- nication with such beings is only a matter of time. Kant indeed was far too acute not to see that a speculative agnos- ticism (shutting out the possibility of absolute knowledge of realities) can not possibly assert that there is no plane of relative or phenomenal experience except that called the physical world. Contrariwise, there may be innumerable Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 115 strata of materiality all alike relative to the consciousness of their ' percipients.' " The doctrine of the relativity of knowledge and of the inscrutableness of the ultimate nature of things has been held by nearly all the great thinkers of ancient and modern times, including men of firm faith in immortality. To confound this doctrine with the doctrine of materialism is to betray ignorance of philosophic thought. With the question whether there is or is not a future life for man I am not here concerned. Spencer neither affirms belief in such a life nor denies its possibility. There is nothing in his sys- tem of philosophy that involves necessarily, so far as I can see, either the acceptance or rejection of the doctrine of the continuance of conscious existence after bodily dissolution. If it could be disproved, his philosophy would not be af- fected thereby ; if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt to be true, the philosophy would be in no need of modifica- tion, for the phenomenal world would only be extended and the domain of science enlarged. One may hold to Spen- cer's philosophy and yet believe with Shadworth Hodgson in " an ethereal body built up during our lifetime within our grosser body, destined to preserve our individuality after death." The only question is, Is there proof of this theory of an ethereal body ? Our American psychologist and phi- losopher, Mr. D. G-. Thompson, who accepts Mr. Spencer's philosophy in all its essential doctrines and implications, is " inclined to the opinion that the ground for the assertion of post-mortem personal self-consciousness in identity with ante-mortem self -consciousness is firmer than for the con- trary belief." He thinks it is " no harder to understand the continued existence of personal existence after death than to comprehend its occupation in sleep and restoration afterward." Mr. Thompson adds: "The same arguments that support the belief in continued personal existence after death tend also to prove an existence before birth. Is it possible that we must return to the pre-existence doctrines of the ancient philosophers ? Is it possible that we must each say, I am ; therefore I always was and always shall be ? Dios sale I " Others think that the implications of Spen- cer's philosophy point to physical dissolution as the end of consciousness. A few years ago Mr. Eichard A. Proctor, in conversation, gave me his estimate of Herbert Spencer, which subsequent- ly, by my request, be put in a form for publication, and it 116 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. appeared as a contribution in a journal which I then con- ducted. From that paper the following is an extract : " If we compare Herbert Spencer, in any department of science, with some chief master in that department, we find him at once less and greater ; less in knowledge of details and in mastery of facts and methods ; greater in that he sees out- side and beyond the mere details of that special subject and recognizes the relation of its region of inquiry to the much wider domain over which his own philosophy extends. . . . " Yet one can not but pause, when contemplating Herbert Spencer's work in departments of research, to note with wonder how he has been enabled, by mere clearness of in- sight, to discern truths which escaped the notice of the very leaders in those special subjects of inquiry. To take as- ' tronomy, for example, a subject which, more, perhaps, than any other, requires long and special study before the facts with which it deals can be rightly interpreted, Spencer rea- soned justly respecting the most difficult as well as the highest of all subjects of astronomical research, the archi- tecture of the stellar system, when the Herschels, Arago, and Humboldt adopted or accepted erroneous views. In this particular matter I had a noteworthy illustration of the justice of a remark made (either, by Youmans or Fiske, I forget which) at the Spencer banquet in New York a few years ago : ' In every department of inquiry even the most zealous specialists must take the ideas of Herbert Spencer into consideration.' After long and careful study specially directed to that subject, I advanced in 1869 opinions which I supposed to be new respecting the architecture of the heavens opinions which Spencer himself, in his Study of Sociology, has described as 'going far to help us in conceiv- ing the constitution of our own galaxy.' Yet I found that twelve years before, dealing with that part of science in his specially planned survey of the whole domain, he had seen clearly many of the points on which I insisted later, and had found in such points sufficient evidence to lead him to correct views respecting the complexity and variety of the sidereal system." In conclusion, The Synthetic Philosophy, as at present con- stituted, is not, of course, to be regarded as a finality. While man continues to advance in knowledge, all systems, to be of current value, will have to be subjected to much revision and supplementation; but I am, I think, warranted in say- ing that the leading principles of the synthetic philosophy Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 117 are likely to remain a solid and permanent contribution to scientific and philosophic thought. Herbert Spencer's discovery and elucidation of the experiential origin of intui- tion and his consequent reconciliation of the sensation phi- losophy and the intuitional school, together with his for- mulation and establishment of the principles of universal evolution, entitle him to rank among the most original thinkers of modern times. He will easily hold his place as the most profound and comprehensive philosophic mind of the nineteenth century. 118 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. MR. RAYMOND S. PEEEIN : As I have listened to the lecture of the evening, I have experienced, in common, I have no doubt, with a great many in this audience, an impression of being overwhelmed with an avalanche of philosophic terms. The speaker has impressed us with the store of knowledge which he has acquired, but he has left us confused and unhappy. A few simple truths clearly and properly presented would have resulted in something more practical in the way of information than this ab- struse philosophical discussion. I am a great admirer of Herbert Spencer, who has undoubtedly given us the most remarkable philo- sophical system of the present century. On its objective side its mode of procedure has been scientific, and it is in effect a synthesis of all the special sciences. But I am no admirer of Kant ; and in so far as Spencer has borrowed from Kant, I can not accept his conclusions as rational and valid. To one who is familiar with the philosophy of Plato, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a roaring farce. Mr. Spencer has apparently accepted his conclusion that there is a Ding an sich behind phenomena an absolute Being which is to us unknowable. But if it is unknowable, how do we know that there is any such abso- lute Being ? This conclusion is not the result of scientific analysis, but of metaphysical speculation. The truly scientific procedure in phi- losophy would be, instead of resolving all things into an unknowable substance, to discover analytically what is the common content of all phenomena those which are called mental as well as those which are called physical. The only quality or principle common to all known modes of being is motion. Motion is a principle of life and mind as well as of material things. Absence of motion would be absolute death or nonentity. In the ultimate analysis we reach this principle of mo- tion or life everywhere, and we are therefore justified in positing it as the supreme reality in the place of the unknowable of Mr. Spencer. ME. WILLIAM H. BOUGHTON : The comprehensive, just, judicious, and judicial paper to which we have listened to-night has yielded to us all the pleasure which a model review can give, and leaves nothing for criticism of matter or method. But it may be of interest to call attention to some conclusions of Mr. Spencer which he may not have established upon as firm a foundation Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 119 as that upon which he has reared his doctrine of evolution. I refer to his theory of an unknowable power, or ultimate force or final first cause, from which all things proceed. This conclusion can not be drawn from such unassailable premises as Mr. Spencer's definition of space viz., the abstract of all coexist- ences ; nor from the character of such existences to be found in his definition of matter viz., coexistent positions which offer resistance implying, as he must imply, all of motion in that word " positions," and excluding, as he must exclude therefrom, all ideas of fixity. Fi- nality can not be ascribed to cause ; and with the fall of finality comes the fall of its illogical conclusion viz., that creative power which is implied in Mr. Spencer's words, ' from which all things proceed." All we know or can imagine of cause is antecedence that one thing precedes another and a different thing in time. There is no question of a series here. The last thing is not the end of cause, and the first thing does not begin it The one is as unthink- able as the other. With the demolition of finality, what becomes of its creative power t There is no question here of quantity nor of qual- ity. If matter is indestructible, power could not have caused it ; and, if power is imperishable, it can not in that respect be distinguished from matter. If power has any existence, it falls under the definition of matter ; if space is all existence, it can have no other meaning than indefinitely extended matter, and their coexistence prevents proces- sion and throws out all ideas of final cause and final antecedence. It seems to me that Mr. Spencer's error flows from a misapplication of the fact that we think in relations and can not think of a knowable power except as related to an unknowable power. This relation has nothing to do with the subject, for the reason that it is not a question of the relation of a knowable whole or a knowable part to an unknowable whole, for space is not a limited whole, and an unlimited whole is a contradiction in terms. Space has no opposite, no antithesis. Form is not its opposite. The constantly changing forms which indefinitely extended matter assumes are included in space, as the shape of the apple is included in the apple. Of course there is no time to-night to amplify the views which I have expressed, nor to state them except dogmatically, and I will therefore close by thanking the lecturer for his paper and the audi- ence for its attention. DR. ROBERT G. ECCLES : Mr. Underwood's lecture is a very able and satisfactory exposition of the synthetic philosophy. He had a big subject to deal with, and, of course, could only be expected to present the merest outline in an 120 Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. hour's talk. He dwelt chiefly on the psychological side rather than the physical. This was almost inevitable under existing circum- stances, and no doubt the best, since Mr. Spencer's contributions have been more notable and original here than in the physical domain. In the latter he relied more on the work of eminent biologists like Darwin and Huxley. All he has done is but a continuation of the work of preceding philosophers. The doctrine of evolution is itself an evolution, and was only synthetized by Mr. Spencer. It is in the direct line of descent of the work of the best reasoners of all ages, and only became possible in its present form after the advent of mod- ern science. It is really a growth of the ages and not the work of a day or even a century. It owes much to Kant, Berkeley, Reid, Hume, and other great thinkers who have been mentioned to-night. It has found allied truths in contending schools of thought, brought them together and fused them into a harmonic whole. To understand it correctly requires breadth of thought, abundance of data, and persist- ent, hard mental work. Without these it remains as incomprehensible as the higher mathematics to the non-educated. It is quite evident from Mr. Perrin's remarks that he has failed com- pletely to grasp the basic principles of its psychology. There is a pons asinoriim here that he has not crossed. This surprises me very much. Himself a writer on philosophical subjects of acknowledged ability, one would have expected better things from him here. What he has said reveals the fact that the doctrine of the " unknowable " is un- known to him except in name. He neither has grasped what Spencer and his disciples mean by it, nor the significance of the facts upon which it rests. Its basis is wholly physiological, and as an implication it is imperative. All that it involves is a correct comprehension of the nature and limitations of human sense and perception. To know what we know, and how we know it, is to demonstrate what Mr. Perrin denies. For him to characterize Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as a " farce " is only to reveal the sad limitations of his own mental grasp. However much we may dissent from some of this great German's con- clusions, we all must admit him to be one of the very ablest and most profound reasoners the world has ever seen. Whoever attempts to ignore or underestimate his work only discountenances his own prow- ess. That he believed in " things in themselves " was but evidence that he held the universe to be real instead of illusory. The pict- ures in our brains have as causes substantial verities. Mr. Perrin holds that real being is motion. " Things in themselves," he contends, are mere motions. But motions of what? Of nothing, he maintains. How many of you can picture to your minds motions of nothings ? Reason rebels against being forced to accept such a thought, Are not Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. 121 such motions unknowable! This apotheosis of motion does not help philosophy in the least. It is practically telling us that the world rests on the shoulders of Atlas, but fails to say what that worthy stands upon for his support. MR. JOHN A. TAYLOR : The essay to which we have listened this evening must be regarded, I think, by all competent to judge, as one of the most candid and able expositions of philosophical truth to which this association has ever listened. It is indeed a large subject, and can hardly be treated in the form of a popular lecture. I think, however, that Mr. Underwood has been remarkably successful in presenting to us a clear and correct ex- position of Mr. Spencer's philosophy. If Mr. Perrin had given a little more thought to the matter, he would hardly have complained, I think, of the abstruse character of the essay. Surely the lecturer has used no terms so technical that a philosophical student can not readily grasp and understand them. It should have been left to us who make no claims to philosophical distinction to make this criticism if it is to be made. But, unfamiliar as I am with Kant whose works I have tried in vain to read and the abstruse discussions of other meta- physicians, I found no difficulty in comprehending the lecturer's ex- position. I regard Mr. Spencer as the foremost philosopher of our time, and think the association is to be congratulated on the oppor- tunity of listening to such an able presentation of his views. I would move, sir, as an expression of our appreciation of the ability of the lec- turer as a foremost advocate of evolution views, that Mr. Underwood be elected a corresponding member of the Brooklyn Ethical Association. (The motion being duly seconded and put to vote by the president, Mr. Underwood was unanimously elected). MR. UNDERWOOD : Recognizing the excellent work which this association has done, with which I have long been familiar, I regard your election of myself as corresponding member as a high honor, and accept it in the spirit in which it has been tendered. I also thank you for the general charac- ter of your criticisms. The task imposed upon me was a great one one which required a course of lectures rather than an hour's discus- sion for its accomplishment. No one can be better aware than myself of the imperfections of my lecture. The subject is one which neces- sitates the use of philosophical terms, but I have endeavored to present it as clearly and concisely as possible. The animadversions on Mr. Spencer's views have been so fully answered by other speakers that I will not occupy your time by a further reply. THE EVOLUTION OF CHEMISTRY BY ROBERT G. ECCLES, M. D. AUTHOR OF EVOLUTION OF MINT). THE RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE. EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, ETC. COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Article Chemistry in American Cyclopsedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica; Cooke's New Chemistry; Johnston's The Chemistry of Common Life; Meyer's Modern Theories of Chemistry; Galloway's The Fundamental Principles of Chemistry ; Rod well's On the Birth of Chemistry ; Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences. THE EVOLUTION OF CHEMISTRY. BY R. G. ECCLES, M. D. CHEMISTRY has been defined as the science of matter. Though but recently organized as a compact body of re- lated facts, its roots run back into the depths of the prehis- toric past. The first fire kindled, the first food cooked, and the first metal extracted from its ore, constitute the earliest chemical experiments consciously performed by man. The facts accumulated since then are practically numberless, and the explanations advanced as to their meaning have in no wise been meager. By guessing every possible way, men coul d not help occasionally guessing the right way. However whimsical the reasons given by the ancients "for their the- ories of matter, the fact stands prominently forth that sometimes they struck what we now believe to be truth. How could they help it ? One of the ways must be right if every way is tried. Time may vanquish error, but can not demolish truth. From their narrow standpoints of limited data they no doubt reasoned as soundly as we do, so that what to us seems very absurd, to them was not in the least incongruous. When their earliest fetichism gave way to polytheism and monotheism their speculations about matter met a corresponding revision. The Parsee, who saw in fire his god, naturally supposed all things were made by or of fire. The Hindoo looked beyond fire to a hypothetic ether for his gods, and so deemed that the primal substance. Homer's Okeanus, or god of the ocean, was the source of all other gods, and so we find Thales of Miletus teaching the early Greeks that water was the first matter. Anexi- menes at a later date reasoned that as clouds form water and invisible air clouds, air, not water, is the beginning of things. Pherecides evidently had no other theological cos- mogony than his fetich-worshiping predecessors when he called earth primal. Like Topsy, he believed that things " just grew." The building of the' Pantheon diffused a spirit of eclecticism. Acceptance of all the gods meant ac- knowledgment of all their elements. Aristotle presents five. These are ether, fire, air, water, and earth. At a lit- 126 The Evolution of Chemistry. tie later date the first of these was dropped and thencefor- ward, for some fifteen hundred years, the doctrine of the four elements dominated philosophy. When we critically examine Aristotelianism on its chemical side, we discover that abstract principles or supposed qualities, and not things, were by its advocates deemed the actual elements. They took all extended bodies to be continuous in structure, and thought them capable of becoming anything or everything. We see this in the language of the founder of the system when he tells us that " fire is hot and dry, air is hot and moist, water is cold and moist, and earth is cold and dry." When ordinary water is boiled away to dryness an earthy residue is found. This was explained as the heat of fire vanquishing the moist of water and leaving the dry of fire combined with the cold of water. Dry and cold being to them earth, of course a residue must, by their logic, be ex- pected. The establishment of alchemy among such think- ers was inevitable. If the opposing qualities of substances demolish each other and the residual ones form new sub- stances, transmutation is a necessity. The word Chemeia (Chemistry) first occurs in a Greek lexicon of the eleventh century. The definition given is " the preparation of gold and silver." Such indeed we know to have been the aim of early chemists. Later on attention was directed to the preparation of medicines. The prefix " al " before chemist simply means " the " i. e., the chemist. It is the Arabic definite article. Alchemy was a natural outgrowth of the four-element theory, but the necessity of experiments engendered by it was fatal to such a metaphysical structure. Where abstractions take the place of facts the laboratory should be excluded as danger- ous. For their unique way of reasoning about how gold could be made, the old elements failed to give expected re- sults. Not suspecting that their reasoning might be at fault, they proceeded to hunt for new elements better able to match their logic. Sulphur was found by combustion to produce fire and a gas which they took to be air. Be- sides, it had a yellow color, a quality of gold which the old elements lacked. Mercury had the fluidity of water and likewise possessed the quality " metal," a condition very much needed in gold-making. Salt contained all the quali- ties not found in sulphur and mercury, but necessary to form a world. Thenceforth sulphur, mercury, and salt took the places of air, fire, earth, and water. The introduction The Evolution of Chemistry. 127 of this innovation changed somewhat their mental attitude, leading them to perceive that, instead of mere qualities flit- ting from thing to thing, material transfers had some part in the matter. About this time chemistry was known as the spagyric art, or art of synthesis and analysis. The chemical behavior of sour bodies or acids to acrid bodies or alkalies was shown by Sylvius early in the seventeenth cen- tury. This at once awakened the idea of chemical attraction, and at a little later date that of elective affinities. Geoffrey tells us that " in all cases where two substances that have any disposition to combine are united, if there approaches them a third, which has more affinity with one of the two, this one unites with the third and lets go the other." Here it is to be noted that abstract qualities are not re- ferred to, and only the behavior of substances considered. About this time Boyle severely criticised the three-element theory, and Beckner and Stahl introduced a substitute for sulphur that dethroned it. They taught that all inflammable substances contained within them an element the escape of which was the cause of fire. This hypothetic element was called phlogiston. Bodies that would not burn were thought to be dephlogisticated. In this theory we hear the last echo of metaphysical chemistry as a dominant system. Phlogiston was the logical and lineal descendant of the god of fire. To destroy this was to subvert all ancient pro- cesses of reasoning and compel men to gather their facts together and begin again to build de novo. Being the masterpiece of centuries of thought, it was not to be ex- pected that it would die easily. The best minds were wed- ded to it, and the very men who forged the weapons for its destruction refused to accept the results of their own work. In 1755 a young man named Black, then twenty-four years of age, startled the scientific world by a graduation thesis, the topic of which was something he called "fixed air." At a little later date this gas was known as carbonic acid. "When writing this thesis it occurred to him that it would not be a bad idea to weigh the materials with which he was dealing experimentally to gain his data. No chemist had ever thought of doing such a thing before. It had invari- ably been taken for granted that as qualities, not substances, were altered, it made little or no difference whether creation and annihilation were incessantly going on or not. He at once proceeded to act by the suggestion. In the pivot of that pair of Scotch scales we find the turning point be- 128 The Evolution of Chemistry. tween scholastic dogma and modern verification. The first turn under that young man's control let into this world most of the blessings and comforts of our modern civili- zation. Little did he dream of the momentous issues that hung on his work. His was the first 'quantitative estimate ever known to have been made in our planet the first telling proof of the utter worthlessness of purely abstract reasoning. He followed fixed air into and out of magnesia, limestone, and the alkalies. He noted the changes caused by its presence and absence. He saw plainly that these changes in no way agreed with current notions about the unions and vanquishments of qualities. He started other able men to work in the same field, who not only verified what he had done, but extended our knowledge in the same direction. Priestley soon after discovered what he supposed was " dephlogisticated air." We now know it as oxygen. Cavendish found that Black's fixed air was a union of char- coal and Priestley's new gas, and that water was a union of this same gas and another combustible one then called " phlogisticated air." We now know it as hydrogen. La- voisier thought he saw in Priestley's " dephlogisticated air " the cause of sourness in bodies, and so he called it oxygen or " acid producer." Sir Humphry Davy at a later date dem- onstrated that muriatic acid contains no oxygen, although it is one of our most powerful mineral acids, and that La- voisier was therefore in error. While the French savant was evidently mistaken in this, he was certainly right in his solution of the phenomena of combustion. He pointed out the fact that in all ordinary combustion we have the union of oxygen with some body having an affinity therefor. An appreciation of this fact put an end to the phlogiston theory, and established a center around which chemical facts could readily crystallize. And yet how strange it even now seems ! That the "burning of wood or coal and the rusting of iron should be phenomena of the same kind seems scarcely credible. That water is the rust of hydrogen, and choke- damp that of carbon, is wonderful. The heat of our bodies, the thoughts of our brains, the movements we make, hardly look, to the uninitiated, as if they were all due to changes in us identical in kind with those producing iron rust. Yet such is the fact, and the knowledge thereof came like bright sunshine into the chemical world, making clear everything where before was darkness and ignorant grop- ing. The human race might hunt long before it could find The Evolution of Chemistry. 129 two men who ever were greater benefactors than Priestley and Lavoisier. What was their meed for the good they did ? Did they form a Bell-Berliner-Edison combine and mount into fortunes therefrom ? Did their respective Govern- ments shower favors on their heads ? No ! Priestley's the- ology being distasteful to his neighbors, they made a bon- fire of his home, his library, and his laboratory, and com- pelled him to seek peace by leaving England and fleeing to America. Lavoisier was unlucky enough to have been born rich, and the freethinking, communistic cranks who rode into power by the French Devolution could not stand a crime so hideous, and so they cut his head off with the guillotine. With the advent of Lavoisier's theory came a revolution in chemical nomenclature. Up to this time names were given to substances in the most arbitrary manner. Erratic, fanciful, and unsystematic titles were the rule. After this an effort was made to make the title tell something about the structure of the substance bearing it. Bodies that de- fied the chemist's power of decomposition usually retained the old names, but such as were found to be compound had their names made to fit their structures. Direct unions with oxygen, chlorine, iodine, and the like were called ox- ides, chlorides, or iodides of the substance thus uniting. Acids bore suffixes that indicated the relative quantities of oxygen in each, as sulphurous and sulphuric acids. Salts from these acids were called, respectively, sulphites and sul- phates. Improvement has gone on in this direction ever since, and will probably keep going on for a long time to come. A new world for the chemist was opened up, and the close of the eighteenth century was as fruitful of discovery in this department of knowledge as had been the sixteenth century in geography. Cavendish introduced the pneu- matic trough, Bergman the blowpipe, and Davy the electric battery, as instruments of investigation. Wenzel, Richter, and Cavendish showed that in every chemical union a defi- nite weight of one substance is necessary to saturate a given weight of another. You may mix substances in all con- ceivable proportions, but they never chemically unite except in certain definite proportions. Any excess beyond the weight Nature fixes is simply left over unchanged. Dalton, however, found that if sixteen ounces of one of the ingre- dients made perfect saturation and there happened to be two compounds with the same ingredients, the second com- 10 130 The Evolution of Chemistry. pound would be apt to require thirty-two ounces to com- plete the second form of saturation. The amount of the substance to be saturated would be the same in both cases. Where there were three such, the third would require three times sixteen, or forty-eight ounces. The unions in every chemical bond were found to be in definite and multiple proportions. On looking around for an explanation of this curious fact, he found himself compelled to adopt the idea that every body is composed of a great number of like dis- crete parts, and that all these parts in the same substance have the same size and weight. A solid body is thus con- ceived to be like an army of soldiers, where weight and height are regulated by statute. Supposing the army con- tains two thousand, and an army of amazons comes along of the same number. If every soldier marries an amazon we are thus able to see why a given weight of male army always matches a corresponding, though perhaps lower, weight of the female one. The weight of the army is the sum of the weight of its individual units. If every amazon has a mother with her or every soldier a father with him, then every one of one side will take two of the other. In such a case, double the weight of one side would be needed and multiple proportions shown. If every soldier took into the union a father and a brother, then three times the weight of male army would be needed to supply one weight of amazon. Dalton's explanation is called the atomic theory, and the ultimate parts of a substance bear the name " atom." Two thousand five hundred years ago Leucippos undertook to explain facts then known by a somewhat similar theory. In 450 B. c. Democritus renewed the same, while still later Epicurus gave it a fuller development. The Epicurean philosophy was set forth by Lucretius in a poem written a little over half a century before Christ. The Epicureans were bitterly opposed to the school of Aristotle, but during the dark ages they were practically annihilated by the fol- lowers of the latter. In 1592 Gassendi undertook to re- habilitate the atomic theory, but failed to gain a following. Sir Isaac Newton saw in the atomic theory a possible ex- planation of gravity. From Newton to Dalton nothing was done to advance this hypothesis. Either matter is continuous, as it seems to be to carnal sense, or else it is discrete and therefore atomic. There is no third alternative. The followers of Aristotle chose one side and those of Epicurus the other. One must be right. The Evolution of Chemistry. 131 Dalton shows us that Aristotle is wrong, so Epicurus must be right. The crucial^ test lay in the law of definite and multiple proportions which the ancients knew nothing about. Every discovery since made has confirmed the idea. No one has been able to advance an alternative hypothesis that could face the facts. Occasionally we hear of some chemi- cal Eev. Mr. Jasper who tells his class that although he teaches the atomic theory, he does not believe it. Some far- reaching teleological speculation that he is ashamed to pub- lish dominates his thoughts. Some spook of the imagina- tion answering to no facts of experience, but maintaining the continuity of his heritage of superstition, prompts the utterance. For modern chemistry the atomic theory is the only satisfactory one. Of course the atoms are not believed to be the " uncuttable " things of Democritus. They are minute, organized bodies of some kind, having as real an existence in the world of fact as ourselves. In the working out of Dalton's idea Berzelius took an active part, but, as both confined themselves to gravimetric estimations, con- firmation from a new standpoint was reserved for Gay-Lus- sac. His volumetric study of gases revealed the fact that they invariably unite in definite and multiple volumes. A cubic foot of chlorine unites with a cubic foot of hydrogen only. A cubic foot of oxygen unites with two cubic feet of hydrogen. Sir Humphry Davy assisted him in this inves- tigation. In 1811 Avogadro declared that equal volumes of any two or more gases under the same temperature and pressure con- tain the same number of molecules. All gases were found by him to contract or expand in the same degree for the same subtractions or additions of pressure or temperature. No other hypothesis than this one of Avogadro's has been advanced to explain why gases behave as they do. No other is needed, as this matches the facts accurately. That gases are discrete is proved by the fact that a volume of a heavy and light gas when mixed does not make two volumes. The one occupies the interspaces of the other, which it could not do if they were continuous. This discovery of Avogadro's came before chemists were prepared to receive it. The dis- tinction which he made between an atom and a molecule sorely puzzled his contemporaries. They did not see that his molecule was a family of atoms. It is a moving, com- pound unit capable of chemical decomposition into several atoms. His law was only true of molecules and not of 132 The Evolution of Chemistry. atoms ; yet they persistently confounded the two and tried to show him and his followers how ridiculous it was as ap- plied to atoms. Even Berzelius made fun of it, saying that it undertook to split atoms. One volume of chlorine and one of hydrogen forms two volumes of muriatic acid. If the chlorine or hydrogen exists as free atoms (and they thought they did), then to form two volumes the atoms must be split. Later facts supported Avogadro and showed that both hydrogen and chlorine as found free went in pairs, or molecules of two atoms. After nearly fifty years of idleness the law was accepted, and our latest new chemistry is found- ed thereon. Since its acceptance progress has been marvel- ous. Discoveries by the million have jostled each other for public recognition, not one of which would probably ever have been made but for it. It has enabled us to weigh the atoms, to follow them through their complex blendings in organic bodies, and to understand something of the magic of biology. It has even given us some cues as to the pos- sible inner structure of these so-called atoms of ours, and points out their probable evolutionary derivation. In this way it has been the indirect means of showing us that abso- lutely elementary bodies are unknown to us. We have over sixty substances which we call elements, but it is doubtful whether a single chemist can be f ound who believes any one of them to be primordial. "We take sugar and pull its molecules asunder. It ceases to be sugar and becomes char- coal, oxygen, and hydrogen. "We try to pull these three apart in a similar manner, but fail. Because we fail, and for no other reason, we call them elements. To-morrow some one may find a way of decomposing charcoal, and for ever after it will cease to be classed as an element. These three substances carbon (charcoal), oxygen, and hydrogen are known to make bodies of the most unlike qualities. They assume all the colors of the rainbow, all the tastes im- aginable, and odors without end. Vinegar and sugar, whis- ky and pepper, aloes and butter, are only a few of their pro- tean forms. The ancients classed gold and silver as com- pounds, but with us they are elements. They called water an element, and we know it to be a compound. Sulphur and mercury we still call elements, but our reason for apply- ing this name to them is totally different from theirs. "With the advent of the atomic theory of Dalton came an effort to discover the relative weights of the ultimate parti- cles of all undecomposable bodies. Of course they had to The Evolution of Chemistry. 133 take one element as a standard of reference for the rest. Oxygen was chosen by some and hydrogen by others, while some scattering chemists tried plans of their own. It was finally seen that the lightest element of all should be chosen for a standard, while the rest were adjusted in relation to it. Hydrogen, being the lightest, became the standard of reference. When oxygen is said to weigh sixteen, the mean- ing is that it is sixteen times as heavy as hydrogen. When sulphur is placed at thirty-two, we are to understand that that substance has an atom thirty-two times the weight of an atom of hydrogen. In early determinations only rough approximations were made toward the true figures and, be- fore the acceptance of Avogadro's law, figures, were often chosen that were not true atomic weights but only ratios thereof. In water they found eight times more weight of oxygen than hydrogen, and so the heavier element was put down as u eight" ATOgadro showed that since it took two volumes of hydrogen to saturate one of oxygen in forming water, therefore there must be two atoms of hydrogen to one of oxygen. This lowered the comparative weight of hydrogen one half, so that oxygen had to be called sixteen instead of eight Many changes of this kind had to be in- troduced. The old formula for water was HO, but the new one is H,0. In the first the relationship was as one to eight, but in the second it is two to sixteen. In writing chemical formulae the letters stand for atoms of the ele- ments, H means one atom of hydrogen. H, means two atoms of hydrogen. H 8 means one molecule of water con- taining two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. 5H 8 would mean five molecules of water. The study of the laws of heat that was going onparipassu with the development of chemistry led Bulong and Petit in 1819 to make a very remarkable discovery. When bodies are wanned it is found that the amount of heat required to raise them one degree varies very materially among them. Taking water as unity and calculating the relation for other substances, we get what is called their specific heat These physicists found that for thirteen elements which they had tried, the specific heats were inversely proportional to their atomic weights. This meant directly proportional to the number of atoms present. Here then was a new means of determining atomic weights confirmatory and supplementary to the law of Avogadro. Although later investigations showed limiting conditions to the law, it has been successfully used in settling 134 The Evolution of Chemistry. disputed points between various ratios as to which is the true atomic weight, and in determining atomic weights not otherwise ascertainable. In 1821 Mitscherlich pointed out a law of crystallography that has been used as a third method of determining atomic weights. It has been found that, as a rule, the similar combination of atoms without regard to their chemical natures gives crystals of similar forms. When crystals isomeric in form but different in composition occur, they are pretty certain to be built up of molecules in which the atoms are grouped alike. Knowing this fact, we can know the number of atoms in an unknown group by com- paring it with a known, and if all the atoms in the group but one have had their weights determined, that one is easily calculated. Therefore we have in this method a means of confirming results gained by other methods. A fourth method has lately been devised, and is known as the periodic law. It was first presented a few years ago by a Kussian chemist called Mendelejeff. According to this law, all the leading properties of an element are functions of its atomic weight. Given the atomic weight of any element and its place upon a spirally ascending expanding curve, distance being arranged proportional to weight, and its chief properties may at once be predicted. Of course it follows that the reverse is true. Given the properties of the element, and the atomic weight can be approximated from the place where it belongs on the spiral. If the whole series is bisected from top to bottom, paramagnetic elements will all be found in one half and diamagnetic in the other. All related groups like chlorine, bromine, and iodine will be found almost directly one above the other. In this way every element takes a place by its weight that answers to its leading properties. On such a spiral a number of gaps are found where undiscovered elements are believed to belong. Soon after enunciating the law, Mendelejeff called attention to two of the lower gaps then existing, and described the properties of the elements that should belong there. He called the hypothetic elements eka-aluminium and eka- boron. Since then two elements possessing properties similar to those described by Mendelejeff have been found and named, by their respective discoverers, gallium and scandium. In atomic weights, ease of reduction, melting points, specific gravities, power of oxidation, ability to decompose water, methods of being attacked by acids or alkalies, The Evolution of Chemistry. 135 methods of crystallization of salts, oxides and chlorides formed, etc., the hypothetic and real elements agree exactly. The predicted atomic weight of gallium was 69 and the found weight was 69. The predicted atomic weight of scandium was 44 and the found weight was 44. In the presence of such facts is it not strange that there are in- telligent men who pretend to believe that atoms are as un- real and intangible as hobgoblins and fairies? So really physical, indeed, are the molecules made up from these atoms that Sir William Thomson and others have been able to calculate their approximate weights in terms of fractions of a grain. No one can carefully study the periodic law of Mendel- ejeff, comparing it at the same time with a homologous series and its heterologous derivatives, without being struck with the idea that the atoms are products of evolution. If all the properties of matter are simply due to the weight of the little pieces from which it is built (and so the law de- clares), then at bottom every element must be the same. This implication is confirmed by spectrum analysis. Within the present generation Prof. Bunsen and Prof. Kirchhoff, of Heidelberg, Germany, devised a plan b}~ which the composition of sun and stars might be accurately de- termined from their light. The instrument used is made of prisms that separate the different colors found in the beam to be examined. Certain lines of colored light are given forth by every element, and a knowledge of the ap- pearance and places of these lines enables one to tell just what element is coloring a flame. If such light passes through a vapor of the same element before reaching the prism, dark bars appear just where the colored lines should have been that belonged to that element. By the initiated the bars are as easily read as the colored lines. In ordinary chemical analysis one one-hundred-and-twentieth of a grain approaches very nearly the lowest limit of practical determi- nation. The spectroscope, however, is so sensitive that it can tell the presence of a substance when the quantity is nearly two million times less than this, or one two-hundred- and-forty-millionth of a grain. Very soon after the spectroscope was sufficiently perfected for practical work the four elements ca?sium, rubidium, thallium, and indium were discovered by its aid. The workers knew they were there from the lines they gave, al- though they had never been isolated. The use of this in- 136 The Evolution of Chemistry. strument by astronomers has revealed the strange fact that the number of elements increases with. the progress of a nebula toward stardom. Another remarkable fact is that as the numbers do increase it is from those with light atomic weights to those with heavy ones. Who would have thought a century ago that man would ever be able to analyze the matter stars are made of? To-day it is an accomplished fact, and the revelation given teaches us that what we call matter is a product of something unknown and indescriba- ble by us. That from which matter grew must have been wholly unlike matter as we know it. Many facts seem to indicate that the successive steps of integration among the atoms while forming followed well- known chemical laws. Lately, however, an English chemist named Crookes has shown that it is possible to take a large mass of the molecules of a single element, and by successive sif tings separate them into two classes with slight shades of difference in qualities. Minute fractional differences of this kind go to show that while known methods of chemical grouping may have been used in their development, yet there is some different law at work from any as yet dis- covered. The fact, too, that Prout's supposed law "has not been confirmed by the most careful determinations of atomic weights, points the same way. While many of the heavier elements are multiples by whole numbers of hydrogen, most of them do not seem to be so. The spectroscope points to the existence in the sun of an element lighter than hydrogen, and that has been called helium. If this or a lighter element still has been the starting point, Prout's law may yet prove to be true for all elements, as it is now for a goodly number. It would give us a fractional part of a hydrogen atom as point of comparison. To understand the bearings of this hypothesis of Prout's on evolution it is necessary to know something about how atoms link themselves together to form molecules and what compound radicals are. During the development of the science of chemistry this branch of the tree has borne more fruit than any other, and yet it is the one that pronounces most emphatically in favor of the physical existence of atoms and molecules as real beings. We have already seen that all the elements bear names, and that one letter (or sometimes two) of the Latin name is used as a symbol. Tne chemist undertakes to group on paper these symbols in some The Evolution of Chemistry. 137 such way as the atoms themselves are grouped within their molecules. He is thus able to foresee possible compounds not y\3t discovered or made, and gains cues concerning the proper method whereby to discover them. In constructing such pictures, or " graphic formulas," as they are designated, what has been called by Hoffman quantivalence is of great importance. Molecules do not, like the deacon's one-horse chaise, go to pieces all at once. Their bonds of union are of such a character that what breaks one does not break all. By studying the way they break, and how certain elements or groups of elements may be substituted for each other within them, valuable information concerning their structures can be obtained. In no chemical change has hydrogen ever been known to fill the place of another atom with more than a single atom of itself. There are, on the other hand, innumerable cases of other elements filling the place of two, three, and four atoms of hydrogen with one atom of itself. If hydrogen be figured as having but one bond of attraction, then such ele- ments as can only saturate that one bond are with hydrogen itself called monads. An element that ican saturate two bonds of hydrogen or replace two atoms of hydrogen in a compound is called a dyad. One that represents three hy- drogen bonds, a triad. Beyond these we have tetrads, pen- tads, and hexads. Chlorine saturates but one bond of hy- drogen, and is therefore a monad. One volume of chlorine gas unites with an equal volume of hydrogen gas to form a volume of muriatic acid. The saturating powers of chlorine and hydrogen atoms are seen to be equal. Using some of the muriatic acid to precipitate a solution of nitrate of silver as chloride, we will find our hydrogen replace the silver as its equivalent, and our chlorine saturate it. Chlorine, hy- drogen, and silver are thus shown to be monads. In water we find that it takes two volumes of hydrogen to saturate one of oxygen. When the oxygen is replaced by chlorine, we find that two volumes of chlorine are required to take the place of one of oxygen. This proves oxygen to be a dyad. If we take oxide of zinc and act upon it with muriatic acid, we will discover that two equivalents of the chlorine from the acid are needed to replace the one of oxygen, and two of hydrogen to replace the one of zinc. The quantiva- lence of oxygen and zinc is therefore the same. They are dyads. In this way all the elements are found to arrange themselves in separate groups, according to their attractive 138 The Evolution of Chemistry. powers. Hydrogen and the other monads are like little magnets having a single pole of attraction. Oxygen and the other dyads are like magnets with two poles. Nitrogen and the other triads are like triple-poled magnets. Carbon and the other tetrads are like crossed magnets with four poles. To represent these facts we can write the symbols with strokes drawn from them representing the number of bonds, thus : Cl- -0- X N X -C- H- \ i Saturating these bonds with hydrogen, we have the follow- ing symbols of common substances : Cl-H H-O-H N II-C-H Muriatic acid. Water. Ammonia. Marsh gas. As oxygen has two bonds and carbon four, we can take two of oxygen and they will satisfy one of carbon. Because of these bonds the elements named are unable to exist as single, free atoms. Chlorine is not found as Cl- except during the brief instant of a change. As known to us in its elemental condition it is C1-C1, or C1 8 . The same is true of most ele- ments. Hydrogen is H-H, or H 2 , and oxygen 0-0, or 8 . The last named exists sometimes as ozone, and then it is ^ 0-0, or 3 . Many groups of atoms cohere through multi- tudinous changes, and in such group form they simulate more or less perfectly the atoms themselves. Sulphuric acid is always written by chemists as H 2 S0 4 , an d never as SH g 4 . The -S0 4 - part is known to maintain itself intact through many changes, and to act like a dyad element. The two hydrogen atoms leave it together to" let a dyad metal take their places. One of them will go at a time to make room for a monad metal. The group NH 4 - acts in a simi- lar manner by non-metals. Two such groups will satisfy the vacant bonds of -S0 4 - just as readily as two monad metals or one dyad. NH 4 - differs from a metal in that we know its composition, can pull it asunder, and have not yet been able to make two such groups intermarry. -S0 4 - dif- fers from a non-metallic element in the same manner. In their chemical behavior both act like elements. There are The Evolution of Chemistry. 139 radicals, however, that intermarry just as the elements do. If we were as ignorant of their structures as we are of the structures of the elements we would certainly take them to be elements. The hydroxyl group, so common in acids, al- cohols, and metallic hydrates, weds with its own counterpart in peroxide of hydrogen. The cyanogen group does the same in cyanogen gas. The methyl group doubles itself in ethane and the methyenyl in acetylene. There is not a soli- tary feature about the behavior of an element that is not ex- actly repeated in these compound radicals. This coherence in groups of more or less permanence is what makes the evo- lution of chemistry along its lines of present greatest discov- ery possible. If complex molecules did not break down in a systematic manner it would be impossible to tell how they were put to- gether. If neither atoms nor molecules exist, as metaphys- ical speculators would have us believe, it is pretty nearly time for them to tell us what it is that acts so much as if they did. In Dalton's days they should have given their theory when the facts were few, and therefore susceptible to many explanations. If they had no explanation, then how can they ever hope to have one now, when the data are a millionf old what they were then ? When we further perceive that very few of these millions of facts could ever have been dreamed of or known without picturing Dalton's atoms as their cause, we see how wild and silly their statements are. The whole field of organic chemistry has been opened up and developed because of our belief in atoms. Our facts were discovered and are now held together by this hypoth- esis. Remove it, and they drop apart like a rope of sand, with not even an explanation of how we ever discovered them. At the beginning of this century everybody held to the vital-principle theory of organic substances. It was counted absurd to imagine for a moment that organic ma- terials could ever be synthetically produced. Wonler, sixty years ago, began the work of discovery in this field. From the synthesis of urea to the synthesis of cocaine is a long stretch through a mazy labyrinth manifoldly more complex and obscure than that in which Ariadne's thread was sup- posed to have been used. Dalton's thread has guided chem- istry. In 1827 Gmelin was writing a book on organic chemis- try. This was only at the beginning the first shower, so to speak of the deluge of facts that is now pouring in upon 140 The Evolution of us. He begged the chemists to stay their researches for a little while that he might get a chance to complete his book. But they did not stop ; and now if Leopold Gmelin were alive he would find it not only impossible to finish such a book, but almost impossible to write down the facts as rapidly as discovered. No mortal now lives Avho can master all the minute particulars of organic chemistry. The only way to keep abreast of the times is to learn the principles of these facts. They are all principles of the actions and inter- actions of atoms. The way the carbon compounds are chained together enables the forgetful chemist with a mini- mum of effort to recall forgotten formulas. For instance, having forgotten the formula of alcohol, he can readily re- construct it thus : To four-bonded carbon (-C-) he adds H ' four hydrogen atoms, forming methane (H-C-H),twomole- ik cules of which being united, after releasing a bond in each, gives ethane (H-C-C-H), and finally adding hydroxyl Hlk (H-0-), after removing a terminal hydrogen, we get ethyl hydrate or alcohol (H-C-C-0-H). The points to remem- HH ber are that it is a hydrate and the second of the series. Let an atom of oxygen replace two hydrogens in alcohol, 55 and we have acetic acid (H-C-C-0-H). From marsh gas H through kerosene oil and vaseline to paraffin or min- eral wax we have hundreds .of substances that only differ from each other in an additional =CH 2 group to ethane 55 tiHH 333? (H-C-C-H,then H-C-C-C-H, then H-C-C-C-C-H, etc.). i A H H H HHHli Their hydrates give many alcohols, and the acids, as well as other substances that can be formed along the same line, The Evolution of Chemistry. 141 are multitudinous. Eecalling how far up the line any one of them may happen to be enables the chemist to at once reconstruct the formula. The groupings are not all so simple as in this series. Some are bound in complex rings instead of chains. These are the most promising for progress and most interesting for science of any. In 1865 Kekule discovered that ben- zine had its atoms so connected. This was the first known to have such a structure. Just before this, coal-tar had be- come an object of intense interest. The brilliant anilines had begun to be made, and the search for more had led to Kekule's investigations. What a triumph of chemistry this was ! From dirty, black coal-tar came the many hues and shades now deemed so necessary for the adornment of our ladies. The gaudy array of colors in every dry-goods and millinery display window attests the commercial worth of such studies. Those ribbons, threads, silks, flowers, and feathers constitute a much more substantial iridescence than that of any dream. About forty years ago a Scotch chemist, called Andprson, with most commendable heroism began the study of sludge oil. A more obnoxious task can scarcely be conceived. No financial considerations inspired him. He wrought for sci- ence, pure and simple, little dreaming of the rich lead he was opening up for coming generations. He distilled two hundred and fifty gallons, the sickening stench from which cost him many a meal. The outcome of that task for sev- eral years seemed totally valueless, and might have remained so if a countryman of his own had not taken up the same investigation where he left off. This resulted in the syn- thesis of pyridine, the basic group of many, and probably all, of the alkaloids. It placed us on the route to quinine, morphine, atropine, and cocaine, with most other active medicinal agents of plants, as well as the ptomaines and leu- comaines of animals. It seems, too, to be the direct line to protoplasm itself. While Anderson and his immediate suc- cessors in the work gained scarcely honor for what they did, others have since reaped their harvest and made millions of dollars. Still others, yet to come, are bound to make mill- ions more. The gain to the race of such work is incal- culable. A list of all the valuable additions made by synthetic chemistry within a score of years would occupy more time to read than could possibly be given in this lecture. To 142 The Evolution of Chemistry. afford some idea of the subject let us scan rapidly a few of the most important. Thousands of acres of land at one time were occupied in the growth of madder and indigo. This is nearly all relieved now for grain and other crops. These dye-stuffs no longer come from their respective plants, but are produced by the chemist in his laboratory, adding materially to the world's wealth. Cocaine, the alka- loid that enables surgeons to painlessly cut into the most sensitive parts of the body, is now built up from what might be waste products in its extraction from Erythroxylon coca. Oil of wintergreen, so useful for flavoring candies and soda- water, as well as for relieving rheumatism, is no longer pro- duced from either wintergreen or sweet birch to the extent it once was, but is synthetically prepared by the chemist. Musk, the well-known costly perfume and flavoring ingre- dient of candies, is likewise being made at lower rates by the chemist. Bitter oil of almonds, another flavoring substance and constituent of perfumery, the chemist makes. Cuma- rine, the flavoring ingredient of Tonka beans, which is so often used as a substitute for vanilla, is likewise synthetic- ally prepared. Vanilline, the rich flavoring ingredient of vanilla and constituent of some perfumes, is now made in the temperate zone independent of the family Orchidacece. Saccharine, a substance two hundred and eighty times sweeter than sugar, and saccharine amide, a related com- pound said to be sweeter still, are products of the laboratory that beat those of unassisted Nature. Antipyrine, phenace- tine, exalgine, acetanilide, and resorcin are products of the laboratory pure and simple that in many ways excel as cura- tive agents any product of the vegetable world, in spite of the Scripture statement that " the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations." These relieve the most excruciating pains, check profuse haemorrhages, reduce fevers, quiet unrest, relieve nausea, and stop the nervous, irritating cough of pertussis (whooping-cough). Paralde- hyde, somnal, hypnal, hypnone, chloral-amide, and many other new substances are produced in the laboratory to bring sweet, refreshing sleep to delirious and fever-excited brains. The number of antiseptics for external and internal use is large and constantly being multiplied by the busy chem- ist. One of them, called salol, can pass the stomach un- changed and arrest inflammatory processes below the duo- denum. Fluoresceine has no rival in the vegetable world, The Evolution of Chemistry. 143 as it alone is able to stain diseased tissue in the eye and leave the healthy tissue untouched. But why give more ? Their name is almost legion, and more are coming. Within this same time new processes have been devised for producing on a larger scale and at cheaper rates such common substances as soda, chloroform, salicylic acid, oxy- gen, nickel, aluminium, etc. The last-named metal is now marketed at an exceedingly low price as compared with that of a quarter of a century ago. The claim has lately been put forward that a newer process has been devised by which it can be produced as cheaply as iron. If this proves true, then the present generation is about to see the most wonderful industrial revolution that has occurred since man came on this planet. Such a discovery would be apt to pro- duce greater changes than did railways, telegraphs, and elec- tric lights combined. It is probably too good news to be true, and chemists generally are skeptical upon the matter. Such a discovery would solve the problem of fire-proof, rust- proof, and almost cyclone-proof homes. It would give us finer, cheaper, and swifter railway-cars, steam and other ships, and machinery. It would probably solve the problem of aerial navigation. In fact, it would require pages to give the changes it would introduce. But if we have not this, we have one chemical discovery that is destined to do great things for us in the not distant future as it becomes more perfect in its development. It is said that Sir William Thomson was asked not long ago to state what he believed to be the discovery of greatest promise to the race that has been made within the present generation. Pausing long enough to duly weigh the ques- tion, he replied that in his judgment it was the storage battery. Here we have bottled lightning that can run trains and all forms of machinery without fire or smoke, furnace or boiler, and not even a conducting wire to disfig- ure the landscape or endanger life. It can be used for heating or illuminating as well. Its invention let new light into philosophical chemistrv and showed us that the attrac- tions of our atoms are probably but a reversed condition of what we call electrolysis. Here we have a discovery that belongs equally to chemistry and physics, as it lies on the boundary line of both. There is another of the same kind that should be mentioned here. For a long time chemists have believed that the per- manent gases might by a sufficient increase of pressure and 144 The Evolution of Chemistry. reduction of temperature be brought into the conditions of liquid or solid. About thirteen years ago the most stub- born gave way and the belief was verified. The air we breathe has been made into a water-like liquid that boils at 337 F. below zero. At a somewhat lower temperature two liquids with different specific gravities are plainly seen. The one floats upon the surface of the other. Xitrogen, one of these two, has been frozen into crystals like snow The lowest temperature that has yet been reached in ex- periments of this kind is 373 F. below zero, and the highest pressure used was upward of 3,000 pounds to the square inch. Between this very low temperature and the high ones used in volatilizing metals a wide range exists within which some rather startling chemical facts have appeared. Bodies having very powerful affinities for each other at one temperature may have none at another higher one, while at a still higher the original affinity is restored. Here, as else- where in nature, the rhythm of motion exerts its sway. This is particularly apparent in chlorine and its behavior toward platinum. Every one knows how sulphuric acid and ammonia boil and splutter the instant they touch each other, yet pure liquefied ammonia at a low temperature will rest on the surface of the same acid as peacefully as a sleep- ing babe. Chlorine and oxygen in the liquid state can not be made to unite with bodies that at normal temperatures they seize upon with avidity. Every chemist is familiar with reactions that are only possible within not only certain temperature limits, but also certain degrees of dilution. At one time it was supposed that most chemical changes were immediate and direct. Now we know that the majority, and possibly all, are mediate and indirect. It is coming to be the belief of chemists that no two bodies can unite with each other without the aid of a third. So common a re- action as the burning of wood, that was long supposed to be merely a direct union of oxygen and carbon, is now found to involve a number of hitherto unsuspected inter- mediate changes in which water and peroxide of hydrogen take a part. Pure water can not be decomposed by elec- trolysis. An acid is needed in the matter. The action of this acid and that of all such go-between chemical bodies used to be called catalysis. We now speak of it as contact action. As electricity was once considered a rare and re- markable phenomenon when exhibited after the rubbing of a piece of amber, so contact action was long believed to be The Evolution of Chemistry. 145 an exceptional process in nature. But electricity is now well-nigh claiming universal domain as the force of forces, and so old-fashioned catalysis seems almost bound to swallow up all chemical activity. The number of substances that unite with each other rapidly when third bodies are present as impurities or otherwise, but that refuse to unite in a state of absolute purity, is multiplying daily. As to how such third bodies act in aiding the change is still in grave doubt for the majority of such cases, but has been pretty clearly traced in a few. In the manufacture of sulphuric acid from sulphurous anhydride, nitric acid, though acting as a go-between, is very far from a mere passive agent in the change. During the molecular dance it suffers successive decompositions and recompositions, always ending up in its original state. If we had not discovered the part it really plays in the matter it would be registered in the list of catalytic bodies. When we turn to the organic world and undertake the study of physiological chemistry and botany we find contact action at every turn. Numerous ferments have been iso- lated and studied by organic chemists, and with some of them there can be little doubt that they act by successive decompositions and recompositions of themselves. Much of their apparently magical power depends upon their ability to decompose water at normal temperatures. Let us but learn how to isolate such substances in paying quantities and in such a form that they can accomplish the same task as in the plant, and the growth in knowledge will be marvelous for rapidity. "We have known several organic ferments for a good many years. Pepsin and trypsin are probably the two with which we are most familiar. To solve the secret of their composition would be to gain a key to the situation. For nearly thirty years chemist after chemist has been baffled in attempting to do so. Not a single ray of light has been thrown upon the problem. Un- til we succeed in getting them in a pure state for analysis, or in securing some decomposition product of them in such a state, nothing can be done. A very faint glimmer was for the first time discovered during the present year by your essayist. A substance was isolated from pepsin "that bears a constant relationship in quantity to its proteolytic power. This is a very small result for thirty years of trial by scores of chemists, but it must not be forgotten that the problem is a big one, and the first gleam is always followed before 11 146 The Evolution of Chemistry. very long by the dawn. A complete solution of this prob- lem will tell us in terms of chemistry the cause and cure of disease and the conditions of life and health. So simple-looking a substance as the white of an egg is yet a most stupendous mystery to our science. It and all the albuminoids are awaiting this very light. The fever and pain, discomfort and delirium of disease are now known to be due, in many cases, to ptomaines manufactured by bac- teria. They are believed to break down albuminous sub- stances by aid of the ferments they secrete. We want to know the nature of these ferments. Until such knowledge is acquired we can not really say that we know how nitric or acetic acids, and all the nitrates and acetates, are made as common and cheap as they are. Micro-organisms produce them. The bread problem of the future is believed to carry its solution in this same question. From cellulose to starch is a very short step, but we can not take it in the proper way. By a crude process long known, sawdust can be converted into an exceedingly coarse article of bread, the catalytic body being sulphuric acid. "We await the discovery of the proper organic contact action body to do perfectly what can now be roughly done. The world may yet see deal boards transmuted into the whitest kind of starch. "We can and do now change starch into that kind of sugar called glucose. Let us nest find how to make it into levulose, and then discover how to unite these two, and we will have cane sugar. Hundreds of chemists have worked at this problem. The man lucky enough to solve it has an enormous fortune awaiting him. We have lately found how to give cane sugar the flavor of maple sugar, so that, should the maple forests give out, the supply of that sweet morsel can still be maintained. Among the many problems that still await solution, but that lie along the line we have been considering, is the syn- thetic production of such valuable substances as India rub- ber, cotton, silk, and wool. The possibilities of organic chemistry are numberless, and many of them may never be realized ; but we have already the sweet consciousness of hav- ing mastered more than enough to pay for the disappoint- ment of our alchemical predecessors who hoped to be able to convert iron into gold. But their dream, wild as it really was at that time, may yet become an established fact. Xo chemist would to-day risk his professional reputation by asserting it an impossible feat. Let some reliable man of The Evolution of Chemistry. 147 good repute in this department of science assert that he had made such a discovery, and it would doubtlessly raise con- siderable skepticism, but that would be all. No one know- ing the present status of the science would use the word " impossible." Seasoning a priori on the subject, we would expect that the cost of production would always exceed the value of the product. This is poor encouragement for this line of investigation. In the fields hitherto invaded and conquered the reverse has been true. Substances worth less than nothing actually having a negative value because of being incumbrances that it cost cash to remove have been and are being made into goods worth many millions of dol- lars. The actual facts, when stated in simple language, are more wonderful than the tales of the Arabian Nights. " Yes ! " some one answers, " and the names found in the story are perhaps quite as remarkable as any in that vol- ume." This is very true. To read of a substance that has been christened methyl-ethyl-hydroxyl-tetra-hydro-pyridine- tropate sounds anything but musical to the ears of non- chemists, especially when they learn that it is the dangerous medical poison atropine. Every syllable of this name has a meaning, and the whole tells just how the molecule is con- structed. To say that rheumatic pains can be relieved by oil of wintergreen is a plain statement to ordinary mortals. Tell him such relief can be had by the use of methyl-ortho- mono-hydroxyl-benzoate, and you will puzzle him sorely, though the things are the same. In this hasty and necessarily imperfect review of the de- velopment of modern chemistry from the absurd notions of the ancients, it will be observed that our knowledge has in almost every particular imitated the habits of the atoms themselves. When Lavoisier gave us a true theory of com- bustion, all the facts had up to that time been subsisting as isolated units. After that they were clustered together like a molecule. When Daltcn explained definite and multiple proportions, another set of independent facts immediately cohered. Next came the generalizations of Mitscherlich, Hoffman, Mendelejeff, and others, each gathering into united groups its own special data. A central nucleus for the total was found in the law of Avogadro. As the atom facts clustered together by the laws of lesser scope, so the clusters themselves, like so many compound radicals, gained bonds of mental union by this far-reaching generalization. Our chemical knowledge, therefore, like matter itself, began 148 The Evolution of Chemistry. indefinite and incoherent. Illy understood facts were with- out bonds of union. Growth began as they grouped to- gether into a definite, coherent whole. "With such growth came complexity, the minor laws each taking the part of branches to a common tree. Each new hypothesis by con- firmation brought new integrations, and dissipated the loose- ness of thought that characterized the earlier stages. The growth of chemistry is thus seen to be a typical illustration of the law of evolution. The Evolution of Chemistry. 149 ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. DR. E. H. BARTLEY : I have certainly no adverse criticism to make upon the lecture of the evening. Dr. Eccles has, it seems to me, been remarkably successful in crowding a great deal of accurate information into a very little space. In the brief time allotted to me, I can only call attention to one or two points in connection with the evolution of chemistry which have not been elaborated by the lecturer. If we examine the earliest records of chemical investigation, we shall note the lack of definite- ness in the language with which they are described, as compared with the clear, accurate form of our modern scientific terminology. The development of language itself has gone on hand in hand with devel- opment in science, and has been aided and stimulated by it. Modern language begins and ends in a point : is terse, lucid, and accurate. It shows the same tendency toward increased coherency and integration that appears in all other processes of evolution. This is particularly true of the language of science. And this accuracy of descriptive ter- minology is an essential condition of the progress of science. By means thereof, new discoveries and investigations are made known to other investigators, the world over, almost as rapidly as they are ac- complished thus furnishing the clews in other minds for yet further advancement in scientific knowledge. In the same direction is seen the effect of the admirable work of artisans, at the present day, in the manufacture of chemical apparatus. Formerly each investigator had to make his own apparatus, often in a very rude and clumsy way. Now it is prepared for him, and most perfectly adapted to its uses, thereby greatly assisting discoveries in scientific research, and consti- tuting a most important element in the evolution of science. This is true of all the practical sciences, and specially true of chemistry. Thus we see illustrated the universal law of evolution : the tendency to differentiation, to the creation of separate and distinct divisions of labor, accompanied by a greater coherence a more perfect co-operation of all in the advancement of knowledge and the improvement and unification of the race. DR. P. H. VAN DER WETDE : I have been astonished at the amount of material which has been crowded into the lecture this evening. As an historical paper, and a 150 The Evolution of Chemistry. general statement of present tendencies and results in chemical inves- tigation, it leaves nothing to be desired. I can only call attention to the remarkable character of recent laboratory discoveries, which seem to indicate that in time all our food products may be produced directly, by chemical combinations, from the inorganic world, instead of com- pelling us to rely, as at present, on vegetable and animal products for the sustenance of life. There has also been great progress of late in the field of biology. The old notion of a vital force has given way before the results of scientific investigation. That which was formerly known as vital force and supposed to indicate a direct, creative action in the production of organic life is now known to be merely the result of chemical change. DR. ECCLES replied briefly, saying that vital force is no longer be- lieved in by chemists. The field of chemistry is so vast that no one mind can grasp it all, and it is impossible to describe its conquests in a single lecture. THE EVOLUTION OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC PHYSICS ARTHUR E. KENNELLY CHIEF ELECTRICIAN OF THE EDISON LABORATORY COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Benjamin Franklin's Experiments and Observations on Electricity ; J. J. Fahie's A History of Electric Telegraphy ; Park Benjamin's The Age of Electricity; Marvels of Electricity and Magnetism; Bren- nan's A Popular Exposition of Electricity ; Lodge's Modern Views of Electricity; TyndalPs Lectures on Electric Phenomena, Light and Electricity, and Lessons in Electricity ; Sir William Thomson's Elec- tro-Statics and Magnetism ; Balfour Stewart's Electricity and Magnet- ism ; Reid's The Telegraph in America ; Prescott's History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph ; Molloy's The Electric Light and the Storing of Electric Energy. THE EVOLUTION OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC PHYSICS. BY ARTHUR E. KENXELLY. THE subject for your consideration this evening is one of the most interesting and important of all the topics which have attracted the attention of the modern scientific thinker. In the earliest recorded observations of electric force it appears to have been regarded as a phase or mode of vital- ity. Thales of Miletus, the Greek mathematician whose home was on the woody Asiatic shore of the -^Egean Sea, twenty-five hundred years ago, noticing that amber after being rubbed attracted or repelled light objects, such as down or lint, is said to have attributed the property to some condition of life resident in the substance. The centuries that have intervened have smiled upon so superstitious a belief, but perhaps when futurity shall judge, the thought, under a different interpretation, may not seem so far astray; for to us of to-day vitality is stiirincompre- hensible, and the very nature of electricity is enveloped in mystery ; yet we know that whatever nerve force may be, it "must at least be closely associated with electric force. Nerve-fibers strangely resemble insulated wires ; electricity can stimulate them into an involuntary performance of their functions, while not a muscle contracts without elec- trical manifestations, if care only be taken to observe them. Even light, it would seem, falling on the retina, excites elec- trical disturbances through the optic nerve, and it is possible, if it is not at present demonstrated, that electricity may be the active principle in the processes of animal vitality. The relation between electricity and vitality may be so close as to amount to identity. For twenty-two centuries after this first announcement, electricity, one ever-present phase of the universal activity, remained not absolutely unnoticed, but unknown. In the saying of the Greeks, " There were brave men before Aga- memnon," but not even the violence of thunder nor the vivid lightning-flash can announce the facts of an all-envel- oping environment to human intelligence of the highest order we can boast until the progress of evolution shall 154 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. have prepared the human mind to usher and reveal the mysteries of Nature. The renascent dawn of the scientific era, or the age of objective investigation a method of study that had almost become extinguished with the ruin of Alexandria threw open the pathways of physical research and brought the first recognition of electricity to light. The commence- ment of the seventeenth century was noted for its discov- eries in electric and magnetic science. Thales lived about six hundred years before Christ, and Dr. Gilbert, of Col- chester, christened and presented the new science _ to the world in his celebrated book De Magnete, published in 1600. The early history of magnetism tells a similar tale. The attracting power of the loadstone was known to the Greeks, and the knowledge of the directive property of the suspend- ed needle or mariner's compass is said to have been pos- sessed by the Chinese long before the Christian era ; but the first published researches in the subject were by Norman and Boroughs, of London, in 1580. Just at this time Fran- cis Bacon, the champion of experimental science and in- ductive philosophy, was preparing those works that have made his name immortal. The time was ripe for the new thought, for human intelligence at length stood ready to burst through the trammels that inthralled it, and to vin- dicate its prerogative to judge according to evidence. Slowly, and against much opposition, experimental physics developed the sciences of magnetism and electricity. For two hundred years the two sciences stood entirely apart ; their intimate relationship was perhaps only suggested in the poet's fancy, nor was it scientifically demonstrated till 1820. Even at the present moment, intimate though we recognize that relationship to be, the line that separates and the tie that unites them are still matters of speculation that the future must resolve. The earlier progress was shown by electricity. Von Gue- ricke, in 1672, made the first electrical machine out of a globe of sulphur rotated by hand, and produced with it the first artificial electric spark. The sound accompanying the spark was also noticed by von Guericke. Newton three years later improved upon this machine by substituting a glass sphere' for the globe in place of sulphur. Now that a simple generator of electricity was capable of being made, experiments became more common and facts accumulated. Gray and Wheeler in particular, between 1720 and 1736, The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 155 gave a great impetus to the science by the discovery of con- duction. They showed that glass, resin, silk, and other sub- stances were insulators, or impervious to electricity, but that metals and liquids conducted it. They succeeded in trans- mitting electric force to a distance of several hundred feet, and by these experiments laid the foundation for telegraphy. This classification of substances into conductors and non- conductors since their time has not altered in fact, but its principle is better understood. More delicate measurements have since shown that no known solid or liquid body insu- lates perfectly. On the other hand, the best conductors ob- struct to a certain degree the flow of electricity, so that con- duction and insulation are only the limiting attributes of one property common in varying degrees to every descrip- tion of matter. No conducting power has yet been de- tected in dry gases, but it is possible that if an electrified body could be maintained suspended in a gas without any solid or liquid support, such conducting power might be dis- covered. The best solid insulator yet found is dry, spun quartz, glass following next. The best measurements of the conducting power of glass at the temperature of melting ice show that it is inferior to that of silver the best con- ductor in the ratio of one to three followed by twenty- two zeros. From the time of Gray and Wheeler a very extraordinary advance was made in electrical science ; the world of science now gave out myriads of electric sparks. Nearly every year brought to light some fresh discovery in electricity. A gen- tleman in Leyden, Holland, tried to see if he could store up electricity in a bottle, and succeeded. The Leyden jar, the properties of which were thus discovered, was firs* intro- duced in 1745, and this not only drew much attention to the subject, but enabled the experimenter to collect and suddenly discharge a greater store of electrical energy than had been previously possible. The researches on electricity that made Franklin so fa- mous came next, and were made between 1747 and 1760. In that time he added greatly to the knowledge of the sub- ject. He proved at Philadelphia that lightning was an elec- tric spark. Lightning had been going on since the world began, but it needed the brightest human intelligence to discover that lightning was electricity. It needed even more than that it needed evolution. Franklin erected the first lightning conductor for the protection of buildings, and 156 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. thus appears to have been the first to apply electrical science to utilitarian purposes; for up to this time there was no electric art. In every other branch of study, even astrono- my not excepted, as evidenced in astrology, art had long preceded science, that vainly toiled to keep pace in theory with the steps of practice. To this day the race is still all uneven; for the capabilities of skill and mechanism often transcend calculation and set analytical pursuit at defiance; but here a new order was celebrated ; for perhaps the first time in the history of the world Science preceded and cre- ated an art. To Franklin and Canton jointly we owe the discovery, dimly foreshadowed by Stephen Gray, that electrical force develops electrification in surrounding bodies, at a distance, or by induction. This made another example of forces act- ing at a distance, such as gravitation and radiant energy. This then was a great mystery. Later investigations have partly explained these phenomena, though the matter is still only dimly understood. Newton had always confessed him- self unable to comprehend the modus operandi of definite forces acting through indefinitely extended vacancy. He suggested as an explanation the corpuscular theory of light that light consisted of solid particles of matter emanating from a luminous body. This theory has since given way to the undulatory theory of vibratory and progressive disturb- ances in an elastic ether. The electrical phenomena of ac- tion at a distance have also been proved to be produced by elastic stress, and possibly even deformation of the same in- visible but ubiquitous element. We know now what Frank- lin and Canton did not that induction is due to pushing the electric force through the surrounding air or ether. It is not improbable that similar solutions may ultimately be found for the other problems of radiant energy. Gravita- tion yet remains unexplained, but remains, it is believed, only to succumb to a similar and equally simple hypothesis. We seem to know for a certainty, at least, that so-called ac- tion at a distance is caused by stress through the intervening medium. Now that sufficient facts had been collected, generaliza- tion became possible, and the first mathematical theory of electricity was propounded by ^Epinus in 1759. This, how- ever, was succeeded and eclipsed by the researches and re- sults of Coulomb and Cavendish, who first applied definite measurements to the study of the science. It has been aptly The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 157 said that all physical science is measurement. It is meas- urement that distinguishes science from vague theorizing. Just as Franklin founded the art, Coulomb and Cavendish founded the quantitative science of electricity, as distin- guished from purely experimental or qualitative knowledge. This branch of the subject next received special cultivation at the hands of the French savants in the Napoleonic period. The task of developing electrical knowledge had hitherto been one of acquiring facts by direct experiment, but at this time it naturally divided between two different sets of work- ers. There now sprang up a set of electrical philosophers who theorized upon the facts already known. One of these classes continued as before to seek for new facts and new discoveries by direct experiment, continually varying their cross-examination of Nature ; the other party took the facts already gleaned, submitted them to analysis, and determined mathematically the laws those facts uttered. By a continua- tion of the same process, they endeavored to determine new facts and more recondite laws by mathematical reasoning from the existing premises. As leaders of these parties, Faraday might be cited for the first, Clerk-Maxwell of the second. Much futile controversy has been waged as to the power, advantage, and rank of these two schools. Both are necessary ; the one supplements and corrects the work of the other, for it is impossible to apply intelligent labor to the vanguard of science in any direction without gaining ground. The danger of the method of the experimental school, when carried to extremes, is loss of labor by groping without defi- nite object in the dark, lacking competent leadership ; the danger of over-impetuous activity in the analytical camp is in missing truth, through the assumption that all the neces- sary premises are already known, or else in terminating re- search with mere symbols pure mathematics, instead of physics written in mathematical language forgetting the significance of the symbols and losing the grasp they hold on facts. The best successes are generally made by the co- operation of both parties, for all observation must stand the test of analytical trial, and all calculations must be confirmed under the ordeal of experiment. Many improvements in methods and apparatus were made after the date of Franklin's discoveries, but the next great epoch was the discovery of galvanic electricity by Galvani, of Bologna, in 1786. An electrical machine was being worked in a room where some frogs were being dissected. 158 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. "When their bodies were brought into the vicinity of the machine it was noticed that their legs twitched. The oper- ator commenced to reflect upon this phenomenon, and the result of his reflection and further investigation was the discovery of galvanism, as it was called from his name. The subject afterward received much attention. The results of that discovery were developed and followed up with greater success by Volta, who published in 1800 his first account of the voltaic pile, the lineal ancestor of all the different bat- teries with which we are to-day familiar, from which they have been differentiated by a natural process of evolution. Volta made use of Galvani's experiments, but he arrived in- dependently at new and important results, and so is entitled to equal credit with Galvani. Galvani had supposed that the electricity came from the frog. Volta showed that it resulted from the contact of dissimilar substances. Much dispute arose at the time as to the source of the electrical activity in the generator, and up to this date the question is yet open ; but it appears safe to conclude that electrical activity is capable of being developed whenever two dissimilar substances, or even dissimilar parts of the same substance, are brought into contact. If the two sub- stances are non-conductors, as, for example, glass and silk, the electrical force indicates a high tension or pressure, especially when the substances are rubbed together. It would burst through the air in sparks, across a considerable space. This was the condition of the electricity generated before the time of Galvani. On the other hand, Avhen the substances in contact are conductors, such as metals, no ac- cumulative effect is obtained by the mutual friction of their surfaces, and the electricity produced, while it may be abun- dant in quantity, is of low pressure, and can not burst through the air in sparks, or evince powerful attraction for surrounding objects. The electricity in each case is sup- posed to be identical in nature, but to differ in behavior, through differences in the pressure under which it acts. Many years were passed in establishing this relationship between statical or frictional and dynamic or galvanic elec- tricity, but now galvanic effects can be obtained from fric- tionally produced electricity, and all the phenomena peculiar to so-called static electricity can be produced by increasing sufficiently the number of galvanic cells, and thus accumu- lating their pressure. This property of pressure, or its elec- trical analogue, is quantitatively expressed in terms of a unit The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 159 named the " volt," after Volta. The various galvanic cells have singly a pressure of from half a volt to two volts and a half. The lowest pressure that will cause a spark to burst through a thin film of air is about six hundred volts. Light- ning flashes indicate enormous pressures, whose magnitude is only guessed at, perhaps, in millions of volts. The higher the pressure, the greater the distance over which the electric spark will jump. The discovery of Volta's pile was no sooner published than Sir Humphry Davy commenced experimenting with it in London, and his example was followed in every direc- tion. In 1807 he announced the decomposition by the gal- vanic current of the alkalies hitherto supposed to be elements, or simple, undecomposable forms of matter. Galvanism now opened a wide field for investigation, and attention for the time almost deserted frictional electricity. The search was not long in danger of subsiding, for the next great epoch was Oersted's discovery of the influence of a current upon a suspended magnetic needle. This was in 1820. He dis- covered that a needle so suspended stands at right angles to an electric current passing near it. Up to this date elec- tricity and magnetism had been studied apart, and had held aloof ; now they met and were linked into one branch of physics. Magnetism alone had not made great advances, but, associated with electricity, it has since developed, prac- tically as well as theoretically, in a manner that has almost outstripped fancy. Oersted's discovery roused the whole scientific world. A few weeks after its publication, Ampere issued the first of those analytical investigations on the sub- ject that have made his name so familiar. While the French school chiefly developed the mathematical consequences of the new facts, the experimental study was actively pushed by Davy and Faraday in England, and Seebeck and Berze- lius in Germany. The first electro- magnets were produced by Arago and Sturgeon about 1825, and these laid the foun- dation of the modern telegraph. The electro-magnet also received special development in the hands of Joseph Henry at Princeton about 1829. This was the period at which the electric telegraph was first inaugurated. Electricity had been suggested for this application as far back as 1753, and Ronalds had made a working model telegraph in 1816, but frictional high - pressure electricity had always been the agent, and the difficulty of insulating it had invariably in- terfered with its practical application. The low-pressure 160 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. galvanic current, however, was much, more amenable to con- trol in this respect, and telegraphy, with the aid of the mag- netic needle, in 1833 became a successful experiment. Morse succeeded in making his electro-magnetic system practicable in 1837. The stimulus that electricity gave to the study of magnet- ism, immediately following Oersted's discovery, reacted by reflection upon electrical progress also, and an electro-mag- netic era was entered that has gone on with ever-increasing impetus since that time. The telegraph, fairly in operation by 1840, spread from city to city, and in 1850 first crossed the sea. Electroplating as an art sprang into existence about the same time, the first practical experiment being performed about the year 1832. The debt that commerce and civilization owed to science for these arts has since been richly repaid by the aid that commerce has given in the direction of pure science ; for, in order to foster and in- vigorate these arts, commerce has defrayed the expense of many scientific investigations intermediately necessary, and this community of object is continually strengthening and enriching each at the present time. From 1830 to 1859 Faraday made his masterly re- searches. He discovered among other things the electro- chemical law that now bears his name, and the influence of magnetism upon light ; but his crowning discovery was that of electro-magnetic induction, which has paved the way for the dynamo-electric machinery of the present time. The scientific development of the subject was also active during this period. In 1840 Ohm published his well- known law that reduced the elements of the galvanic cir- cuit to simplicity. There was still, however, a difficulty in measuring electricity quantitatively,- owing to the absence of any common system of units. Each observer measured and recorded his results in arbitrary units of his own selec- tion, and great confusion existed when attempts were made to compare the results so obtained. Nor was the deficiency confined to science only, for practical telegraphy sorely labored under the same disadvantages. To meet the grow- ing need for a universal system of measurements, the British Association for the Advancement of Science ap- pointed a committee to consider the matter in 1861, and this committee succeeded in establishing within four years the celebrated centimetre, gramme, and second system that The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 161 is now the basis of all international measurements, electrical as well as scientific. This system is like a universal lan- guage, which enables observers in one part of the world to make their discoveries intelligible in other countries. This is now the base for all international scientific measurements. The advantage that science has gained by this co-operative effort has been very great, and engineering has been simi- larly benefited. ^ The great utilitarian progress made since that time has been in the invention of the telephone, the electric light, and machinery for the transmission of electric power all the outcome of electro-magnetic induction. The first electric telephone was made by Reis in 1868, but it was only applicable to the reproduction of musical sounds at a distance, its articulation being too restricted to convey speech successfully. The first practical speaking telephone was made by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. It is now in use all over the civilized world, and many pages could be written upon its development alone. The carbon arc light of Davy, while very useful for many purposes calling for intense illumination, was very costly while sustained by galvanic batteries. To produce it more conveniently and cheaply, the dynamo machine was slowly improved. The dynamo as it existed in the year of Fara- day's discovery was little more than a scientific toy; at the present time dynamos are in operation that singly transform the mechanical power of a steam-engine into electrical energy to the working value of five thousand horses. The study of the arc light and its capabilities led to the search for an incandescent lamp. In the hands of Edison the incandescent lamp became not only a possibility, but a practical success. The most important phases of the subject at the present time may thus be summed up : 1. In electro-magnetic science the great achievement since Faraday's time has been the determination of the fact that all electricity flows, or tends to flow, in closed curves or cir- cuits, so that we have the electrostatic circuit, the galvanic circuit, and the magnetic circuit, each resembling, as it were, an endless chain or a bundle of endless chains ; and the laws which control these three different types of circuit show wonderful analogies. 2. The due appreciation of the influence of the ether and 12 162 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. its importance in all electro-magnetic phenomena. While originally the electrical activity seemed to be confined to the battery or conducting wires of a galvanic circuit, it is now believed that the ether surrounding these conductors plays fully as active a part in the process of conduction ; and the mind sees free space no longer void, but filled with an active and responsive substance the ether. It looks almost as if matter were inert in comparison with the ether wh;ch surrounds it. Once more in the evolution of thought the tide of unbelief has turned, and we hold, under some- what altered premises, the dictum that Torricelli refuted namely, that " Nature abhors a vacuum." The properties of the ether almost threaten to surpass in interest and im- portance the properties of the matter it environs and per- vades. 3. The evidence in favor of the proposition that light is a vibratory disturbance in the ether of an electro-magnetic nature is such as almost to amount to demonstration. When this shall be generally accepted, the whole domain of optics and radiant energy will be enrolled as one depart- ment and property of electro-magnetic physics. Difficult as it is to clearly apprehend the course of evolu- tion in the near past, where events press upon us in a narrow bounding throng, and the workers at the great loom of his- tory yet stand by the mesh their hands have helped to weave, how still more difficult it is to guess the future ! The prospect that opens is, however, a brilliant one. We may well believe that in science the same evolutionary pro- cess which has united electricity and magnetism, and weld- ed both with radiation, will continue to magnify, simplify, and unify. Contrary to the course of evolution in the or- ganic world, " from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, the simple to the complex," the development of science is from the heterogeneous to the homogeneous, from the com- plex to the simple, and just as the evolutionary course of religious belief was from polytheism to monotheism, so with every fresh acquisition science becomes greater and grander and more succinct. In the arts, electricity is destined, even apart from future discoveries, to take into its own hands the distribution of power. The telegraph has conquered time, and the electric motor is born to triumph over space ; but whether we watch the vibration of the telegraphic recorder that spells its message across the sea, or watch the electric car, urged by TJie Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 1G3 invisible hands, pursuing its stealthy way, the rhythmic words of Kuskin rise into recollection's sight, "Not in a week, or a month, or a year, but by the lives of many souls, a beautiful thing must be done." 1G4 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. ME. GEORGE M. PHELPS : Mr. Phelps suggested that the nexus between the purpose of the Ethical Association as implied in its title, and the present course of lectures and discussions upon evolution, as manifested in the physical sciences, might be found in the closing words of Emerson's Cambridge Divinity School Address of 1838. That seer looked for the " new teacher that shall follow so far those shining laws that he shall see them come full circle ; shall see their rounding, complete grace ; shall see the world to be the mirror of the soul ; shall see the identity of the law of gravita- tion with purity of heart ; and shall show that the Ought, that Duty, is one thing with Science, with Beauty, and with Joy." Mr. Kennelly had shown, in his comprehensive address, that from the inception of electric science and the useful arts dependent upon it, up to the present development, there had gone forward a course of evolution, analogous to that traced in previous lectures in the domain of nature ; a slight and crude beginning in a remote past, followed, however slowly or rapidly, by successive modifications of theory and practice with advancing knowledge, accompanied by an ever-in- creasing elaboration and complexity, and attended by the elimination, from time to time, of outworn or unsound views and methods, all tend- ing steadily to enhanced use and benefit. The expansion of use and benefit during the ten years just passed was a most striking feature of electrical evolution ; an expansion requiring the employment of an amount of electrical energy still more striking as compared with the amount used for all purposes previous to the advent of electric lighting and transmission of power. Every arc-lamp requires nearly a horse-power of electrical energy, and every incan- descent lamp about a tenth as much ; tens of thousands of electric motors add to the enormous consumption. It is doubtless safe to say that an aggregate of not less than a million horse-power of electrical energy is daily expended in the various electrical arts of to-day, of which amount certainly less than one tenth is required for the service of the telegraph, the telephone, and all other uses biit those of light and power. The latter, ten-year-old industries, are therefore utilizing nine or ten times as much electricity as is required for all other purposes. In the evolution of sciences and arts, such as form the topics of this season's course, there comes in a factor not found in the evolution of The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 165 what is called the natural world namely, the incalculable spirit of man. The inventor arrives. In the laboratory of the investigator, the workshop of the mechanic, the managing office of an industry, or in the quiet library of a student, a thought, an idea is born. If the time be ripe or the environment favorable, the idea may modify, or even revolutionize, a science ; or may be embodied in a machine or device that will revivify a waning industry or found a new one. But, alas ! the time is not always ripe nor the environment favorable ; then, though the spirit do its work never so well, the thought, the idea, seems to perish, like useless variations in the evolution of nature. But, though useless at its birth, and perhaps during the life of its originator, it may in the fullness of time be found the one thing wanting in the thought or work of the world. A striking instance is found in the case of Thomas Davenport, a Vermont blacksmith, who died thirty-two years ago. We have now just become used to riding upon electric cars. In 1835 Davenport made and described electric motors embodying the es- sential features of the motors now in use. He exhibited several speci- mens within the next two years, running a miniature car upon a small circular track. But there was no adequate source of electricity to drive large motors ; the dynamo did not exist. Davenport died poor and disappointed. To-day his thought, his idea, is serving us in all the manifold applications of electric power. But for those who fail or fall in trying to make the world richer, more commodious, more beautiful, to make mankind better and happier, and for all of us, there remains the faith of the true evolutionist in the abiding quality, the permanence, of every true and good bit of work, whether in the realm of science, art, industry, or ethics. The robust poet who left us a year ago thus sings through the voice of Abt Vogler, the inventor of a wondrous musical instrument, whose harmonies have entranced his spirit : " There shall never be one lost good ! What was shall live as before ; The evil is null, is naught, is silence implying sound ; What was good, shall be good, with, for evil, so much good more." MR. T.C.MARTIN: Mr. Martin said that the discussion of electricity in the series on evolution, at Christmas time and on the threshold of the New Year, was very happy and appropriate. The mission of electricity as a force and agent directly affecting human welfare was to promote peace on earth and good-will among men ; its motto was : " Behold I make all things new." Electricity had been one of the principal means in bringing in- dividuals and peoples together. Everything which broke down the 166 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. walls of isolation and invited to freer social intercourse belonged to the higher influences, " not ourselves," but outside, making for right- eousness and a perfected evolution of man and his world. So, too, electricity, in making all things new, was the latest of the great powers to be controlled by human wit and invention, succeeding others in due season, " lest one good custom should corrupt the world " ; and teach- ing that the finite is the imperfect, of contentment in which we must beware. At the present moment the work of electricity lay chiefly in light and power, and it gave us purer, sweeter, subtler, gentler service than any of its predecessors had afforded. It could not but be that this refinement of service and influence would better and elevate all who enjoyed it, as taking us one remove further from the crude, raw, and barbaric. This messiahship of material things was borne in upon us in witnessing the advances of science, which, after all, meant nothing unless they purified and sanctified life. As one whose work lay in the electrical field, he found pleasure in thinking that such work, perhaps more than any other of its kind, laid hold on the future, with its promise of a nobler state of society than had yet been attained. DR. ROBERT G. ECCLES : Mr. Kennelly has in a clear and impressive manner carried us along the successive steps of the progress of electric science, and in showing its connection with the doctrine of evolution he has been ably second- ed by the gentleman who opened the discussion. It is not possible for one scarcely an amateur in the subject to attempt any criticism of these experts, and it seems almost in the nature of presumption for me to even suppose myself able to add to the interest of the same. In one hour's talk, however, many things of great importance that might be advantageously dwelt upon to impress them the more firmly on the listener's attention are necessarily dismissed with the briefest notice. As an illustration we have the discovery of Oersted that a magnetic needle is deflected by a current of electricity, and if the current is strong the needle will set itself almost at right angles with the wire carrying it. It is safe to say that this evidence of the connection of magnetism with electricity is the trunk of the tree whose branches now fill the whole earth with telephones, telegraphs, burglar-alarms, electric lights, and all our successful applications of this force. Prom it can be traced the successive steps leading to the latest wonders of this kind and pointing toward many more yet to come. Some of the most recent attempts to chain this giant seem to border on the un- canny regions of fairy-land. To be able to send telegraphic messages from moving trains by induced currents is certainly a triumph to be proud of. Miraculous though it may seem, it is but a phenomenon of The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 167 every-day experience with telephone-users who hear what is being said on wires contiguous to their own. Without apparent connection the message jumps from wire to wire through vacant space. But such telegraphing without wires has been discounted very much in the sending of messages to considerable distances across the sea without a cable. This was done not long ago from the Isle of Wight to the mainland of England. It is seriously proposed to adopt the same plan by ocean ships so that they can telegraph to each other on sight. A few years ago an enthusiastic individual suggested the possibility of sending oceanic electric currents from America to Europe by having wires and currents of sufficient power strung along the coasts of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres and grounded in the water at each termination. In theoretical considerations this department of science has until lately made little or no progress. The two-fluid theory of Symmer and the one-fluid theory of Franklin, while held by various students and workers with less or more tenacity, were practically driven from the field by the doctrine of the conservation of energy. Educated electricians now generally believe that all they have to deal with is modes of motion in matter and in the universal ether. Clerk Maxwell's theory of light shows how it can be understood as related to and of a kind with electricity. The acceptance of this theory forces us to con- clude that every chemical transformation sends out from itself two sets of strains on the ether answering to two forms of force, one of which we call heat or light, and the other electricity. One is longi- tudinal and the other transverse. It is not possible to give by mere verbal description to this audience other than a rough analogous adum- bration of the theory. Imagine a set of elastic cogwheels reaching the length of the church and caused to revolve. The matter of the wheels goes up and down by their rotation. If at the same time they are crowded outward and give to the pressure, a to-and-fro movement of the substance of the wheels is added to the up-and-down movement of rotation. Some such two sets of movements are set up in matter and the ether answering to electricity and light. The truth of Maxwell's theory has almost met complete experimental proof within the last two or three years. Dr. Henry Hertz, in a communication to the Sixty- second Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians, which assem- bled at Heidelberg last summer, communicated the results of his experiments in this field of research. He showed that it was now pos- sible to duplicate with electricity nearly every experiment depended upon to demonstrate the truth of the undulatory theory of light. Electric waves are shown under proper conditions to possess all the properties of light waves. They have been reflected, refracted, made 168 The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. to interfere, caused to cast shadows, and, in fact, to do everything that light can do. The dimensions of these waves have been measured and found to be much larger than those of light. A prism of asphalt re- fracts them as one of glass does those of light. A metallic grating polarizes them as a nickel prism does light. They separate, they com- bine, they re-enforce, they weaken each other. For a long time we studied the thermal qualities of bodies before we knew much of radiant heat, and for an equally long or longer time we have studied the elec- trical qualities of bodies, and have but just begun to appreciate the facts of radiant electricity. The science of electricity that began with the discovery that rubbing a piece of amber gave it the power to attract light bodies has gone on from this beginning until now it seems to embrace the universe. Strange that all powerful cosmic forces, be- cause of such a beginning, should come to be classed as those of am- bericity. Electron means amber. Every movement we make, every breath we breathe, every thought we think produces it. DR. WILLIAM M. HUTCHINSON : Frictional or static electricity, when applied to the surface of the body in the form of a spark, causes 1st, a sudden involuntary move- ment of the part irritated ; 2d, a reddening of the cutaneous surface ; 3d, a perception of a distinct sensation, either pleasant and invigorat- ing or painful and depressing, as the case may be. That it causes a marked stimulating effect upon the function and nutrition of nerves and muscles is claimed by some and denied by others. It certainly will relieve the pain of some forms of neuralgia. A? a means of pro- ducing marked mental impressions, and thus demonstrating the re- markable interaction between the mind and body by curing some forms of functional nervous disturbances, frictional sparks are often of service to the physician. It is probable, however, that this effect is purely mental, the result being produced by causing an expectant at- tention on the subject's part, as is done by the so-called " mind cures " or " hypnotic suggestion " methods. Current or voltaic electricity, when passed through the body, pro- duces three effects viz., catalytic, cataphoric, and electro-tonic. The catalytic action may be slight if the current be weak, and, by increas- ing chemical reactions within the tissues of the body, it may serve to stimulate nutritive changes. If the current is sufficiently strong, in- tense effects are produced the tissues are decomposed about each pole, blisters containing acid fluids forming at the positive pole, and alka- line fluids at the negative pole. This destructive effect is sometimes made use of in the breaking down of new growths, as tumors, and in the enlarging of contracted passages or canals. The Evolution of Electric and Magnetic Physics. 169 By the cataphoric action of a continuous galvanic current is meant the property which such a current possesses of moving along with it fluids that lie in its path, and so, when applied to the body, of increas- ing osmoses. This action of this current may be also applied to carry with it medicinal substances into the tissues through the pathway of the skin. The electro-tonic effects produced upon the tissues during the pas- sage of a voltaic current are 'a diminished state of excitability at the positive pole, and an increased degree of irritability at the negative pole. If this current be rapidly interrupted, or broken and reconnected, it appears to have the effect upon various organs of setting them to work. For instance, the muscles of the hand may be made to con- tract if this current be applied to the portion of the brain presiding over the hand, to the nerve trunk going to the hand, or to the muscles themselves. Again, if it be applied to special sense nerves, as the optic or auditory, the effect is to produce the sensation of a flash of light or certain noises. If this interrupted voltaic current be of high potency 500 to 1,000 volts the effect is to produce such profound and sudden change of the molecular state of the tissues and vital pro- cesses that their activities instantly cease. The suddenness and pain- lessness of this death has caused the advocacy, by many electricians and physicians, of the execution of criminals by electricity. MR. KEN>T:LLY, in closing the discussion, held that it was probable that electricity would soon become the chief motor power in our cities, substituting both steam and horse-power. In this direction our West- ern cities were in advance of New York and Brooklyn. He also thought electricity the most painless and humane mode of executing criminals. THE EVOLUTION OF BOTANY BY FREDERICK J. WULLING, PH. G. COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Article Botany in Encyclopaedia Britannica ; Gray's North Ameri- can Flora, Structural and Systematic Botany, How Plants Grow, How Plants Behave, and Statistics of the Flora of the Northern United States, in Silliman's Journal, second series, vol. xxii ; Henslow's The Origin of Floral Structures ; Wallace's Island Life, and Tropical and Geographical Distribution of Plants and Animals ; Sachs's Sketch of the Development of Botany from 1530 to 1860; Strasburger's Hand- book of Practical Botany; Lester F. Ward's The Geographical Distri- bution of Fossil Plants ; Grant Allen's The Evolutionist at Large ; Lubbock's Flowers, Fruits, and Leaves. THE EVOLUTION OF BOTANY. BY FREDERICK J. WULLING, PH. GK THE history of botany portrays the gradual development of the scientific knowledge of the vegetable kingdom. Like that of many of the sciences, its origin is enveloped in the darkness of the early ages, but if considered in its widest sense it must have been contemporaneous with the origin of mankind. Before the discovery of the metals and the inven- tion of the arts, and the employment of tools and weapons whereby man became dominant over the other animals, it must be assumed that he was largely if not wholly dependent upon the vegetable kingdom for his subsistence. Roots, fruits, and herbs must have at that time constituted his chief nourishment. As his powers of observation developed, he learned to know and distinguish such plants as were easily digestible and those difficultly so. He discovered that some, or parts of some, plants were cathartic or the contrary, that some were poisonous, while others were harmless. We must also be permitted to assume that the knowledge thus gained was transmitted from one generation to another. From later indications we also learn that the names of those who were fortunate enough to discover a new plant which furnished food or medicine were carried to posterity and succeeding generations. The veneration for these discoverers grew with each generation until they were, in some in- stances, revered as gods. Some of the gods of the ancients have been traced back to such an origin. In those early ages of mankind indeed, as is yet the custom among some of the savage tribes of to-day the collection and administration of food and remedies were always accompanied by curious cere- monies, for the people of that time were exceedingly super- stitious and had peculiar ways of invoking the blessings of their gods, or of banishing a witch. For this reason the character of the priest was afterwards combined with that of doctor, and the sick would seek relief in the temples where the priest- doctors resided. Pliny teaches that the Druids, that most extraordinary sect which once inhabited England, ascribed almost divine 174 The Evolution of Botany. properties to the mistletoe, aconite, and samolus or water- pimpernel, and describes some of the ceremonies observed in their collection. The mistletoe had to be cut with a knife the blade of which was of gold ; it needed to be collected when the moon was six days old. No one else than a priest was allowed to do the collecting, and for that purpose he was clad in white. The plant had to be so cut that it would fall into a white cloth which was always kept in readiness. Lastly, two oxen had to be sacrificed ; and when the mistle- toe was thus consecrated it was a remedy for barrenness and an antidote to poison. The aconite (probably not identical with that we know to- day), after a previous sacrifice of honey, had to be collected in total darkness when neither sun nor moon shone, and the cutting had to be done with the left hand after a circle had been described around the plant. So collected, the plant would conquer fevers, neutralize snake-poison, and serve as an enchantment to gain the friendship of others. The selago (probably one of our sedums) could not be cut with an iron knife without destroying its good properties, nor could it be touched with the bare hand. The collector had to array himself in white and perform the ceremonies which the superstition of the people prescribed, in bare feet, regardless of the possibilities of catching cold. If collected in this manner, and in this manner only, it would cure diseased eyes and serve as a charm against acci- dents. Not alone the Druids, but it is fair to assume that all the primitive races knew a little concerning plants ; there has been until now no nation discovered which was indifferent or negligent enough to have ignored health so much that it was not familiar with at least a few remedial agents Knowing something of the medicinal properties of plants implied as a consequence some knowledge of the physical properties as well ; the ancients knew, for instance, that a plant collected at a certain time would be more active than if gathered at other times. They were familiar with the ex- ternal appearance of these plants, and though they could not describe them as intelligently as we can, they yet must have had a way of communicating to each other the nature of a plant newly discovered to have remedial or nourishing value. In thus communicating with each other they must have in- vented and used terms of a descriptive nature, and descrip- tive botany would have been the first department of botany The Evolution of Botany. 175 according to this logic ; and it was so. The first works writ- ten on botany were only descriptive. Thus the very earliest attention given to the study, if it may be so called, of plants, was bestowed upon those having or supposed to have medicinal value, and botany was there- fore begun simultaneously with medicine. Although the progress in the beginning of medicine was very slow, the number of remedies, mostly though not wholly consisting of plants, gradually became larger. When medicine as a science began to assume form and to be taught in the schools of Greece, Hippocrates, the father of medicine, published the names of all medicinal plants known in his time, of which there were but 300. The various departments of bot- any were by no means instituted together or at one time ; from antiquity until comparatively recent times the little at- tention given to botany was mainly devoted to a meager description, especially of medicinal plants. So Hippocrates's work gave only the description and supposed medicinal properties of the 300 plants known to him. Aristotle, 350 B. c., seems to have been the first one who occupied himself with the study of plants, but, unfortu- nately, the results of his studies have been lost with other works of his. Those of his pupil Theophrastus have been preserved and are probably based upon his. Theophrastus, besides indulging, in a purely philosophical sense, in a speculation upon the nature and origin of plants, describes about 500 species, the names of the most of which are not familiar to the botanist of to-day. Perhaps some botanist of the future will recognize in the plants described in these old books the ancestors of some of our present plants, and determine what changes evolution has wrought upon the former in twenty-two centuries. The works referred to above were published again, and in German, in the begin- ning of this century. From Theophrastus's time there is no record of any work done in botany until the first century of the Christian era, when Dioscorides wrote his Materia Medica at Rome, in which he describes 600 medicinal plants. Though the num- ber had swelled to 600, there was no advance in any other direction since Aristotle's time. The beginning and spreading of the Christian religion checked the progress of the sciences exceedingly, and botany, in which considerable interest had been awakened through Dioscorides's works, with many of the other sciences, was 176 The Evolution of Botany. neglected and allowed to recede into and remain in oblivion for a long time. Again there is no record of botany until the twelfth cent- ury. The few who did interest themselves in it did so only to the extent of acquiring the little knowledge already pos- sessed by men of Theophrastus's time, without entering upon any researches which would have enriched the fund of bo- tanical knowledge. The dominant tendency at that time was to study the works of the old authors, among whom Dioscorides was recognized as the highest authority, and up- on whose work many commentaries were written. In the thirteenth century we find the German Albertus Magnus investigating and studying plant life, upon which he wrote seven books, which have since been published (1521) in twenty-one volumes. The voluminous character of this work hides its value as a botanical text-book, for which it is believed to have been intended. "When, at the end of the fifteenth century, the sciences be- gan to revive and receive attention again, botany welcomed a goodly share. The Germans especially were instrumental in delivering botany from the fetters of the old school. The inadequacy of the teachings of Dioscorides induced several naturalists among whom were prominent, Brunfels, Bruns- wick, Fuchs, Tragus, and Gessner to examine and study the plants of Germany, with a view to publishing a work with illustrations and descriptions based upon their own re- searches. This they finally accomplished. Gessner was the first to conceive the idea that the organs of fructification were the essential ones, and that a classifica- tion, the need of which began to be felt, should be based up- on these. These men were followed by Peter Matthiolus, A. Csesal- pinius, Alpino, Columna, Dodonaus, Clusius, Lobelius, Dela- champ, Gerard, Camerarius, the brothers Bauhin, and others, through whose exertions the number of known plants at the beginning of the seventeenth century had reached 5,500. With this large number of plants little could be done if they were not classified, and some systematic arrangement became a necessity. The first attempt at a " natural arrangement " was made by Lobelius (1570), who classified plants into trees, grasses, ferns, lilies, etc., simply according to their external re- semblances. A. Caesalpinius, afterward named by Linnasus the " first orthodox systematizer," acted upon the suggestion of Gessner and employed the fruit and the essential parts of The Evolution of Botany. 177 the seeds as a basis for his classification, which form of ar- rangement was retained by most of his followers. Caesal- pinius opened a new epoch in botany ; he cared little for the description of individual plants, but rather sought to generalize from the individual. He aspired to a classifica- tion which recognized the internal nature of the plant, so to speak, and arrived, through Aristotelian philosophic deduc- tion, to the conviction that a natural classification must be based upon the organs of fructification. His system contains as a consequence a series of most unnatural groups. A little later the brothers Bauhin contributed a goodly share to the cause of botany. While John Bauhin, espe- cially in his work Historia Plantarum Universalis, supported the views of Lobelius, and therefore aspired to a natural classification based upon general external similarity that is, for instance, including in the class " trees " all plants that partook of the nature of a tree, including in another class all the grasses, in another all the ferns, irrespective of any other similarity than that of external appearance his brother, Caspar Bauhin, not only increased the number of known plants by his investigations and discoveries, but also cor- rected the chaos existing in the very confusing synonymic of the time. The latter endeavored in his work Phytopinax to present a synopsis of all plants known up to that time, 1596 ; and in a later work, 1623 published the names of 6,000 plants with their many synonyms. The discovery of Amer- ica more than a century before largely increased the num- ber of known plants which were also included in the latter work. Botanical enthusiasm ran high just at that time, and botanical knowledge spread rapidly, especially among the learned classes, who began to add botany to the branches taught in the higher schools. The universities had before that taught it. Botanical travels were undertaken by in- terested individuals, and scientific organizations sent out botanical expeditions to study the floras of surrounding countries. Clusius explored nearly the whole of Europe, and P. Albini most of the Orient, both with much success. Clusius was one of those scientists who, after the Kef orma- tion, rescued the various departments of knowledge from the spirit of the old scholasticism, and taught that true science was the study of Nature herself, and not the study of the whimsical notions and theories of the old school. He was one of those reformers who instituted a practice of investi- 13 178 The Eoolution of Botany. gating and testing the teachings of the old scholars, which practice brought to light and did away with many absurd intrusions upon science, and, on the other hand, served to widen scientific knowledge by the many new discoveries and inventions it brought about. In his travels, in France and Austria principally, Clusius was very successful in discover- ing new plants, which, upon his return, he classified with much labor, and described with more accuracy than had theretofore been employed in the description of plants. He published the results of his travels and succeeding labor in several books, of which the Kariorum Plantarum Historia contained most of the plants then known, with illustrations of those he discovered. It was the best exposition of botany in its time. Clusius also made an attempt at classification among plants of his own discovery, but which was not of much account. None of his contemporaries or predecessors can record the discovery of a larger number of plants. Up to the first half of the seventeenth century only descrip- tive botany had received attention, and the classification was yet in a primitive condition. Of the structure of plants little or nothing was known until the invention of the microscope, which marked an important epoch in the development of the sciences. Indeed, botany benefited more by the introduc- tion of the microscope than any other science. The inven- tion of the microscope not only induced the study of the structure of plants, but was also an introduction to crypto- gamous botany, the study of the flowerless plants, of which, until then, practically nothing was known. In the same degree in which the microscope was perfected did the knowledge of plant anatomy, the study of the structure of plants, increase. As the founders of plant anatomy we must recognize N. Grew, Malpighi, and Leeuwenhoek, who simultaneously en- tered upon microscopical investigations, the results of which they published in 1670, 1671, and 1673, respectively, these works being the first of their kind. Malpighi first employed strong convex lenses, corresponding to our simple micro- scope of about 180 magnifying powers, to examine into the structure of human tissue. The experience he gained by thus studying the tissue of the lungs, brain, kidneys, intes- tines, and nerves, he applied vigorously to the establishment of plant anatomy ; and his work Anatomica Plantarum may be said to have been the basis for the future and more ex- haustive work's by other authors. Nehemiah Grew also oc- The Evolution of Botany. 179 cupied himself very successfully with phytotomy plant anatomy of which he was one of the founders. He dis- covered the cell-structure of plant tissue, distinguished the parenchyma tous tissue from the longitudinal fibers, the wood- bundles and ducts, and studied more carefully the relations which these cell-forms bore to each other in the various organs of the plants. His investigations brought to light much that we now know of spiral ducts. His book Anatomy of Plants, published in London in 1682, was an excellent work in that time. Leeuwenhoek, too, did much in developing microscopic botany. He was, at the time the microscope was invented, a modest book-keeper and cashier in an Amsterdam clothing-house, but he became so much interest- ed in the new instrument that he set about manufacturing it for his own use, and making investigations therewith. Aside from the many discoveries he made, which widened the knowledge of human anatomy, the discovery of the spotted, spiral, and scalariform ducts in plants is ascribed to him. He was the first to point out the difference in structure between the monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous stem i. e., the difference in stems of trees exemplified by the palm and oak. These discoveries were made with microscopes of his own make, of which he possessed about 200, in manu- facturing which he displayed much skill and ability. If this enterprising Dutch investigator had had a good educa- tion, so that he would have worked systematically, he un- doubtedly would have contributed even more to the advance- ment of botany than he did. This period is followed by one in which classification re- ceived renewed attention, this time by Morison, Ray, Herr- man, Boerhaave, G. A. Rivinius, and others. Ray, 1703, and Morison, 1715, accepted Caesalpinius's arrangement, which they supported and developed more fully. The latter in- cluded in his method the formation of the floral envelope and its parts. Rivinius, earlier than that (1690), employed as standard for his system the regular or irregular form of the perianth or floral envelope. An important progressive step in descriptive botany was made also, at this time, by Tournefort. He was professor of botany at the botanical garden at Paris, whence he was sent by the French Government to Greece and Asia Minor to study the floras of those countries. He spent two years, 1700-1702, in botanical explorations, and brought back with him representatives of 1,300 new species. He also 180 The Evolution of Botany. devised a system for classification, based upon the floral en- velopes and comprising twenty-three classes. Though his system gave little consideration to the natural relations of plants, a work which he wrote, Institutiones Eei Herbaria, received much recognition before Linnaeus's time. Tourne- fort was the first before Linnaeus to recognize the value of descriptive botany in determining the characteristics of the genera. The specific differences of the genera he treated as of secondary importance. In 1789 an attempt was made by Magnol to arrange all known plants into real families. The attempt was a success to some extent. This system comprised seventy-six fami- lies, each family made up of species which resembled each other more than those of another family, especially in the flower and fruit. All the systems theretofore established had been found wanting, the constant discovery of new spe- cies soon proving them to be inadequate. So with Magnol's, though it was of some value when first established. New plants were constantly found which could not be included in any of the seventy-six families without disturbing the arrangement and rendering the system valueless even for the plants it included. The fund of known species was about this time again greatly increased by botanical explorations into distant parts of the globe. The tropics especially opened up an immense field to botanical research, with an endless variety of vege- tation, in which botanists soon discerned the entire in- adequacy of all the systems of classification established up to that time. Rheede, Rumph, and Kampfer chose Asia as their field of labor and research, and Sloane and Plumier, Jamaica and America, respectively. Most of the plants Sloane discovered and collected he pressed and preserved, and finally described them in a work which treated of all the plants of Jamaica. These plants constituted a goodly share of his large collection of natural-history specimens which latter he sold to the English Government for a paltry sum, but for which he was better repaid by his success in founding the British Museum with it. Plumier summed up his work in three books, one of a descriptive nature on all the plants he collected in this country, another on the new .plants he found here, and a third upon the American ferns. An important epoch in the evolution of botany was the founding of botanical gardens in the larger cities, where not The Evolution of Botany. 181 only the domestic but also foreign plants were cultivated and their habits and characteristics studied. Theretofore the study of foreign plants was limited to the favored few who could go to the native habitation of the plant for that purpose, but now the many scientists in the cities had equal opportunities for investigation and study. The number of men developing and advancing botany "became largely in- creased by the introduction of botanical gardens, which were thus directly advantageous to the growth of the science. It is true that before this botanical-garden era under question there had been a few incipient gardens. One at Salermo was laid out by Matthew Sylvaticus in the fourteenth cent- ury, which was followed by one at Venice for the cultivation of medicinal plants. Both of these were very limited in their number of plants and contained few that were not medicinal. The real beginning of instituting botanical gar- dens was coincident with the revival of the sciences. The cities of Italy began to compete for excellence in planning and laying out gardens and in the number and variety of plants. Here, as everywhere, competition was a factor in evolution. Spain and France soon followed the example of Italy. In Ferrara, the Duke Alphonse Este was the first to found a garden, at which he worked with commendable en- ergy and ambition, so that it was in its time recognized as the first one in Europe. The botanical garden at Paris was instituted in the early part of the sixteenth century. Its design and object were not, however, to advance botany, but to cultivate flowers, from which the royal dressmakers might take patterns wherewith to embroider the gowns of the court ladies and to embellish the coats of the court gentle- men. It was not until many years later that the garden was made a botanical one in a scientific sense, and named " Jar- din des Plants," a name which it still bears. In Holland a garden was laid out as early as the fifteenth century, but Germany was not represented other than by several private ones. By far the greatest eagerness in establishing botanical gardens was exhibited in the seventeenth century. An ex- tensive garden was planned at Eome by Cardinal Farnese ; the " Hortus Cattolicus " was founded by Prince della Cat- tolica at Messina ; the Kew Gardens, by Queen Elizabeth ; the Apothecaries' Garden at Chelsea, for the cultivation of medicinal plants, by the apothecaries of London ; and the botanical garden at Amsterdam, which latter is to-day yet 1S in which it attained large size. The Evolution of Optics. 279 As we ascend in the animal scale we find the pineal gland becomes more and more rudimentary, although present in the higher animal forms up to man, in whom it is a small, apparently functionless remnant. It is interesting to note that the pineal eye when found is formed after the inverte- brate type, thus differing from the two lateral eyes in the same animal. Certain flat fishes, notably the Pleuronectidce, furnish an interesting example of adaptation to changing condition of environment. The young of these fishes are symmetrical, swim in an upright position, and have an eye on either side of the head ; but, from the habit of groveling upon the bot- tom in search of food, by which the lower eye is exposed to constant danger of injury, the skull undergoes such a modification that in the adult fish, which swims on its side, the eyes have swung around, so that both eyes appear on the upper surface of the head. And we sometimes see in man, when the upright position of the head is interfered with by the scars of burns or other contractions, a some- what similar modification of the bones of the cranium. We have referred several times to a nictitating membrane, a third eyelid which is found in many lower animals, where it exists in a state of perfection. In man and the Quadrumana this is present only as a rudimentary organ, a small func- tionless fold at the inner corner of the eye, an ever-present reminder of our relation to the lower animals. While discussing the subject of the developmental stages through which the eye has already passed, the question naturally arises, " Has our own eye reached its final and most perfect form, or is it still in the process of evolution ? " As we have seen when considering the human eye, the ideally perfect organ when in a state of rest is adapted for vision at infinite distances. It is the eye best suited for the savage in' the chase or in war, to the sailor, to any man who leads an outdoor, country life ; but in the process of civil- ization the eye is put under conditions to which it is by no means so well adapted. In the crowded city the eye is con- stantly directed through all the waking moments to objects at short range. Its longest distance is across the narrow street, while its most usual range is from the desk or book to the limits of a room. The result is that the focusing power is called constantly into play. The muscles which converge the eye exercise a constant tension upon the globe, while the enervating habits of city life do not tend to fit 280 The Evolution of Optics. the organ to withstand this increased strain. The result is that the eyeball gives way beneath this pressure ; it becomes elongated, and in its position of rest is now adapted for the perception of near objects. It is an undoubted fact that near-sightedness is on the increase among the more civil- ized races. It develops usually in childhood, and statistics show that in school-children the degree of near-sightedness is directly in proportion to the number of hours of study. It might at first appear very desirable that the eye should thus adapt itself to the work it has to do ; and so, no doubt, it would be were these near-sighted eyes healthy and perfect organs. But, unfortunately, this is not the case. The devel- opment of near-sightedness is attended with grave dangers. It means a giving away of the firm fibrous capsule of the eye and always endangers the delicate nervous elements be- neath. The near-sighted eye is a diseased eye and is always liable to still further deterioration. The process is distinct- ly hereditary, the children of near-sighted parents being frequently born near-sighted, and when born with normal eyes earlier develop more aggravated cases of near-sighted- ness than the children of healthy parents. Thus Nature's latest attempt to improve our visual organs is of but doubt- ful utility. The problems of physiological optics thus far encountered are much less involved than those which arise in connection with the color-sense. Anything approaching a connected and logical statement of this subject would require a much more elaborate treatment than is here possible, and I shall be obliged to omit many facts which I fear are almost essen- tial to a rational presentation of the subject. From the time of Thomas Young to a comparatively re- cent period the ability of the retina to differentiate color has been practically unquestioned. Young saw the logical necessity for retinal elements capable of receiving each phase of vibration of a continuous spectrum, but believed it impossible that so many different retinal elements could exist. He therefore assumed arbitrarily the existence of three sets of fibers corresponding to what he called the three primary colors red, green, and violet. Another theory somewhat similar was suggested by Herring, which, in place of retinal elements, assumed the presence of three chemical substances which were supposed to have certain positive and negative reactions to light. Neither of these theories has any discoverable foundation in the anatomical structure of The Evolution of Optics. 281 the retina, nor are they supported by any known facts as to the nature of light. The presence of three kinds of retinal elements or of three chemical substances can not be demon- strated. Neither can any division of light-vibrations cor- responding to three primary colors, nor, in fact, to any color, be found in the spectrum. When the spectral band falls on the retina, the material with which the retina has to deal is simply a series of ether- vibrations of varying periods, and in this series we find those waves which we see as one color differ as widely from each other as they do from the vibrations in the next adjacent color band. The difficulty seems to be that, having started with the assumption that the power to differentiate color resided in the retina, a retinal structure has been assumed to correspond to the theory ; but why this work has been assigned to three sets of nerve fibers or chemical substances is not clear. I see no escape for those who hold this theory but the assumption of a retinal substance attuned to each vibration in the visible spectrum, for, as we have before said, no breaks occur corresponding to the color bands with which we are acquainted in experience. There has been much good work done of late in illumi- nating this dark field of color-perception, and the theory that seems most acceptable to our evolutionary ideas is that which transfers the seat of color-differentiation from the retina to the brain. All the retina has to do is to receive the rays of light which fall upon it, and which create, ac- cording to their wave-length, a characteristic molecular dis- turbance, thus making the function of the eye a refined temperature-sense, and the translation of such impressions into what we know as color a purely psychical phenomenon. That we do see definite bands of color, and that our ordi- nary division of the spectrum must have a basis of fact somewhere, seems self-evident. The explanation of this phenomenon has been very ably given by my friend Dr. Gould, and I would recommend his instructive monograph on the human color-sense to all who are interested in this subject. He starts with the fundamental idea that our color-sense must be the organism's response in reaction un- der stimulus. It has arisen as a response to light-stimulus ; not to the stimulus of pure white light, but to the light that we see every day in nature. " Sunlight, we are told, is composed of the following parts: 282 The Evolution of Optics 54 Red. 140 Orange-red. 80 Orange. 114 Orange-yellow. 54 Yellow. 206 Greenish-yellow. 121 Yellowish-green. 134 Green and Blue-green. 32 Cyan-blue. 40 Cyan. 20 Ultramarine and blue- violet. 5 Violet. 1,000 Condensing the intermediates with the principals, we have : Bed colors 194 Golden colors 454 Green colors .255 Blue colors 97 1,000 " The explanation of such a grouping of light- waves is taken to be due to the fact that, among the color stimuli which the eye has received, the golden stimuli have largely predomi- nated. The ordinary diffused daylight is slightly yellowish, and obscuration, as from a turbid atmosphere, increases this hue. The rising and the setting sun floods the earth with golden light ; again, the yellow light of fire has, since the first dawn of civilization, played a most important place in man's history. By fire-worship, by burnt-offerings in almost any form of religious belief, the golden firelight has im- pressed itself on man's attention. The next most important class is that of the greens which are abundantly present in nature, being the pre- dominant color in vegetation. The next class is that of the reds, where we meet with a very interesting and important fact. Were any of us asked, "Which is the strongest color?" I think we would reply, " Red," unless we had looked into the matter a little critical- ly, and we would be surprised to find that red is not a color of high luminous power, nor can the feeling of the striking and important nature of red be due to the fact that the quantity of the red stimulus in nature has been powerful enough to give it this exalted place in our estimation. The explanation of this fact Dr. Gould finds to be The Evolution of Optics 283 in the part that blood has played in the world's history. Throughout the long struggle for existence among the higher animals bloodshed has ever been the constant ac- companiment of strife, has stained the weapons of the vic- tor, marked the defeat of the conquered. Throughout the history of all religions and all social cus- toms we find that blood has always played a most important part. We read of " the blood-drinking, blood-baiting, blood- ransoming, blood unions, blood compacts and friendships, blood sacrifices and blood suppers, blood burials, blood cures and sprinklings, bloody hands and uplifted arms, blood transfusions, human sacrifices and cannibalism, bloody burnt-offerings and blood-stained ark of the covenant, bloody passions and bloody atonements " ; and thus through- out the long and passionate strife of mankind has the red burned itself deep into the human soul and has come to oc- cupy this prominent position in our estimate of color while only possessing that luminous intensity to which its com- parative infrequency in nature would entitle it. "The portion of spectral blue is small in extent and weak in power. It has a character of distance and impersonality, exactly corresponding to the sources whence this color has reached the eye. The sky is above, but man's eyes are sel- dom raised to it. At the horizon it often fades into violet, in which the spectrum likewise passes out of sight." Dr. Gould concludes : " "Waves of more or less extended differences of length are perceived as a single color, just as the bulk of the waves from each of these classes of objects have been most uniformly and persistently reflected into the eye during the growth of the race. Nature has acted upon the organism in these continuous ways, and the cerebral product is the spectral colors in the proportions and with the characteristics we find appearing in consciousness. The largest and most persistent stimulus has been that of the gold rays the varied shades of the diffused light of day or the ever-present mystery of fire. These have been poured in profusion into all eyes, comprising nearly one half of their total stimulus, while the green rays make up a fourth, the red less than a fourth, and the blue a still more limited amount." "We likewise find the objective luminous intensities to bear the same relations to each other. "We can not enter further into this interesting discussion, but I think we may safely assume that this theory offers 284 The Evolution of Optics. the most satisfactory explanation of the origin of our color- It is asserted that color- vision is a later and more refined sense than the vision of form, and it is well known that it is presided over by a separate cerebral center. It is also sub- ject to very frequent modifications ; for example, among the sect of Quakers, which has existed only for a comparatively short time, and who so religiously avoid all use of color in dress, color-blindness is said to be proportionately greater than among other communities. It is much more frequent among men than among women, whose habits render color- vision more important to them ; it is frequently transmitted in the male line of a family through females possessing per- fect color- vision. The color-sense is certainly capable of great education, although it seems to be developed in the lowest races of mankind. Goethe tells us that the mosaic workers in Italy are in the habitual use of fifteen thousand varieties of hues, each variety comprising fifty tints, a perfection of color- sensation which is truly marvelous. "We can scarcely argue from the color-vision of man to that of the lower animals. The color-sense is most highly developed, no doubt, in many lower animals, but that their perception of color is identical with ours is by no means proved. In some cases we know definitely that the limits of the visible spectrum are not the same. Lubbock has shown this to be the case with ants by a series of very inter- esting experiments. This fact alone should make us ex- tremely cautious in assuming such identity. The eye, as we have seen, has developed in various classes of animals in a somewhat different way, and it seems prob- able that color-vision, which is a later development a re- finement, as it were of light-perception, has been modified by the structure of the eye and the habits of its possessor. It seems much safer, therefore, to explain the human color- sense in the manner we have just outlined than to trace it, as is sometimes done, from animals far removed from man in the line of descent. Ttie Evolution of Optics. 285 ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. DR. GEORGE M. GOULD : The excellent lecture of my friend Dr. Alleman is so complete that we who follow can find but little to add. I can not let the present opportunity pass, however, without protesting a little against my friend's passive assent to mechanical and materialistic explanations. To the belief in evolution I heartily subscribe. But I am also a believer in logic and the laws of thought ; a firm believer in never going into captivity to a popular craze, or Zeitgeist, or disbelieving what I see and know, even though all the Darwins and Spencers and Lubbocks of the world should tell me it is not so. My friend quotes, with apparent consent, the explanation of the origin of the eye as due to certain opaque particles of pigment deposited in certain parts of the skin purely accidentally, is the sous-entendu inference which would arrest and absorb light, and that if this rudimental accidental eye should perchance be attended by an adjacent depression of the skin, these cells would be better protected the protection being again a little matter of pure mechanical chance. Now, so far as the origin of the organ of vision or of any organ is concerned, people are fast beginning to suspect the utterly asinine quality of such explana- tions. If you take up the works of a large class of science-plebifica- tors you will find instances, like the above, of how a little learning may make one mad. I found, in a popular little book of one such, the other day, the amazing, imperturbable, impertinent saying that chemistry had shown that there is no essential difference between the organic and inorganic, and that the sensitiveness of protoplasm ex- plains all biological phenomena. Of course, if one have poise, self- possession, eyes of his own, a logical mind, he soon comes to see the fallacy of the modern popular unscientific science of the day, as illus- trated in this outrageous nonsense. The sad thing is, that many peo- ple take such explanations and the animus of such explanations on trust, and drift into materialism the absurdest of all creeds, as Hux- ley says. Young people should be taught that the covert and assumed mechanicalism of these pseudo-explanations is not only unjustified by good science or by good scientists, but is a crude eighteenth-century infidelity masking in a nineteenth-century science-cloak. I have not the faintest objection to materialism, mechanicalism, or atheism, if the facts of life warrant them or if they are true. The fact is, they are 286 The Evolution of Optics. not true. Sensitive protoplasm explains all, if sensitiveness be ex- plained and if we are told how protoplasm came into existence. Chemistry has no more conception of the chemical processes of organic metabolism than have birds on telegraph wires a hint of the messages going through their feet. The bit of " opaque pigment " and the " de- pression " were no more fortuitous results in the evolution of the eye than the electric button of your Edison light is a chance accident of house-building. Function always precedes organization. Life always precedes function, and purpose rules every step of evolution. Where purposiveness, there mentality. Selection requires a selector, and natu- ral selection, as a blind force or mechanical explanation, never modi- fied an organ or begot an adaptation. Living matter and dead matter are the most dissimilar things in this world, and to explain life as a function of matter is the height of absurdity. Evolution can not evolve what was not previously involved, or what was not within the evolving thing ; the effect exists potentially in the cause. I look upon the origin of the eye as of that of every organ as a designed tool of intelligent, ingenious life. The pigment spot was located in the best place by a mentally equipped protoplasm * or purposive power, and its outfitting is a beautiful example of intelligence. As regards the varieties and modifications of eyes found in animals, Dr. Alleman has brought out clearly the laws expressing or causing them. The first and most important consists in the influence of loco- motive powers or habits. The greater and swifter and more compli- cated the movements of an animal, the more perfect the organ of vision if light be present. This fact was forcibly brought home to me very lately. I got from the United States Fish Commissioner some little brook-trout eggs. They were about a sixth of an inch in diame- ter, almost transparent. Putting one under a one-inch objective, you could see the wonderful little being all formed, and could even see the blood-corpuscles and currents sweeping through the tiny blood-vessels like sand through an hour-glass. Most astounding, however, were the tremendous great eyes! So important is vision to the "speckled beauties" in catching flies and escaping enemies and obstacles, so quickly must they move among the pebbles of their home, that Life had thus early had to make the eye her chief work of formation and arrangement. I hatched the little fellows out, and, despite their big yolk-sacs, when the light comes they run like mad for a protecting pebble. So it is all through the animal kingdom. Visual power and perfection had to keep pace with or precede the necessities of quick * A word nobody knows the meaning of. and a thing nobody knows the chem- ical construction of, and which no two persons would apply to the same sub- stance. It is a name not understood, given a thing not understood by persons not understanding. The Evolution of Optics. 287 motion and precise action. 1 suppose there is no organ in the universe responding with such lightning-like precision to such infinitely small and infinitely quick stimulation as the eye of a humming-bird. One is simply appalled and thrilled by such an astonishing miracle. So im- portant is accurate vision to birds of prey that they have two fovea, an explanation of which fact is not at present quite clear. The re- markable adaptive power of life is shown by the change life has had to undertake in the evolution of her eyes. Dr. Alleman has admirably made clear the difference between the construction of the two types of eye, the invertebrate and the vertebrate. The fact seems to show that the perfection of eye required by the vertebrate could not be gained on the invertebrate type or plan, and a complete about-face was under- taken and carried through. It is extremely suggestive that the retina and lens of the invertebrate eye are developed from the epidermal structures, while in the vertebrates the retina is developed from the brain. In other words, in invertebrates the light goes into the brain to affect it, but in the vertebrates the brain comes out to see ! The fact, like many another, shows also that Life, though intelligent and ingenious beyond any human conception, is yet not omniscient. Neither is she omnipotent; she is always working under difficulties and with inexhaustible cunning, doing the best she can with the mate- rials at command. We are at present incapable of catching the least glimpse of a reason why the optic nerves and organs constituting the retina should in vertebrates turn backward and the light be thus forced to pierce the numerous layers of the retina until it reaches the final pigmentary layer into which the rods and cones dip. It looks like a very poor plan indeed, but it is because our little minds are so poor that we think so. It seems to work pretty well perhaps better than any plan we could have devised. You have all heard of the no- ble Castilian who wished he had been present when God created the world he could have given him such excellent advice ! The modem pseudo-scientist is filled with that spirit, and, on the assumption that God is omnipotent and omniscient, the point becomes less vulgarly im- pertinent ; but if the demiurge is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but works, as he evidently does, under difficulties, then the imperti- nence becomes the most colossal impudence. In illustration of the in- fluence of locomotion upon vision the following instances are note- worthy : Sacculina, a degenerate parasitical crustacean, in its early life moves freely about with complex organs of locomotion. It fastens upon the crab's tail and loses its organs of locomotion, losing also its eyes and other organs of special sense. The Pinnotheridw, a family of crabs, have vision while moving 288 The Evolution of Optics. about, but when they settle down in the lungs of the Chinese sea- slugs the brow grows over the eyes. There are three families of vertebrates that live as parasites in ants' nests. They are blind, or nearly so, two having lost their limbs. In- deed, it is the rule that the young of most blind parasites have eyes. The number of such blind degenerate species tells a sad story of the fall of animals as profound as any " fall of man." All these facts are corollaries of the great law that use develops function and disuse is followed by atrophy. Another controlling law operating under and with this law consists in the influence of dimin- ished and denied light. The most interesting examples of this law are the eyes of deep-sea fish. A writer in the Cornhill Magazine has thus stated the facts : " Fish that live at very great depths have either no eyes at all or enormously big ones. Indeed, there are two ways you may get on in these gloomy abysses by delicate touch organs, or by sight that col- lects the few rays of light due to phosphorescence or other accidental sources. Now, as we go down in the water we find at each depth that the effects produced upon the eyes of fish are steadily progressive in one direction or the other. Species that live at a depth of eighty fathoms have the eye already a good deal bigger than their nearest rep- resentatives that live at or near the surface. Down to the depth of 200 fathoms, where daylight disappears, the eyes get constantly bigger and bigger. Beyond that depth small-eyed forms set in, with long feelers developed to supplement the eyes. Sight, in fact, is here begin- ning to atrophy. In the greatest abysses the fish are mostly blind, feeling their way about entirely by their sensitive bodies alone over the naked surface of rock at the bottom. Some of them have still ex- ternal relics of functionless eyes ; in others, the oldest and most con- firmed abysmal species, the eye has altogether disappeared externally, though its last representative may still be recognized, imbedded deep in the tissues of the head." You all know about the blind fish of the Mammoth and other caves. Before birth the optic nerve is connected with the eye of the mole, but during adult life it is usually atrophied, and the mole is of course blind. The Spolax d 1 Olivier, or mole-rat, also lives underground, and is blind, though having some rudiments of eyes left under the skin. An aquatic reptile Proteus, living in obscure caverns, has only traces of the organ of vision. The number of blind or partially blind species is said to number hundreds. So fearfully does the law of hunger sac- rifice everything else to its implacable rule. A remarkable illustration is also that of the African tunnel ants, or termites. No one can ever forget Drummond's beautiful essay on them. There are three intoler- The Evolution of Optics. 289 able mysteries about them that puzzle me beyond measure : First, how do they construct covered ways by the million whose engineering difficulties and tremendous labor exceed those of the Mount Cenis tunnel by man, with never a mining or building worker showing itself to view ? How do they build from an incomplete tunnel-end without exposure to light? Second, how do they, absolutely eyeless, know darkness from day f Third, and most wonderful, why does the huge queen, whose whole life is spent in one spot, in the dark, and in lay- ing eggs, have eyes, and her progeny have none ? Lastly may be briefly noticed some of the ingenious ways by which Life has outwitted darkness and made it possible for her children to see in spite of denied or diminished light. These devices consist prin- cipally of three classes : 1. Widening of the iris, diaphragm, or window-curtain of the eye, so to gather a larger quantity of weak light. Every child knows the re- markable power of the cat to widen the pupil in darkness and narrow it to a mere thread-like slit in the light. 2. Increasing the size of the whole eye with the same object in view and synchronous with the enlargement of the pupil also. 3. The creation of the tapetum lucidum in nocturnal vertebrates, such as the tiger family, dogs, etc. This, as Dr. Alleman has pointed out, is an organic concave mirror usually about one third the size of the retina, situated at the back part of the eye, and gathers to a focus in front of the animal the little light that may enter the eye in the dark. It is a structure too little studied and understood. One can not comprehend how the same light can be used to stimulate the retina and also be reflected out of the eye. This physical difficulty has always made me wonder if the light it throws in front is not phosphorescent or self -created. 4. The development of the function of phosphorescence. No human chemist or physicist has ever been able to understand how these nu- merous animals can create light without at the same time creating a burning heat. The Edison who does this for our street and house illumination has awaiting him a fortune greater than that of Jay Gould and Vanderbilt combined. We are some way behind the glow-worm yet, despite the naturalists. 5. Finally, the hypertrophy or refinement of the tactile and other senses may in part compensate for the loss of sight. The antennae and feelers of many insects are doubtless thus used. The acuteness of the sense of touch of blind people is well known. Blind men have been authorities in the science of conchology, in numismatics, in botany, etc., and something akin to the distinctions of color are credited to some blind people. The timbre of the sound of a struck object aids 290 The Evolution of Optics. the blind man tapping the pavement with his cane to keep him in safe or known ways. It is said that Laura Bridgman could tell idiots or insane people by the feeling of their hands. I believe it has been dem- onstrated that eyeless bats escape obstacles in their flight by the fact of the increased atmospheric pressure near these objects, which is per- ceived by the hypersensitive interdigital membrane. My friend has alluded to that curious structure, the pineal eye, and was doubtless laughing slyly at me when he spoke of this organ being a good target for theory-shooters. I have had my say about it, and, while far from dogmatic, I still suggest that it may have something to do with the perception of the magnetic currents of the earth and with that exquisite, wonderful, beautiful mystery, the homing instinct. But I am very proud of another theory I have been guilty of father- ing, and also proud that it has received the approbation of your lect- urer. This theory of mine in regard to the origin and significance of our human color-sense unfortunately appeared years ago in a periodical that in publishing it did in fact bury it, and I firmly believe that it is worthy of the serious consideration of students of science, evolution, and aesthetics. I hope to see it some time resurrected, not so much as a salve of slightly wounded vanity, but because it seems to me to be a great and valuable truth. It is strictly in the line of the teaching of evolution doctrine, harmonizes with archaeology and history, and is adequate. I have great respect for that acute and genial observer, Grant Allen, but his theory of the origin of our color-sense seems to me trivial, inadequate, and unworthy of his genius. It is an explana- tion that explains nothing. I think the mystery of our color-sense is due to the effect of the great orders of natural and historical color- stimuli that have poured into the human eye and brain in the past ages, and with these streams of stimuli have also been deposited in the human mind the influences that now make the symbolism of color. Allow me to read a few sentences from my pamphlet : * " If we ask what great color-classes of visible objects have most oc- cupied man's eye and mind in all past history, we are certain the an- swer will be something like the following : " The first in overwhelming importance is light and fire ; the sec- ond, the world of vegetation ; the third would be blood, as the con- crete representative of war and struggle and superstitious symbol ; the fourth, the sky above with its reflection in the waters of the earth. It would be difficult to name another class, for whatever other colors Nature may have presented to the eye of historic man, they must have * The Human Color-Sense considered as the Organic Response to Natural Stimuli. By George M. Gould, A. B. (Reprint from the American Journal of Ophthalmology, September, 1886. Reprinted entire by Dr. S. Dudley Reynolds, in Progress.) The Evolution of Optics. 291 been mixtures of these, or [unimportant exceptions that have left only a small and inconsiderable organic response in the psychic mech- anism. " Nature has acted upon the organism in these continuous ways, and the cerebral product is the spectral colors, in the proportions and with the characteristics we find appearing in consciousness. The largest and most persistent stimulus has been that of the gold rays the varied shades of the diffused light of day, or the ever-present mys- tery of fire. Those have been poured in profusion into all eyes, com- prising nearly one half of their total stimulus, while the green rays make up a fourth, the red less than a fourth, and the blue a still more limited amount. " Gladstone, as a Homer student, and on simple philological evi- dence, tried to show that ' they who fought at Troy ' were as blind to certain colors as Homer himself (supposably) was to all. Dr. Magnus, in Germany, drew the same conclusion from a wider sweeping of word-lore. The whole affair was a dismal collapse, and Allen pricks the bubble with justifiable satisfaction. It was hardly to be expected that if ants, bees, and birds had such highly developed chromatic powers, even savage men should be so far behind them. Present-day barbarians have essentially the same power in this respect as ourselves, though extreme delicacy of perception is, to be sure, not so highly de- veloped, and their nomenclature would of course be very faulty or de- ficient, as Gladstone and Magnus might have supposed. The savage's delight in color, as shown in tattooing and decorating his body, pre- supposes the ability to feel the differences in color quite as accurately as the birds whose bright plumage he adorns himself with, and who have no' words for colors either. The development of color perception lies far back of all this, and is as old as hunger, in satisfying which, and by the attacks and escapes of enemies, it quite certainly took its rise. The sobering remark of "Wallace is also a propos, that it is the absence of color that would require accounting for ; he says that the most conspicuous pigeons, whether by their color or by their crests, are all found where they have fewest enemies." Allow me a few words upon the future of the organ of vision, or upon what might be called The Eye and Civilization. Dr. Alleman has used words implying that myopia is Nature's attempt and failure to adapt the eye to the demands of civilization. I do not agree with this view. The oculists' patients are always asking why so many more people have now to wear spectacles than was formerly the case. This, in substance, is the answer I have given perhaps a thousand times : Life created the eye for the work the eye had to do that is, seeing more or less distant objects. All animals, all savage and uncivilized 292 The Evolution of Optics. peoples, all civilized babies, are far-sighted. The majority of civilized people are also hyperopic. Suddenly comes civilization, within fifty or one hundred years, with its printing, reading, writing, commercial- ism, cities, schools, and indoor life, demanding constant use of the eye upon objects within a foot or two, and keeping the ciliary muscle in a state of abnormal continuous tension. The habits and structures of millions of years' formation are in a few years forced to do a work of a very different and straining sort. Give Nature time and she will turn a pseudopod into a seal's flipper, a horse's foot, a bat's wing, or a man's hand. But in the instance of the eye no time has been allowed. Civilization was never foreseen by evolution. Civilization, like a footpad, has darted upon the eye and delivered it a vicious blow, de- manding, " Your vision or your life." Myopia is one of the direct re- sults of the blow, not the failed effort of Nature to heal the wound of the blow. It is always a disease, never a healthy adaptation. Na- ture has been given no time to make modification. Will she be able to do so ? What is to be the result of this wolf-and-lamb controversy ? As I am not a Brooklyn oculist, I may be pardoned the vulgarity of " talking shop " a minute, and of not assuming the modesty of my friend who lives among you. Indeed, I believe thoroughly in risking the crude suspicion of advertising and of being credited with hobby- riding, by proclaiming as from the housetops a truth of profound and tragic importance. There are thousands of people in this city to-night who have suffered a life of misery from headache, sick headache, nerv- ous troubles, and lessened vitality simply because they are trying to look at a microscopical specimen with a telescope. They have been leeched, blistered, and cupped ; have taken bromides, nux vomica, caf- feine, iron, antipyrine, cod-liver-oil, and tonics for years ; they have wrapped their heads in whisky-soaked towels, gone to bed a day or two every week, taken trips to the sea-shore or mountains, become chronic invalids, or have been attacked by some serious disease that is always looking out for a weakened organism in which to settle. It was all of no avail. They wanted a microscope, and Nature had made a telescope for them. A good oculist would make a fortune in a year if he could, or would, have every case of headache in the community to treat on condition that he should get fifty dollars for every cure, and give one hundred dollars for every failure to cure. From fifty to eighty per cent of all school-children and city folks are to-day undermining their health, depleting their assimilative and nervous systems, laying the sure foundations and preparations, either for themselves or their chil- dren, of ill-health, disease, and early death, simply and solely from lack of a proper pair of spectacles. Does that seem like crazy quack- ery and hobby-riding ? It is the truest truth 1 know. Give Evolution The Evolution of Optics. 293 a little affair of a hundred thousand years and she may lengthen the eyeball a little in a healthy way, or, more properly and more probably, will develop the MQller ring-fibers of the ciliary muscle to stand this great task. But at present, so sudden has come the frightful strain of civilization that there ensues a multitude of evils whose existence is not a quarter suspected by the world, and only half suspected by the medical profession. The great concealing, deceiving fact about eye- strain is that the eye itself does not complain or suffer so much as other organs. This fact makes every patient say : " My eyes are all right ; do not pain me at all," and yet that same patient's life and happiness may be destroyed by eye-strain. What is the reason of this anomalous fact t These are three chief of many reasons : 1. Eye- strain is due to no disease whatever, but to overuse and misuse of an organ created for a different kind of use. 2. The enormous and pre- ponderant importance of the function of vision to the life and welfare of the organism makes Nature throw the brunt of the burden upon other organs. If eyesight were ruined, then all is ruined ; other or- gans, chiefly the nervous system, can afford to suffer better than the eyes. 3. Healthy-looking eyes are the very essence of beauty; the eyes are truly " the windows of the soul." Sexual selection has been willing to sacrifice everything to maintaining pure, clear eyes, and has therefore switched the morbid results of eye-strain to other parts rather than mar the beauty of those superb structures. Hence the creation of the great brood of reflex ocular neuroses. I am as con- vinced as I am of my own existence that a great deal of the headache, anorexia, dyspepsia, the reduced vitality, the hysteria, the neurasthe- nia, the anaemia, the now morbidly exalted and now morbidly de- pressed nervous energy, characteristic especially of the modern woman, are due to the persistent influence of eye-strain. Of course, whisky and corsets and laziness are also powerful causes. But the worst about eye-strain is that it does not kill directly, but creates the neurotic type, perverts and morbidizes the assimilative and nervous systems, reduces healthy vitality, and manures the field for a prolific crop of pathological weeds. DR. ROBERT G. ECCLES: While I agree with Dr. Gould that function precedes organism in the processes of organic evolution. I am also a believer in the abso- lutely mechanical structure of the universe. The introduction of the psychological element does not abolish the necessity for the search for efficient causes all along the line of biological development. I can not see in what way the eye could have been evolved except as shown by the speaker of the evening. There are purpose and intelligence 294 The Evolution of Optics. manifested, doubtless, in all biological processes, but not necessarily the purpose and intelligence of a mechanical creator, outside the or- ganism. I do not see how we can draw the line between consciousness in the life of an organized creature and consciousness in the atom. I believe that each atom is endowed with a consciousness of its own that their structural combinations are thus intelligently guided in a manner similar to that in which individuals unite to form societies and states. Every consciousness, however, works in an orderly man- ner, according to laws strictly mechanical in their nature. The prob- lem is immensely complex ; but if we could grasp all its conditions we could trace the operation of cause and effect throughout the entire process, even up to the development of the highest qualities of sense- perception and psychical activity. MR. ELLSWORTH WARNER : I must express my dissent from one of the conclusions of the lect- urerthat involved in his advice to resort to the use of spectacles to correct the tendency to near-sightedness arising from the artificial conditions of our civilized life. I believe the true method is to com- pel the eye to do its work, and thus the organ will in time adapt itself to the necessities of its new situation. If the eye gets strained or wearied by the necessity of viewing near objects in the daily routine of life, let the person go out into the fields and among the hills, and rest it by the contemplation of natural scenery. If we resort too early to the use of spectacles, we encourage and increase the very weak- ness and defect which we desire to guard against. DR. ALLEMAN, in closing, said that, in presenting the theory that the eye was evolved from certain opaque pigments deposited in certain parts of the skin, he had offered the only explanation of the evolution 'of the eye with which he was acquainted. He failed to see that Dr. Gould had presented a more plausible theory. We must guard against those theories which do not explain anything scientifically which are merely confessions of our ignorance. Replying to Mr. Warner, he said, if we could betake ourselves to the woods and lead an out-of-door life we could, doubtless, get along without spectacles, but in the pres- ent state of civilization that solution of the difficulty is hardly pos- sible. THE EVOLUTION OF ART BY JOHN A. TAYLOR AUTHOR OF THE EVOLUTION OP THE STATE, ETC. COLLATERAL READINGS SUGGESTED: Taine's Philosophy of Art, and Piske's review of the same in The Unseen World ; Liibke's History of Art ; Reber's History of Ancient Art, and History of Mediaeval Art ; Freeman's Effects of the Norman Conquest on Art, in History of the Norman Conquest ; Article art, in Encyclopaedia Britannica ; John Stuart Mill's Logic and Essay on Art. THE EVOLUTION OF ART. BY JOHN A. TAYLOR. THE continuing wonder of mankind is man. What he has achieved in the past is at once the inspiration and the harbinger of what he shall achieve in the future. The history of human effort is briefer than we are wont to realize. Speaking within the chronicles of recorded his- tory, more has been produced by man during the past five centuries of the hundreds of thousands of years during which he has walked upright upon the earth than during all the previous period. Indeed, it might be possible to demonstrate that the century now entering upon its last decade has witnessed the creation of more potent instru- ments of human advancement than all its predecessors com- bined. And, in the broadest sense in which it is permitted to speak of art, it may be safely asserted that at no age of the world has human effort been more abundantly crowned with success than in the present. Art is the consummate product of the human being. It presents itself as the result of all the knowledge of the past, of all the opportunities of the present, and its possi- bilities for the future constitute one of the chiefest motives for human effort. Nature is the great laboratory in which stands man, the chemist. Her laws are all about him, her substances are his to mold and combine, her glorious skies bend over him to thrill his soul with images of beauty, her abundant har- vests sustain his waning strength, her violent catastrophes set limitations to his ambition. What he shall do with these supplies at hand has measured, and will forever meas- ure, his own creative skill. And yet all the grandeur and beauty of Nature are, in a sense, subservient to the adaptive skill of man. Mr. Chadwick, in an off-hand speech, not long since, said : " Not what he can get out of it, but what he puts into it, is what makes a good artist." And is it not this creative power which has had most to do with the evolution of the race ? Was there not much truth in the enthusiastic outburst of 21 298 The Evolution of Art. Tickler in that remarkable symposium on nature and art which is one of the most pleasing of all the Noctes Am- brosianas : " Who planted those trees by that river-side ? Art ! "Who pruned them ? Art ! Who gave room to their great arms to span that roaring chasm ? Art ! Who reared yon edifice on the cliff? Art! Is that a hermit's cell? Art scooped it out of the living stone. Is that an oratory? Art smoothed the floor for the knee of the peni- tent. Are the bones of the holy slumbering in that ceme- tery ? Art changed the hollow rock into a tomb, and when the dead saint was laid into the sepulchre, Art joined its music with the torrent's roar, and the mingled anthem rose to the stars which Art had numbered." When we contemplate the numberless seons during which our progenitors lived and walked among the most majestic scenes of Nature, and remember that none of the great di- visions of the fine arts have flourished much beyond a score of centuries, we must admit that it is in the growth and development of human art that the great elements of progress have found their most efficient exposition. The relation of art to Nature is, in great part, that of an interpreter. " Art performs the same office for the mind," says Jarvis, " that speech does for the ear. It is a variety of language, sometimes requiring sound, as in music, for its alphabet ; form, as in sculpture ; and form and color com- bined, as in painting." From the picture-writing of the earlier Egyptians to the slave-ship of Turner, the one object of the artist is to communicate his new thought to the ob- server. Century after century, mankind lacking this inter- pretation have groped blindly along, entangling themselves more and more in the complex web of human passion and desire, until at great epochs the great interpreter has arisen who has sung the song, builded the temple, painted the picture, carved the statue, or written the poem which has riven the cloud of ignorance and engraved his name among the great artists of his century. In the broadest sense, all such are artists. Whoever creates, whether in the field of fancy, art, science, religion, statecraft, or war; whoever shows a new method, discloses a new beauty, contributes a new impulse to his fellow, is an artist. The poorly-equipped peasant walks, perhaps, for thirty years beneath a midnight sky and never looks higher than the low thatched roof of his cabin. Whoever points him to the glittering pageantry above and reveals to him the The Evolution of Art. 299 matchless beauty of the stars is an artist. The lesson may come to him from the trite couplet of an old Greek poet ; it may shine out from the glowing canvas of a Titian ; it may be born in the fervor of eloquent speech if only he be lifted up to see the new beauty, to be possessed of the new thought, the true artist has done his work. Nature has found for him its interpreter ; thenceforward he is more reverent toward her; all her ways take forms of lasting beauty in his sight ; he has been shown the way. Using the term art, then, in its broadest signification, the evolution of art would be commensurate with that of man, since what man has done constitutes the all of human history. So competent an authority as Sydney Colvin has said that art comprises " every regulated operation or dex- terity by which organized beings pursue ends which they know beforehand, together with the rules and the result of every such operation or dexterity." The art of war, the art of government, the art of wor- ship, the inventive arts, the art of navigation, the fine arts of music, poetry, painting, sculpture, and architecture, all are within the definition. Most intimately connected with all these latter arts are those of government and invention, as affecting the environment, which, encircling man at dif- ferent stages of his history, have constituted important modifications of his creative skill. It will be assumed, however, that our inquiry this evening is to be confined to palpable art creation as represented in one of the five great departments of human skill, the exercise of which finds embodiment in a symphony, a painting, a statue, a building, or a poem. All these will be found to be abso- lutely determined in their results by the controlling ideals of the artists, and these in turn to be largely modified by contemporaneous wants. At the outset let us observe that all the arts are depend- ent upon two classes of persons for their existence and sur- vival namely, artists and art-lovers. The one can not exist without the other. The last man in the world will neither write, sing, paint, carve, nor build. Demosthenes, training his voice at the shore of the sea, heard above the tumult- uous fury of the breakers the swelling applause of Athe- nian audiences. That was his objective point, and all great artists dedicate their work to the art-lovers of the race at large whether in alien states or in generations un- born. And this distinction must be kept in mind in order 300 The Evolution of Art. rightly to weigh or judge the varying conditions of man- kind. Consider for a moment the state of government, the habits of life, the narrow horizon of that cultivated people who carried the realm of taste in the early age of Greece to such a height that in all the long centuries which have suc- ceeded them no more perfect conception has been known, no more skillful hand has executed than that which buried its identity in the charming outlines of the Venus of Milo, so that in an age which boasts of the elevation of its masses and the erudition of its scholars, which has cloven the bed of ocean for the passage of its thought, its most hopeful students of art are sitting at the feet of artists dead for two thousand years, and are faithfully copying the clear lines and proportions of the human form laid down for them on the banks of the Mediterranean centuries before the Christ- ian era. There also had thriven painting, poetry, and architect- ure, and the race that crowded the halls of the Parthenon at its dedication had heard for fifteen generations the mel- low Grecian syllables of Homer repeated in all its house- holds. Now, this people was largely an enslaved race; their inventive genius was still slumbering ; the husbandmen of that day plowed, sowed, and reaped with the rudest devices ; the most limited forms of communication existed ; commun- ion with the outer world, and especially with other nation- alities, hardly existed at all. No true conceptions of state- craft were known to their rulers. They had no dealings with humanity in the aggregate. A few independent cities, allied by the most slender threads of mutual interest, consti- tuted their entire state. Their habits of life were of the simplest kind. Their moral culture was at so low an ebb that they banished the wisest man among them from their chiefest city because they were tired of hearing him called the just. And yet the universal consensus of cultivated peo- ple is that in beauty of outline, in matchless expression, in absolute perfection of delineation, their art stands unap- proachable as yet in the history of the Avorld. What, then, was the producing cause of their creative effort? Let it be noticed first that the achievements of this age were valued by a limited class of people. It is pos- sible that not a hundred thousand Grecians ever saw all the great works of art which came from the cunning hands The Evolution of Art. 301 of Scopas, Lysippus, or Polycleitus during the lives of the artists, and of these, few, perhaps none, had any concep- tion of the posthumous glory which was to immortalize the names of men then walking in their midst, and the principal feature of the situation, as it impresses one who searches for the impulse to this art, will be seen to be that it met the current demand of the ruling sources of power. The upper life of Greece was given over to sensuous de- light and to one phase of that ambition that of form. It was reserved for the Roman artist to glut the senses of a later people with the glowing hues of the canvas. Rubens, Titian, and Raphael were to make the coming centuries radiant with their brilliant devices of color, but the luxury of the Greek delighted itself with graceful flowing out- lines. The balmy atmosphere, the languid temperature, the softly breathing winds from the -