Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (classic books to read .TXT) 📕

In The Latest Edition This Passage Remains Unaltered,  Except In One

Unimportant Respect.  What Could More Completely Throw Us Off The

Scent Of The Earlier Writers?  If They Had Written Anything Worthy Of

Our Attention,  Or Indeed If There Had Been Any Earlier Writers At

All,  Mr. Darwin Would Have Been The First To Tell Us About Them,  And

To Award Them Their Due Meed Of Recognition.  But,  No; The Whole

Thing Was An Original Growth In Mr. Darwin's Mind,  And He Had Never

So Much As Heard Of His Grandfather,  Dr. Erasmus Darwin.

Dr. Krause,  Indeed,  Thought Otherwise.  In The Number Of Kosmos For

February 1879 He Represented Mr. Darwin As In His Youth Approaching

The Works Of His Grandfather With All The Devotion Which People

Usually Feel For The Writings Of A Renowned Poet. {8b}  This Should

Perhaps Be A Delicately Ironical Way Of Hinting That Mr. Darwin Did

Not Read His Grandfather's Books Closely; But I Hardly Think That Dr.

Krause Looked At The Matter In This Light,  For He Goes On To Say That

"Almost Every Single Work Of The Younger Darwin May Be Paralleled By

At Least A Chapter In The Works Of His Ancestor:  The Mystery Of

Heredity,  Adaptation,  The Protective Arrangements Of Animals And

Plants,  Sexual Selection,  Insectivorous Plants,  And The Analysis Of

The Emotions And Sociological Impulses; Nay,  Even The Studies On

Infants Are To Be Found Already Discussed In The Pages Of The Elder

Darwin." {8c}

Nevertheless,  Innocent As Mr. Darwin's Opening Sentence Appeared,  It

Contained Enough To Have Put Us Upon Our Guard.  When He Informed Us

That,  On His Return From A Long Voyage,  "It Occurred To" Him That The

Way To Make Anything Out About His Subject Was To Collect And Reflect

Upon The Facts That Bore Upon It,  It Should Have Occurred To Us In

Our Turn,  That When People Betray A Return Of Consciousness Upon Such

Matters As This,  They Are On The Confines Of That State In Which

Other And Not Less Elementary Matters Will Not "Occur To" Them.  The

Introduction Of The Word "Patiently" Should Have Been Conclusive.  I

Will Not Analyse More Of The Sentence,  But Will Repeat The Next Two

Lines:- "After Five Years Of Work,  I Allowed Myself To Speculate Upon

The Subject,  And Drew Up Some Short Notes."  We Read This,  Thousands

Of Us,  And Were Blind.

If Dr. Erasmus Darwin's Name Was Not Mentioned In The First Edition

Of The "Origin Of Species," We Should Not Be Surprised At There Being

No Notice Taken Of Buffon,  Or At Lamarck's Being Referred To Only

Twice--On The First Occasion To Be Serenely Waved Aside,  He And All

His Works; {9a} On The Second,  {9b} To Be Commended On A Point Of

Detail.  The Author Of The "Vestiges Of Creation" Was More Widely

Known To English Readers,  Having Written More Recently And Nearer

Home.  He Was Dealt With Summarily,  On An Early And Prominent Page,

By A Misrepresentation,  Which Was Silently Expunged In Later Editions

Of The "Origin Of Species."  In His Later Editions (I Believe First

In His Third,  When 6000 Copies Had Been Already Sold),  Mr. Darwin Did

Indeed Introduce A Few Pages In Which He Gave What He Designated As A

"Brief But Imperfect Sketch" Of The Progress Of Opinion On The Origin

Of Species Prior To The Appearance Of His Own Work; But The General

Impression Which A Book Conveys To,  And Leaves Upon,  The Public Is

Conveyed By The First Edition--The One Which Is Alone,  With Rare

Exceptions,  Reviewed; And In The First Edition Of The "Origin Of

Species" Mr. Darwin's Great Precursors Were All Either Ignored Or

Misrepresented.  Moreover,  The "Brief But Imperfect Sketch," When It

Did Come,  Was So Very Brief,  But,  In Spite Of This (For This Is What

I Suppose Mr. Darwin Must Mean),  So Very Imperfect,  That It Might As

Well Have Been Left Unwritten For All The Help It Gave The Reader To

See The True Question At Issue Between The Original Propounders Of

The Theory Of Evolution And Mr. Charles Darwin Himself.

That Question Is This:  Whether Variation Is In The Main Attributable

To A Known General Principle,  Or Whether It Is Not?--Whether The

Minute Variations Whose Accumulation Results In Specific And Generic

Differences Are Referable To Something Which Will Ensure Their

Appearing In A Certain Definite Direction,  Or In Certain Definite

Directions,  For Long Periods Together,  And In Many Individuals,  Or

Whether They Are Not?--Whether,  In A Word,  These Variations Are In

The Main Definite Or Indefinite?

It Is Observable That The Leading Men Of Science Seem Rarely To

Understand This Even Now.  I Am Told That Professor Huxley,  In His

Recent Lecture On The Coming Of Age Of The "Origin Of Species," Never

So Much As Alluded To The Existence Of Any Such Division Of Opinion

As This.  He Did Not Even,  I Am Assured,  Mention "Natural Selection,"

But Appeared To Believe,  With Professor Tyndall,  {10a} That

"Evolution" Is "Mr. Darwin's Theory."  In His Article On Evolution In

The Latest Edition Of The "Encyclopaedia Britannica," I Find Only A

Veiled Perception Of The Point Wherein Mr. Darwin Is At Variance With

His Precursors.  Professor Huxley Evidently Knows Little Of These

Writers Beyond Their Names; If He Had Known More,  It Is Impossible He

Should Have Written That "Buffon Contributed Nothing To The General

Doctrine Of Evolution," {10b} And That Erasmus Darwin,  "Though A

Zealous Evolutionist,  Can Hardly Be Said To Have Made Any Real

Advance On His Predecessors." {11}  The Article Is In A High Degree

Unsatisfactory,  And Betrays At Once An Amount Of Ignorance And Of

Perception Which Leaves An Uncomfortable Impression.

If This Is The State Of Things That Prevails Even Now,  It Is Not

Surprising That In 1860 The General Public Should,  With Few

Exceptions,  Have Known Of Only One Evolution,  Namely,  That Propounded

By Mr. Darwin.  As A Member Of The General Public,  At That Time

Residing Eighteen Miles From The Nearest Human Habitation,  And Three

Days' Journey On Horseback From A Bookseller's Shop,  I Became One Of

Mr. Darwin's Many Enthusiastic Admirers,  And Wrote A Philosophical

Dialogue (The Most Offensive Form,  Except Poetry And Books Of Travel

Into Supposed Unknown Countries,  That Even Literature Can Assume)

Upon The "Origin Of Species."  This Production Appeared In The Press,

Canterbury,  New Zealand,  In 1861 Or 1862,  But I Have Long Lost The

Only Copy I Had.

How I Came To Write "Life And Habit," And The Circumstances Of Its

Completion.

It Was Impossible,  However,  For Mr. Darwin's Readers To Leave The

Matter As Mr. Darwin Had Left It.  We Wanted To Know Whence Came That

Germ Or Those Germs Of Life Which,  If Mr. Darwin Was Right,  Were Once

The World's Only Inhabitants.  They Could Hardly Have Come Hither

From Some Other World; They Could Not In Their Wet,  Cold,  Slimy State

Have Travelled Through The Dry Ethereal Medium Which We Call Space,

And Yet Remained Alive.  If They Travelled Slowly,  They Would Die; If

Fast,  They Would Catch Fire,  As Meteors Do On Entering The Earth's

Atmosphere.  The Idea,  Again,  Of Their Having Been Created By A

Quasi-Anthropomorphic Being Out Of The Matter Upon The Earth Was At

Variance With The Whole Spirit Of Evolution,  Which Indicated That No

Such Being Could Exist Except As Himself The Result,  And Not The

Cause,  Of Evolution.  Having Got Back From Ourselves To The Monad,  We

Were Suddenly To Begin Again With Something Which Was Either

Unthinkable,  Or Was Only Ourselves Again Upon A Larger Scale--To

Return To The Same Point As That From Which We Had Started,  Only Made

Harder For Us To Stand Upon.

There Was Only One Other Conception Possible,  Namely,  That The Germs

Had Been Developed In The Course Of Time From Some Thing Or Things

That Were Not What We Called Living At All; That They Had Grown Up,

In Fact,  Out Of The Material Substances And Forces Of The World In

Some Manner More Or Less Analogous To That In Which Man Had Been

Developed From Themselves.

I First Asked Myself Whether Life Might Not,  After All,  Resolve

Itself Into The Complexity Of Arrangement Of An Inconceivably

Intricate Mechanism.  Kittens Think Our Shoe-Strings Are Alive When

They See Us Lacing Them,  Because They See The Tag At The End Jump

About Without Understanding All The Ins And Outs Of How It Comes To

Do So.  "Of Course," They Argue,  "If We Cannot Understand How A Thing

Comes To Move,  It Must Move Of Itself,  For There Can Be No Motion

Beyond Our Comprehension But What Is Spontaneous; If The Motion Is

Spontaneous,  The Thing Moving Must He Alive,  For Nothing Can Move Of

Itself Or Without Our Understanding Why Unless It Is Alive.

Everything That Is Alive And Not Too Large Can Be Tortured,  And

Perhaps Eaten; Let Us Therefore Spring Upon The Tag" And They Spring

Upon It.  Cats Are Above This; Yet Give The Cat Something Which

Presents A Few More Of Those Appearances Which She Is Accustomed To

See Whenever She Sees Life,  And She Will Fall As Easy A Prey To The

Power Which Association Exercises Over All That Lives As The Kitten

Itself.  Show Her A Toy-Mouse That Can Run A Few Yards After Being

Wound Up; The Form,  Colour,  And Action Of A Mouse Being Here,  There

Is No Good Cat Which Will Not Conclude That So Many Of The

Appearances Of Mousehood Could Not Be Present At The Same Time

Without The Presence Also Of The Remainder.  She Will,  Therefore,

Spring Upon The Toy As Eagerly As The Kitten Upon The Tag.

Suppose The Toy More Complex Still,  So That It Might Run A Few Yards,

Stop,  And Run On Again Without An Additional Winding Up; And Suppose

It So Constructed That It Could Imitate Eating And Drinking,  And

Could Make As Though The Mouse Were Cleaning Its Face With Its Paws.

Should We Not At First Be Taken In Ourselves,  And Assume The Presence

Of The Remaining Facts Of Life,  Though In Reality They Were Not

There?  Query,  Therefore,  Whether A Machine So Complex As To Be

Prepared With A Corresponding Manner Of Action For Each One Of The

Successive Emergencies Of Life As It Arose,  Would Not