Herbert Spencer - Faculty of Social Sciences

*o

ENGLISHMEN OF SCIENCEEDITED BYJ. REYNOLDS GREEN, D.Sc.HERBERT SPENCER

ENGLISH MENOF SCIENCEE^DITKD BYDR J. REYNOLDS GREEN.With Photogravure Frontispiece.Small Cr. 8vo, vs. 6d. net per vol.PRIESTLEY. By Dr THORPE,C.B., F.R.S.FLOWER. By Prof. R. LYDEK-KER, F.R.S.HUXLEY. By Prof. AINSWORTHDAVIS.BENTHAM. By B. DAYDONJACKSON, F.L.S.DALTON./. M. DENT &>CO.All Rights Reserved

J. ARTHUR THOMSON, M.A.REGIUS PROFESSOR OF NATURAL HISTORY INTHE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN-AUTHOR OFTHE STUDY OF ANIMAL LIFE ; THE SCIENCE OF LIFE JOUTLINES OF ZOOLOGY; PROGRESS OF SCIENCE ;ETC. ETC.PUBLISHED IN LONDON BYJ. M. DENT & CO. AND IN NEWYORK BY E. P. DUTTON & CO.i 906

BVV& AO C,-a99.^776

INTRODUCTION .....CHAP.CONTENTSPAGEviiI. HEREDITY iII. NURTURE..... 7III. PERIOD OF PRACTICAL WORK . .17IV. PREPARATION FOR LIFE-WORK . .27V. THINKING OUT THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY 37VI. CHARACTERISTICS: PHYSICAL AND INTELLECTUAL 52VII. CHARACTERISTICS : EMOTIONAL AND ETHICAL 74VIII. SPENCER AS BIOLOGIST : THEDATA OFBIOLOGY . . .93IX. SPENCER AS BIOLOGIST : INDUCTIONS OFBIOLOGY . . . . 1 1 o.XC^C. SPENCER AS CHAMPION OF THE EVOLUTION-IDEA . . . .135XI. As REGARDS HEREDITY . ..154-All. FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION . .180XIII. EVOLUTION UNIVERSAL.... . . .209XIV. PSYCHOLOGICAL 232XV. SOCIOLOGICAL 242XVI. THE POPULATION QUESTION..259XVII. BEYOND SCIENCE..... 269.-7 CONCLUSION 278INDEX283

""INTRODUCTIONTHIS volume attempts to give a short account ofHerbert Spencers life, an appreciation of his characteristics, and a statement of some of the services herendered to science. Prominence has been given tohis Autobiography,to his Principles of Biology, and to hisposition as a cosmic evolutionist ;but little has beensaid of his psychology and sociology, which requireanother volume, or of his ethics and politics, or ofhis agnosticism the whetstone of so many critics.Our appreciation of Spencers services is thereforepartial, but itmay not for that reason fail in itschief aim, that of illustrating the working of one ofthe most scientific minds that ever lived, whoseexcess of science was almost unscientific."The story of Spencers life is neither eventful norpicturesque, but it commands the interest of all whoadmire faith, courage, and loyaltyto an ideal. It isa story of plain living and high thinking, of one who,though vexed by an extremely nervous temperament,was as resolute as a Hebrew prophet in deliveringhis message.It is the story of a quiet servant ofscience, indifferent to conventional honours, carelessabout getting on," disliking controversy, sensationalism, and noise, trusting to the power of truthalone, that it must prevail.Another aspect of interest is that Spencerwas anarch-heretic, one of the flowers of Nonconformity,

"viiiINTRODUCTIONagainst theology and against metaphysics, againstmonarchy and against molly-coddling legislation, againstclassical education and against socialism, against warand against Weismann. So that we can hardly picturethe man who has not some crow to pick with Spencer.It is not to be wondered at, then, that we findextraordinary difference of opinion as to the value ofthe great Dissenter s deliverances. In 1894, Prof.Henry Sidgwick spoke of Herbert Spencer as ourmost eminent living philosopher,"and in the samesentence described him as "animpressive survival ofthe drift of thought in the first half of the nineteenthcentury."Some have likened him to a second Aristotle, while others assure us that the author of theSynthetic Philosophy was not a philosopherat all.Similarly there are scientists who tell us that Spencermay have been a great philosopher, but that he wastoo much of an a priori thinker to be of great accountin science. Many critics, indeed, devote so muchtime and ability to demonstrating Spencer s incompetence, in this or that field of thought, that thereader is left with the impression that it must be atower of strength which requires so many assaults.And there are others, neither philosophers norscientists, who are content to dismiss Spencer withsaying that the least in the Kingdomof Heaven isgreater than he. Yet this much is conceded bymost, that Herbert Spencer was an unusually keenintellectual combatant, who took the evolutionformulainto his strong hands as a master-key, andtried (teachingothers to try better) to open therewith all the locked doors of the universe all theimmediate, though none of the ultimate, riddles,

INTRODUCTIONixphysical and biological, psychological and ethical,social and religious. And this also is conceded, thathis life was signalised by absolute consecration to thepursuit of truth, by magnanimous disinterestedness asto rewards, by a resolute struggle against almostoverwhelming difficulties, and by an entire fearlessness in delivering the message which he believed theof the world.Unknown had given him for the goodIn an age of specialism he held up the banner of theUnity of Science, and he actually completed, so faras he could complete, the great task of his lifegreater than most men have even dreamed of thatof applying the evolution-formula to everythingknowable. He influenced thought so largely, heinspired so many disciples, he left so many enduringworksif not also as achievementsenduring as seed-plots,that his death, writ large, was immortality.

"HERBERT SPENCERCHAPTER IHEREDITYAnces try Grandparents Uncles ParentsREMARKABLE parents often havecommonplace children,and a genius may be born to a very ordinary couple,yet the importance of pedigree is so patent that ourfirst question in regard to a great man almost invariably concerns his ancestry. In Herbert Spencers casethe questionis rewarded.Ancestry.From the information afforded by theremoter thanAutobiographyin regard to ancestrygrandparents, we learn that, on both sides of thehouse, Spencer came of a stock characterised by thespirit of nonconformity, by a correlated respect forsomething higher than legislative enactments, and bya regard for remote issues rather than immediateresults. In these respects Herbert Spencer was trueto his stock an uncompromising nonconformist, witha conscience loyal to principles having superhumanorigins above rules having human origins,"andwith an eye ever directed to remote issues.Trulyitrequired more than "ingrained nonconformity,"loyalty to principles, and far-sighted prudence to

"""2 HERBERT SPENCERmake a Herbert Spencer, and hundreds unknown tofame must have shared a similar heritage ;but theresemblances between some of Spencers characteristics and those of his stock are too close to be disregarded. Disown him as many nonconformists did,they could not disinherit him. Nonconformity was inhis blood and bone of his bone.Grandparents. Spencer s maternal grandfather,John Holmes of Derby, was a business man and anactive Wesleyan, with "a little more than the ordinary amount of faculty."The grandmother, neeJane Brettell, is described as commonplace," buther portrait suggests a more charitable verdict.Spencer s paternal grandfather was a schoolmaster,a "mechanical teacher," somewhat oppressed by life,"and extremely tender-hearted." If, when a newspaper was being read aloud, there came an account ofsomething cruel or very unjust, he would exclaim :"Stop, stop,I can t bear it!" Of this sensitivetemperament his illustrious grandson had a largeshare. The most notable of the four grandparentswas Catherine Spencer, nee Taylor, of good typeboth physically and "Born in morally." 1758 andmarrying in 1786, when nearly 28, she had eightchildren, led a very active life, and lived till1843:dying at the age of 84 in possession of all herfaculties." A personal follower of John Wesley,intensely religious, indefatigably unselfish, combiningunswerving integrity with uniform good temper andaffection, she had all the domestic virtues in largemeasures." Her grandson has said that nothingwas specially manifest in her, intellectually considered,unless, indeed, what would be calledsound common

"""""UNCLES3sense."Grandparents taken together count on anaverage for about a quarter of the individual inheritance, but we would note that in Herbert Spencerscase, Catherine Spencer should be regarded as apeculiarly dominant hereditary factor.Uncles. Two of her children died in infancy, theonly surviving daughter (b. 1788) was an invalid jthen came Herbert Spencers father, William George(b. 1790), and there were four other sons. HenrySpencer, a year and a half younger than HerbertSpencer s "father, was a favourable sample of thetype," independent with "a strong dash of chivalry,"an energetic, thoughin the end unsuccessful man ofbusiness, an ardent radical and with "a marked senseof humour." The next son, John, had strong individuality ;he was a notably self-assertive, obstinatesolicitor, successful only in out-living all his brothers.Thomas, the next brother, began active life as aschool-teacher near Derby, was a student of St John s,Cambridge, achieved honours (ninth wrangler), andbecame a clergyman of the Church of England at""Hinton. He was a reformer," anticipating greatmovements," a radical," a Free-Trader," a teetotaler," an intensified Englishman." The youngestson, William, distinguished less by extent of intellectual acquisitions than by general soundness ofsense, joined with a dash of originality,"carried onhis father s school, and was one of Herbert Spencersteachers. He was aWhig and a nonconformist,but more moderate than his brothers in eitherdirection.These facts in regard to Herbert Spencer s unclescorroborate the general thesis that heredity counts

"Rev""4 HERBERT SPENCERfor much. The four uncles had individuality, risingsometimes to the verge of eccentricity in their;various paths of life they were independent, critical,self-assertive, and with a characteristic absence ofreticence.Parents. George Spencer, Herbert s father (b.1790) was "the flower of the flock." To facultieswhich he had in common with the rest (except thehumour of Henry and the linguistic faculty ofThomas), he added faculties they gave little signof. One was inventive ability,and another wasartistic perception, joined with skill of hand." Hebegan very early to teach in his father s school, andwas for most of his life a teacher. As such, he wasnoted for his reliance on non-coercive discipline,and at the same time for his firmness ;he continually sought to stimulate individuality rather thanto inform. His Intentional Geometry and Lucid Shorthand had some vogue for a time.He was an unconventional person, as shown in littlethings by his repugnance to taking off his hat,to donning signs of mourning, or to addressing peopleas "Esq."ord and in-,"big things by hispronounced With "a"Whigism." repugnance toall living authority he combined so much sympathyand suavity that he was generally beloved. Hefound Quakerism "congruouswith his nature inrespect of its complete individualism and absence ofecclesiastical government."He had unusual keennessof the senses, delicacy of manipulation, and noteworthyartistic skill. A somewhat fastidious andfinicking habit of trying to make things better wasexpressed in his annotations on dictionaries and the

"Whatever"So""""PARENTS 5like, but he had also a larger passion for reformingthe world." As his son notes, the one great drawback was lack of consideratenessand good temper inhis relations with his wife. For this, however, anervous disorder was in part to blame. He lived tobe over seventy.Herbert Spencers mother, nee Harriet Holmes(1794-1867),introduced a new strain into the heritage.far from showing any ingrained nonconformity, she rather displayed an ingrained conformity."A Wesleyan by tradition rather than byconviction, she was constitutionally averse to changeor adventure, non-assertive, self-sacrificing, patient,and gentle. Briefly characterised, she was of ordinary intelligence and of high moral nature a moralnature of which the deficiency was the reverse ofthat commonlyto be observed : she was not sufficiently self-asserting : altruism was too little qualifiedby egoism."Spencer did not think that he took after his motherexcept in some physical features. He had somethingof his father s nervous weakness, but he had not hislarge chest and well developed heart and lungs. Believing that the mind is as deep as the viscera," he doesnot scruple to state that his visceral constitutionwas maternal rather than paternal."specialities of character and facultyin me aredue to inheritance, are inherited from myfather. Betweenmy mother s mind and my own I see scarcely any resemblances, emotional or intellectual. She was very patient;I am very impatient. She was tolerant of pain, bodily ormental ; I am intolerant of it. She was little givento finding fault with others ;1 am greatly given to it. She wassubmissive ;I am the reverse of submissive. So, too, in

"6 HERBERT SPENCERno trait commonrespect of intellectual faculties, I can perceiveto us, unless it be a certain greater calmness of judgment thanwas shown by myfather ;formy father s vivid representative faculty was aptto play him false. Not only, however,in the moral characters justnamed am I like my father, butsuch intellectual characters as are peculiarare derived fromhim(Autobiography ii., p. 430).

""CHAPTER IINURTUREBoyhood School At Hinton At HomeHERBERT SPENCER was born atDerby on the 27th ofApril1820. His father and mother had marriedearly in the preceding year, at the age of about 29and 25 respectively. Except a little sister, a year hisjunior, who lived for two years, he was practicallythe only child, for of the five infants who followednone lived more than a few days. As Spencerpathetically remarks It was one of my misfortunes:to have no brothers, and a still greater misfortune tohave no sisters." But is it not recompense enoughof any marriage to produce a genius ?In reference to his father s breakdown soon aftermarriage, Spencer writes I doubt not that had he:retained good health, my early education would havebeen much better than it was ;for not only did hisstate of body and mind prevent him from paying asmuch attention to my intellectual culture as he doubtless wished, but irritability and depression checkedthat geniality of behaviour which fosters the affectionsand brings out in children the higher traits of nature.There are many whose lives would have been happierhad their parents been more careful about themselves,and less anxious to provide for others."

"""8 HERBERT SPENCERBoyhood.The father s ill-health had this compensation, that Herbert Spencer spent much of hischildhood (aet. 4-7) in the country at New Radford,he had still vividnear Nottingham. In his later yearsrecollections of rambling among the gorse-busheswhich towered above his head, of exploring thenarrow tracks which led to unexpected places, andof picking the blue-bells from among the pricklybranches, which were here and there flecked withfragments of wool left by passing He wassheep."allowed freedom from ordinary "lessons," andenjoyed a long latent receptive period.In 1827 the family returned to Derby, but forsome time the boy s life was comparatively unrestrained. There was some gardening to do aneducational disciplinefar too little appreciated andthere was "almost nominal" school-drill; but therewas plenty of time for exploring the neighbourhood,for fishing and bird-nesting, for watching the beesand the gnat-larvse, for gathering mushrooms andblackberries. Beyond the pleasurable exercise andthe gratification of my love of adventure, there wasgained during these excursions much miscellaneousknowledge of things, and the perceptions were beneficiallyMost children aredisciplined."instinctivelynaturalists, and were they encouraged would readilypass from careless observations to careful anddeliberate ones. My father was wise in suchmatters, and I was not simply allowed but encouraged to enter on natural history."He had the run of a farm at Ingleby during holidays ;he enjoyed fishingin the Trent, in which hewas within an ace of being drowned when about ten

""years old ;SCHOOL 9he was a keen collector of insects, watching their metamorphoses, and often drawing anddescribing his captures ;and he was also encouragedto make models. In short, he had in a simple waynot a few of the disciplines which modern paedagogicshelped greatly by Spencer himself hasrecognised to be salutary.In his boyhood Spencer was extremely prone tocastle-building or day-dreaming a habit whichcontinued throughout youth and into mature life ;finally passing, I suppose, into the dwelling onschemes more or less practicable."For his tendencyto absorption, without which there has seldom beengreatness of achievement, he was often reproached byhis father in the words : As usual, Herbert, thinkinga time."only of one thing atHe did not read tolerably until he was over sevenyears old, and Sandford and Merton was the first bookthat prompted him to read of his own accord. Herapidly advanced to The Castle of Otranto and similarromances, all the more delectable that they wereforbidden fruits. While John Stuart Mill was working at the Greek classics, Herbert Spencer was readingnovels in bed. But the appetite for reading was sooncloyed, and he became incapable of enjoying anythingbut novels and travels for more than an hour or twoat a time.School. As to more definite intellectual culture,the first school period (before ten years) seems tohave counted for little, and is interesting only becauseit revealed the boy s general aversion to rote-learningand dogmatic statements. Shielded from directpunishment, he lived in an atmosphere of reproof,

"had""""As""ioHERBERT SPENCERand this naturally led to a state of chronic antagonism." But when he was ten (1830) he became oneof his Uncle William s pupils, and this led to someprogress. There was drawing, map-making, experimenting, Greek Testament without grammar, butcomparatively little lesson-learning.a consequence, I was not in continual disgrace."The boywas quick in all matters appealing to reason, anda somewhat remarkable perception of localityand the relations of positionlife disappeared."generally, which in laterApart from school he had the advantage of hearingdiscussions between his father and his friends on allsorts of topics, of preparing for the scientific demonstrations which his father occasionally gave, ofsampling scientific periodicals which came to theDerby Philosophical Society of which his father washonorary secretary, and of reading such works asRollin s Ancient History and Gibbon s Decline and Fallof the Roman Empire. He was continually promptedto "intellectual self-help,"and was continually stimulated by the question, Can youtell me the cause ofthis?"Always the tendency in himself, and the tendencystrengthened in me, was to regard everything asnaturally caused and I doubt not that;while thenotion of causation was thus rendered much morethere wasdefinite in me than in most of my age,established a habit of seeking for causes, as well astacit belief in the universality of causation."tacit belief in the universality of causationaAseems abig item to be put to the credit of a boy of thirteen,but we have the echo of it in Clerk Maxwell s con-

""""What"SCHOOL 1 1tinual boyish question,is the go of this ?That the question of cause was acute in both casesimplies that both had hereditarily fine brains, but italso suggests that the questionis normal in thosewho are naturally educated. The sensitive, irritable,invalid father was no ideal parent, but he did notsnub his son s inquisitiveness, nor coerce his independence, nor appeal to authority as such as a reason foraccepting any belief.Spencer has given in his Autobiography a picture ofhimself as a boy of thirteen. His constitution wasdistinguished rather by good balance than by greatvital activity";there was "alarge margin of latentpower ;he was more fleet than any of his schoolfellows. He was decidedly peaceful, but when enraged no considerations of pain or danger or anythingelse restrained him. He was affectionate and tenderhearted, but his most marked moral trait was disregard of authority. His memory was rather belowpar than above "he was averse to; lesson-learningand the acquisition of knowledge after the ordinaryroutine methods," but he picked up general information with facility ;he could not bear prolongedreading or the receptive attitude. From about tenyears of age to thirteen he habitually went on Sundaymorning with his father to the Friends MeetingHouse, and in the evening with his mother to theMethodist Chapel. I do not know that any markedeffect on me followed ; further, perhaps, than thatthe alternation tended to enlarge my views by presenting me with differences of opinion and usage."While John Mill kept his son away from conventionalreligious influences, Spencer s father excluded none ;

"""12 HERBERT SPENCERand the result seems to have been much the same inthe two cases. In this and other connections, Prof.W. H. Hudson points out the contrast between themethods of the two fathers of the two remarkablesons John Stuart Mill was constrained along carefully chosen paths, Herbert Spencer enjoyed moreelbow-room and free-play, what German biologistscall Abanderungsspielraum."At thirteen, Herbert Spencer had little Latin andless Greek; he was wholly uninstructed in "English";he had no knowledge of mathematics, English history,ancient literature, or biography. Concerning thingsaround, however, and their properties, I knew a gooddeal more than is known by most boys." Throughphysics and chemistry in certain lines, through entomology and general natural history, through miscellaneous reading in physiology and geography, he hadinmany ways an intellectual grip of his environment ;but on the lines of the humanities" he was wofullyuneducated.On the other hand, his education had been stimulating and emancipating, and even as a boy of thirteenhis intelligence was alert and independent. Much inthe open air, he had kept an open mind. He hadlearned to use his brains and to enjoy nature. Afterthat, everything is possible.At Hinton.When Herbert Spencer was thirteen(in the summer of 1833) his parents took him to hisUncle Thomas, at Hinton Charterhouse, near Bath.The journey was a revelation to the boy, and hisearly days at Hinton were full of delight, especiallyin regard to the new butterflies. But when he discovered that he had come to stay and to be schooled,

"TheAT HINTON 13he had a feverish Heimiueh, and soon followed hisparents homewards. "That a boy of thirteen should,without any food but bread and water and two orthree glasses of beer, and without sleep for two nights,walk 48 miles one day, 47 the next, and some 20 thethird, is surprising enough."It was a rather absurdboyish escapade, mainly due to lack of parental frankness, but not without the compliment impliedin allnostalgia, and it gives us an inkling of Spencer sobstinacy and doggedness.A fortnight after the escapade, the runaway returned peacefully to Hinton content with hisdramatic assertion of himself. For about three yearshe remained under his uncle s tutorship, and this wasa formative period. Hinton stands high in a hillycountry, between Bath and Frome, with picturesqueplaces all round. His uncle was man of "a energetic,strongly-marked character," "intellectuallyabove thewith a average," good deal of originality of thought.Like his kindly wife, he belonged to the evangelicalschool.daily routine was not a trying one. In themorning Euclid and Latin, in the afternoon commonlygardening, or sometimes a walk ;and in the evening,after a little more study, usually of algebra I think,came reading, with occasionally chess. I became atthat time very fond of chess, and acquired some skill."The aversion to linguistic studies continued, but therewas an enthusiasm for mathematics and physics. Toa modern educationist the regime at Hinton cannotbut seem narrow ;there was no history, no letters, noconcrete science, and no play.There was certainlyno over-pressure, but there was some brain-stretching

""14 HERBERT SPENCERand some salutary moral discipline. Stimulating,doubtless, was the table-talk and Mr Spencer sarguments with his nephew, whom he found verydeficient in the principle of Fear" We must notforget the visits to London (including the then privateZoological Gardens), or the first appearances inprint two letters in the newly started Bath Magazine on curiously shaped floating crystals of commonsalt, and on the New Poor Law! In June 1836,Herbert Spencer returned to Derby, benefited bythe rural life and bracing climate of Hinton, "strong,in good health, and of good stature."Looking backward after many years, HerbertSpencer felt that he was treated as a youth withmuch more consideration and generosity than mighthave been expected. There was shown great patiencein prosecuting what seemed by no means a hopefulItundertaking."is interesting, of course, to speculatewhat might have been the result if the boy s education had been less of a family affair ;and it would beunfair to conclude that the success which attendedthe easy-going, personal, familiar instruction of thisboy of uncommon brains would also attend a similartreatment of those of humbler parts. But would itnot be well to make the experiment oftener, since thematerial abounds, and since the results of the conventional discipline of public schools and the like are notdazzlingly successful ?Spencer felt strongly, as he indulged in retrospect,that his well-meaning educators "had to deal withintractable material an individuality too stiff to beeasily moulded." That we may, in time, come tohave not an occasional stiff haulm with a big ear, but a

""""AT HOME 15whole crop of them, must be the prayer of all whobelieve in education and race-progress.Another of Spencers retrospectiveconvictions isone that makes all human nature kin that he wasnot so black as he was painted. His father and hisuncle had been eminently good boys, and theygauged boy-nature by their own standard. Had hegone to a public school, Spencer thinks that hisextrinsically-wrong actions would have been many,but the intrinsica/ty-WTong actions would have beenfew." This distinction will doubtless appeal to thewise.At Home. For a year and a half after leavingHinton, Herbert Spencer remained at home, enjoying another period of freedom. He made in a day,without previous experience, a survey of his father ssmall property at Kirk Ireton two fields and threecottages with their gardens ;he made designs for acountry house ;he hit upon a remarkable property ofthe circle ;and he fished. Meanwhile, however, hisfather who "held, and rightly held, that there arefew functions higher than that of the educator,"induced him to engage in school-work, and thisexperiment lasted for three months. It appears tohave been directly a success, Spencers lessons were"at once effective and pleasure-giving,"and "complete harmony continued throughout the entireperiodit was not less important eventually, for;we cannot doubt that part of the effectiveness ofHerbert Spencers book on Education is traceableto the fact that he had, for a term at least, personalexperience of teaching.Even at this early age (17 years) Spencer had ideals

thrown""1 6 HERBERT SPENCERof"intellectual culture, moral discipline, and physicalBut as he disliked mechanical routine, hadtraining."a great intolerance of monotony, and had ideas of hisown, it seems likely enough that if he had embracedthe profession of teacher, he would sooner or later"have itup in Thedisgust." experimentwas not to be tried further, however, for in November1837, his uncle William wrote from London that hehad obtained for hisnephew a post under Mr CharlesFox as a railway engineer. The profession of a civilengineer had already been named as one appropriatefor me ;and this opening at once led to the adoptionof it."life.We may sum up the first two periods of SpencersThe period of childhood was marked by a morethan usual freedom from the conventional responsibilities of juvenile tasks, by the large proportion ofopen-air life, and by much more intercourse withadults than with other children. The table talkbetween his father and uncles had an importantmoulding influence, all the more that there was "acomparatively small interest in Their congossip."versation ever tended towards the impersonal.. . .There was no considerable leaning towards literature. ... It was rather the scientific interpretationsand moral aspects of things which occupied theirthoughts."The period of boyhoodand of moredefinite education was marked by freedom and variety,by a relative absence of linguistic discipline, by apreponderance of scientific training, by much familyinfluence, and by an unusual amount of independentthinking.

CHAPTER IIIPERIOD OF PRACTICAL WORKEngineering Many Inventions Glimpse of Evolution-Idea A Resting Period Beginning to Write Experimenting ivith LifeHERBERT SPENCER S life after boyhood maybe conveniently divided into four periods :1. For about ten years he was engagedin variedpractical work surveying, plan-making, engineering,secretarial business, and superintendence (1837-1846).2. After an unattached couple of years, duringwhich he continued his self-education, experimented,invented, and meditated, there began a period ofmiscellaneous literary work, of journalism, and essaywriting,during which he wrote his Principles ofPsychology and felt his way to his System (1848-1860).At 3. the age of forty, he settled down to something like unity of occupation developing andwriting The Synthetic Philosophy (1860-1882).4. Finally, during a prolonged period of pronouncedinvalidism, he withdrew almost completely fromsocial life, husbanding his meagre supply of mentalenergy for the completion of his System, the revisionof his works, and his Autobiography (1882-1903).Engineering. For about ten years (l8g7-46)HerbertSpencer had a varied experience of practical life. Hebegan as assistant, at 80 a year, to Mr Charles Fox,B7

"London"Gloucester"""1 8 HERBERT SPENCERwho had been one of Mr George Spencer s pupils,a man of mechanical genius, who was at that timeresident engineer of the London division of theand Birmingham railway, and afterwardsbecame well known as the designer and constructorof the Exhibition-Building of 1851. Spencer hadsurveying and measuring, drawing and calculating todo, and he threw off the slackness which marked hisschool-days. During the first six months in Londonhe never went to any place of amusement and neverread a novel, but gave his leisure to mathematicalquestions and to suggestinglittle inventions or improved methods.A transference for the summer months to Wembly,near Harrow, gave him even more time for study,and we read of an appliance by which he proposed tofacilitate some kinds of sewing. He seems to havepleased his employer well, for in September 1838 hewas advanced to a post of draughtsmanin connectionwiththeand Birminghamrailway, ata salary of 120 yearly. Thus the next two yearswere spent at Worcester, where he had his firstexperience of working alongside of other young men,to whom he appeared rather anoddity," though notone to be "quizzed."His "mental excursiveness"grew stronger and stronger, and had occasionallyuseful results, leading, for instance, to an article inThe Civil Engineer and Architect s Journal (May 1839)on a new plan of projecting the spiral courses in skewbridges, to a re-invention of Nicholson sCyclograph,and to an improvement in the apparatus for givingand receiving the mail-bags carried by trains.ManyInventions. In1840, Spencer became

"""""MANY INVENTIONS 19engineering secretary to his chief, Captain Moorson, andwent to live in the little village of Powick, about threemiles out of Worcester. He enjoyed his work, andhad the new experience of establishing relations witha number of children, with whom hesoon became afavourite. Long afterwards, in his declining years hefound much gratificationinmaking friends withchildren, and referred to itquaintly as a vicariousphase of the instinct." It philoprogenitive was atPowick that Spencer first began to have a conscienceabout his very defective spelling (his morals hadalways been sans reproche) and to take an interest inItstyle.was at Powick, too, in a physical andsocial environment that suited him, that Spencerinvented his Velocimeter," a little instrument forshowing by inspection the velocity of an engine, andtwo or three other devices. He had inherited hisfather s constructive imagination, and his father sdiscipline had increased The it. father wrote on JulyIgrd, 1840, am glad you find your inventive powersare beginning to develop themselves. Indulge agrateful feeling for it. Recollect, also, the neverceasingpains taken with you on that point in earlylife." And the son remarks gratefully that thisconveys a lesson to educators ;the inherited endowment is much, but the fostering of it is also much.Culture of the humdrum sort, given by those whoordinarily pass for teachers, would have left thefaculty undeveloped."On the whole, however,Spencer attached most importance to the hereditaryendowment, for he goes on to say that Edison,probably the most remarkable inventor who everlived," was a self-trained man, and that Sir Benjamin

""""20 HERBERT SPENCERBaker,the designer and constructor of the ForthBridge, the grandest and most original bridge in theworld, received no regular engineeringeducation."It was at Powick, too, that place of many inventions,that Herbert Spencer (aetat. 20) made the intimateacquaintance of an"intelligent, unconventional,amiable, and in various ways attractive young lady,who "tended to diminish his brusquerie" Luckilyor unluckily, the young lady was engaged ;andSpencer remarks, It was pretty clear that had it notbeen for the pre-engagement our intimacy wouldhave grown into something serious. This wouldhave been a misfortune, for she had little or nothingand my prospects were none of the brightest."Herethe ancestral prudence crops out.Glimpses of Evolution-Idea. The year 1840-41was "a nomadic period,"of bridge-building atBromsgroove and DefFord, of "castle-building," too,for he dreamt of making a fortune by successfulinventions, of testing engines, and other routineduties, a life involving considerable wear and tearwhich began to tell on Spencer s eyes. During thisperiod he renewed his youth by collecting fossils,and making a collection as heis,"afterwards said,"theproper commencement of any natural historyit conduces to astudy ; since, in the first place,definiteness to theconcrete knowledge which givesgeneral ideas subsequently reached, and, further, itcreates an indirect stimulus by giving gratification tothat love of acquisition which exists in all." It wasthen that the purchase of Lyell s Principles of Geologyled him, curiously enough, to adopt the suppositionthat organic forms have arisen, not by special creation,

"MyGLIMPSES OF EVOLUTION-IDEA 21but by progressive modifications, physically causedand inherited. In spite of LyelPs chapter refutingLamarck s views concerning the origin of species,itwas with Lamarck that Spencer, at the age of twenty,sided. The idea of natural genesis was in harmonywith the general idea of the order of Nature towardswhich Spencer had beengrowing.belief init never afterwards wavered, much as I was, in afteryears, ridiculed for entertaining it.""The incident illustrates the general truth thatthe acceptance of this or that particular belief, is inpart a question of the type of mind. There are someminds to which the marvellous and the unaccountablestrongly appeal, and which even resent any attemptto bring the genesis of them within comprehension.There are other minds which, partly by nature andpartly by culture, have been led to dislike a quiescentacceptance of the unintelligible and which ;push theirexplorations until causation has been carried to itsconfines. To this last order of minds mine, from thebeginning, belonged."Spencer s engagement with Capt. Moorson cameto a natural termination, and an offer of a permanentpost on the Birmingham and Gloucester railway wasdeclined, one motive being a desire to prepare for thefuture by a course of mathematical study, anotherbeing to work at an idea his father had arrived at ofan electro-magnetic engine. Thus his twenty-firstbirthday was spent at home inDerby, after anabsence of three and a half years, which had been"on the whole satisfactory, in so far as personalimprovement and professional success were concerned."

""""22 HERBERT SPENCERA Resting Period.But when he got home he foundhis study of a work on the Differential Calculus aweariness to the flesh. "Toapply day after daymerely with the general idea of acquiring information, or of increasing ability,"was not in him, thoughhe could work hard when the end in view wasdefinite or large enough. Moreover an article in thePhilosophical Magazine led to an immediate abandonment of the idea of an electro-magnetic engine.Thus, within a month of my return to Derby, itbecame manifest that, in pursuit of a will-o -the-wisp,I had left behind a place of vantage from which theremight probably have been ascents to higher places."As a consolation for what was at the time a disappointment, Herbert Spencer made a herbarium,which still retained in 1894 a specimen of Enchanter sNightshade gathered in the grove skirting the rivernear Darley. In company with Edward Lott, withwhom he formed a life-long friendship, he oftenspent the early summer morning, in rowing up theDerwent, which in those days was rural and notunpicturesque above Derby. As they rowed theysang popular songs, making the woods echo withtheir voices, and now and then arresting theirsecular matins for the purpose of gathering a plant.It is refreshing to read of Spencer having in his heada considerable stock of sentimental ballads.It was during this fallow year that at the age of oneand-twentyhe went with his father on a walking tourin the Isle of Wight, and first saw the sea. Theemotion produced in me was, I think, a mixture of joyand awe, the awe resulting from the manifestationof size and power, and the joy, I suppose, from the

"BEGINNING TO WRITE 23sense of freedom given by limitless expanse."Hisfather and he were good companions.We read of various activities during this period,of investigations, with inadequate mathematics, concerning the strength of girders, of experiments inelectrotyping and the like, of botanical excursions, ofsome enthusiastic exercise in part-singing, drawingand modelling. In the early summer of 1842 Spencerpaid a visit to his old haunts at Hinton. Thejourney left its mark because, in the course of it, Ifound that practice in modelling had increased myperception of beauty in form. A good-looking girl,who was one of our fellow-passengers for a shortinterval, had remarkably fine :eyes and I had muchquiet satisfaction in observing their forms." Ourhero had not much sense of humour.Beginning to write. Of greater importanceis thefact that Spencer began in 1842 to write letters toThe Nonconformist on social problems, in whichprominence was given to such conceptionsas theuniversality of law and causation, progressive adaptation in organisms and in Man, and the tendency toequilibrium through self-adjustment.Everyday inevery life there is a budding out of incidents severallycapable of leading to large results ;but the immensemajority of them end as buds, only now and thendoes one grow into a branch, and very rarely does sucha branch outgrow and overshadow all others." Thevisit to Hinton led to political conversations withThomas Spencer, to a letter of introduction to theeditor of The Nonconformist,to the letters on "TheProper Sphere of Government,"and eventually to the Synthetic Philosophy!to the Social Statics

"The"""""24 HERBERT SPENCERSpencer s next activitywas an inquiry into hisfather ssystem of short-hand, which he found to bebetter than Pitman s. He passed to speculations onthe methods to be followed in forming a universallanguage,and to shrewd criticisms of the decimalsystem of enumeration. In the autumn of 1842 heinterested himself enthusiastically in The CompleteSuffrage Movement." For a youth of twenty-two hetook a big plunge into politics. Itproduced in mea high tide of mental energy ;the signature on adraft democratic bill has a sweep and vigour exceeding that of any other signature I ever made, eitherbefore or since."In the spring of 1843 Herbert Spencer went toLondon and tried very unsuccessfully, to get editorsto accept his wares. He made a pamphletof hisNonconformist letters, but perhaps a hundred copieswere sold !printer s bill was lo 2s. 6d., andthe publisher spayment to me on the first year s saleswas fourteen shillings and threepence!Experimenting with Life. Spencer s half year inLondon came to little. As he says, he was too much "inthe mood of Mr Micawber, waiting for something toturn up, and waiting in vain." So he raised the siegeand retreated to Derby. There he read Mill s Systemsof Logic, Carlyle Sartor Resartus and some ofEmerson s essays. He tried his hand at improvingwatches, printing-presses, type-making, and whatnot ;he speculated on the role of carbon in theearth s history, and on phrenology; and in 1844 ^ emigrated to Birmingham to be sub-editor of a shortlived paper called The Pilot.It was then that he made a superficial acquaintance

"""EXPERIMENTING WITH LIFE 25with Kant sCritique of Pure Reason, only to give it"summary dismissal." He was deterred from purutter incredibilitysuing the acquaintance by the "of the proposition that time and space are nothingbut"subjective forms, and "wantby of confidencein the reasonings of any one who could accepta proposition so incredible."After about a month of sub-editing, he reverted tohis former profession of railway engineer, having beencommissioned to help with mapping out a projectedbranch line between Stourbridge and Wolverhampton.The country was dreary enough, butSpencer had abundant open-air work, and it wasduring this short period that he made a lastingfriendship with Mr W. F. Loch which was importantin his life.Then followed an interval, partly in London andpartly in the fields of Warwickshire, occupied invarious ways connected with railway development,which was then becoming a mania. He seems to havedone his work effectively, but itled to no importantpersonal results, and the failure of his chief employer sschemes in 1846 ended Spencers connection withrailway projects and engineering. In afterwards discussing the question whether he should have madeagood engineer or not, Spencer notes with hischaracteristic self-impartialitythat he had adequateinventiveness but insufficient patience, enough ofintelligence but too little tact. He had an "aversionto mere mechanical humdrum work," "inadequateregard for no precedent," interest in financial details,and a lack of tact in dealing with men, especiallysuperiors."The frank analysis is interesting, especi-

"he"""26 HERBERT SPENCERallyin indicating how Spencer was weak whereDarwin was strong, inla patience suivie," indogged persistence at detailed work. It may seemstrange to saythis when we think of his indomitableperseverance with his life-work, but this was quiteconsistent with a constitutional idleness," with ashirking from everything tedious except his ownthinking. As Thomas Hardy says of one of his characters, was a thinker by instinct, but he wasonly a worker by He effort." never learned or triedto learn what it was to put his nose to the grindstone : he would not learn lessons," he recoiledfrom languages, he baulked at the differential calculus,hetrifled with Kant and Comte, he was always"animpatient reader." He elected to think for himself,and had the defect of this rare quality.

""""CHAPTER IVPREPARATION FOR LIFE-WORKMore Inventions Sub-editingAvowal of EvolutionismFriendships Books and Essays Crystallisation ofhis ThoughtSettling to Life-workTHROWN out of regular employment once more,was left free for a time to follow his ownSpencerbent. He lived a miscellaneous and rather futilekind of life," reading a little and thinking much overa proposed book on Social Statics, holidaying a gooddeal and trying in vain to make money by inventions.More Inventions. In 1845 he had a scheme ofquasi-aerial locomotion not a : flying machine butsomething unitingsuspensionterrestrial traction with aerial;but even on paperit broke down. In1846 he patented an effective "binding pin"forfastening loose sheets, which might have been afinancial success if it had been properly pushed.About the same time he was speculating on a methodof multiplying decorative patterns, a sort of mentaland on kaleidoscope," a systematic nomenclature forcolours, analogous to that on which the points of thecompass are named. More ambitious was a newplaning engine and an improvement in type-making,but neither got much beyond the paper stage. Infact Spencer discovered, as so many have done, that27

""Thus"28 HERBERT SPENCERit is one thing to invent and another thing to makeinventions boil the pot. For a year and a half, helamented, time and energy and money had beensimply thrown away. The proceeds of the bindingpin just about served to pay for his share in the costof the planing machine patent.Seven years spent in experimenting towards alivelihood had not brought Spencer much success."In point of fact he was stranded," and there wastalk of emigrationrevertingto the ancestral profession of teaching, but the yearof suspense ended with his appointment (1848) asto New Zealand, or ofsub-editor in The Economist office, at a salary of onehundred guineas a year.an end was at lastput to the seemingly futile part of mylife whichfilled the space between twenty-one and twenty-eightfutile in respect of material progress, but in otherrespects perhapsnot futile."He had enjoyed a varied intercourse with menand things during these seven lean years of railwaymaking,sub-editing, experimenting, inventing ;hehad had experience of field work and office work, ofdoing what he was told and of exercising authority ;he had had time for drawing, modelling, music, andsome natural history ;he had come to know something of life s ups and downs. "In short, there hadbeen gained a more than usually heterogeneous, thoughsuperficial, acquaintance with the world, animate andinanimate. And along with the gaining of it had gonea running commentary of speculative thought aboutthe various matters presented."Vivendo discimus.sSub-editing. Spencer duties as sub-editor of TheEconomist were not onerous ;he had abundant leisure

"At""multitudinous"knew""SUB-EDITING 29for reading and reflection, for music and that pleasantconversation which is one of the ends of life. Hehad great Sunday evening talks with his broadmindedphilanthropic uncle Thomas who had come tolive in London, and he began to know interestingpeople, notably, perhaps, Mr G. H. Lewes. Hisreading was mainly in connection with the journal hehad charge of, and Coleridges Idea of Life, with itsdoctrine of individuation, was the only serious workwhich seems to have left any impression during thatearly period. He tried Ruskin but recoiled disappointed from hisabsurdities." Healso tried vegetarianism but found that it loweredhis bodily and mental vigour.He worked hard at his first book, sittinglate overit with an assiduity to which he looked back withastonishment in after years. The subject of the book"was A system of Social and Political Morality andhe had great searchings for a suitable title, his ownpreferencefavourof"for Demostatics yielding finally inSocial Statics." This phrase had beenused by Comte as the heading of one of the divisionsof his Sociology, but Spencer was quite unaware ofthis, and at that timenothing more ofAuguste Comte, than that he was a Frenchphilosopher."There were also great difficulties insecuring publication, although to get the workprinted and circulated without loss was as much ashe hopedfor.that time I was, and have sinceremained, one of those classed by Dr Johnson asfools one whose motive in writing books was not,and never has been, that of making money."What Spencer calls "an idleyear" (1850-1)

"""""30 HERBERT SPENCERfollowed the publication of Social Statics, but it wasthen that he attended a course of lectures by Prof.Owen on Comparative Osteology, and doubtless gota firmer hold of those principles of organic architecture which make even dry bones live.It was then,too, that he had walks with George Henry Lewes,which were profitable on both sides. Lewes receivedan impulse which awakened interest in scientific inquiries, and Spencer became interested in philosophyat large. He read Lewes sBiographical History ofPhilosophy, and there was one memorable rambleduring which a volume by Milne-Edwards in Lewes sbag was the means of vivifying for Spencer the ideaof the physiological division of labour." "Thoughthe conception was not new to me, as is shown towards the end of Social Statics, yet the mode of formulating it was ;and the phrase thereafter played a partin the course of my thought."About the same time,in preparing a review of Carpenter s he camePhysiology,across von Baer s formula expressing the course of development through which every living creature passesthe change from homogeneity to heterogeneity" ;and from this very important consequences ensueu.Through Lewes he got to know Carlyle, but theacquaintance was never deepened. While he admiredCarlyle s vigour and originality, he was repelled by hispassionate incoherence of thought, his prejudices, hisdogmatism,hisinsensate dislike of science."Carlyle s nature was one which lacked co-ordination,alike intellectually and morally. Under both aspects,he was, in a great measure, To chaotic." Carlyle, onthe other hand, Spencerass."appearedanunmeasurable

""AVOWAL OF EVOLUTIONISM 31of Evolutionism. In 1852 Spencer definitelybegan his work as a pioneer of Evolution Doctrine by"publishingthe famous Leader article on The Development Hypothesis,"in which he avowedhisbelief that thewhole world of life is the result of an age-long processof natural transmutation. In the same year he wrotefor The Westminster Revievu another important essay,A Theory of Population deduced from the GeneralLaw of Animal Fertility,"in which he sought to showthat the degree of fertility is inversely proportionateto the grade of development, or conversely that theattainment of higher degrees of evolution must beaccompanied by lower rates of multiplication. Towards the close of the article he came within an aceof recognising that the struggle for existence was afactor in organic evolution. It is profoundly instructive to find that at a time when pressure of populationwas practically interesting men s minds, not Spenceronly, but Darwin and Wallace, were being independently led from this social problem to a biologicaltheory of organic evolution. There could be nobetter illustration, as Prof. Geddes has pointed out,of the Comtian thesis that science is aphenomenon."socialFriendships. About this time a strong friendshiparose between Spencer and Miss Evans (George"Eliot).To him she was the most admirablewoman, mentally,"he ever met, and he speaks enthusiastically of her large intelligence working easily,her remarkable philosophical powers, her habitualcalm, her deep and broad sympathies. It is interesting to learn that he stronglyadvised her to writenovels, and that she tried in vain to induce him to

""""32 HERBERT SPENCERread Comte. As they were often together and thebest of friends, the gossips had it that he was in lovewith her and that theywere about to be married.But neither of these reports was true."Another friendship, formed about the same time,was an important factor in Spencer s life he; got toknow Huxley and thus came into close touch with ascientific worker of the first rank, useful alike in suggestion and in criticism. He found another friend inTyndall, whom he greatly admired for his combinationof the poetic with the scientific mood, for his passionfor Nature quite Wordsworthian in itsfor his interest inintensity, "andthe relations between science atlarge and the great questions which lie beyond science."In 1853, by the death of his uncle Thomas, whohad persistently overworked himself, Spencer receiveda bequest of $00. On the strength of this and theextended literary connections which the good officesof Mr Lewes and Mr (afterwards Prof.) David Massonhad secured for him, he resigned his sub-editorshipof The Economist in order to obtain leisure for largerworks. He always believed inburning his shipsbefore a struggle.Looking back on the "Economist" period, Spencerfelt that his later career had been mainly determinedby the conceptions which were then initiated and thefriendships which were formed."Books and Essays. Spencers life of greater freedombegan with a holiday in Switzerland (1853), which"fully equalled his anticipations in respectof itsgrandeur, but did not do so in respect of its beauty."The tour was greatly enjoyed, for Spencer was alover of mountains, but some excesses in walking

"Method"Manners"BOOKS AND ESSAYS33seem to have overtaxed his heart, and immediatelyafter his return there commenced cardiac disturbances which never afterwards entirely ceased ;andwhich doubtless prepared the way for the moreserious derangements of health subsequentlyestablished."For a time he settled down to essay-writing on; e.g.,in Education," in which he sought to justifyhis own experience of his father s non-coerciveliberating methods by affiliating these with the"Method of Nature ;on and Fashions," inwhich he protested against unthinking subservienceto social conventions, some of which are mere survivalsof more primitive times without present-day justification ;on "The Genesis of Science," in which heshowed how the sciences have grown out of common"knowledge and on; Railway Morals and Railwayin which he made some salutary disclosuresPolicy,"with characteristic fearlessness.Spencer s second book, The Principles of Psychology," began to be written in 1854in a summer-house atTreport, and it was in the same year that the authormade his first acquaintance with Paris. Preoccupiedwith his task, he wandered from Jersey to Brighton,from London to Derby, often writing about five hoursa day, and thinking with but little intermission.Theresult was that he finished the book in about a yearand almost finished his own career. The nervousbreakdown that followed cost him a year and a halffor recuperation, and his pursuit of truth was everafterwards involved with a pursuit of health.In search of health Spencer reverted to the best ofhis ability to a simple life, but he found it difficultC

""34 HERBERT SPENCERnot to think. Thoughtrode behind him when hetried horseback exercise, and novels brought onlysleeplessness. He tried yachting and he tried fishing,shower-baths and sea-bathing, playing with childrenand sleeping in a haunted room, but the cure was slow ;music was almost the onlything he could enjoy withimpunity. It was when fishing one morningin LochDoon that he vented his first oath, at the age ofthirty-six, because his line was tangled, and became,he tells us, more fully aware of the irritability produced by his nervous disorder !As entire idleness seemed futile, and as two and ahalf years had elapsed since he had made any money,Spencer returned to London (1857) to a home withchildren and beganin a leisurely way to write moreessays. He composed the article on "Progress:itsLaw and Cause at the pathetically slow rate of abouthalf a page per day, and the effort proved beneficial.significant essay entitled, "Transcendental Physiology,"dates from the same year, and during an angling holiday in Scotland he wrote another on the Origin andFunction of Music."Starting from the fact that feeling tends to discharge itself in muscular contractions,including those of the vocal organs, he sought toshow that music is a development of the naturallanguage of the emotions.Crystallisation of his Thought Spencer settled down"in London in a home with a lively circle," andpursued his calling as a thinker with quiet resolution.He had Sunday afternoon walks and talks withHuxley, and he occasionally dined out to meet interesting people such as Buckle and Grote ;but thetenor of his life was uninterrupted by much incident.A

""WithinCRYSTALLISATION OF THOUGHT 35In this year he published a volume of essays new andold, Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative; andthis was probably in part responsible for a greatunification in Spencer s thought. It was in thebeginning of 1858 that he made the first sketch ofhis System, and on the pth of January he wrote tohis father as follows :the last ten days myideas on various matters have suddenly crystallisedinto a complete whole. Many things which werebefore lying separate have fallen into their places asharmonious parts of a system that admits of logicaldevelopment from the simplest general principles."In this annus mirabilis (1858) when Darwin andWallace read their papers at the Linnaean Societyexpounding the idea of Natural Selection, Spencerwas also thinking keenly along evolutionary lines.He ventured on a defence of the Nebular Hypothesisand a criticism of Owen s Vertebral Theory of theSkull ;and he was workingat the question of the formand symmetry of animals, which he interpreted asdetermined by the relations of the parts to incidentforces."stillVigorous as he was in his intelligence, he wasunable to work for more than about three hours aday, and his pecuniary prospects were dismal. In viewof his determination to go on working out his System,itwas a fortunate chance that led him in an emergencyto discover that he could greatly increase his productivity by dictating instead of writing.Spencer made various efforts (1859-60) to securesome Government appointment which would affordhim a steady income and yet leave him free forhis life-work, but as nothing came of these, hewent on quietly with his essay-writing, with many

36 HERBERT SPENCERpleasant holidays interspersed, and produced his11Illogical Geology,""The Social Organism,""Prison Ethics," "ThePhysiology of Laughter,"and so on.Settling to his life-ivork.Baffled in other plans, heat length organised a scheme of publishing his projected series of volumes by subscription. His influential friends headed the list and four hundrednames were soon secured in Britain ;the disinterestedenergy of an American admirer, Prof. E. S. Youmans,raised the total to six hundred. And thus Spencer, atthe age of forty, handicapped by lackof means andsat down to a task which was calculatedhealth, calmly to occupy him for twenty years. ..." To thinkthat an amount of mental exertion great enough totax the energies of one in fullhealth and vigour, andat his ease in respect of means, should be undertakenby one who, having only precarious resources, hadbecome so far a nervous invalid that he could notwith any certainty count upon his powers from onetwenty-four hours to another !However, as theresult proved, the apparently unreasonable hope wasentertained, if not wisely, still fortunately. Forthough the whole of the project has not been executed, yet the larger part of it has." In one form offaith Spencer was in no wise lacking.

"CHAPTER VTHINKING OUT THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHYThinking by Stratagem The System Groivs DifficultiesIll-healthItaly Habits of WorkSociologyCitizenship Visit to America Closing TearsHAVING theoretically secured the requisitenumberof subscribers to the projected series of volumes,Spencer tried to settle down to something likeunity of In theoccupation." Spring of 1 860 hebegan the First Principles only to break down beforehe had finished the first chapter and the same;depressing experience was continually repeated. Fortunatelyfor Spencer s peace of mind, his uncle William lefthim some money jone may well say fortunately, sincethe number of defaulters in the subscription listwas so large that in the absence of other resourceseven the first volume could not have been published.Thinking by Stratagem. Spencer s devices for keepingoff the cerebral congestion which work induced weremany and various some almost if laughable,thewhole business had not been so tragic.He wouldramble into the country, find a sheltered nook orsunny bank, do a little work, and move on like a"Scholar Gipsy";he would take his amanuensis onthe Regent s Park water, row vigorously for fiveminutes, dictate for fifteen, and so on da capo ;he37

""38 HERBERT SPENCERfrequented an open racquet-court at Pentonville, andsandwiched games and First Principles even in the;Highlands he would dictate while he rowed. It wasaltogether like thinking by stratagem, and the tension ofworking against time became so irksome, that he issueda notice to the subscribers that successive numberswould come out when they were ready. Nevertheless, he completed the First Principles in June 1862.The System Groius. Having safely set forth hisdoctrine, Spencer turned with zest to relaxation,actingas cicerone to his friends at the InternationalExhibition, climbing in Wales, fishing in Scotland,revisiting Paris, and so forth. The years passedin alternate work and play, and the next great eventwas the publication of the first volume of thePrinciples of Biology in 1 864. In spite of inadequatepreparation Spencer produced by the strength ofhis intelligence a biological classic. At the time, ofThecourse, little notice was taken of it thus in;Athenaeum of 5th November 1864, a paragraph concerning the book commenced thus "This : is butone of two volumes, and the two but a part of alarger work : we cannot therefore but announce it.""In1864," Spencer says, one "not educated personin ten or more knew the meaning of the wordBiology and ; among those who knew it, whethercritics or general readers, few cared to know anythingabout the subject" (Autobiography, ii. p. 105).It was in the same year (1864) that Spencerformulated his views on the classification of thesciences and his reasons for dissenting from thephilosophy of Comte.Of considerable interest was the formation of a

""""The"DIFFICULTIES 39decemvirate of Spencers friends, which was firstcalled The Blastodermic and afterwards the X"club. It consisted of Huxley, Tyndall, Hooker,Lubbock, Frankland, Busk, Hirst, Spottiswoode, andSpencer, with one vacancy which was never filled up.The members dined together occasionally and talkedat large. Amongits members were three whobecame Presidents of the Royal Society, and five whobecame Presidents of the British Association. Of theothers one was for a time President of the College ofSurgeons ;another President of the Chemical Society ;and a third of the Mathematical Society.. . . "Of thewas the only one who was fellow of no society,nine Iand had presided over nothing."The club lasted forat least twenty-three years (1887), and had considerable influence both on its members and externally.In 1865 Spencer took considerable interest in anew weekly journal, calledReader," in whichmany prominent workers were implicated,but theenterprise ended in disappointment, unless, indeed,it was a step towards the establishment of Nature.In this and the following year he busied himself withan investigation regarding circulation in plants,the only concrete piece of biological work he everindulged in. But the greatcompletion of The Principles of Biology.event of 1 866 was theDifficulties. In the beginning of 1866 Spencerfound that many of the subscribers to his serialpublications had withdrawn, and that not a few weremuch in arrears, and he sorrowfully decided thathe must abandon his undertaking.It was at thisjuncture that he discovered what stuff his friendswere made of. Mr John Stuart Mill wrote propps-

"40 HERBERT SPENCERing to help to indemnify Spencer for losses incurred,and offering to guarantee the publisher against anyloss on the next treatise. He called this a simpleproposal of co-operation for an important publicpurpose, for which you give your labour and havegiven your As health." Spencer felt himself obligedto decline this generous proposal, the next moveamong his friends was to arrange to take a largenumber of copies (250) for distribution. To this,with mingled feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, Spencer agreed. Meanwhile, however, hisAmerican admirers, organised by Professor Youmans,invested in Spencer s name a sum of 7000 dollarsas a fund to ensure the continued publication of hisworks. This, in combination with an improvementin Spencer s financial position, consequent on hisfather s death (1866), made publication once moresecure without the aid of the subsidising schemeproposed by his English friends.In September1 866 Herbert Spencer settled himself in London, en pension at 37 Queen s Gardens,Lancaster Gate, which remained his home for overa score of years. Henceforth he was less of anomad, and he secured himself against all interruptions by taking a secret study a few doors off.There are two records for the beginning of 1867which are interesting in their contrast. The firstis that Spencer declined without hesitation certainovertures byhis friends that he should stand forthe professorshipof Moral Philosophy at UniversityCollege, London, and for a similar post in Edinburgh ;the second is that he invented a most elaborateinvalid-bed, which, like most of his inventions, fell flat.

"ThusDIFFICULTIES 41The invalid-bed had been suggested by his mother sprolonged feebleness, but it was not long to be used.Spencer was left in 1867 with no nearer relativesthan cousins. In reference to his mother, we quotewith all reverence one of the few strong personaltouches in the Autobiography.ended a life of monotonous routine, verylittlerelieved I by positive pleasures. look back upon it regretfully : thinking how small were the sacrifices which I madefor her in comparison with the great sacrifices which, as amother, she made for me inmy early days. In human life,as we at present know it, one of the saddest traits is the dullwhich exists at the time when it issense of filial obligationspossible to discharge them with something like fulness, incontrast with the keen sense of them which arises when suchdischarge is no longer possible."In the spring of 1867 Spencer finished publishingthe second volume of the Biology,and immediately setto work to recast First Principles.And as if thatwas not enough, he began in the same year, with thehelp of his Mr secretary, David Duncan, his collectionof sociological data, which was intended to afford thefoundation for a treatise on the Principles of Sociology.In spite of occasional holidays at Yarrow, at Glenelg,and in other delightful places, the usual nemesis ofindustry was not avoided. Spencer s nerve-centres,which could never endure prolonged attention, showedthe usual symptoms of over-fatigue ;and though hetried morphia and skating, hydropathy and rackets,he had to give up work early in 1 868. He betookhimself to Italy for rest, attracted partly by the factthat Vesuvius was in eruption About this time he!was elected a member of the Athenaeum Club, the

"Most"42 HERBERT SPENCERsedative amenities of which proved a useful prophylactic in after years.Italy.Of Spencers Tour in Italy the Autobiographygives us some interesting reminiscences. He arrivedin Naples in a state of extreme exhaustion, weariedwith the voyage, wearied with a menu in which tunnywas the piece de resistance, and finding comfort onlyin the shelter of his Inverness cape. And yet, theday after his arrival, the author of Social Staticsmight have been seen giving swift chase to anaudacious thief who had taken advantage of thephilosopher s preoccupation to abstract his operaglass.likely had the young fellow had aknife about him I should have suffered, perhapsfatally, for my imprudence."A few days later, thesame characteristic rashness impelled him to ascendthe burning mountain without a guide and at greatrisk. "How to account for the judicial blindness Idisplayed, I do not know unless ; by regardingan extreme instance of the tendency which I perceivein myself to be enslaved by a plan once formed atendency to become for a time possessed by onethought to the exclusion of others."Nothing that Spencer saw in Italy impressed himso much as "the dead town" of Pompeii. The man"who took but little interest in what are calledhistories was stirred bythis concrete historicalfossil. "It aroused sentiments such as no writtenit asrecord had ever done." He enjoyed Rome, butrather for its harmonious colouring than for itshistorical associations, of which he had no vividperception. He was more irritated than pleased bythe old masters. He got most pleasure from the

"HABITS OF WORK 43scenery, but Italy is "a land of beautiful distancesand ugly foregrounds." Companionless and impatient,his chief thought was how to get home most comfortably, and so he returned no better than he went.Habits of Work. About this time the tide hadturned as regarded the sale of his works, and hewrote gratefully"the remainder of my life-voyagewas through smooth waters." As the Autobiographyshows, it was a quiet and uneventful voyage. Periodsof work alternated with holidays, many parts of thecountry were visited, and angling became more andmore his best recreation. Nothing else served sowell to restmy brain and fit it for resumption ofwork." Another resource was billiards, which hegreatly enjoyed. He never could remember whistor similar games.On fine mornings he used to spend two or threehours on the Serpentine, alternating rowing anddictating. After his mornings work and after lunchhe used to walk through Kensington Gardens, HydePark, and the Green Park, without more than a quarterof a mile upon pavement, to the Athenaeum Club,where he skimmed through periodicals and books,and played his game. Thereafter he sauntered back todinner at seven, "which was followed by such miscellaneous ways of passing the time without excitementas were available. Thus passed my ordinary days."By this time he had given up novel-reading, onlytreating himself to one about once a year, and then ina dozen or more instalments. He did not care tomultiply social relations, he "avoided acquaintanceshipsand cultivated "There isonly in mefriendships."verylittle of the besoin tie purler jand hence I do not care to

"44 HERBERT SPENCERtalk with those in whom I feel no interest." Andthus, though far from being a recluse, he lived his lifeof thought quietly.In 1871 Spencer was nominated for the office ofLord Rector at the University of St Andrews, butHehe declined the honour for the sake of his work.also declined the honorary degree of Doctor of Lawsfrom the same University, and subsequently, similarhonours, chiefly on the ground "thatthe advance ofthought will be most furthered, when the only honoursto be acquired by authors are those spontaneouslyyielded to them by a public which is left to estimatetheir merits as well as it can."The first (synthetic) volume of the new edition ofthe Psychology begunin 1867 was finished in 1870,the second (analytic) volume begunin 1870 wascompleted in the end of 1872. Having become much"interested in the well-known International ScientificSeries," Spencer contributed to it in 1873 the volumeknown as The Study of Sociology,which has donemuch in Britain and America to secure the positionof Sociology as a workable science. It was unusuallysuccessful for a book of its kind, and brought Spencerabout 1500.FromSociology. 1867 onwards Spencer had beencollecting Sociological Data to serve as a basis forgeneralised interpretation. With the help of MrDavid Duncan, Mr James Collier, andthisDr Scheppig,and itsbig piece of work made steady progress,publication began to be discussed in 1871. It washoped that the plan of exhibiting sociologicalphenomena in such wise that comparisons of them intheir co-existences and sequences, as occurring among

"""SOCIOLOGY 45various peoples in different stages, were made easy,would immenselyfacilitate the discovery of sociological The truths." first part of this Descriptivewas Sociology published in 1873,but the demandfor it was very slight jnot quite 200 copies wereasked for in eight months. I had," Spencer says,greatly over-estimated the amount of desire whichexisted in the public mind for social facts of aninstructive kind. They greatly preferred those ofan uninstructive kind." In this and similar connections, the reader of the Autobiography cannot but beimpressed by two facts, on the one hand, thechivalrous eagerness on the part of American friendsto be allowed to lessen Spencer s pecuniary burden,and, on the other hand, the almost ultra-sensitiveresoluteness which Spencer exhibited in decliningthese offers.In 1874,with the materials and memoranda of aquarter of a century around him, the thinker, whowas blamed for not being inductive, set himself tomuch aswrite the Principles of Sociology, feelingmight a general of division who had become commander-in-chief;or rather, as one who had to undertake this highest function in addition to the lowerfunctions of all his subordinates of the first, second,and third grades. Only by deliberate method persistently followed was itpossible to avoid confusion."The period of work on the Sociologywas broken bysome delightful holidays in the Highlands and elsewhere, by the British Association meeting at Belfast(1874) when Tyndall gave his famous PresidentialAddress, and by the usual ill-health. The firstvolume was completedin 1877. Apart from the

"Be46 HERBERT SPENCERnemesis of nerves, Spencers life at this time seemsto have been a happy one ;he was fairly free frompecuniary cares ;he was no longer tied to a serialissue of his publications ;he could afford pleasantholidays, and he had a small circle of loyal friends.The philosopher began a series of annual picnics,which he seems to have engineered with great skill ;in various ways he acted up to what he says was hishabitual maxim, a boy as long as can."you In1877 he had the excitement of a shipwreck nearLoch Carron, and the encouragement of having hisDescriptive Sociologytranslated into Russian.Ill-Health. In spite of all his care, the year 1878opened with a serious illness, and this prompted himto begin dictating The Data of Ethics lest an aggravation of his ill-health should hinder him from raisingthis coping-stone of his system. Just before Christmasof this year, he went with Prof. Youmans to theRiviera, and for a couple of months was more thanusually successful in combining work and play. Hefinished The Data of Ethics inJune 1879, andCeremonial Institutions later in the year. As a rewardof industry, and as a safeguard against too much ofit, a holiday up the Nile in pleasant company wasthen arranged, and Spencer entered upon it in greatspirits.But an ill-considered meal at Alexandriabrought on dyspepsia and morbid fancies, and he wasforced to return at the first cataract. He had seenmany of the sights and was inevitably impressed, buthe seems to have been glad to get out of the"melancholycountry""the land of decay anddeath dead men, dead races, dead creeds," as itappeared to his jaundiced eyes.

"Home""""ILL-HEALTH 47On his return journey he spent three days inVenice, but though he derived much pleasure fromthe general effects, he was repelled by the obtrusivenessand superficiality of the decorations. He regarded St Mark s as "a fine samplearchitecture";of barbaric"it has the trait distinctive of semicivilisedart excess of decoration;it is archarologically,but not aesthetically precious."The entry in his journal for Feb. 1 2th, 1880 reads :at 7-IOj heartily glad more pleasure thanin anything that occurred during my tour."Although he did not greatly enjoyhis tour inEgypt, and brought back his packet of work unopened,the break seems to have beenItdecidedly beneficial."has apparently worked some kind of constitutionalchange ; for, marvellous to relate, I am now able todrink beer with impunity and, I think, with benefit athing I have not been able to do for these fifteen yearsor more." He thought that it had also perhapsfurthered his work to have had contact with peoplein a lower stage of civilisation.In 1881 Spencer published the eighth part of hisDescriptive Sociology and put a full stop to the undertaking which left him with a deficit of between threeand four thousand pounds, and which had half-killedtwo secretaries.Spencer s next task was the completion of PoliticalInstitutions, another instalment of the Sociology,whichhe had begun in 1879, and he was at this time alsooccupied in considering and answering the more formidable of the criticisms which his system hadaroused, and in revising new editions of the FirstPrinciples and The Study of Sociology.Itisinteresting

""""""48 HERBERT SPENCERto note that the last work was carefully revisedsentence bysentence five times.Citizenship. In 1 88 1Spencer felt in a new way thecall II faut etre he was drawndtoyen" ;universalinto practical action, and although this led to thegreatest disaster of his life, the cause was worthy ofthe sacrifice. It was the cause of peace. While writingPolitical Institutions he had become more firmly convinced than ever that the possibility of a highercivilization depends wholly on the cessation ofmilitancy and the growth of industrialism." Conversations withMr Frederic Harrison and others led to meetings of those who were sympathetic with what mightbe called a non-aggression policy, and Spencer was sokeenly interested that in spite of forebodings he undertook some organising work, and even went the lengthof moving a resolution and making a speech at a publicmeeting. There was no direct political result of theAnti-Aggression but there was most misLeague,"chievous result to Spencer. There was produceda mischief which, in a gradually increasing degree,undermined life and arrested work." He had nowbegun to descend the inclined plane which broughthim down in the course of subsequent years to thecondition of a confirmed invalid, leading little morethan a vegetativelife." What Spencer did in conmovement wasnection with the Anti-Aggressionprobably only the last straw, but he could not lookback on his intrinsically right action without regret.Right though I thought it, my course brought severepenalties and no compensations whatever. I amnot thinking only of the weeks, months, years, ofwretched nights and vacant days ; though these made

"""As"VISIT TO AMERICA 49existence a long-drawn weariness. I refer chiefly tothe gradual arrest and final cessation of my work ;and the consciousness thatthere was slipping by thatclosing part of life during which it should have beencompleted."He was too honest to profess a pleasurehe did not feel in a mens sibl conscia recti.he said,It is best,"to recognise the facts as they are, and nottry to prop up rectitude by fictions."Visit to America. In 1882 in the hope of recovering tone, not, as some of the papers said, of recouping his finances, Spencer went on a visit to America,along with Mr Lott his friend of forty years. Hewas, of course, pressed to lecture, and was offeredterms up to 250 dollars per night, but he wouldhave none of it.Lecturing was not his metier, andhis health was broken.matters stand," hewrote, the giving a lecture or reading a paper,would be nothing more than making myself a show ;and I absolutely decline to make myself a show."The only public appearance he made was at a dinnerin his honour at New York, where, with his fatiguedbrain, he spoke straightto the Americans on the sin ofover-devotion to work. With his friend Lott as abuffer, he succeeded in avoidingall interviewers untilhe had got on board the Germanic on his return voyage,when he was taken unawares at the last moment.Spencer saw some of the finest sights in Americaand Canada; he met congenial spirits, and everythingpossible was done to make his visit a tonic ;but hecame back in a worse state than he went, "havingmade another step downwards towards invalid life."Closing rears. From 1882 till 1889, when theAutobiography ends, Spencer s life was one of invalidismD

50 HERBERT SPENCERwith occasional gleams of health. There was nothingorg nically wrong with him, but he had no reserve ofnervous energy, and he was not able to work formore than brief intervals at a time. Yet he producedduring these years The Man Versus the State, avolume on Ecclesiastical Institutions, and The Factorsof Organic Evolution. He also dictated the Autobiography at the average rate of about fifteen lines per day!As years went on Spencer became more and moreof a recluse, more and more a man of nerves, thegrasshopper became a burden, and as he watchedhimself with scientific minuteness, hypochondrianaturally grew upon him. He continued, however,to use for work the minute fractions of a day whenhe felt relatively vigorous, and thus he at lengthactually finished his Synthetic Philosophy in 1896.He gives an account of his daily routine when hehad attained the age of seventy-three. In the morningshe did a little work, dictating for ten minutes at atime, and repeating the process from two to five times.During the rest of the day he killed time, walking afew hundred yards, driving for an hour or so in acarriage with india-rubber tyres, or "sitting verymuch in the open air, hearing and observing thebirds, watching the drifting clouds, listening to thesighings of the wind through the trees." He couldnot read or bear being read to, he could not playgames or listen to music, he used ear-stoppers toshut out conversation whenever he got tired of it, and1without respect of persons, and he took opium tosecure a few hours sleep at nights. He might havebeen more comfortable, physically,if he had abandonedallattempt at work, but the architectonic instinct

"""""CLOSING YEARS 51tyrannised over him. He really lived for the sakeof the little oases of work-time which broke themonotony of his daily journey.It should be remembered, that invalid as hewas, Spencer aggravated matters byhis scientifichypochondria, and perhaps also by his soporifics.Hisdisturbances of health involved little positive suffering, and, till he was considerably over sixty, he hadfew deprivations. Even in old age he had no invalidappearance.Neither in the lines of the face nor inits colour, is there any such signof constitutionalderangement as would be expected. Contrariwise,I am usually supposed to be about ten years youngerthan I am"(1893).Spencer s closing Prof. Hudsonyears," writes, wereclouded with much sadness and disappointment."His dayswere vacant and his nights a weariness ;he had outlived mostof his friends and was lonely and "the;completion of hisSynthetic Philosophy in 1896 did not bring him the keensatisfaction he fairly might have He saw hisexpected."political advice disregarded, and on all sides an exuberantgrowth of the socialistic organisations which he had spenthimself in criticising. He saw, too, with profound sorrow,unmistakable signs everywhere of reaction inreligion,politics, society.The recrudescence of militarism, thedevelopment of a sordidly materialistic spirit throughout themodern nations and their abandonment of the principles ofsanity and political righteousness all these things cast avery black shadow over his declining path.I do not wonderthat, as he looked back over his magnificent life-work, hismind should have been darkened by the doubt as to whethersome of the truths, to which he attached the greatest value,might not after all have been set forth in vain(" FortnightlyReview," 1904, p. 17).Spencer s life closed in his eighty-third year, onDecember 8th, 1903.

"CHAPTER VICHARACTERISTICS :PHYSICAL AND INTELLECTUALThe Autobiography PhysicalCharacteristics IntellectualCharacteristics Limitations Development ofSpencer s Mind Methods ofWork Genius ?SPENCER was much given to summing up what hethe traits" of the men he met, and he excalledtended the process to himself in hisAutobiography,which is an elaborate piece of self-portraiture.The Autobiography.Some one has called autobiography the least credible form of fiction, but thatis not the impression which Spencers gives. Hisself-analysis is candid and continuous he is ; alwaysrevealing his feet of clay, and that with a self-complacency which is unintelligible to those who do notunderstand the impersonal scientific mood which hadbecome habitual to Spencer. He almost achievedthe impossible,of looking at himself from the outside.Huxley wrote an autobiography in a score of pages,and he never wrote anything better ; Spencer occupiedover a thousand pages with his account of himself,and he never wrote anything worse. Dictated inoutline in 1875, it was elaborated piecemeal, in smalldaily instalments, after the most serious of the manybreakdowns in health had precluded more difficultwork. Naturally enough, therefore, the Autobio-5*

"His""wasPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 53graphy is often prolix and lacking in proportion, oftenslack in style and,it must be confessed, tedious. Littledetails in a picture may be essential to the effectiveimpression, but Spencer often wearies us with triflingincidents whose narration has no excuse except ashappening in a great life.Yet, if we lay the volumesaside, bored by their momumental egotism, we returnto them with sympathy, and are won again by theirunaffected frankness and candid sincerity.With the Autobiography before us, but exercisingthe right of private judgment, we propose in thisand the next chapter to sum up Spencers characteristics physical, intellectual, and emotional, and torefer to his methods of work and conduct of life.Physical Characteristics. Spencer at his best wasan impressive figure, "tall, erect, a little gaunt, witha magnificent broad brow and high domed head."face,"Prof. W. H. Hudson writes,astrikingly expressive one, with its strong frontal ridge,deep-set eyes, prominent nose, and firmly-cut mouthand jaw the face of a man marked out for intellectualleadership."*It was not wrinkled withthought, as one might have expected, but was smoothas a child s or as a bishop s, the explanation being, asSpencer said, that he never worried over things, butallowed his brain to do its own thinking withoutpressure. He looked anything but an invalid, for hischeeks were ruddy even in later years. He had afine voice and "a rather rare laugh of deep-chestedmusical qualities."He lamented that he had not inherited his father sfinely developed chest organs, and that in con-1Herbert Spencer: A Character Study, Fortnightly Review," 1904

"""54 HERBERT SPENCERsequence his cerebral circulation was under par.More positively, he seems to have inherited a readilyfatigued nervous system, which limited his powers ofprotracted attention and made him not infrequentlyirritable and difficult to get on with. As we haveseen he suffered periodically from over-taxing hisbrain, which induced terrible insomnia.he suffered from dyspepsia.Intellectual Characteristics. I.AmongLike Carlyle,his intellectualcharacteristics, Spencer gave the foremost place tohis unusual capacity for the intuition of cause."The capacity was inherited and it was carefullynurtured. His restlessness to discover causesnatural causes" was illustrated when, as a boy ofthirteen, he called in question the dictum of Dr Arnottrespecting inertia, and it was characteristic of hiswhole intellectual life. He cultivated this inquisitivenessfor causes till the mood became habitual, andresulted in what we may almost call an interpretativeinstinct. That this never led him astray, not evenhis most enthusiastic disciples would venture tomaintain.While the scientific method isalways fundamentallythe same, there is happily some legitimate elasticity inthe order of procedure. Some minds start with aclue perceived by a flash of insight and then proceedto test and verify ;others collect their data laboriouslyand never get a glimpse of their conclusion until theinduction is complete. Some seem to have a selectiveinstinct for getting hold of the most significant facts,or for making the crucial experiment ;others have toplod on patiently from fact to fact and must makemany foolsexperiments."Some find a nugget

INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS 55while their neighbours get their gold in dust particlesafter washing much ore.Now Spencer had that passion for facts which isfundamental to all solid scientific work, but he hadthe greater gift of getting rapidly beneath facts to thequestion of their significance. He had not the loveof details which is essential to the descriptivenaturalist for instance, which sometimes becomesintellectual avarice for copper coinage, but he wasinstinctively an cetiologist, an interpreter.In his account of the working of his mind, hesays :"There was comnunly shown a faculty of seizing cardinaltruths rather than of accumulating detailed information.The implications of phenomena were then, as always,more interesting to me than the phenomena themselves.What did they prove? was the question instinctively put.The consciousness of causation, to which there was anatural proclivity, and which had been fostered by my father,continually prompted analyses, which of course led me belowthe surface and made fundamental principles objects of greaterattention than the various concrete illustrations of them. Sothat while my acquaintance with things might have beencal ed superficial,if measured by the number of facts known, itmight have been called the reverse of superficial, ifmeasuredby the quality of the facts. And there was possiblyarelation between these traits. A friend who possessedextensive botanical knowledge, once remarked to me that,had I known as much about the details of plant-structure asbotanists do, T never should have reached those generalisationsconcerning plant-morphology which I had reached."(Autobiography.I. pp. 335-6.)"2. Another inherited capacity was the synthetictendency," the power of generalising or of workingout unifying formulae. His first book Social Staticsset out with a general principle ; his first essay was

"""A""Both"56 HERBERT SPENCERentitled,theory of population, deduced jrom thegeneral law of animal fertility ;his life-work wastheSynthetic Philosophy.One of George Eliot switticisms made game of Spencer s aptitude forgeneralisation.He had been explaining his disbeliefin the criticalpowers of salmon, and his aim in makingflies the best average representation of an insectbuzzing on the surface of the water." "Yes,"shesaid,you have such a passion for generalising,you even fish with a generalisation."And this exmuch of his life inactly describes what he spentdoing.Mr Francis Galton has graphically stated his impression,that Spencer s composite mental photographs, in forming a generalisation, or in using ageneral formula-term, were many times multiple ofthose of ordinary mortals. A composite mentalphotographfrom a small number of intellectualnegatives yields a blurred outline a woolly idea,with ragged edges and loose ends but a compositemental photograph from a very large number of impressions, yielded, in Spencer s case, a generalisationwhich was crisp and well-defined. Some one hassaid that Ruskin had the most analytic mind in modernChristendom : that Spencersynthetic minds can hardly be questioned.had one of the most3. It was one of the open secrets of Spencer spower that his analytic tendency was almost equal tohis synthetic tendency.subjectively and objectively, the desire to build up was accompanied byan almost equal desire to delve down to the deepestaccessible truth, which should serve as an unshakablefoundation." It appears that in the treatment of

"One"""INTELLECTUAL, CHARACTERISTICS 57every topic, however seemingly remote from philosophy, I found occasion for falling back on someultimate principlein the natural order."The first volume of the Psychology is synthetic, thesecond volume is analytic,taking to pieces ourintellectual fabric and the products of its actions,until the ultimate components are reached and we;find the same two methods pursued in his other books."While, on the one hand, they betray a great liking fordrawing deductions and building them up into a coherentwhole ;on the other hand, they betray a great liking forexamining the premises on which a set of deductions israised, for the purpose of seeing what assumptions are involved in them, and what are the deepertruths into whichsuch assumptions are resolvable. There is shown an evidentdissatisfaction with proximate principles, and a restlessnessuntil ultimate principles have been reached ;at the same timethere is shown a desire to see how the most complex phenomena are to be interpreted as workings of these ultimateprinciples.It is, I think, to the balance of these twotendencies that the character of the work done ismainlyascribable."But while Spencer had beyond doubt analyticpowers of a very high order,it is to be feared thatthere is some justice in the criticism that he sometimes confused abstraction with analysis, and reachedan apparently simple result by abstracting away someessential components.4.further cardinal trait, which is in a sensea result of the preceding traits, has to be namedthe ability to discern inconspicuous analogies."Itwas in part this ability that gave Spencer his powerof handling so many different orders of facts. Thehabit of ignoring the variable outer components andrelations, and looking for the invariable inner com-

"from58 HERBERT SPENCERponents and relations, facilitates the perception oflikeness between things which externally are quitean un-unlike perhaps so utterly unlike that, byanalytical intelligence, they cannot be conceived tohave any resemblance whatever." It is this kind ofinsight which enables the morphologist to unify awhole series of organic types by detecting the similarities of architecture underlying the exceedinglydiverse external expression. It was this kind ofinsight which led Spencer to his analogy between asocial organism and an individual organism, and tomany others which have been found fruitful. But itis to be feared that some of his analogies, notablythat between inanimate mechanisms and living creaturesled him far astray.5. Another power strongly developed was constructive imagination. The boy who was so fond of buildingcastles in the air, who grudged the sleep which putan end to his fanciful adventures, grew up a manwhose mind was his kingdom. AJ1 sorts of thingsand thoughts pulled the trigger of his imagination,with which he was often so preoccupied that hewould pass those living in the same house with himand look them in the face without knowinghad seen them.that heSpencer found in the delight of constructive imaginationpart of the explanation of his versatility.The products ofhis mental action rangeda doctrine of State functionsto a levelling-staff; from the genesis of religiousideas to awatch escapement ;from the circulation inplantsto *ninvalid bed ;from the law of organic symmetry to planingmachinery from ; principlesof ethics to a velocimeter ;froma metaphysical doctrine to a binding-pin from a classifica;tion of the sciences to an improved fishing-rod joint ;from

"Lack""LIMITATIONS 59the general Law of Evolution to a better mode of dressingartificial flies." i5ut for every interest in either thetheoretical or the practical,a requisite condition has been theopportunity offered for something new. And here may beperceived the trait which unites the extremely unlike products of mental action exemplified above. They have oneand all afforded scope for constructive imagination."Clearness in exposition was another of Spencer sgifts,grandfatherand he connected this with the fact that hisand father had been teachers. Butlucidity of exposition usually accompanies clear thinking, and increases if there is opportunity for practice.His fearlessness and his self-confidence, he also connected with the fact that in school the master mustbe the absolute authority, but it seems much moreplausible to regard this characteristic independence ofjudgment as an outcrop of the Nonconformist moodof his ancestors.Limitations. Spencer was too scrupulous a selfanalystnot to be aware of many of his own limitations, and he has exposed the defects of his qualitieswith the utmost frankness. Thus his disregard ofauthority, which helped him to independent positionsin science and philosophy, seemed to become a habitof mind which prompted him to react from currentbeliefs and opinions without always doing themjustice. His anti-classical bias led him "to underestimate the pastascompared with the presentof reverence for what others have said anddone has tended to make me neglect the evidence ofearly achievements."One concrete instance may be selected, his failure towhich the wise are at one inappreciate Plato s dialogues,regarding as masterpieces of philosophical discussion, and as

60 HERBERT SPENCERaffording invaluable fordisciplinethe most modern of thinkers.Spencer approached them with a strong bias, with a predisposition to depreciate, and what was the result ? "Timeafter time I have attempted to read, now this dialogue andnow that, and have putit down in a state of impatiencewith the indefiniteness of the thinking and the mistaking ofwords for things:being repelled also by the rambling formof the argument. Once when 1 was talking on the matterto a classical scholar, he said Yes,but as works of artthey are well worth reading. So, when I again took upthe dialogues, I contemplated them as works of art, and putthem aside in greater exasperation than before. To callthat a dialogue which is an interchange of speechesbetween the thinker and hisdummy, who says just what itis convenient to have said, is absurd. There is moredramatic proprietyin the conversations of our third-ratenovelists ;and such a production as that of Diderot,Rameau s nephetu, has more strokes of dramatic truth thanall the Platonic dialogues put together, if the rest are likethose 1 have looked into. Still, quotations from time totime met with, lead me to think that there are in Platodetached thoughts from which I might benefit had I thepatience to seek them out. The like is probablytrue ofother ancient writings." (!)Disregard of authority is a great gift, if it go handin hand with a careful examination of the reasonswhich lead to a conclusion becoming authoritative,but Spencer does not seem to have felt this responsibility.He began every subject by cleaning the slate.Thus one of the most conspicuous, and in some waysleast agreeable characteristics of his intellectual workwas his indifference as to what previous investigatorshad said. This was in part an expression of his ownstrength and independence,but it also savoured ofarrogance. The virtue of it was that he approacheda subject with the vigour of a fresh mind, butits vice was repeatedly disclosed in his failure to

""TheLIMITATIONS 61realise all the difficulties and subtleties of a problema failure which sometimes involved nothing short ofamateurishness. A skilful naturalist has said thatin tackling an unsolved problem there are only twocommendable methods,one to read everything bearing on the question, the other to read nothing. Itwas the second method that Spencer habituallypractised.He gathered facts, but took little stockin opinions or previous deliverances.Thus in beginning to plan out his Social Staticshe paid little attention to what had been writteneither upon ethics or politics.The books I did readwere those which promised to furnish illustrativematerial." He wrote his First Principles with aminimal knowledge of the philosophical classics, andhis Psychologyas if he had been living before the invention of printing.Some one thought certain partsof his Education savoured of Rousseau, but he had notheard of Emile when he wrote. He was greatlyindebted to von Baer for a formula, but there is noevidence that he ever read any part of the greatembryologist s works. The suggestion that he wasindebted to Comte for some sociological ideas mighthave been dismissed at once on a priori grounds asabsurd. And in point of fact when Spencer wrotehis Social Statics he knew no more of Comte than thathe was a French philosophical writer, and it was nottill1853 ^ at he began to nibble at Comte s works,to which Lewes and George Eliot had repeatedlydirected his attention. He adopted two of Comte swords "altruism" and but "sociology" beyondthat his indebtedness was little. We may take his ownword for it :only indebtedness I recognise is

62 HERBERT SPENCERthe indebtedness of antagonism. My pronouncedopposition to his views led me to develop some ofmy own views." That they both tried to organisea system of so-called philosophy out of the sciencesindicates a community of aim, but there the resemblance ceases.Spencer s intellectual development seems to havebeen peculiarly detached and independent. He wasof course influenced by his father and by two of hisuncles during his formative period, and he was alsodoubtless influenced by George Henry Lewes andGeorge Eliot, Huxley and Hooker in later yearsas who could help being but in the main he was astrong, self-sufficient, self-made Ishmaelite.Similarlyas regards authors, he was influenced by Lamarck stransformist theory, by Laplaces nebular hypothesis,by Malthus s theory of population, by Milne-Edwardsidea of the physiological division of labour, by vonBaer s formula, by Hamilton and Mansel, by Grove scorrelation of the physical forces, by Darwin sOrigin of Species, and so on, but his own thoughtwas always far more to him than anything he everread.Just as independence may become a vice, so withcriticism, and Spencer had certainly the defect of thisquality. Like his grandfather and his father beforehim, he was perpetually criticising, and he developeda hypersensitiveness to mistakes and shortcomings.For while sound criticism is an intellectual savingitgrace, defeats its own end when the critic is constantly looking for reasons for disagreement, rather thanfor supplementary construction. Comte was assuredlyright in saying that one only destroys when one replaces.

""there"how""SPENCER S MIND 63Morever, Spencer s dominant tendency greatly interfered with his power of admiration. He was sokeenly alive to the many mistakes in chiaroscuro whichcharacterise various paintings of the old masters thathe found little pleasure in them. When lookingat Greek sculpture he constantly discovered unnatural drapery. When he went to the opera with"George Eliot he remarked much analysisof the effects produced deducts from enjoymentof the effects." He could not even look at a beautifulwoman without his "phrenological diagnosis"discovering something which took the edge off hisadmiration. "It seems probable,"he quaintly remarks,that this abnormal tendency to criticise has been achief factor in the continuance of my celibate life."Development of Spencer s Mind. Spencer has himselfgiven us an account of his mental development.As a boy his mind was always set upon discovering naturalcauses, and under his father s influence there grew up in"him a tacit belief that whatever occurred had its assignable cause of a comprehensible kind." Insensibly he relinquished the current creed of supernaturalism and its associatedstory of creation.The doctrine of the universality of natural causation hasfor its inevitable corollarythe doctrine that the Universe andall things in it have reached their present forms throughsuccessive stages physically necessitated. But no suchcorollary suggested itself delmitely until Spencer was twentywhen he read Lyell s Principles of Geology, and was led byLyell s arguments against Lamarck to a partial acceptance ofLamarck s evolutionist point of view.Two years afterwards, in The proper Sphere of Government,was shown an unhesitating belief that the phenomenaof both individual life and social life conform to law;and eight yearslater in Social Statics, the social organism wasdiscussed in the same sort of way as the individual organism ;

"""A"assumed"64 HERBERT SPENCERa physiological view of social actions was taken, and thesame mode of progress was shown to be common to allchanging phenomena.In 185 2 the essay on the "Development Hypothesis"was anopen avowal of evolutionism ;and other essays on populationand over-legislationthat social arrangements andinstitutions are products of natural causes, and that they havea normal order of growth."An acquaintance with von Baer s description of individualdevelopment gave definiteness to Spencer s conception ofprogress, and the idea of change from homogeneity toheterogeneity became his formula of evolution, applicable tostyle, to manners and fashions, to science itself, and to thegrowing mind of the child, as was shown in a succession ofessays on these themes.The next great step was in the Principles of Psychologywhich sought to trace out the genesis of mind in all its forms,sub-human and human, as produced by the organised andinherited effects of mental actions. Increase of faculty byexercise, hereditary entailment of gains, and consequentprogressive adaptation, were prominent ideas in this treatise.Progressive adaptation became increasing adjustment ofinner subjective relations to outer objectiverelations increasing correspondence between the two."So far, then, Spencer had recognised throughout a vastfield of phenomena the increase of heterogeneity, of speciality,of integration as traits of progress of all kinds ;and thusarose the question:Why is this increasing heterogeneityuniversal ?transition from the inductive stage to thedeductive stage was shown in the answer the transformationresults from the unceasing multiplication of effects. When,shortly after, there came the perceptionthat the conditionof homogeneityis an unstable condition, yet another steptowards the completely deductive stage was made." Thetheorem passed into the region of physicalscience."The advance towards a complete conception of evolutionwas itself a process of evolution. At first there was simplyan unshaped belief in the development of living things ;including,in a vague way, social development. Theextension of von Baer s formula expressing the development

"METHODS OF WORK 65of each organism,first to one and then to another group ofphenomena, until all were taken in as parts of a whole,exemplified the process of integration.With advancingintegration there went that advancing heterogeneity impliedby inclusion of the several classes of inorganic phenomenaand the several classes of super-organic phenomenain thesame category with organic phenomena. And then theindefinite idea of progress passedinto the definite idea ofevolution, when there was recognised the essential nature ofthe change, as a physically determined transformation conforming to ultimate laws of force."It is difficult to state with any certainty what led Spencerin1857 to a coherent body of beliefs to the first sketchof his system. In the main the unification was probably anatural maturation and integration of his thoughts, but it wasperhaps helped by the immediate task of revising and publishing a collection of essays, and also by the fact that the timewas one at which certain all-embracing scientific truths ofa simple order were beingrevealed."Notably the doctrineof the conservation and transformability of energy was beginning to possess scientific minds, and the doctrine of evolutionwas beginning to make its grip felt.Furthermore, in trying to understand Spencer, we mustrecognise that he was the flower of a nonconformist dissenting stock, that his mind matured in contact with engines andother mechanisms, and that he was almost forced to excludenew influences after he settled down with his system at theage of forty.Methods of Work. While there was nothing remarkable in Spencer s methods of work, it may beof interest to indicate certain generalthe Autobiographydiscloses.features whichIn the first place, after a few disastrous experiments, he abandoned any attempt at what isusuallycalled working hard. Like many an artist who willonly paint when he feels in the mood and in goodform, Spencer would never write or dictate underor when he felt that his brain was notpressure,E

"""66 HERBERT SPENCERworking smoothly. When he was writing thePrinciples of Psychology (1854-5)) he began betweennine and ten and continued till one ;he then pausedfor a few minutes to take some slight refreshment,usually a little fruit, and resumed till three, altogetherabout five hours at a stretch. He then went for awalk, returned in time for dinner between five andsix, and did considerable proof-correcting thereafter.But, as we have seen, the result of this strenuousnesswhich would be quite normal to many studentswas his first serious breakdown, involving a loss ofeighteen months. Thereafter,it was his custom towork for short spellsat a time, to sandwich workand exercise, and to take a holiday whenever he beganto feel tired.lifeHis output of work was so large even for a longthat one naturally thinks of him as a hard worker.But the reverse would be nearer the truth. Partlyas a self-justification of hisconstitutionalidleness,"and partlyas a precaution against his hereditarytendency to nervous breakdown, he was a strongadvocate of the proposition that "Life is not for work,but work is for life." The progress of mankind is,under one aspect, a means of liberating more andmore life from mere toil and leaving more and morelife available for relaxation for pleasurable culture,for aesthetic gratification, for travels, for games."Industry is not a virtue in itself; over-work is blameworthy.In the second place, Spencer made it a rule neverto force his thinking. If a problem was not clear tohim, he let it simmer.On one occasion George Eliotexpressed her surprise that the author of Social Statics

""When"METHODS OF WORK 67had no lines on his forehead, to which he answered,I suppose it is because I am never puzzled. Thiscalled forth the exclamation :arrogant thing*O !that s the mostI ever heard uttered. To which Irejoined : Not at all, when you know what I mean.And I then proceeded to explain that my mode ofthinking did not involve that concentrated effortwhich iscommonly accompanied by wrinkling of thebrows" (Autobiography, i. p. 399).Spencer did not set himself a problem and try topuzzle out an answer. "The conclusions at whichI have from time to time arrived, have not beenarrived at as solutions of questions raised ;but havebeen arrived at unawares each as the ultimate outcome of a body of thoughts which slowly grew froma germ."Hehadan instinctive interest in those factswhich have general meanings;he let these accumulate and simmer, thinking them over and over againat intervals.accumulation of instances hadgiven body to a generalisation, reflexion wouldreduce the vague conception at first framed to amore definite conception ;and perhaps difficultiesor anomalies at first passed over for a while, buteventually forcing themselves on attention, mightcause a needful qualification and a truer shaping ofthe thought. Eventually the growing generalisation,thus far inductive, might take deductive form :beingall at once recognised as a necessary consequence ofsome physical principle some established law. Andthus, littleby little, in unobtrusive ways, withoutconscious intention or appreciable effort, there wouldgrow up a coherent and organised theory" (Auto-

"68 HERBERT SPENCERbiography, i. 400, 401).In short, Spencer gave histhinking machine time to do its work, or in otherwords he let his thoughts grow. He distrustedstrain and all forcing. Like a good golfer, he wouldnot "press.""The determined effort causes perversion of thought."A third feature in his work has been already alludedtohis practicalindifference to the literature of the subject at which he was working. For this characteristicthere were doubtless several reasons, though noneof them justified it. He was not fond of hardreading, and conserved his energy for his ownproduction he had abundant ;thought-material of hisown, and no lack of confidence in its value. Furthermore, he explains, It has always been out of thequestion for me to go on reading a book the fundamental principles of which I entirely dissent from.Tacitly giving an author credit for consistency, I,without thinking much about the matter, take it forgranted that if the fundamental principles are wrong,the rest cannot be right, and thereupon cease readingbeing, I suspect, rather glad of an excuse for"Allthrough my helife,"doing so" (i. p. 253).says, "Locke s Essay had been before me on myfather s shelves, but I had never taken it down ;orat any rate I have no recollection of having read apageof it." More than once he tackled Kant sCritique of Pure Reason, but was baulked atthe start by the doctrine that time and space aremerely subjective forms. Nor did Mill s Logicinterest him.At the same time it is not to be supposed thatSpencer wove his system out of himself as a spider

"METHODS OF WORK 69its web. He had a wonderful aptitude for collectingdata by a strange sort of skimming reading.Though by some I am characterised as an a priorithinker, it will be manifest to any one who does not set outwith an a priori conception of me, thatmy beliefs, when notsuggested a areposteriori, habitually verified a posteriori.My first book, Social Statics, shows this in common with mylater books. I have sometimes been half-amused, halfirritated,by one who speaks of me as typically deductive,and whose own conclusions, nevertheless, are not supportedby facts anything like so numerous as those brought insupport of mine. But we meet with men who are suchfanatical adherents of the inductive method, that immediatelyan induction, otherwise well established, is shown to admitof deductive establishment, they lose faith in it "(Autobiography, i. pp. 304-5).No one who studies Spencers works can fail to beimpressed with the logical orderliness and lucidity ofhis method. Thus, in beginning The Principles ofBiology, for instance, we are first asked to considerwhat truths the biologist takes for granted ; e.g., theconservation of energy and the indestructibility ofmatter ;then we are asked to notice the inductionsin regard to the phenomena of life which biologistsagree in accepting as well-established and; only thendo we pass to Spencer s particular interpretation ofthe facts in the light of his evolutionist ideas. Thesame logical method is illustrated in his treatment ofpsychology, sociology and ethics.Like most men who get through much work,Spencer was very methodical and orderly. Inreference to his Sociology,he tells us how he classifiedand reclassified his materials in fasciculi, placingthem in a semi-circle on the floor round his chair,inserting new "covers" where there seemed need for

""""70 HERBERT SPENCERthem, and gradually filling these. As the planbecame clear, the materials for a chapter were raisedto his large desk, and then began a grouping intosections, and a grouping within each section.He did not begin to compose until he had thoughtout his subject to the best of his ability.He thenwrote or dictated a little at a time, criticising everysentence with especial reference to clearness and force.Except for his first book, which he revised, copiedout, and revised afresh, the original copy was alwayssent to press sprinkled with erasures and interlineaHe was more interested in vigour and luciditytions."of style than in its beauty, and it was characteristic ofhim to try to correlate effectiveness of style with thedoctrine of the conservation of energy. The main"thesis in the essay on The Philosophy of Style maybe briefly stated. The reader has only a limited amountof nervous energy, and it is important that this shouldnot be dissipated before he comes to the ideas ofwhich the style is the vehicle. "Inproportion asthere is less energy absorbed in interpreting thesymbols, there is more left for representing the idea,and, consequently, greater vividness of the idea."Every resistance met with in the progress from theantecedent idea to the consequent idea, entails a deduction from the force with which the consequentidea arises in consciousness."It iscommon to speak of sSpencer works ashardreading," but those who say so must have a strangescale of hardness. He may be difficult to agree with,but he is rarely difficult to understand ;he deals withdifficult themes, but he is singularly clear in his expression of his convictions. When he discusses less

"""Mind"""In""Each"""The"""GENIUS 71abstract questions, as in his Study of Sociologyor Education, his style has almost every good quality exceptbeauty. And when he occasionally lets himself goa little,as in the famous passage in the First Principlesat the end of the discussion of the Unknowable, thereis a ring of nobility in his sentences.Sometimes he sums up with epigrammatic terseness,and we submit a few of his utterances which we havenoted down as illustrating various qualities:"Life is not for learning nor is life for working, but learning and working are for life."It is best to recognisethe facts as they are, and not tryto prop up rectitude by fictions."Beliefs, like creatures, must have fit environments beforethey can live and grow."is not as deep as the brain only, but is, in a sense,as deep as the viscera."isMelody an idealised form of the natural cadences ofemotion."a science of objective phenomena."emotion is renderedLogic isproportion as intellect is active,inactive."Inherited constitution must ever be the chief factor indetermining character."nature is a bundle of potentialitiesof which onlysome are allowed by the conditions to become actualities."Considering that the ordinary citizen has no excess ofindividuality to boast of, it seems strange that he should beso anxious to hide what littlehe has."Englishmen are averse to conclusions of wide generality."ultimate result of shielding men from the effects ofisfolly to fill the world with fools.""A nation which fosters itsgood-for-nothings will endby becoming a good-for-nothing nation."I don t mean to get on. I don t think getting on isworth the bother."Genius. It doubtless requires genius to define

""""72 HERBERT SPENCERgenius, and until that is done, the question of awardingor refusing this supreme title to our hero need not bevery seriously discussed. All will agree that geniusis more than unusually greattalent ;that it is neitherune patiencesuivie" nor "an infinite capacity fortaking that it is not to bepains"; judged byitseffectiveness ;and that itmay never receive theunwithering laurels of immortality. Spencer pouredcontempt on Carlyle s assertion that genius meanstranscendent capacity of taking trouble first of allthe truth being, he said, that genius may be rightlydefined quite oppositely, as an ability to do withlittle trouble that which cannot be done by theordinary man with any amount of trouble.Another of Spencers remarks about geniusis worthciting. Speaking of Huxley s wonderful versatilityas a thinker, he said that it lent some colour to thedictum quite untenable, however that genius is aunit, and, where it exists, can manifest itself equallyin all directions." As it seems to us, there is muchtruth in the dictum which Spencer dismissed as "quiteuntenable." The geniusis a new variation of highpotential and is as such a unity, capable of expressing itself in many diverse ways, and always withoriginality.The expression of genius may be intelto the moodlectual, emotional, or practical, accordingwhich is constitutionally dominant and according tothe opportunities afforded by education and circumstances ;but there seems much to be said, both ongeneral grounds and from a studyof historicalexamples, for the view that genius means somethingdistinctive in the whole mental pattern or personality,and is potentially at least many-sided.;

"GENIUS 73Biologically regarded, a isgenius a transilientvariation on the up-grade of psychical evolution, ofsuch magnitude that it stands apart as a new mentalpattern, as a peculiar combination of moods at a highpotential, as a secret amalgam. Whether it be intellectual, emotional, or practical,it sees or feels or doesthings in a new way.It makes what it touches new ;it affords a new outlook. "God said: Let Newtonbe ! and there was light that is genius.In this sense we venture to think that Spencer wasnot far from the kingdom of genius. He saw allthings in the light of the evolution-idea ;he had afresh vision of the unity of nature and the unity ofscience, and the light that was in him was so clearthat it radiated into other minds. Had his emotionalnature been stronger,had he been more than luminiferous,he might have set the world aflame.

CHAPTER VIICHARACTERISTICS :EMOTIONAL AND ETHICALEmotional The Genius Loci PoetryScience and PoetryArt Humour Callousness Nature HumanRelations Fundamental MotivesEmotional. Spencer found great delight in sceneryand sunsets ;he enjoyed music within certain limits ;he was very fond of children, but he was essentiallya man of thought, not of feeling or of action. Thescientific mood dominated him, the artistic andpractical moods were in abeyance. Although hedelighted in imaginative construction, he does notseem to have had much imaginativelife.Althoughhe pondered over the great mysteries of the universe,there was no mystical element in his composition.Of course no Englishman wears his heart on hissleeve, but Spencer was more than usually callous,and our sketch would be far from true if itignoredhis emotional limitations.The Genius Loci. To begin with, let us refer to hisindifference to places which are rich in human associations. On hismany holidays he visited not a few ofthese, and yet he seems to have been rarely touchedor impressed by their significance. He frankly confessed that he took but little interest in what arecalled histories, but was interested only in sociology,74

"WhenPOETRY 75and therefore his appreciation of the genius loci wasalways limited. He could not people the palaces,the cathedrals, the castles, the ancient cities that hevisited.Igo to see a ruined abbey or theremains of a castle, I do not care to learn when itwas built, who lived or died there, or what catastrophes it witnessed. I never yet went to a battlefield, although often near to one not having theslightest curiosity to see a place where many menwere killed and a victoryachieved." He had fewhistorical associations even in Rome, and when atFlorence he did not go three miles to Fiesole. Theforms and colours of time-worn walls and archesexcited pleasant sentiments, he said, but that seemsto have been all. It was a sort of conchologicalinterest that he had.One is unfortunately familiar with the cosmic preoccupation which the dominant scientific mood is aptto engender, as also with historical erudition whichloses the wood in the trees or leaves Nature outaltogether. These are the defects of our limitedmental capacities and our ill-organised education ;butthat a man of Spencer s powers could be so complacent with his limitations is extraordinary. Andthat he could write,"It isalways the poetry ratherthan the history of a place that appealsto me," ismore extraordinarystill ;as if the history were nothalf the poetry.Poetry. Spencer s attitude to poetry was characteristic ;he took it all too intellectually and was usuallybored. He did not find enough thought in it, anditmay be doubted if he ever surrendered himself tothe artistic mood. At one time he regarded Shelley

""The"About""The""""76 HERBERT SPENCERas"byfar the finest poet of his era,"and ofPrometheus Unbound" he said,It is the only poemover which I have ever become enthusiastic." Itsatisfied one of his organic needs variety ;Isayorganic, because I perceive that it runs throughoutmy constitution, beginning with likings for food."Another requirement of poetry for Spencer wasintensity.matter embodied is idealised emotion, the vehicle is the idealised language of emotion."For this reason he was in but small measure attracted"to Wordsworth. Admitting, though I do, thatthroughout his works there are sprinkled many poemsof great beauty, my feeling is that most of his writingis not wine but beer"(i. p. 263). Similarly, hefound the "Iliad" "tedious" and Dante "too continuously rich ..." a gorgeous dress ill madeup."others requirementsI cannot of coursespeak ; but my own requirement is little poetry andof the best. Even the true poets are far too productive." More will agree with him when he says :poetry commonly produced does not bubbleup as a spring, but is simply pumped up ; andpumped-up poetry is not worth reading. No oneshould write verse if he can helpit. Let himsuppress it if possible ;but if it bursts forth in spiteof him, it be of value."mayIn reference to the supposed antagonism betweenScience and Poetry, Spencer refers to the story thatKeats once proposed after dinner, some such sentimentasConfusion to Newton," for having by hisanalysis destroyed the wonder of the rainbow. "Inso doing," Spencer says, Keats did but give more

""POETRY 77than usually definite expression to the current beliefthat science and poetry are antagonistic. Doubtlessit is true that while consciousness isoccupied in thescientific interpretation of a thing, which is now andagain a thing of it beauty,"is not occupied in theaesthetic appreciation of it. But it is no less truethat the same consciousness mayat another time beso wholly possessed by the aesthetic appreciation asto exclude allthought of the scientific interpretation.The inability of a man of science to take the poeticview simply shows his mental limitation ;as themental limitation of a poetis shown by his inabilityto take the scientific view. The broader mind cantake both. Those who allege this antagonism forget that Goethe, predominantly a poet, was also ascientific inquirer" (Autobiography,i.p. 419). Thisis sound sense, and is the excuse for Spencer s ownlimitations in regard to poetry ;he usually foundit too difficult to lay aside the intellectual preoccupation that gave part of the point to Huxley s jest inthe course of a talk on tragedy: "Oh !you know,Spencer s idea of a tragedy is a deduction killed by afact."The same sort of desperately serious intellectualattitude is seen in Spencer s remarks on the Opera.His "intolerance of gross breaches of probability"spoilt his enjoyment of the music. That servingmenand waiting-maids should be made poetical andprompted to speak in recitative, because their mastersand mistresses happened to be in love, was too conspicuous an absurdity ;and the consciousness of thisabsurdity went far towards destroying what pleasureImight otherwise have derived from the work. It

"interests"""78 HERBERT SPENCERis with music as with painting a great divergencefrom the naturalness in any part so distracts myattention from the meaning or intention of the whole,as almost to cancel gratification."In connection with Spencers relative lack of interest inpoetry and the drama, or in the works of men like Carlyleand Ruskin, we have simply to deplore the fact and rememberthat his mind was preoccupied with big problems and wasdominated by the scientific mood. From his boyhood hewas "thinkingabout only one thing at a time,"and he hadto husband his energies. This is well illustrated his by noteon Carlyles Cromwell: "If,after a thorough examinationof the subject, Carlyletells us that Cromwell was a sincereman, I reply that I am heartily glad to hear it, and that Iam content to take his word for it ;not thinkingit worthwhile to investigate all the evidence which has led him tothat conclusion." This might seem to betray a somewhatPhilistinish contempt for historical study and complacencetherewith, but the real state of the case is revealed in thesentence that follows the above : I find so many things tothink about in this world of ours, that I cannot afford tothe character of a man who livedspend a week in estimatingtwo centuries ago."What he somewhat strangely callsof an entirely unlike kind were at that timestrongly attracting him to Humboldt s Kosmos. His outlookwas characteristically cosmic, not human.Art. One of Spencers heresies concerned the oldmasters of painting, whose works he regarded ashighly over-rated. On the one hand, he detectedinsincerity in the conventional veneration in whichthe works of Raphael and Michael Angelo, to nameno smaller names, are held. Subjectis not dissociatedfrom execution, and the judicial faculty has beenmesmerised by theconfused halo of piety which surrounds them." There is an aesthetic orthodoxy fromwhich few are bold enough to dissent. On the other

"fundamental"The""""ART 79hand, Spencerdetected in the works themselvesvices,"the grossest absurdities,""gratuitous contradictions of Nature," impossiblelight and shade, and no end of technical defects inwhat he was pleased to callphysioscopy."Art-criticism isprobably now more emancipatedfrom authority than it was when Spencer promulgatedhis heresies and Ruskin wrote his Modern Painters,and doubtless many experts will admit that some ofthe philosophers strictures are justified. More willprobably maintain that in his intellectual criticismSpencer was blind to artistic genius. In his criticism,for instance, of Guide s "Phoebus and Aurora," towhich he allowed beauty in compositionand grace incriteria todrawing, he applied commonplace physicalshow that absurdity was piled upon absurdity."entire group the chariot and horses, thehours and their draperies, and even Phcebus himselfare represented as illuminated from without : aremade visible by some unknown source of light someother sun !Stranger still is the next thing to benoted. The only source of light indicated in thecomposition the torch carried by the flying boyradiates no light whatever. Not even the face ofits bearer immediately behind it is illumined by it !Nay, this is not all. The iscrowning absurdity thatthe non-luminous flames of this torch are themselvesilluminated from elsewhere ! And so on.All this isdismally intellectual, and reminds us ofthe medical man s discovery that Botticelli s " Venus,"in the Uffizi at Florence, is suffering from consumption,and should not be riding across the sea in an openshell, clad so scantily.

""8oHERBERT SPENCERHumour. Prof. Hudson speaks of Spencer s capitalsense of humour, but it is difficult for a reader of theAutobiography to believe this. The ponderous wayinwhich he analyses his own little jokes, for instance,is too quaint to be consistent with much sense ofhumour. Thus he tells us that it was only thesudden access of moderately good health that enabledhim to remark to G. H. Lewes, on a little tour theyhad, that the Isle of Wight produced very largechopsfor so small an island. The fact is that healways took himself and other people very seriouslyin little things as well as great. With what physiological seriousness does he discuss the experience hehad coming down Ben Nevis after some wine on thetop of Iwhisky found :myself possessed of a quiteunusual amount of agility ; being able to leap fromrock to rock with rapidity, ease, and safety ;so thatI quite astonished myself. There was evidently anexaltation of the perceptive and motor powers.". . .Long-continued exertion having caused unusuallygreat action of the lungs, the exaltation produced bystimulation of the brain was not cancelled by thediminished oxygenation of the blood. The oxygenationhad been so much in excess, that deduction fromit did not appreciably diminish the vital activities."Callousness. In his extreme sang-froid, Spencersometimes did violence to the unity of the humanspirit.We venture to give one example. In referring to a ramble in France (Autobiography, ii. p.236), he wrote as follows: "We passed a waysideshrine, at the foot of which were numerous offerings,each formed of two bits of lath nailed one across theother. The sight suggested to me the behaviour of

"TheNATURE8 ian intelligent and amiable retriever, a great pet atArdtornish. On coming up to salute one after a fewhours or a day s absence, waggingher tail anddrawing back her lips so as to simulate a grinningsmile, she would seek around to find a stick, or a bitof paper, or a dead leaf, and bringit in her mouth ;so expressing her desire to propitiate. The deadleaf or bit of paper was symbolic, in much the samewayas was the valueless cross. Probably, in respectof sincerity of feeling, the advantage was on the sideof the retriever." The animal psychology hereexpressed seems pretty bad, and the human psychology much worse.Turning, however, to pleasanter subjects andcorrecting any unduly harsh judgment, we wouldremind the reader that Spencer was genuinely fondof music and of scenery, two loves which cover amultitudeof sins.often-quoted remark of Kant that two thingsexcited his awe the starry heavens and the conscience ofman is not one which I should make of myself.In methe sentiment has been more especially produced by threethings the sea, a great mountain, and fine music in acathedral. Of these the first has, from familiarityI suppose, lost much of the effect it originally had, but not theothers."Nature. One of the lasting pleasures of Spencerslife was a simple delight in the beauty of Nature,especially in varied scenery. Thus he writes (in1844) to hi 8 friend Lott, regarding a journey intoSouth Wales wish : "Iyou had been with me.Your poetical feelings would have had great gratification. A daysjourney through a constantlychanging scene of cloud-capped hills with here andF

""The8iHERBERT SPENCERthere a sparkling and romantic river winding perhapsround the base of some ruined castle is a treat notoften equalled. I itenjoyed much. When I reachedthe seaside, however, and found myself once againwithin sound of the breakers, I almost danced withpleasure.To me there is no place so delightful asthe beach. It is the place where, more than anywhere else, philosophy and poetry meet where infact you are presented by Nature with a never-endingfeast of knowledge and beauty. There is no placewhere I can so palpably realise Emerson s remark thatNature is the circumstance which dwarfs every othercircumstance.One evening inAugust 1861 Spencer stood looking over"the Sound of Mull from Ardtornish house. gorgeouscolours of clouds and sky, splendid enough even by themselves to be long remembered, were reflected from thesurface of the sound, at the same time that both of its sides,along with the mountains of Mull, were lighted up by thesetting sun ; and, while I was leaning out of the windowgazing at this scene, music from the piano behind me servedas a commentary. The exaltation of feeling produced wasunparalleled in my experience ; and never since has pleasurable emotion risen in me to the same intensity" (Autobiography, ii. p. 69).Spencer s feeling for Nature was for the most partlimited to scenic effects. Occasionally, when he was"at leisure, he felt some admiration of the beautiesand gracesof flowers, but this wasso unusual thatitsurprised him, "for, certainly,"he says,"intellectual analysis is at variance with aesthetic appreciation." This does not of course mean that there isany opposition between scientific interpretation andartistic itenjoyment ; simply means that the scientific

"""What""HUMAN RELATIONS 83mood is quite different from the artistic mood, and thatfor most people only one canbe dominant at a time.There are many naturalists of undoubted analyticskill who have a love exceeding a simple love ofthe things that glide in grasses and rubble of woodywreck;the modern botanist may still see the Dryadin the tree ;and if the scientific mood is not allowedby over-specialisation to over-ride all others, increasein knowledge may mean not increase of sorrow, buta deepening of the joy of life.Human Relations. That Spencer lacked emotionalwarmth and expansiveness not only in regard tonature and art, literature and history, but in hishuman relations, will be admitted by all, but whena great man has an obvious limitation there is oftena tendency to make too much of it. We think thatMr Gribble has done this in his interesting comparison of Spencer and Carlyle,1whom he contrasts asphilosopher and sage.We condense his comparison.Both were big men, both were egotists, both weredyspeptics. Neither suffered fools gladly, and eachtended to be an outspoken judge of all the earth.But while Carlyle loved and hated intensely, Spencerjudged callously. Carlyle was more like a humanbeing, Spencer made his heart wait on his judgmentis almost uncanny aboutindefinitely."Herbert Spenceris his triumphant superiority toIt is difficult for the average mannatural instincts."to believe that Spencer was a human beingof likepassions with himself." In reference to love he said,"Physical beauty is a sine qua non with me";"inevery walk of life,"Mr Gribble says,"itseems,1Francis Gribble: "Fortnightly Review," 1904, p. 984.

""""84 HERBERT SPENCERsome sine qua non stood like an angel with a flamingsword between Herbert Spencer and his emotions."In the main, he suggests abstract intellect performing in a morality play, exhibiting no emotion butintellectual pride."But this tends to suggest thatSpencer was a sort of synthetic ogre, which hecertainly was not.Emotion is distinctively impulsive, and it wasSpencer s nature and deliberate purpose not to yieldto the strain of impulse. Yet we must not misunderstand his reserve and restraint for cold-bloodedness.Some have referred to the cold impersonal wayinwhich he refers to his father in the Autobiography, butwhen we consider facts not words we find thatthe relations of sympathy, companionship, and mutualunderstanding between father and son were veryperfect.The human male is slow to learn that it isnot only necessary to love, but to say that one loves.In his human relations, Spencer was loyal, ifsomewhat too candid, as a friend ;he was by nomeans non-social, but enjoyed conversation with thosewho interested him, and was himself a good talkerand raconteur ;he was fond of, and was a favouritewith children, which is saying a great deal. One ofhis friends has called him a thoroughly clubbableman, which isprobably going too far, but it wasonly in later years that he became an almost monasticrecluse and used ear-stoppers. Many who met himfor a short time thought him cold and difficult ofaccess, with reserved chilly talk like a book," ratherrestrained, scrupulous and severe ;but those whoknew him well speak of his large, simple, andeminently sympathetic nature. George Eliot said,

""HUMAN RELATIONS 85"He is a good, delightful creature, and Ialwaysfeel better for being with him." Prof. Hudsonwrites: "The better one knew him the more onegrew to understand and admire his quiet strength,steadiness of ethical purpose, and unflinching courage,the purity of his motives, his rigid adherence torighteousness and truth, and his exquisite sense ofjustice in all He was oftenthings."terribly provokedby unjust criticisms and stupid or wilful misunderstandings of his positions, but in controversy hewas scrupulously fair, aiming at truth, and not atthe barren victories of dialectics." 1Besides his love of truth and justice, besides hiscourage and self-sacrificing altruism, Spencer revealsa strength of purpose which has rarely been surpassed.In fact it is difficult to over-estimate theresolution with which he effected his life-work.Apart from the inherent difficulty of his task,apart from the long delay of public appreciation,and apart from ill-health, the pecuniary obstacleswere very serious. Had it not been for the 80which came to him in 1850 under the RailwayWinding-up Act, he would have been unable topublish Social Statics a; bequest from his uncleThomas made the publication of the Principles ofPsychology possible he would have been forced to;desist before the completion of First Principles hadit not been for a bequest from his uncle William ,at a later stage an American testimonial and hisfather s death just saved the situation. Well mighthe say:It was almost a miracle that I did not sink before1Gribble, of.cit.

""The"""86 HERBERT SPENCERsuccess was reached." When we read the detailed story ofhis preparation, his endeavour, his struggle, his achievement,we cannot but feel that his resolute strenuousness was notfar from heroism.As a nervous subject, Spencer was naturally attimes irritable, as others can be without his excuse,and even petulant, severe in his utterances, and alittle intolerant. But normally he was habituallyjust and tried to understand people, if not as persons,at least as phenomena. What he said of Carlyle wasmuch more just than what Carlyle said of him,though it may have been what we call less human."In his own way Spencerfelt that tout comprendre,c est tout pardonner,"but it has been truly said thatthe natural man would rather be passionatelydenounced than treated as a phenomenonto beco-ordinated." 1 But this was just Spencersway,and he applieditequally to himself.In speakingof his seven years experience as a committeemanin connection with the Athenaeum, he notes certaintraits of nature which were manifest to himself at least.most conspicuousis want of tact. This is an inheriteddeficiency.The Spencers of the preceding generation wereall characterised by lack of reticence. ... I tendedhabitually to undisguised utterance of ideas and feelings ; theresult being that while 1 often excited opposition from notremembering what others were likely to feel, I, at the sametime, disclosed my own intentions in cases where concealmentof them was needful as a means to success(Autobiography,ii. p. 280).It must be admitted that there was little out ofthe common in Herbert Spencer s daily walk and conversation ;in fact, there was a fair share of commonplaceness.Spencerhimself was rather amused at1Gribble, of.dt.

""As""HUMAN RELATIONS 87those who came expecting extraordinary intellectualmanifestations or traits of character greatly transcending ordinary ones. There was the pretty poetess andheiress, whom two of his friends (Chapman andMiss Evans) selected as a suitable wife for the philosopher, and who seems to have been as little favourablyimpressed with him as he was with her. Probably shecame with high anticipations and was disappointed."There was the Frenchman who found Spencer playing billiards at the Athenaeum Club, and "lifteduphis hands with an exclamation to the effect that hadhe not seen it he could not have believed it." Andthere was the American millioniare, Mr AndrewCarnegie, who was so greatlyastonished to hearSpencer say at the dinner-table on the Servla,Waiter, I did not ask for Cheshire I ;asked forCheddar." To think that a philosopher should beso fastidious about his cheese !Spencer seems never to have fallen in love, and hisearly utterances on marriage savour somewhat of thenon-mammalian type of bachelor. If as somebodysaid (Socrates, was it not ?) marrying is a thingwhich whether you do it or do it not you will repent,it is pretty clear that you may as well decide by a tossup.It s a choice of evils, and the two sides arepretty nearly He balanced." was too wise to marryout of a sense of duty, and too preoccupied to marryby inclination.for marrying under existingcircumstances, that is out of the question ;and as fortwisting circumstances into better shape, I think it istoo much trouble." ..." On the whole I am quitedecided not to be a drudge ;and as I see no probability of being able to marry without being a drudge,

""88 HERBERT SPENCERwhy, I have pretty well given up the idea." Asa matter of fact, however, he was not altogether socallous as his words suggest.Indeed when balancingthe alternatives of emigrating to New Zealand or staying in England, he gave Ho marks to the latter and301 to the former, allowing no less than loo for themarriage which emigration would render feasible !In short Spencer could not marry when he would,and would not when he could. He had a greatadmiration for women, especially beautiful women jhehad a natural fondness for children and got on wellwith them ;but in his struggling years he could nothave supported a wife and family, and besides he wasvery hard to please. On the one hand there was theeconomic difficulty, for he felt assured that his friendwas right in saying "Had you married there would havebeen no system of philosophy."It does not seem tohave occurred to him that there might have been abetter one! On the other hand, there was his eternallycritical attitude. Physical beauty is a sine qua nonwith me ;as was once unhappily proved where theintellectual traits and theemotional traits were of thehighest."From the point of view of the race itseems a pity that his sine qua non was so stringent jan emotional graft on the Spencerian stock might havegiven us for instance a new religious genius. ButSpencers own conclusion was :I am not by nature adapted to a relation in whichperpetual compromise and great forbearance are needful.That extreme critical tendency which I have above described,joined with a lack of reticence no less pronounced, would, Ifear, have caused perpetual domestic differences. After allmy celibate life has probably been the best for me, as wellas the best for some unknown other."

HUMAN RELATIONS 89A critical yet appreciative estimate of Spencer hasbeen given by Prof. A. S. Pringle-Pattison, which weventure to quote to correct our own partiality."Paradoxical as the statement may seem in viewof Spencers achievement, the mind here pourtrayed,save for the command of scientific facts and thewonderful faculty of generalisation, iscommonplacein the range of its ideas ;neither intellectually norismorally the nature sensitive to the finest issues.Almost uneducated except for a fair acquaintancewith mathematics and the scientific knowledge whichhis own tastes led him to acquire, with the prejudicesand limitations of middle-class English Nonconformity,but untouched by its religion, Spencer appears in theearly part of his life as a somewhat ordinary youngman. His ideals and habits did not differ perceptiblyfrom those of hundreds of intelligent and straightlivingEnglishmen of his class. And to the end, inspite of his cosmic outlook, there remains this strongadmixture of the British Philistine, giving a touchalmost of banality to some of his sayings and doings.But, just because the picture is so faithfully drawn,giving us the man in his habit as he lived, with all hislimitations and prejudices (and his own consciousnessof these limitations, expressed sometimes with apassing regret, but oftener with a childish pride),with all his irritating pedantries and the shallownessof his emotional nature, we can balance against thesedefects his high integrity and unflinching moralcourage, his boundless faith in knowledge and hispower of conceiving a great ideal and carrying itthrough countless difficulties to ultimate realisation,and a certain boyish simplicity of character as well as

"So""90 HERBERT SPENCERother gentler human traits, such as his fondness forchildren, his dependence upon the society of his kind,and his capacity to form and maintain some life-longfriendships.A kindly feeling for the narrator growsas we proceed ;and most unprejudiced readers willclose the book with a genuine respect and esteem forthe philosopher in his human aspect."Fundamental Motives. There seems something approaching self-vivisection in Spencer s analysis of themotives prompting his career, and the reader who isnot moved byit must be callous indeed. We shallnot do more than refer to the general results arrivedat.deep down is the gratification which results from theconsciousness of efficiency, and the further consciousness ofthe applause which recognised efficiency brings, that it isimpossible for any one to exclude it. Certainly, in my owncase, the desire for such recognition has not been absent.Yet, so far as I can remember, ambition was not the primarymotive of my first efforts, nor has it been the primary motiveof my larger and later efforts." ..." Still, as I have said,the desire for achievement and the honour which achievementThoughbrings, have doubtless been large ... factors." "from the outset I have had in view the effects to be wroughton men s beliefs and courses of actionespecially in respectof social affairs and governmental functions ; yet the sentiment of ambition has all along been operative."The other prompters were the pleasure of intellectual hunting and "the architectonic instinct." Onthe one hand, It has been with me a source ofcontinual pleasure,distinct from other pleasures, toevolve new thoughts, and to be in some sort aspectator of the way in which, under persistent contemplation, they gradually unfolded into completeness." On the other hand, during thirty years it

"Whoever"Not"Once"FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES 91has been a source of frequent elation to see eachdivision, and each part of a division, working out intocongruity with the rest to see each component fittinginto its place, and helping to make a harmoniouswhole."having become possessed by theconception of Evolution in its comprehensive form,the desire to elaborate and set it forth was so strongthat to have passed life in doing something else would,I think, have been almost intolerable." Like anarchitect he was restless till his edifice was completed,and on working towards this there was aesthetic aswell as intellectual gratification. There appears tobe in me a dash of the artist, which has all alongmade the achievement of beauty a stimulus ; not, ofcourse, beauty as commonly conceived, but suchbeauty as may exist in a philosophical structure."Spencer had a high sense of his responsibilityto deliverthe truth that was in him, and he had a strong faith inhuman progress.It is in the light of these two sentiments,perhaps,that we best understand the heroism of his strenuouslife.onlyis it rational to infer that changes likethose which have been going on during civilisation willcontinue to go on, but it is irrational to do otherwise. Nothe who believes that adaptation will increase is absurd, buthe who doubts that it will increase is absurd. Lack offaith in such further evolution of humanity as shall harmonisewith its conditions adds but another to the countless illustrations of inadequateconsciousness of causation. One who,leaving behind both primitive dogmas and primitive waysof looking at them, has, while accepting scientific conclusions,acquired those habits of thought which science generates,will regard the conclusion above drawn as inevitable"(Dataof Ethics, chap. x.).hesitates to utter that which he thinks thehighest truth, lest it should be too much in advance of thetime, may reassure himself by looking at his acts from an

92 HERBERT SPENCERimpersonal point of view. Let him duly realise the factthat opinion is the agency through which character adaptsexternal arrangements to itself that his opinion rightly formspart of this isagency a unit of forces, constituting, withother such units, the general power which works out socialchanges and he will; perceivethat he may properly givefull utterance to his innermost conviction, leavingit toproduce what effect it may. It is not for nothing that hehas in him these sympathies with some principles andrepugnance to others. He with all his capacities, and aspirations, and beliefs, is not an accident, but a product of histime. He must remember that while he is a descendant ofthe past, he is a parent of the future ;and that his thoughtsare as children born to him, which he may not carelesslylet die. He, like every other man, may properly considerhimself as one of the myriad agencies through whom worksthe Unknown Cause ;and when the Unknown produces inhim a certain belief, he is thereby authorised to profess andact out that belief"(First Principles, p. 123).

"What"NaturalCHAPTER VIIISPENCER AS BIOLOGISTTHE DATA OF BIOLOGYThe Principles of Biology Organic Matter MetabolismDefinition of Life The Dynamic Element in LifeLife and MechanismThe Principles of Biology.If there isany book thatwill save a naturalist from being easy-goingit isSpencer s It isPrinciples ofaBiology.biologicalclassic, which, in its range and intensity, finds noparallel except in Haeckel sgreatestwork, the Generelle Morphologie, which was publishedin 1866 about the same time as the Principles.As oneand least knownof our foremost biologists, Prof. Lloyd Morgan hassaid 1 :strikes one most forcibly is the extraordinary range and grasp of its author, the piercingkeenness of his eye for essentials, his fertility ininvention, and the boldsweep of his logical method.In these days of increasingly straitened specialism,it is well that we should feel the influence of athinker whose powers of generalisation have seldombeen equalled and perhaps never surpassed."Much that is in The Principles of Biologyhas nowbecome common biological property ;much has beenabsorbed or independently reached by others; con-1Mr Herbert Spencer s Biology.pp. 377-383.Science," xiii. (1898)93

"94 HERBERT SPENCERsciously or unconsciously we are now, as it were,standing on Spencer s shoulders, but this should notblind us to the magnitude of Spencer s achievement.The book was more than a careful balance-sheet ofthe facts of life at a time when that was much needed;it meant orientation and systematisation ;it was theintroduction of order, clearness, and breadth of view.It gave biology a fresh start by displaying the factsof life and the inductions from these for the firsttime clearly in the light of evolution. For if theevolution idea is an adequate modal formula of thegreat process of Becoming, then we need to thinkof growth, development, differentiation, integration,reproduction, heredity, death all the big facts inthe light of this. And this is what the Principles ofBiology helps us to do. It is of course saturated withthe theory of the transmissibility of acquired charactersan idea integral to much of Spencer s thinkingwhich had hardly begun to be questioned when thework was published, which is now, however, a verymoot point indeed. For this and other reasons, wedoubt whether Spencer was wise in making a re-editionof what might well have remained as a historicaldocument, especially as the re-edition is not sosatisfactory for 1898 as the original was for 1864.The chief purpose of The Principles of Biologywasto interpret the general facts of organic life as resultsof evolution. Manifestly, as a preliminary step,itwas needful to specify and illustrate these generalfacts ;and needful also to set forth those physicaland chemical properties of organic matter which areimplied in the interpretation.""What are theantecedent truths taken for granted in Biology, and

"THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 95what are the biological truths, which, apart fromtheory, may be regarded as established by observation ? Thus Part I. deals with organic matter andits activity or metabolism, the action and re-actionbetween organisms and theirenvironment, the correspondence between organisms and their circumstances,and similar general data. Part II. states the biginductions regarding growth, development, adaptation,heredity, variation, and so on. Part III. deals withthe arguments suggestive of organic evolution andwith the factors in the process. Part IV. is a detailedinterpretation of the evolution of organic structure,and Part V. an analogous interpretation of theevolution of functions.Part VI. deals with the lawsof multiplication.Before illustrating Spencer sworkmanshipin dealing with these great themes, we cannot but ask whatpreparation he had for a task so ambitious. He hadan inborn interest in Natural History ;he had dabbledinEntomology and done a little microscopic work ;had attended lectures by Owen and had enjoyedmany a talk with Huxley ;he had been influencedby Lamarck, Milne-Edwards, and von Baer ;he hadread hither and thither in medical and biologicalliterature ;but it is manifest that his own admission"was true that he was inadequately equipped for thetask." That he succeeded in producing a biologicalclassic is a signal proof of his intellectual strength.He was kept right by his power of laying hold ofcardinal facts and by his grip of the Evolution-clue.Not to be forgotten, moreover, was the generoushelp rendered by Professor Huxley and Sir JosephHooker, who checked his proofs.he

""while""have96 HERBERT SPENCERSpencer made but one biological investigation(1865-6), and that of little moment on the circulation in plants but his contact with the facts ofHis intelliorganic life was by no means superficial.gence was such that he got further into them thanmost concrete workers have ever done. And insome measure it was an advantage to him in his taskthat he was no specialist, that he did not know toomuch. It enabled him to approach the facts with afresh mind, and to see more clearly the general factsof Biology which lie behind the details of Botany andNatural History. He was in no danger of not seeingthe wood for the trees.OrganicMatter.In the substances of whichorganisms are composed, the conditions necessary tothat redistribution of Matter and Motion which constitutes Evolution, are fulfilled in a far higher degreethan at first appears."Thus the most complex compounds into which Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, andNitrogen enter, together with small proportions oftwo other elements (Sulphur and Phosphorus) whichvery readily oxidise,an instability so greatthat decomposition ensues under ordinary atmosphericconditions the ; component elements have an unusualtendency to unite in different modes of aggregationthough in the same proportions, thus forming analogous substances with different properties the colloid;character of the most complex compounds that areinstrumental to vital actions gives them great molecular mobility aplastic quality fitting them fororganisation ;the relatively great inertia ofthe large and complex organic molecules rendersthem comparatively incapable of being set in motion

""ORGANIC MATTER 97by the ethereal undulations, and so reduced to lesscoherent forms of aggregation, this same inertiafacilitates changes of arrangement amongtheir constituent molecules or atoms, since, in proportion asan incident force impresses but little motion on amass, it is the better able to impress motion onthe parts of the mass in relation to one anotherlastly, the great difference in diffusibility betweencolloids and crystalloids makes possible in the tissuesof organisms a specially rapid redistribution of matterand motion ;both because colloids, being easilypermeable by crystalloids, can be chemically actedon throughout their whole masses, instead of onlyon their surfaces ;and because the products ofdecomposition, being also crystalloids, can escapeas fast as they are produced, leaving room forfurther transformations." In short, organic matterischemically and physically well-suited to be thephysical basis of life.^x^The colloid character of organic matter facilitates modification by arrested momentum or by continuous strain.There is often strong capillary affinity and rapid osmosis.Heat is an important agent of redistribution in the animalorganism, and light is an all-important agent of molecularchanges in organic substances. But the extreme modifiabilityof organic matter by chemical agencies is the chief cause ofthat active molecular rearrangement which organisms, andespecially animal organisms, display.In short, the substancesof which organisms are built up are speciallysensitive tothe varied environing influences in "; consequence of itsextreme instability organic matter undergoes extensive molecular rearrangements on very slight changes of conditions."The correlative general fact is that during these extensivemolecular rearrangements,there are evolved large amountsof energy,in the form of motion, heat, and even light andelectricity.On the one hand the components of organicG;

""""whatever"98 HERBERT SPENCERmatter are regarded as falling from positions of unstableequilibrium to positions of stable equilibrium on the other;hand, they give out in their falls certain momentamomenta that may be manifested as heat, light, electricity,nerve-force, or mechanical motion, according as the conditions determine." It follows from the law of the Conservation of Energy thatamount of power anorganism expends in any shape, is the correlate and equivalent of a power which was taken into it from without."Metabolism. The materials forming the tissues ofplants as well as the materials contained in them, areprogressively elaborated from the inorganic substances ;and the resulting compounds, eaten, andsome of them assimilated by animals, pass throughsuccessive changes which are, on the average, ofan opposite character :the two sets being constructiveand destructive. To express changes of both thesenatures the term metabolism is used ;and such ofthe metabolic changes as result in building up fromsimple to compound are distinguished as anabolic,while those which result in the falling down fromcompound to simple are distinguished askatabolic.Regarded as a whole, metabolism includes, in the firstplace, those anabolic or building-up processes speciallycharacterising plants, during which the impacts of etherealundulations are stored up incompound molecules of unstablekinds ;and it includes, in the second place, those katabolicor tumbling-down changes specially characterising animals,during which this accumulated molecular motion (containedin the food directlyor indirectly supplied by plants)is inlarge measure changed into those molar motions constitutinganimal activities. There are multitudinous metabolic changesof minor kinds which are ancillary to thesemany katabolicchanges in plants and many anabolic changes in animals butthese are the essential ones."sDefinition of Life. Spencerfirst definition of life

""""A"DEFINITION OF LIFE 99(Theory of Population, 1852) was simplyordination of actions." But he soon saw that this was"the cotoo wide. Itmay be said of the Solar System, withits regularly-recurring movements and its self-balancing perturbations, that it, also, exhibits co-ordinationof actions." true idea of Life must be an ideaof some kind of change or changes."Therefore hecarefully considered assimilation on the one hand, asan example of bodily life, and reasoning on the otherhand, as an example of that_life known as intelligence,and inquired into the common features of these twoprocesses of change. Thus there emerged theformula that life is the definite combination ofheterogeneouschanges, both simultaneous and successive. But thisformula also fails, as he said, by omitting the mostdistinctive peculiarity. It is universally recognisedthat living creatures continually exhibit effectiveresponse to external stimuli. To be able to do thisis the very essence of life, distinguishing its responsesfrom non-vital responses. Thus a clause must beadded to the proximate conception, and the formulareads: "Life is the definite combination of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and successive,in correspondenceivith external co-existences and sequences"There are internal relations, namely, definite combinations of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneousand successive," and there are external relations,external co-existences and sequences,"and life is theconnexion of correspondence between them. Thusunder its most abstract form, Spencer s conception ofLife is :external relations^The continuous adjustment of internal relations toIn an appendix to the revised edition of the

"The"The"The""tooHERBERT SPENCERPrinciples of Biology, Spencer admits that he had notsufficiently emphasised the fact of co-ordination. Theidea of co-ordination is so cardinal a one that it shouldbe expressed not by implication but Theovertly."formula defining the phenomenonof life thus reads :definitecombination of heterogeneous changes,bothsimultaneous and successive, co-ordinated into correspondencewith external co-existences and sequences"Itmay beneedful to remark that this was not intended todefine Life in its essence, but Life as manifested to us.ultimate mystery is as great as ever : seeingthat there remains unsolved the question: Whatdetermines the co-ordination of actions ? "If life be correspondence between internal andexternal relations, then allowing a margin forperturbations, the life will continue only while thecorrespondence continues ;the completeness of thelife will be proportionate to the completeness of thecorrespondence and the life will be ; perfect onlywhen the correspondence is Asperfect." organismsbecome more differentiated they enter into morecomplex relations with their environment, and as theenvironment becomes more complex organisms become more differentiated. The internal and externalrelations increase in number and intricacy part passu,and the correspondences between them become morecomplex, numerous, and persistent. "The highestlife is that which, like our own, shows great complexity in the correspondences, great rapidity in thesuccession of them, and great length in the series ofthem."highest Life is reached when there issome inner relation of actions fitted to meet everyouter relation of actions by which the organism can

"When"ThisTHE DYNAMIC ELEMENT IN LIFE 101be affected."continuous correspondencebetween inner and outer relations which constitutesLife, and the perfection of which is the perfection ofLife, answers completely to that state of organicmoving equilibrium which arises in the course ofEvolution and tends ever to become more complete."The Dynamic Element in Life. But Spencer was notsatisfied with his formula of Life. He recognised thatthere were vitalphenomena which were not coveredby The it. growth of a gall on a plant, due toirritant substances produced by an insect, shows nointernal relations adjusted to external relations ;theheart of a frog will live and beat for a long time afterexcision the ; segmentation of an egg shows nocorrespondence with co-existences and sequences inits environment ;when rudimentary organs are partlyformed and then absorbed, no adjustment can bealleged between the inner relations which thesepresent and any outer relations : the outer relations they refer to ceased millions of years ago ;nocorrespondence, or part of a correspondence, bywhich inner actions are made to balance outer actions,can be seen in the dairymaid slaugh or the workman swhistle ;the struggles of a boy in an epileptic fitshow no correspondence with the co-existences andsequences around him, but they betray vitality asmuch as do the changing movements of a hawkpursuing a pigeon; "both exhibit that principle ofactivity which constitutesconceptionof life."the essential element in ourit is said that Life is the definite combination ofheterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and successive, incorrespondence with external co-existences and sequences,

"What""""The102 HERBERT SPENCERthere arises the question Changes of what ? . . . Still moreclearly do we see this insufficiency when we take the moreabstract definition the continuous adjustment of internalrelations to external relations." Relations between whatthings? is the questionto be asked. A relation of whichthe terms are unspecified does not connote a thought butmerely the blank form of a thought. Its value iscomparableto that of a cheque on which no amount is written."This self-criticism led Spencer to the conclusionthat that which gives substance to our idea of Lifeis a certain unspecified principle of activity.Thedynamic element in life is its essential element."But how are we to conceive of this dynamicelement ?Is this principle of activity inherent inorganic matter, or is itsomething superadded ? "Spencer at once rejected the second alternative,because the hypothesis of an independent vital principlehas a bad pedigree, carrying us back to the ghosttheoryof the savage, and because it is an unrepresentable pseud-idea, which cannot even be imagined.But the alternative of regarding Life as inherent inthe substances of the itorganismsisdisplaying alsofull of difficulties.processes which go on inliving things are incomprehensible as results of anyphysical actions known to us." "We are obliged toconfess that Life in its essence cannot be conceived inphysico-chemical terms. The required principle ofactivity, which we found cannot be represented as anindependent vital principle, we now find cannot berepresented as a principle inherent in living matter.If, by assuming its inherence, we think the facts areaccounted for, we do but cheat ourselves with pseudideas."then are we to say what are we to think ?

"our"THE DYNAMIC ELEMENT IN LIFE 103Simply that in this direction, as in all other directions,our explanations finally bring us face to face with theinexplicable. The Ultimate Reality behind thismanifestation, as behind all other manifestations,transcendsconception."Life as a principle of activity is unknown andunknowable while itsphenomenaare accessible inthought the implied noumenon is inaccessible onlythe manifestations come within the range of ourintelligence, while that which is manifested lies beyondit."But"surface knowledge continues to be aknowledge valid of its kind, after recognising thetruth that it isonly surface knowledge."The chapter on "TheDynamic Element in Life,"which concludes the section of the book called The Dataof Biology,was interpolated in the revised editionIt (1898). indicates, as it seems to us, that Spencer spoint of view had changed considerably since hestereotyped his First Principles.We must pause toconsider what this change was.In his First Principles Spencer wrote : The taskbefore us is that of exhibiting the phenomena ofEvolution in synthetic order. Setting out from anestablished ultimate principle [the Persistence ofitForce] has to be shown that the course of transformation among all kinds of existences cannot but bethat which we have seen it to be."[This refers tothe formula : Evolution is an integration of matterand concomitant dissipation of motion during whichthe matter passes from an indefinite, incoherenthomogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity ;and during which the retained motion undergoes a

"The"We"""io 4HERBERT SPENCERItparallel transformation.]has to be shown thatthe redistribution of matter and motion must everywhere take place in those ways and produce thosetraits, which celestial bodies, organisms, societiesalike display.And it has to be shown that thisuniversality of process results from the same necessitywhich determines each simplest movement around us,down to the accelerated fall of a stone or the recurrent beat of a harp string. In other words, thephenomena of Evolution have to be deduced from thePersistence of Force. As before said, to this anultimate analysis brings us down ;and on this arational synthesis must build up. And again hewrote: "Theinterpretation of all phenomena interms of Matter, Motion, and Force, isnothing morethan the reduction of our complex symbols of thoughtto the simplest symbols."These were brave words, and if we understandthem arightit is, to say the least, surprising to be toldwhen we come to the life of organisms that theprocesses which go on in living things are incomprehensible as results of any physical actions known to us."On the firstpage of the Principles of weBiologyread :properties of substances, though destroyed to sense by combination, are not destroyed inreality.It follows from the persistence of force,that the properties of a compound are resultants of theproperties of its components resultants in which thein fullproperties of the components are severallyaction, though mutually obscured." But on p. 122it is written :find itimpossible to conceiveLife asemerging from the co-operation of thecomponents."

"how"One""THE DYNAMIC ELEMENT IN LIFE 105In thefrankest possible way Spencer admitted thathis definition of Life did not cover the facts, that itdid not recognise the essential or dynamic element,thatLife in its essence cannot be conceived inphysico-chemical terms." But if so, it can only beby great faith or great credulity that we can believethat an Evolution-formula in terms of "Matter,Motion, and Forceisadequate to describe itsgenesis.At an earlier part of the Data of Biology Spencerassumed the origin of active protoplasm from a combination of inert proteids during the time of theearth s slow cooling, and did not suggest that therewas any particular difficulty in the assumption ; yetin the end we are told that it is "impossible even toimagine those processes going on in organic matterout of which emerges the dynamic element in Life."can picture,"Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan writes, 1certain folk will gloat and chortle in their joy overthis confession, for such it will almost inevitably be regarded.But it is not likelythat Mr Spenceris here, in so vital amatter, false to the evolution he has done so much toelucidate. The two seemingly contradictory statements arenot really contradictory ; they are made in different connections ;the one in reference to phenomenal causation, theother to noumenal causation to an underlying principleofactivity.The simple statement of fact is that thephenomena of life are data sui generis, and must as such beaccepted by science. Just as when oxygen and hydrogencombine to form water, new data for science emerge ; so,when protoplasm was evolved, new data emerged which it isthe business of science to study. In both cases we believethat the results are due to the operation of natural laws, thatis to say, can, with adequate knowledge, be described interms of antecedence and sequence. But in both cases the1 "Natural Science," xiii., December 1898, p. 380.

"""""106 HERBERT SPENCERresults, which we endeavour thus to formulate, are the outcome of principlesof activity,the mode of operation ofwhich is inexplicable.We formulate the laws of evolutionin terms of antecedence and sequence;we also refer theselaws to an underlying cause, the noumenal mode of action ofwhich isinexplicable. This, if I interpret him rightly, isMr Spencers meaning."Our own impressionis that Spencer was guilty ofwobbling"between two modes of interpretation,between scientific description and philosophical explanation,a confusion incident on the fact that hisPrinciples of Biologywas also part of hisSyntheticPhilosophy. Biology as such has of course nothingto do with the Ultimate Reality behind manifestations or with the "impliednoumenon." Andwhen Spencer saysit is impossible even to imaginethose processes going on in organic matter out ofwhich emerges the dynamic element in Life, when"orhe illustrates his difficulty by pointing out how impossible it is to give a physico-chemical interpretationof the way a plant cell makes its wall, or a coccolithits imbricated covering, or a sponge its spicules, or ahen eats broken egg-shells, we do not believe he wasthinking of anything but phenomenalcausation."When he says The processes which go on in livingthingsare incomprehensible as results of any physicalactions known to us,"we see no reason to take theedge off this truth by saying that Spencer simplymeant that the Ultimate Realityis inaccessible.In any case, whether Spencer meant that we cannotgive any scientific analysis in physico-chemical termsof the unified behaviour of even the simplest organism,or whether he simply meant that the raison d etre, theultimate reality of life, was an inaccessible noumenon,

"""The""LIFE AND MECHANISM 107he confesses that we have only a surface knowledge";the manifestations come within the"onlyrange of our intelligence while that which is manifested lies beyond it the order ";existing amongthe actions which living things exhibit remains thesame whether we know or do not know the natureof that from which the actions originate."Thisseems to us to sound a more modest note than isheard in the sentence :interpretation of allphenomena in terms of Matter, Motion and Force, isnothing more than the reduction of our complexsymbols of thought to the simplest symbols."Life and Mechanism. But are not all biologistsconfronted with the difficulty that gave HerbertSpencer pause ? Physiological analysis has donemuch in revealing chains of sequence within theorganism, but no vital phenomenon has as yet beenredescribed in terms of chemistry and physics.Again and again some success in discovering physicochemicalchains of sequence has awakened theexpectation that the dawn of a mechanical theory oflife was drawing nigh, but the dawn seems furtheroff than ever. The residual phenomenaleft uninterpretedby mechanical categories loom out morepersistently than they did a century ago. As Bungeonce said the more thoroughly and conscientiouslywe endeavour to study biological problems, the moreare we convinced that even those processes which wehave already regarded as explicable by chemical andphysical laws, are in reality infinitelymore complex,and at present defy any attempt at a mechanicalAsexplanation."Dr J. S. Haldane putsit : If welook at the phenomena which are capable of being

"io8HERBERT SPENCERstated, or explained in physico-chemical terms, wesee at once that there isnothing in them characteristicof life. . . . The action of each bodily mechanism,the composition and structure of each organ, are allmutually determined and connected with one anotherin such a way as at once to distinguish a livingorganism from anything else. As this mutual determination is the characteristic mark of what is living,it cannot be ignored in the framing of fundamentalworking hypotheses."The fact is that we have to regard the livingorganism as a new synthesispresent analyse, and life as an activitywhich we cannot atwhich cannotat present be redescribed in terms of the presentphysical conceptions of matter and energy. Andeven if a living organism were artificially made, theproblem would not be altered; though our conceptionof what we at present call inanimate might be.Prof. Karl Pearson states the position from anotherpoint of view.For the biologist as a scientific inquirer theproblem of whether life is or is not a mechanism isnot a question of whether the same things, *matterand force, are or are not at the back of organicand inorganic phenomena of what is at the back ofeither class of sense-impressions we know absolutelynothing but of whether the conceptual shorthand ofthe physicist, his ideal world of ether, atom, andmolecule, will or will not also suffice to describe thebiologist s perceptions."That it does not at presentseems the conviction of the majority of physiologists ;"if it ever should it would be purely an economy ofthought ; it would provide the great advantages

"LIFE AND MECHANISM 109which flow from the use of one instead of two conceptual shorthands, but it would not explain lifeany more than the law of gravitation explains theelliptic path of a planet.""Atom" and "molecule" and the rest are scientificconcepts, not phenomenal existences, therefore evenif the physicist s formulas should fit vitalphenomenawhich they seem very far from doing there wouldbe no explanation forthcoming, for mechanism doesnot explain anything."Thus, like Spencer,we find the secret of theorganism irresoluble in terms of lower categories.But we differ from him inasmuch as we believe thatthis admission is fatal to his formula of evolution, tohis definition of life, and to the coherence of hisSynthetic Philosophy-

"TheCHAPTER IXSPENCER AS BIOLOGIST : INDUCTIONS OF BIOLOGYGrowth Development Structure and Function Wasteand Repair Adaptation Cell-LifeGenesisNutrition and Reproduction The Germ-CellsGrowth. Perhaps the widest and most familiar induction of Biology,is that organisms grow. Butthere isgrowth in crystals, in terrestrial deposits, incelestial bodies jin fact, growth, as being an integration of matter, is the primary trait of evolution ,it isuniversal, in the sense that all aggregates display itin some way at some period.essential community of nature between organic growth and inorganic growth is, however, most clearly seen onobserving that they both result in the same way.The segregation of different kinds of detritus fromeach other, as well as from the water carrying them,and their aggregation into distinct strata, is but aninstance of a universal tendency towards the unionof like units and the parting of unlike units (FirstPrinciples, 163).The deposit of a crystal from asolution is a differentiation of the previously mixedmolecules ; and an integration of one class of molecules into a solid body,and the other class into aliquid solvent. Is not the growth of an organism anessentially similar process ? Around a plant there

GROWTH 1 1 1exist certain elements like the elements which formits substance ;and its increase in size is effected bycontinually integrating these surrounding like elementswith itself." And so on.Passing over the far-fetched statement that thedeposit of sediment in distinct strata illustrates theuniversal tendency towards the union of like unitsand the parting of unlike units, we must point outthat Spencer begins his discussion of organic growthby describing it in such general terms that its essentialcharacteristic is lost sight of. A minute crystal ofalum isdropped into a saturated solution of alum, anditgrows rapidly under our eyes out of material thesame as its own, but the living creature grows largerat the expense of material differentfrom its own.The grass growsat the expense of air, water, andsalts, and the lamb grows at the expense of the grass.Though the living creature cannot, of course, transform one element into another, and must have carbon,hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., in its food, itutilises materials chemically very different from itsown complex compounds.Spencer s inductions as to growth were thefollowing :The1 i ) growth of an organismisdependent on theavailable supply of such environing materials as are of likenatures with the matters composing the organism.(2) Other things being equal, the degree of growthvaries according to the surplus of nutrition over expenditure.(3) In the same organism the surplus of nutrition overexpenditure differs at different stages, and growth is unlimitedor has a definite limit, according as the surplus does or doesnot rapidlydecrease. There is almost unceasing growth inorganisms that expend relatively little energy and definitely

ii2HERBERT SPENCERlimited growth in organisms that expend much energy.[There are many difficulties here, e.g., the apparent absenceof a limit of growth in many very energetic fishes.](4) Among organisms which are large expenders offorce, the size ultimately attained is, other things equal,determined by the initial size.[By initial size Spencermeans the bulk of the organism when itbegins to feed foritself.]A calf and a lamb commence their physiologicaltransactions on widely different scales ;their first incrementsof growth are similarly contrasted in their amounts ;and thetwo diminishing series of such increments end at similarlycontrastedlimits.the more inevit[But the further we penetrate into details,able seems the conclusion that adult size is an adaptivephenomenon ; in other words that growth has been punctuatedby natural selection.](5) Where the likeness of other circumstances permits acomparison, the possible extent of growth depends on thedegree of organization an inference testified to by the ; largerforms among the various divisions and sub-divisions oforganisms.In connection with growth and its limit Spencermade a simple but shrewd observation, which seemsalso to have occurred to Prof. Leuckart and to DrAlexander James. He pointed out, that in the growthof similarly shaped bodies the increase of volume continually tends to outrun the increase of surface. Thevolume of living matter must grow more than thesurface through which it is kept alive, if the surfaceremain regular in contour. In spherical and all otherregular units the volume increases as the cube ofthe radius, the surface only as the square of theradius. Thus a cell, for instance, as itgrows, mustget into physiological difficulties, for the nutritivenecessities of the increasing volume are ever lessadequately supplied by the less rapidly increasing

"DEVELOPMENT 113absorbent surface. There is less and less opportunityfor nutrition, respiration, and excretion. A nemesisof growth sets in, for waste gains upon, overtakes,balances, and threatens to exceed repair.Growthmay cease at this limit, and a balance be struck ;orthe form of the unit may be altered and surface gainedby flattening out, or very frequently by ramifyingprocesses ;or and this the most frequent solutionthe cellmay divide, halving its volume, gaining newsurface, and restoring the balance. In more generalterms, growth expresses the preponderance of constructive processes or anabolism ;increase of volumewith less rapid increase of nutritive, respiratory, andexcretory surface involves a relative predominance ofkatabolism ;the limit of growth occurs when furtherincrease of volume would prejudicially increase theratio of katabolism to anabolism ;at that point thecell restores the balance by dividing. And what istrue of the unit applies also in a general way to organs,such as leaves which increase their surface by becomingmuch divided, and even to organisms which exhibitmany adaptations for increasing their nutritive, respiratory, and excretory surfaces.Development. Growth is increase in bulk, development is increase in structure, and Spencers chiefinduction in regard to developmentis that we seea change from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneityto a coherent, definite heterogeneity. Thelikeoriginallyunits called cells become unlikein various ways, and in ways more numerous andmarked as the development goes on. The severaltissues which these several classes of cells form byaggregation, grow little littleby distinct fromH

ii 4HERBERT SPENCEReach other ;and littleby little put on thosestructural complexities that arise from differentiationsamong their component units. In the shoot, as inthe limb, the external form, originally very simple,and having much in common with simple forms ingeneral, gradually acquires an increasing complexityand an increasing unlikeness to other forms. Meanwhile, the remaining parts of the organism to whichthe shoot or limb belongs, having been severallyassuming structures divergent from one another andfrom that of this particular shoot or limb, there hasarisen a greater heterogeneity in the organism as awhole."Moreover, "whereas the germs of organismsare extremely similar, they gradually diverge widelyin modes now regular and now irregular,until inplace of a multitude of forms practically alike wefinally have a multitude of forms most of which areextremely unlike." In other words, there is in individual development (ontogeny) some condensedrecapitulation of thestepsin racial evolution(phylogeny). Furthermore, in the progressingdifferentiation of each organism there is a progressingdifferentiation of it from its environment ;it becomesfreer from the environmental grip and more master ofits fate. Here again there is an individual progressparallel to that seen in the course of historic evolution.A general criticism must be made, that Spencerthought of the germ-cell much too simply. It is amicrocosm full of intricacy ;the nucleus is often exceedingly definite and coherent ;the early cells areoften from the first defined, with prospective valueswhich do not change. The fertilised ovum has onlyapparent simplicity ; it has a complex individualised

"STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION 115organisation often visible. No one can doubt thatdevelopment is progressive differentiation, but it israther a realisation of a complex inheritance ofmaterialised potentialities than a change from anincoherent, indefinite homogeneity to a coherent,definite heterogeneity.Structure and Function. To the question, does Lifeproduce Organisation, or does Organisation produceLife? Spencer answered that structure and functionmust have advanced part passu: some difference offunction, primarily determined by some difference ofrelation to the environment, initiating a slight differenceof structure, and this again leading to a more pronounced difference of function ;and so on throughcontinuous actions and reactions." As structureprogresses from the homogeneous, indefinite, andincoherent, so does function, illustrating progressivedivision of labour. From an evolutionist point ofview, Spencer argued that life necessarily comes beforeorganisation; matter"organicin a state of homogeneous aggregation must precede organic matter ina stage of heterogeneous aggregation. But since thepassing from a structureless state to a structuredstate is itself a vital itprocess, follows that vitalactivity must have existed while there was yet nostructure : structure could not else arise. Thatfunction takes precedence of structure, seems alsoimpliedin the definition of Life. If Life is shownby inner actions so adjusted as to balance outeractions if the implied energyis the substance ofLife while the adjustmentof the actions constitutesthat the actions toitsform then may we not ; saybe formed must come before that which forms them

""Each"n6HERBERT SPENCERthat the continuous change which is the basis offunction, must come before the structure which bringsfunction into shape ?"But all such discussions of structureand"function" in the abstract tend to verbal quibbling.We cannot have activity without something to act,we cannot have metabolism without stuff. No one cantell what the first thing that lived on the earth waslike, what organisationit had, or what it was able todo, but we may be sure that vital organisation andvital activity are only static and kinetic aspects of thesame thing.It is quite probable, however, that thereis no one thing that can be called protoplasm, forvital function may depend upon theinter-relations orinter-actions of several complex substances, none ofwhich could by itself be called alive ;which are, however, held together in that unity which makes anorganism what it is. Just as the secret of a firm ssuccess may depend upon a particularly fortunateassociation of partners, so itmay be with vitality. 1Waste and Repair. Organisms are systems fortransforming matter and energy and the law of conservation holds good.portion of mechanicalor other energy which an organism exerts impliesthe transformation of as much organic matter ascontained this energy in a latent state,"and the wastemust be made good by repair.We thus see whyplants with an enormous income of energyand littleexpenditure of energy have no difficulty in sustainingthe balance between waste and repair ;we understand the relation between small waste, small activity,1See J. Arthur Thomson s Progress ofScience in the NineteenthCentury, 1903, p. 317. and E. B. Wilson s The Cell in firvelopmfnt andInheritance. 1900.

WASTE AND REPAIR 117and low temperature inmany of the lower animals ,we understand conversely the rapid waste ofenergetic, hot-blooded animals. The deductiveinterpretation of waste is easy, but it is differentwith repair, for here the analogy between theorganism and an inanimate engine breaks down. Theliving creature is a self-stoking, self-repairing, andalso itmay be noted in passing a self-reproducingengine. Spencer did not do more than restate thedifficulty when he said that the component units oforganisms have the power of fitmoulding materialsinto other units of the same order.In passing to consider the ability which an organismoften has of recompleting itself when one of itsparts has been cut off, just as an injured crystal recompletesitself, Spencer was led to the hypothesisthat "the form of each species of organismis determined by a peculiarity in the constitution of itsunits that these have a special structure in whichthey tend to arrange themselves , justas have thesimpler units of inorganic matter." "This organicpolarity (aswe might figuratively call this proclivitytowards a specific structural arrangement) can bepossessed neither by the chemical units nor themorphological units, we must conceive it as possessedby certain intermediate units, which we may termBut if in each organism the physiologicalphysiological."units which result from the compounding of highlycompound molecules have a more or less distinctivecharacter, the germ-cellis not so very after all.indefiniteMany of the facts of regeneration are very striking.A crab may regrow its complex claw, a starfish armmay regrow an entire body. A snail has been known

"1 1 8 HERBERT SPENCERto regenerate an amputated eye-bearing horn twentytimes in succession, a newt can replace a lost lens, alizard can regrow its tail and part of its leg, a storkcan regrow the greater part of its bill. In manycases, the surrender of parts which are afterwardsregrown is exceedingly common, as in some wormsand Echinoderms, and is a life-saving adaptation.Organically, though not consciously,the brainlessstarfish has learned that it is better that one membershould perish than that the whole life should be lost.This regenerative capacity no doubt implies certainproperties in the living matter and in the organism,but we are far from being able to picture how itcomes about. What does seem clear is that the distribution and mode of occurrence of the regenerativecapacity in external organs often, but in internalorgans very rarely ;in most lizard s tails, but not inthe chamseleon s ;in the stork s bill but not in its toesare adaptive, being related to the normal risks oflife, as Reaumur, Lessona, Darwin, and Weismannhave pointed out. According to Lessona s Law,which Weismann has elaborated, regeneration tendsto occur in those organisms and in those parts oforganisms which are in the ordinary course of naturemost liable to injury. To which we must add twosaving-clauses (a) provided that the lost part isof some vital importance, and () provided that thewound or breakage is not in itself very likely to befatal. In Weismann s words, the theory is, that thepower of regeneration possessedby an animal or by apart of an animal is regulated by adaptationto thefrequency of loss and to the extent of the damagedone by the loss."

""ADAPTATION 119Adaptation Wherever we look in the world oforganisms we find examples of adaptation ; we seeform suited for different kinds of motion, organssuited for their uses, constitution suited to circumstances in such external features as colouring andin such internal adjustments as the regulation oftemperature we find effective ;weapons and effectivearmour, flowers adapted to insect visitors and insectvisitors adapted to flowers, one sex adapted inrelation to the other, the mother adapted to bearingand rearing offspring, the embryo adapted to its prenatal life j everywhere there is adaptation in varyingdegrees of perfection. The adaptationis a fact, inregard to which all naturalists are agreed ;differenceof opinion arises when we ask how these adaptationshave come to be.la the chapterAdaptationSpencerpracticallyrestricted his attention to a certain kind of adaptation, namely the direct modifications which resultfrom use or disuse, or from environmental influence.The blacksmith s arm, the dancer s legs, the jockey scrural adductors, illustrate direct results of practice ;"a force de forger on devient forgeron."The skinforms protective callosities where it is much pressedor rubbed, as on the schoolboys hands or the oldman s toothless gums. The blood-vessels may respond by enlargement to increased demands madeon them ;the fingers of the blind become extraordinarily sensitive.Spencer points to the generaltruth that extrafunction is followed by extra growth, but that alimit is soon reached beyond which very little, if any,further modification can be produced. Moreover,

120 HERBERT SPENCERthe limited increase of size produced in any organby a limited increase of its function, is not maintainedunless the increase of function ispermanent. Whenthe modifying influence is removed, the organismrebounds or tends to rebound. A lasting change ofimportance involves a re-organisation,a new state ofequilibrium.On inductive and deductive grounds, Spencersummed up in four conclusions :(1) An adaptive change of structure will soon reacha point beyond which further adaptation willbe slow.(2) "When the modifying cause has been but for ashort time in action, the modification generatedwill be evanescent.(g) A modifying cause acting even for many generations will do little towards permanently altering the organic equilibrium of a race.(4) On the cessation of such cause, its effects willbecome unapparent in the course of a fewgenerations.But two cautions must be emphasised (a)thatSpencer, in this discussion, dealt only with thosedirect adjustments which are referable to the actionof use or disuse, or of surrounding influences jand(b) that we have no security in regarding these asbeing as such transmissible.By adaptations biologists usually mean permanentadjustments, and there are two theories of the originof these :(a) by the action of natural selection oninborn variations, or (b) by the inheritance of thedirectly acquired bodily modifications.Cell-Life. In this chapter, interpolated in the

"We""CELL-LIFErevised edition, Spencer summed up the main resultsof the study of the structural units or cells whichbuild up a body."Natureeverywhere presents uswith complexities within complexities, which go onrevealing themselves as we investigatesmaller andsmallerobjects."Thus protoplasm itself has acomplicated structure ;the nucleus of the cell is alittle world in itself; and the cell-firm has otherpartners, such as the centrosome. When a celldivides, the readily stainable bodiesor chromosomes,present in definite number within the nucleus, aredivided, usually by a most intricate process, in sucha manner that equal amounts are bequeathed by themother-cell to each of the two daughter-cells. Spencerfavoured the view that the "chromatin, which consists of an organic acid (nucleic acid)rich in phosphorus,combined with an albuminous substance, probably acombination of variousunstable and active.proteidsmay bepeculiarlyFrom the chromatin, units of which are thus ever fallinginto stabler states, there are ever being diffused waves ofmolecular motion, setting up molecular changes in thecytoplasm.The chromatin stands towards the other contents of the cell in the same relation that a nerve-elementwhich it excites."stands to any element of an organismmayinfer that cell-evolution was, under one of itsaspects, a change from a stage in which the exciting substanceand the substance excited were mingled with approximateuniformity, to a stage in which the exciting substance wasgathered together into the nucleus and into thefinallychromosomes, leaving behind the substance excited, nowdistinguished as cytoplasm."But the suggestion that chromosomes may be stimulating,change-exciting elements, does not, Spencer goes on to say,conflict with the conclusion that the chromosomes are thevehicles conveying hereditary traits. "While the unstable

122 HERBERT SPENCERunits of chromatin, ever undergoing changes, diffuse energyaround, they may also be units which, under the conditionsfurnished by fertilisation, gravitate towards the organisationof the species. Possiblyitmay be that the complex combination of proteids,common to chromatin and cytoplasm,isthat partin which constitutional characters inhere ; while thephosphorised component, falling from its unstable union anddecomposing, evolves the energy which, ordinarilythe causeof changes, now excites the more active changes followingfertilisation."From this speculation Spencer passesto a brief consideration of what occurs before and during the fertilisation of theovum. Before fertilisation isaccomplished the nucleus ofthe ovum normally divides twice in rapid succession, andgives off two abortive cells known as polar bodies whichcome to nothing. The usual result of this maturation,"as it is called, is that the number of chromosomes in theovum is reduced to a half of the normal number characteristicof the cells of the speciesto which itbelongs. In thehistory of the male element or spermatozoon, there is ananalogous reduction, so that when spermatozoon and ovumunite in fertilisation the normal number is restored. It isnow recognised that the maturation-divisions are usefulin obviating the doubling of the number of chromosomeswhich fertilisation would otherwise involve, and it has alsobeen suggested that this continuallyrecurrent elimination ofchromosomes may be one of the causes of variation.Spencer suggested another interpretation.He pointed outthe general fact that sexual reproduction (gamogenesis)commonly occurs when asexual reproduction (agamogenesis)is arrested by unfavourable conditions, that failing asexualreproduction initiates sexual reproduction. Now as egg-cellsand sperm-cells are the outcome of often long series of celldivisions (asexual multiplication), may not the polar bodies,which are aborted cells, indicate that asexual multiplicationcan no longer go on, and that the conditions leading to sexualmultiplication have set in ? "As the cells which becomespermatozoa are left with half the number of chromosomespossessed by preceding cells, there is actually that impoverishment and declining vigour here suggested as the antecedent

GENESIS 123of fertilisation." In short, the germ-cells, separately considered, are cells in which the power of further asexual multiplication is exhausted, as it is known to become exhausted inInfusorians and such body-cells as nerve-cells ;there arisesa state which initiates a sexual union or amphimixis of the twokinds of germ-cells, and the decrease in the chromatin is aninitial cause of that state.We quote this speculation as a good instance of Spencer scontinual endeavour to rationalise puzzling and exceptionalfacts by showing that there is a general principle underlyingthem. But the objections to his hypothesis are numerous.Nature ova or spermatozoa will not normally divide ifleft to themselves, but that is because they are specialised to secure amphimixis, not because their powers are inany way declining or impoverished. A parthenogenetic ovumgives off one polar body though without reduction in thenumber of chromosomes and then proceeds by asexualmultiplication or ordinary cell division to build up a body.The spore of a fern or a moss has only half the number ofchromosomes that the cells of itsproducer have, yet itproceeds by asexual multiplication or ordinary cell-division tobuild up the gametophyte or sexual generation.Genesis. Spencer attempted a classification of thevarious modes of reproduction that occur amongorganisms asexual reproduction (agamogenesis) byfission and budding, sexual reproduction (gamogenesis)by specialised germ-cells usually involvingfertilisation or amphimixis, and all the complicationsinvolved in "alternation of generations" (metagenesis),the development of eggs without fertilisation (parthenogenesis), and so on. But what gives particularimportance to the chapter on isgenesis not the discussion of the modes of reproduction, but the generalconclusion that nutrition and reproduction areantithetic processes a very fruitful idea in biology.Where there is alternation of generation, sexual andasexual, we find that asexual reproduction continues

""""i24HERBERT SPENCERas long as the forces which result in growth are greatlyin excess of the antagonisticforces. Conversely therecurrence of sexual reproduction occurs when theconditions are no longer so favourable to growth.Similarly, where there is no alternation, "new individuals are usually not formed while the precedingindividuals are still rapidly growing that is,whilethe forces producing growth exceed the opposingforces to a great extent ;but the formation of newindividuals begins when nutrition is nearly equalledby expenditure."In illustration Spencer points to facts like the following :Uniaxial plants begin toproduce their lateral,flowering axes, only after the main axis has developedthe great mass of its leaves, and isshowing itsdiminished nutrition by smaller leaves, or shorter internodes,or both; root-pruning and "ringing,"which diminish the nutritive supply, promote theformation of flower-shoots ; high nutrition in plantsprevents or arrests flowering.Similarly, the aphides or green-flies,hatched fromeggs in the spring, multiply by parthenogenesisthroughout the summer ;with extraordinary rapidityone generation follows on another ;but when theweather becomes cold and plants no longer affordabundant sap, males reappear and sexual reproductionsets in. It has been shown that in the artificialsummer of a green-house, parthenogenesis may continue for four years. In a large number of cases ofordinary reproduction, ine.g. birds, the connexionbetween cessation of growth and commencement ofreproduction is very distinct.It is not difficult to see the advantages in the postpone-

"NUTRITION AND REPRODUCTION 125ment of sexual reproduction until the rate of growthbegins to decline. For so long as the rate of growthcontinues rapid, there isproof that the organism getsfood with facility that expenditure does not seriouslycheck assimilation; and that the size reached is asyet not disadvantageous or rather, indeed, that : it isadvantageous. But when the rate of growthis muchdecreased by the increase of expenditure when theexcess of assimilative power is diminishing so fast asto indicate its itapproaching disappearance becomesneedful, for the maintenance of the species, that thisexcess shall be turned to the production of new individuals ; since, did growthacontinue until there wascomplete balancing of assimilation and expenditure,the production of new individuals would be eitherimpossible or fatal to the parent. And it is clear thatnatural selection will continually tend to determinethe period at which gamogenesis commences, in suchaway as most favours the maintenance of the race."That natural selection punctuates the life to advantage does not imply that it works directly towardssuch a remote goal as itspecies-maintaining means;that the arrangements which do secure this end mostare those which tend to establish themselves.effectivelyThose that do not secure this end are eliminated.Nutrition and Reproduction. Spencers doctrine ofthe antithesis between Nutrition and Reproductionis of great importance in biology, and we must dwellon it a little longer.The life of organismsisrhythmic. Plants havetheir long period of vegetative growth, and thensuddenly burst into flower. Animals in their youngstages grow rapidly, and as the growth ceases re-

"i 2 6HERBERT SPENCERproduction normally begins; or again, just as perennialplants are strictly vegetative through a great part ofthe year or for many successive years, but have theirperiodic recurrence of flowers and fruit, so it is withmany animals which after remaining virtually asexualfor prolonged periods, exhibit periodic returns of areproductive or sexual tide. Foliage and fruiting,periods of nutrition and crises of reproduction,hunger and love, must be interpreted as life-tides,punctuated by the seasons and other circumstancesthrough the agency of Natural Selection, but nonethe less as expressions of the fundamental organicrhythm between rest and work, upbuilding andexpenditure, repair and waste, which on the proto1plasmic plane are known as anabolism and katabolism.Anabolism and katabolism are the two sides ofprotoplasmic life, and the major rhythms of therespective preponderance of these give the antithesesof growth and multiplication, asexual and sexualreproduction. The contrasts of metabolism representthe swings of the organic see-saw the; periodiccontrasts correspond to alternate weightings orlighteningsof the two sides.sSpencer induction thatan approach towardsequilibrium between the forces which cause growthand the forces which oppose growth,is the chiefcondition to the recurrence of sexual reproduction,"is an approximate answer to the question Whendoes sexual reproduction recur ? But there remains,he says, the more difficult question Why doessexual reproduction recur ?Why cannot multiplica-1 P. Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson, The Evolution of Six, revisededition, 1901, p. 238.

"NUTRITION AND REPRODUCTION 127tion be carried on in all cases, as it is in many cases,by asexual reproduction ?As yet, he says, biologyis not advanced enoughto give a reply, but a certain hypothetical answermay be suggested. Seeing, on the one hand, thatgamogenesis recurs only in individuals which areapproaching a state of organic equilibrium ;andseeing, on the other hand, that the sperm-cells andsuch individuals are cellsgerm-cells thrown off byin which developmental changes have ended inquiescence, but in which, after their union, therearises a process of active cell-formation ;we maysuspect that the approach towards a state of generalequilibrium in such gamogenetic individuals is accompanied by an approach towards molecular equilibriumin them ;and that the need for this union of spermcelland germ-cellis the need for overthrowing thisequilibrium, and re-establishing active molecularchange in the detached germa result probablyeffected by mixing the slightly different physiologicalunits of slightly different individuals."Now, while Spencer was probably right in sayingthat fertilisation promotes change, we cannot thinkthat he succeeded in finding what he was seeking,namely a primary physiological reason why sexualreproduction should occur. It may be pointed outthat it is only in a limited sense that sperm-cells oregg-cells can be spoken of as in a state of "quiescence,"and that it is only in a limited sense that the organismwhich has finished growing and is beginning to besexual can be spoken of as in a state of general ormolecular equilibrium. An egg-cellisquiescent, asa seed lying in the ground is quiescent, awaiting its

128 HERBERT SPENCERstimulus of warmth and moisture ;a sperm-cellisquiescent, as a spore floating in the air is quiescent,awaiting its appropriate soil. The egg-cells andsperm-cells cannot be very quiescent since they do somuch when they unite. Moreover, we have simplyto recall the facts of natural parthenogenesis on theone hand or of artificial parthenogenesis on the other,to see that the quiescence of the egg is a secondaryrestriction adapted to secure amphimixis. Moreover,the familiar external and internal changes which occurin the bodies of organisms when they are approachingsexual maturity suggest the very opposite of generalor molecular equilibrium.Itmay be pointed out that although asexualmultiplication persists in many organisms both largeand small, and is sometimes the only method ofmultiplication, yet it is aptto be a somewhat expensive process and would be difficult to arrange forin highly differentiated animals. On the other hand,asexual multiplication succeeds admirably inmanycases ; it does not imply degeneration ;it is not inconsistent with the occurrence of variations ;and it isconceivable that itmight have been arranged for evenin the highest animals. What other reason can therebe why the circuitous processof sexual reproductionhas been preferred? Itmay be said that the arrangement by which multiplicationis secured throughspecial germ-cells, more or less apart from the cellswhich build up the body, may be justified as anarrangement which prevents or tends to prevent thetransmission of bodily modifications, many of whichare detrimental. But as this cuts both ways, preventing or tending to prevent the transmission of useful

"SexualNUTRITION AND REPRODUCTION 129modifications, there must be some other reason whythe circuitous process of sexual reproduction has beenpreferred. We believe the answer to be that sexualreproduction is an adaptive process securing thebenefits of amphimixis, for in amphimixis and in thechanges preparatory to it, there is an important sourceof "variation. In one of his essays Weismann wrote asfollows:reproductionis well known to consist in thefusion of two contrasted reproductive cells, or perhaps evenin the fusion of their nuclei alone. These reproductivecells contain the germinal material or germ-plasm, and thisagain, in its specific molecular structure, is the bearer of thehereditary tendencies of the organisms from which the reproductive cells originate. Thus in sexual reproduction twohereditary tendencies are in a sense intermingled. In thismingling, I see the cause of the hereditary individualcharacteristics ;and in the production of these characters,the task of sexual reproduction. It has to supplythe materialfor the individual differences from which selection producesnew species."When we inquire into the reasons for the occurrence of aprocess such as sexual reproduction,there are four differentquestions which may be put : ( i )We may inquire intothe historical evolution of the process,so far as that can belegitimately imagined or inferred from still persistent grades.(2)We may tryto discover what factors may have operatedin the course of evolution in raising the process from one stepof differentiation to another.(3)We mayalso tryto showhow the processisjustified by its advantages either selfregardingor species-maintaining. (4)We may inquireinto the physiological sequences in the internal economy of thewhich lead upindividual organism to the process in question.There is no doubt always an immediate necessityfor theoccurrence of an organic process, but we are inmany casesquite unable at present to do more than describe the series ofevents without understanding their causal nexus. The reasonfor this is apparent, since the organismis much more than aI

""130 HERBERT SPENCERdetached inanimate engine ; it is a system which has summedup in it the long results of time, the history of Itsages.rhythms and and crisesperiodicitiespuzzle us becausethey originated under conditions which obtained untoldmillennia ago. Thus some processes in higher animals mayhave had originallya reference to tides from the reach ofwhich their present possessorsare far withdrawn.We have entered on this digression partlyfor clearnesssake, and partly to explain why Spencer had, as we think,very limited success in his answer to the question: Whydoes sexual reproduction occur ? The curious reader may bereferred to the discussion of these problems in The Evolutionof Sex, Contemporary Science Series, Revised Edition,1901.The Germ-Cells. But we cannot leave the interesting chapter on genesis without referring to another ofSpencer s conclusions, which does not seem to us tobe quite consistent with facts.The marvellous phenomena initiated by the meeting of sperm-cell and germ-cell,or rather of theirnuclei, naturally suggest the conception of some quitespecial and peculiar properties possessed by thesecells. It seems obvious that this mysterious powerwhich they displayof originating a new and complexorganism, distinguishes them in the broadest wayfrom portions of organic substance in general.Nevertheless, the more we study the evidence themore are we led towards the conclusion that thesecells are not fundamentally different from other cells."The evidence he givesis :(i) that small fragments oftissue in many plants and inferior animals may developinto entire organisms; (2) that the reproductiveorgans producing eggs and sperms are organs of loworganisation, with no specialities of structure whichmight be looked for, did sperm-cells and germ-cells

THE GERM-CELLS 131need endowing with properties unlike those of allother organic agents." "Thus, there is no warrantfor the assumption that sperm-cells and germ-cellspossess powers fundamentally unlike those of othercells."To this it must be answered: (l) though spermcellsand egg-cells, being living units, cannot be"fundamentally unlike" other living units, such asordinary body-cells, yet they may be very unlikethem ; (2) that the germ-cells are very unlike ordinarybody-cells is shown by the fact that they can do whatno single body-cell can do, build up a whole organism ;(3) so specific are germ-cells that in certain cases andin favourable conditions a small fraction of an egg,bereft of its own nucleus, may, if fertilised, developinto an entire and normal larva ; (4) it is quite consistent with the idea of evolution that in lowerorganisms the contrast between body-cells and germcellsshould be less pronounced than in higher forms.But the fundamental answer is found when we inquireinto the history of the germ-cells. In many cases,and the list is being added to, the future reproductivecells are segregated off at an early stage in embryonicdevelopment. Even before differentiation sets in, thefuture reproductive cells may be set apart from thebody-forming cells. The latter develop in manifoldvariety into skin and nerve, muscle and blood, gutand gland ; they differentiate, and may lose almost allprotoplasmic likeness to the mother ovum. But thereproductive cells are set apart ; they take no share inthe differentiation, but remain virtually unchanged,continuing unaltered the protoplasmic tradition ofthe originalfertilised ovum. After a while their

"132 HERBERT SPENCERdivision-products will be liberated as functional reproductive cells or germ-cells, handing on thetradition intact to the next generation.An early isolation of the reproductive cells has beenobserved in the harlequin fly (Cbironomus)and in someother insects, in the aberrant worm-type Sagitta, inleeches, in thread-worms, in some Polyzoa, in somesmall Crustaceans known as Cladocera, in the waterfleaMoina, in some Arachnoids (Phalangidae),in thebony fish Micrometrus aggregates, and in other cases.In the development of the threadworm of the horseaccording to Boveri, the very first cleavage of theovum establishes a distinction between somatic andcells. One of the first two cells is thereproductiveancestor of all the cells of the body ;the other is theancestor of all the germ-cells.Moreover, from theoutset the progenitor of the germ-cells differsfrom thesomatic cells not onlyin the greater size and richness ofthechromatin ofits nucleus, but also in its mode of mitosis(division), for in all those blastomeres (segmentationcells)destined to produce somatic cells a portion of thechromatin is cast out into the cytoplasm, where itdegenerates, and only in the germ-cells is the sum-total ofthe chromatin retained"(E. B. Wilson, The Cell inDevelopment and Inheritance, 1896, p. III).In the majority of cases, we admit, the reproductivecells are not to be seen in early segregation, and thecontinuous lineage from thefertilsed ovum cannot betraced. In the majority of cases, the germ-cells areseen as such after considerable differentiation hasgone on, and although they are linear descendantsof the ovum, their special lineage cannot be traced.But it seems legitimate to argue from the clear cases

none"THE GERM-CELLS 133to the obscure cases, and to say that the germ-cellsare those cells which retain the complete complementof heritable qualities. Adopting the conception of thegerm-plasm as the material within the nucleus whichbears all the properties transmitted in inheritance,we maystill say, in Weismann s words, In everydevelopment a portion of this specific germ-plasm,which the parental ovum contains, is unused in theupbuilding of the offspring s body,unchanged to form the germ-cellsand is reservedof the nextgeneration. The . . . germ-cells no longer appearas products of the body, at least not in their moreessential part the specific germ-plasm; they appearrather as something opposed to the sum-total of bodycells;and the germ-cells of successive generationsare related to one another like generations ofProtozoa." In terms of this conception, which fitsmany facts, we may say that in plants and loweranimals the distinction between germ-plasm andsomato-plasm has not been much accentuated, and thatin some organisms the body-cells retain enoughundifferentiated germ-plasm to enable them in smallor large companies to regrow an entire organism.Itmay be said that Spencer must also haveregarded the germ-cells as containing the wholecomplement of hereditary qualities.It must be so.The pointis that he rejected the theory which givesa rational account of how the germ-cells have thiscontent and their power of developing into an organism,like from like. The sentence in which he points"out that the reproductive organs have of thespecialities of structure which might be looked for,did the sperm-cells and germ-cells need endowing -with

""134 HERBERT SPENCERproperties unlike those of all other organic agents,"shows how far he deliberately stood from the conception we have outlined.Here we may note that the Inductions regardingHeredity are discussed in our eleventh chapter, and thoseregarding Variation in our twelfth chapter.We have notdealt with the suggestive concrete sections which deal withstructural and functional evolution, partly because they aretoo concrete to be dealt with briefly, and partly because theyare saturated with the hypothesis of the transmission ofacquired characters. Spencer s most important conclusionin regard to the Laws of isMultiplication referred to underthe heading Population.

"CHAPTER XHERBERT SPENCER AS CHAMPION OF THE EVOLUTION-IDEAThe Evolution- Idea Spencer s Historical Position VonBaers Laiu Evolution and Creation Argumentsfor the Evolution-DoctrineSPENCER hasbeen calledthe philosopher of theEvolution-movement," but the appropriateness of thisdescription depends on what is meant by philosopher.the evolutionistWhat is certain is that he championedinterpretation at a time when it was as much tabooedas it is now fashionable ;that he showed itsapplicability to all orders of facts inorganic, organic,and super-organic ;that he threw some light onvarious factors in the evolution-process, and that heattempted to sum upin a universal formula what hebelieved to be the common principle of all evolutionary change. In judging of what he did it mustbe remembered that ~Ke was pre-Darwinian, and thatchemistry and physics, biology and psychology havemade enormous strides since he wrote his FirstPrinciplesin 1 86 1 -2.The Evolution-Idea.The general idea of evolution,like many other great ideas, is essentially simplethat the presentis the child of the past and the3S

136 HERBERT SPENCERparent of the future. It is the idea of developmentwrit large and historically applied.It is the same asthe scientific conception of human history.In generalterms, a process of Becoming everywhere leads,through the interaction of inherent potentialities andenvironmental conditions, to a new phase of Being.The study of Evolution is a study of Werden undVergehen und Weiteriverden.Stated concretely in regard to living creatures, thegeneral doctrine of organic evolution suggests, asweall know, that the plants and animals now around uswith all their fascinating complexities of structureand function, of life-history, behaviour, and interrelations are the natural and necessary results oflong processes of growth and change, of eliminationand survival, operative throughout practically countless ages ;that the forms we know and admire arethe lineal descendants of ancestors on the wholesomewhat simpler except when we have to deal withretrogressive or degenerative series jthat theseancestors are descended from yet simpler forms, andso on backwards, till we lose our clue in theunknown, but doubtless momentous vital events ofpre-Cambrian ages, or, in other words, in the thickmist of life s beginnings. Though the general ideaof organic evolution is simple, it has been slowlyevolved both as regards concreteness and clarity ; ithas gradually gained content as research furnishedfuller illustration, and clearness as criticism forced itto keep in touch with facts. Ithas slowly developedfrom the stage of suggestion to that of verification ;from being an a priori anticipationit has become aninterpretation of nature jand from being a modal

""SPENCER S HISTORICAL POSITION 137interpretation of the animate world it is advancing tothe rank of a causal interpretation.The evolution-idea isperhaps as old as clear thinking, which we may date from the (unknown) timewhen man discovered the year with its marvellousobject-lesson of recurrent sequences and realisedthat his race had a history. Whatever may havebeen its origin, the idea was familiar to several of theancient Greek philosophers, as it was to Hume andKant ; it fired the imaginationof Lucretius andlinked him to another poet of evolution Goethe ;itpersisted, like a latent germ, through the centuries ofother than scientific pre-occupation ; it was madeactual by the pioneers of modern biology men likeBuffon, Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin and Treviranus ;and it became current intellectual coin whenSpencer, Darwin, Wallace, Haeckel and Huxley,with united but varied achievements, won the conviction of the majority of thoughtful men. 1Spencer s historical position in regardto the Evolution-Idea. In 1840, when Herbert Spencer was twenty,he bought Lyell s Principles of Geology then recentlypublished. His reading of Lyell was a fortunateincident, for one of the chapters, devoted to a refutation of Lamarck s views concerning the origin ofspecies, had the effect of giving Spencer a decidedleaning to them."Why Lyell s arguments produced the oppositeeffect to that intended, I cannot say. Probably itwas that the discussion presented, more clearly1See J. Arthur Thomson, The Science of Life (1899), chapter xvi.,"Evolution of Evolution Theory and The; Study of Animal Lifej, chapter xviii., The Evolution of Evolution Theories."

""138 HERBERT SPENCERthan had been done previously,the natural genesisof organic forms. The question whether it wasor was not true was more distinctly raised. My inclination to accept it as true in spite of Lyell s adversecriticisms, was, doubtless, chiefly due to its harmonywith that general idea of the order of Nature towardswhich I had, throughout life, been growing. Supernaturalism,in whatever form, had never commendeditself. From boyhood there was in me a need to see,in a more or less distinct way, how phenomena, nomatter of what kind, are to be naturally explained.Hence, when my attention was drawn to the questionwhether organic forms have been specially created,or whether they have arisen by progressive modifications, physically caused and inherited, I adopted thelast supposition ; inadequate as was the evidence, andgreat as were the difficulties in the way.Its congruitywith the course of procedure throughout thingsat large gave it an irresistible attraction j and mybelief in it never afterwards wavered, much as I wasin after years ridiculed for entertainingit "(Autobiography, i. p. 176).Thus early convinced, Spencer did not remain amute evolutionist. The idea was a seed-thought inhis mind, and eventuallyit became the dominant one,bearing much fruit. In his early letters to the Nonconformist ^ 1842 on "TheProper Sphere of Government, ""theonly point of community with the generaldoctrine of Evolution is a belief in the modifiabilityof human nature through adaptation to conditions,and a consequent belief in human progression."Butin his Social Statics (1850) theremaybe seen thefirst step toward the general doctrine of Evolution."

"Yet"fromSPENCER S HISTORICAL POSITION 139Thus he says, The development of society as well asthe development of man and the development of lifegenerally, may be described as a tendencyto individuate to become a thing.And rightly interpreted,the manifold forms of progress going on around usare uniformly significant of thistendency."It was a great moment in Herbert Spencers intellectual life when in 1851 (<etaf. 31) he first came"across von Baer s formula expressing the course ofdevelopment through which every plant and animalpasses the change from homogeneity to heterogeneity."At the close of his Social Statics Spencerhad indicated that progress from low to high types ofsociety or organism implied"an advanceuniformity of composition to multiformity of composition."this phrase of von Baer, expressingthe law of individual development, awakened myattention to the fact that the law which holds of theascending stages of each individual isorganism alsothe law which holds of the ascending grades oforganismsof all kinds. And it had the furtheradvantage that it presented in brief form, a moregraphic image of the transformation, and thus facilitated further thought. Important consequenceseventually ensued."Von Baer s formula of embryonic development,which he regarded as a progress from the apparentlysimple to the obviously complex, and as the individual scondensed and modified recapitulation of racial history,accentuated and stimulated a thought already existingin Spencer s mind, and in part expressed. Itgaveobjective vividness to the concept of developmentwhich Spencer had already realised in regard to

""" climbs1 40 HERBERT SPENCERsocietary forms. In 1864 he wrote to G. H.Lewis,Ifanyone says that had von Baer never writtenI should not be doing that which I now am, I havenothing to say to the contraryI should replyitishighly probable."Herbert Spencer spoke of his early recognition ofvon Baer s law as one of the moments in his intellectual development. He realised objectively andvividly that out of an apparently simple and homogeneous stage of development, there isdeveloped bydivision of labour and other processes, a wondrouscomplexity of nervous, muscular, glandular, skeletal,and connective tissues or organs, as the case maybe. Organic development is not like crystallisation ;it isheteromorphic crystallisation, so to speak. Froma group of apparently similar cells, heterogeneoustissues and organs are developed. Thus von Baeras an embryologist gave Spencer as a general evolutionist a concrete basis for the concept of developmentwhich was simmering in his mind.Von Baer s Law. It does not appear, however,that Spencer ever read von Baer s embryologicalmemoirs, else he might have been less well-satisfiedwith summing up individual development as a progressfrom homogeneity to heterogeneity. Von Baer wasmuch more cautious than some of his followers andexpositors, and subsequent research has justified hiscaution. The once popular Recapitulation Doctrine"that a developing organismupits owngenealogical tree,"that "ontogeny recapitulatesphylogeny," is now seen to be true only in a verygeneral way, and with many saving clauses. Thegermis now known as a unified mosaic of ancestral

"We"""""VON BAER S LAW 141contributions, as a multiplex of potentialities ; it iseven visibly very complex and anything but homogeneous or simple and the individual; recapitulation of racial history is verifiable rather in the stagesof organogenesis than in the history of the embryoas a whole. Thus while all are agreed that thereis a gradual emergence of the obviously complexfrom the apparently simple, that development meansprogressive differentiation and integration,and thatpast history is in some measure resumed in presentdevelopment, it must also be allowed that germ-cellsare microcosms of complexity, that development isthe realisation of a composite inheritance, the cashingof ancestral cheques, and that the minting andcoining of the chick out of the eggis not adequatelyas a progress from homogeneity tosummed upheterogeneity."But although embryology does not appear to usto give unequivocal support to Spencers formula ofprogress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous,it seemed all plain sailing to him, and he proceededto illustrate the utility of his formula by applyingitto all orders of facts. In a famous passage in theessay on "Progress: its Law and Cause" (Essays,vol. i., 1883, p. 30) he wrote as follows :believe we have shown beyond question that thatwhich the German physiologists (von Baer, Wolff, andothers) have found to be the law of organic development(as of a seed into a tree and of an egg into an animal) isthe law of all development. The advance from the simpletothe complex, through a processof successive differentiationsthe (i.e. appearance of differences in the parts of a seeminglylike substance), is seen alike in the earliest changes of theUniverse to which we can reason our way back and;in

142 HERBERT SPENCERthe earlier changes which we can inductively establish ; itis seen in the geologic and climatic evolution of the Earth,and of every simple organism on its surface ;it is seen inthe evolution of Humanity, whether contemplatedcivilised individual, or in the aggregation of races ;in theit is seenin the evolution of Society in respectalike of its political,its religious, and its economical organisation ;and it is seenin the evolution of all those endless concrete and abstractproducts of human activity which constitute the environmentof our dailylife. From the remotest past which Science canfathom up to the novelties of yesterday, that in whichProgress essentiallyconsists is the transformation of thehomogeneous into the heterogeneous."This was writtenin 1857.As far back as 1852 Spencer contributed to the Leaderan essay on the Development Hypothesis which is oneof the most noteworthy of the pre-Darwinian presentations ofthe general idea of evolution. Supposing that there are some"ten millions of species, extant and extinct, he asks whichis the most rational theory about these ten millions of species ?Is itmost likelythat there have been ten millions of specialcreations ? or is it most likely that by continual modifications,due to change of circumstances, ten millions of varieties havebeen produced,as varieties are being produced still ? . . .Even could the supporters of the Development Hypothesismerely show that the origination of species by the process ofmodification is conceivable, they would be in a better positionthan their opponents.But they can do much more thanthis.They can show that the process of modification haseffected, and iseffecting, decided changes in all organismssubject to modifying influences. They can show . . . thatin successive generations these changes continue, untilultimatelythe new conditions become the natural ones.They can show that in cultivated plants, domesticatedanimals, and in the several races of men, such alterationshave taken place. They can show that the degrees ofdifference so produced are often, as in dogs, greater thanthose on which distinctions of species are in other casesfounded.They can show, too, that the changes daily takingplace in ourselves the facility that attends long practice,

"ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION 143and the loss of aptitudethat begins when practiceceasesthe strengthening of passions habitually gratified, and theweakening of those habitually curbed the development ofevery faculty, bodily, moral, or intellectual according to theuse made of it are all explicable on this same principle.And thus they can show that throughout all organic naturethere is at work a modifying influence of the kind theyassign as the cause of these specific differences an influence;which, though slow in its action, does, in time, if the circumstances demand it, produce marked changes an influencewhich, to all appearance, would inproduce the millions ofyears, and under the great varieties of condition whichgeological records imply, any amount of change.While Spencer did not discern the modifying influence of Natural Selection, which it was reserved forDarwin and Wallace to disclose, his clear presentationof the general doctrine of evolution seven years beforethe publication of the "Originof Species" (1859)should not be forgotten.In other essays before 1858 and in his Principles ofPsychology (1855)* Spencer championed the evolutionistposition, and the first programme of his "SyntheticPhilosophy" was drawn up in January 1858.Arguments for the Evolution-Doctrine. The ideathat the presentis the child of the past and theparent of the future, that what we see around us isthe long result of time, that there has been age-longprogress from relatively simple beginnings theevolution-formula in short is now part of the intellectual framework of most educated men with afree mind. We no longer trouble to argue about it ;like wisdom it is justifiedof its children. It hasafforded a modal interpretation of the world s history,an interpretation that works well, which no facts areknown to contradict. It has been the most effective

"144 HERBERT SPENCERorganon of thought that the world has known ;it isbecoming organic in all our thinking.We cannot indeed give an evolutionary account ofthe origin of life, or of consciousness, or of humanreason ;we cannot read the precise pedigree of manyof the forms of life ;we are in great doubt as to themodus operandi by which familiar results have beenbrought about, but all this ignorance does not diminishour confidence in the scientific value of the generalevolution-idea. Itmay be that there are some primaryfacts, such as life and consciousness, which we mustbe content to postulate as at present irresoluble data,but it is also certain that our inquiry into the factors ofevolution is stillvery young. So much has been donein half a century, since serious aetiology began, that itispremature to say ignorabimusignoramus.where we must confessIt seems possible to give a provisional evolutionistaccount of so many of the wonders of life,"asHaeckel calls them, that there are few nowadays whowill maintain that, given certain postulates, a scientificinterpretation of nature is impossible. This is whatthe doctrine of special creation or creations implies ;it means an abandonment of the scientific interpretationof nature as a hopeless task.If the evolution key failed to openthe doors towhich we apply it,then there would be justificationfor a rehabilitation of the creationist doctrine, butthe reverse is the case. To some minds, notably MrAlfred Russel Wallace, the problems of the originof life, of consciousness, and of man s higher qualitiesseem so hopelessly far from scientific interpretation,that a combination of evolutionism with a moiety of

""EVOLUTION AND CREATION 145creationism appears necessary. But as we are onlyof thebeginning to know the scope and efficacyfactors of evolution, and are not without hope ofdiscovering other factors, this dualism seems premature.Evolution and Creation. But while the Evolution-Doctrine is now admitted as a valid and useful geneticformula, it was far otherwise when Spencer waswriting his Principles of Biology (1864-6). Then thedoctrine of descent was struggling for existenceagainst principalities and powers both temporal andspiritual, and then it was still relevant to pit it againstthe theory of special creations. Yet for a youngergeneration it is difficult to appreciate the warmthof Spencer s chapter on the Special-Creation hypothesis( 109 115 of vol. of the i. original edition of ThePrinciples of Biology}.The belief in specialcreations of organismsis a belief thatarose among men during the era of profoundest darkness ;and itbelongs to a family of beliefs which have nearly alldied out as enlightenmenthas increased. It is without asolitary established fact on which to stand ;and when theattempt is made to put it into definite shape in the mind,it turns out to be only a pseud-idea. This mere verbalhypothesis, which men idly acceptas a real or thinkablehypothesis, is of the same nature as would be one, based ona day s observation of human life, that each man and womanwas speciallycreated an hypothesisnot suggested byevidence, but by lack of evidence an hypothesis whichformulates absolute ignorance into a semblance of positive. . .knowledge."Thus, however regarded, the hypothesis of specialcreations turns out to be worthless worthless itsby derivation ;worthless in its intrinsic incoherence ;worthless asabsolutely without evidence ;worthless as not supplying anintellectual need ;worthless as not satisfyinga moral want.K

146 HERBERT SPENCERWe must therefore consider it as counting for nothing, inopposition to any other hypothesis respecting the origin oforganicbeings."The appreciation of the evolution-formula in theminds of thoughtful men has been greatly modifiedfor the bettersince the early Darwinian days of hotbloodedcontroversy, when Spencer was a prominentchampion of the new way of looking at things. Thespecial-creation hypothesis has almost ceased to findadvocates who know enough about the facts to bringforward arguments worthy of consideration, and by alegitimate change of front on the part of theologiansit has come to be recognised that the evolutionformulais not antithetic to anyessential transcendental formula. Naturalists, on the other hand,recognise that the Evolution-formula is no more thana genetic description, that it does not pretend to giveany ultimate explanations, that as such it has nothingwhatever to do with such transcendental concepts asalmighty volition, and that it has no quarrel with themodern theological view of creation as the institutionof the primary order of nature the possibilityof natural evolution included. Thus Spencersdestructive attack on the Special-Creationhypothesishas now little more than historical interest. Andfor this result, we have in part to thank Spencerhimself, who made the precise point at issue sodefinitely clear.The general theory of organic evolution thetheory of Descent tacitly makes the assumption,which is the basal hope of all biology, that it is notonly legitimate but promiseful to try to interpretscientifically the history of life upon the earth. It

EVOLUTION AND CREATION 147formulates the idea that the present phase of beingis the natural and necessary outcome of a previous,on the whole, simpler phase of being, and so on,backwards and forwards in time, under the operationof more or less clearly discernible natural factors andconditions notably variation and heredity, selectionand isolation. Tested a thousand times, the generalevolution-formula seems to cover the facts, itgivesthem a new rationality, it applies to minutiose detailsas well as to the general progress of life, it evenaffords a basis for verified prophecy. The formulais a key that fits all locks, though it has not yet,because of our fumbling fingers, openedall.But just here, as Spencer pointed out, there is aparting of the ways, and there is no via media, nocompromise.Is there no hopefulness in trying togive a scientific account of the nature and history andgenesis of the confessedly vast and perplexing ordersof facts which we call Physical Nature, AnimateNature, and Human Nature ? then let us becomeagnostics pure and simple, or let us remain philosophers or theologians, poets or artists, and sigh overan impetuous science which started so much in debtthat itsbankruptcy was a foregone conclusion !On the other hand, if the scientific attempt atinterpretation is legitimate, and if it has already madegood progress (considering its youth), and if itsresults, achieved piecemeal, always make for greaterintelligibility, then let us give the scientific, i.e.,evolutionist formulation its due ;let us rigidly exclude from our science all other than scientific interpretations let us cease from; juggling with words inattempting a mongrel mixture of scientific and trans-

""i 4 8HERBERT SPENCERcendental formulation let us-, stop trying to eke outdemonstrable factors, such as variation and selection,by assuming alongside of these,ultra-scientificcauses," "spiritual influxes," et hoc genus omne ; letus cease writing or reading books such as God orNatural Selection, whose titular false antinomyis anindex of the bathos of their misunderstanding. Toplace scientific formula? in opposition to transcendentalformulae is to oppose incommensurables," and todisplay an ignorance of what the aim of sciencereally is.Logically, the antithesis is between the possibilityor the impossibility of giving a scientific interpretation of the world around us (and ourselves). Thehypothesis of special creations is irrelevant until thescientific interpretation is shown to be inadequate orfallacious.Arguments for the Evolution-Doctrine. But what, itmay be asked, is the evidence substantiating theformula of organic evolution, and compelling us toaccept it ? To this question, we propose to give inbrief resume Spencers answer, but it is impossible torefrain from observing that the question involvessome measure of misunderstanding. The_^evolmjontheory, as a modal formula, is just a particular way oflooking at things ;it is justified wherever it isapplied ;it makes for progress whenever it is utilised ;but itcannotjae proved by induction or experiment like thelaw of gravitation or the doctrine of the conservationof energy. Fritz Miiller said that he would becontent to stake the evolution theory on a study ofbutterflies alone, and he was right. The formula isjustified by its detailed applicability ;there are not

ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION 149any special evidences of evolution ; any set of facts inregard to organisms well worked-out illustrates thegeneral thesis. At the same time, it is possible toclassify the different waysin which the Evolution-Idea fits the facts, and this is what Spencer did inhis presentation of the "argumentsfor evolution"a presentation which has never been surpassedin clearness, though every illustration has beenmultiplied many times since 1866.I.The__Arguments from Classification. Spencerstarted with the fact that naturalists have utilisedresemblances in structure and development as a basisfor the orderly classification of organisms in groupswithin groups varieties, species, genera, families,"races, and so on. But this is the arrangementwhich we see arises by descent, alike in individualit isfamilies and among races of men." "Whereknown to take place evolution actually produces thesefeeblyj-djsjtinguished small groups and these strongly -"Thedistin^iih_ed_ .great groups."impressionmade by these two parallelisms, which add meaningto each other, isdeepened by the third parallelism,which enforces the meaning of both the parallelism,namely, that as, between thespecies, genera, orders,classes, etc., which naturalists have formed, there aretransitional types ;so between the groups, subgroups, and sub-sub-groups, which we know to havebeen evolved, types of intermediate values exist.And these three correspondences between the knownresults of evolution (asin human races, domesticatedanimals, and cultivated plants) and the results hereascribed to evolution have further weight given tothem by the fact, that the kinship of groups through

"On"Even""1 50 HERBERT SPENCERtheir lowest members is just the kinship which thehypothesis of evolution in theimplies."absence of these specific agreements, the broad factof unity amid multiformity, which organisms sostrikingly display, is strongly suggestive of evolution.Freeing ourselves from pre-conceptions, we shall seegood reason to think with Mr Darwin, that propinquity of descent the only known cause of thesimilarity of organic beingsis the bond, hidden as itisby various degrees of modification, which ispartlyrevealed to us byour classifications(PrinciplesBiology, Rev. Ed. vol. i. p. 448).II.ArgmneQtsJrom Embryology. Organisms maybe arranged on a tree which symbolises theirstructural affinities and divergences. On the evolutionist interpretation this is an adumbration of theactual genealogical tree or Stammbaum. But when weconsider the facts of embryology we find that thedeveloping organism advances from stage to stage bysteps which are more or less comparable to the variouslevels and branchings of the classificatory tree. Thereis a resemblance, sometimes a parallelism, betweenindividual development and the grades of organisationwhich have or have had persistent stability as livingcreatures.the hypothesis of evolution thisparallelism has a meaning indicates that primordialkinship of allorganisms, and that progressivedifferentiation of them which the hypothesis alleges.On any other hypothesis the parallelismismeaningless." It is true that there are nonconformities tothe general law that individual development tendsto recapitulate racial history, or that ontogeny tendsto recapitulate phylogeny. There mayofbe in the

"ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION 151individual development condensations or telescopingsof the presumed ancestral stages, and there may bean interpolation of developmental stages which areadaptive to peculiar conditions of juvenile life andhave no historical import, but the deviations are suchas may be readily interpreted on the evolutionhypothesis{Principles of Biology, i. pp. 450-467).III.Arguments from Morphology. In back-bonedanimals from frog to man there is a great variety offore-limb, adapted for running, swimming, flying,grasping, and so forth, but throughout there is aunity of structure and development. There are thesame fundamental bones and muscles, nerves andblood vessels, and the early stages are closely similar.So it is throughout organic nature ;there is unity oftype, maintained under extreme dissimilarities of formand mode of life. This isexplicable as resultingfrom descent with modification ;but it is otherwiseinexplicable.""Thelikenesses disguised by unlikenesses,which the comparative anatomist discoversbetween various organs in the same organism, areworse than meaninglessif it be supposed thatorganisms were severally framed as we now see them ;but theyfit in quite harmoniously with the beliefthat each kind of organismisof accumulateda product modifications upon modifications. And the presence,in all kinds of animals and plants, of functionallyuselessparts corresponding to parts that are functionally-useful in allied animals and plants, while it istotally incongruous with the belief in a constructionof each organism by miraculous interposition, is justwhat we are led to expect by the belief that organismshave arisen by progression."

"152 HERBERT SPENCERIV.Argumentsfrom Distribution.Given thatpressure which species exercise on one another, inconsequence of the universal overfillingof their respective habitats given the resulting tendency tothrust themselves into one another s areas, andmedia, and modes of life, along such lines of least resistance as from time to time are found given besidesthe changes in modes of life, hence arising, thoseother changes which physical alterations of habitatsnecessitate given the structural modifications directlyor indirectly produced in organisms by modified conditions ;and. the facts of distribution in space andtime are accounted for. \That divergence and redivergenceof organic forms, which we saw to beshadowed forth by the truths of classification and thetruths of embryology, we see to be also shadowedforth by the truths of distribution^,If that aptitude tomultiply, to spread, to separate, and to differentiate,which the human races have in all times shown, be atendency common to races in general, as we have amplereason to assume ;then there will result those kindsof spacial relations and chronological relations amongthe species, and genera, and orders, peopling theEarth s surface, which we find exist. The remarkableidentities of type discovered between organismsinhabitatingone medium, and strangely modifiedorganisms inhabiting another medium, are at the sametime rendered comprehensible. And the appearancesand disappearances of species which the geologicalrecord shows us, as well as the connections betweensuccessive groups of species from early eras downto our own, cease to be inexplicable" (Principles ofBiology, i. p. 489).

""ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION 153Thus," Spencer concludes, of these four groupseach furnished several arguments which point to thesame conclusion ;and the conclusion pointed to bythe arguments of any one group, is that pointed to bythe arguments of every other group. This coincidence of coincidences would give to the induction avery high degree of probability, even were it notenforced by deduction. But the conclusion deductively reached is inharmony with the inductiveconclusion."

CHAPTER XIASREGARDS HEREDITYProblems of Heredity Physiological Units A DigressionThe Germ-Cells Transmission of AcquiredCharactersAInconceivabilityPriori ArgumentPractical ConclusionHEREDITY isthe relation of genetic continuity whichlinks generation to generation. An inheritance is allthat the isorganism or has to start with on its lifejourneyin virtue of the hereditary relation to parentsand ancestors. In all ordinary cases, the inheritancehas its initial material basis in the egg-cell and thesperm-cell which unite in fertilisation at the beginningof a new life, and these two kinds of germ-cells,which bear the maternal and the paternal contributions,have their peculiar virtue of reproducing like fromlike, just because they are the unchanged or veryslightly changed cell-descendants of the fertilised ovafrom which the parents arose. A bud or a cuttingseparated off from a living creature tiger-lily orpotato, polyp or worm reproduces an entire organismlike the parent, if the appropriate nurture-conditionsare available ;and it can do so because it is a fairsample of the parental organisation. Similarly a germcellor two germ-cells in conjunction can develop intoa creature like the parent or parents, in virtue of beingthe condensed essence of the parental organisation.And the germ-cellis this because of its direct continuity

"PROBLEMS OF HEREDITY 155through undifferentiating cell-divisions with theoriginal germ-cell from which the parental bodydeveloped.Even in ancient times men pondered over the resemblances and differences between children and theirparents for like only tends to beget like andwondered as to the nature of the bond which linksgeneration to generation. But although the problemsare old, the precise study of them isaltogethermodern. The first great step towards clearness wasthe formulation of the cell-theory by Schwann andSchleiden (1838-9), by Goodsir and Virchow, whichmade it clear that all but the simplest organisms arebuilt up of cells or modifications of cells, and that theindividual life usually begins as a fertilised egg-cellwhich proceeds by division and re-division, by differentiation and integration, to develop a more or lesscomplexIt has becomebody."gradually clear thatwhile the fertilised egg-cell gives rise to body-cellswhich become specialised, it also gives rise to unspecialiseddescendant-cells, which take no share inbody-making, but become the germ-cells the potentialstarting-points of another generation. A secondgreat step was the accumulation of facts of inheritanceshowing that all sorts of qualities innate or inborn inthe parents,essential and trivial, normal and abnormal,bodily and mental, may be transmitted to the offspringas part of the organic heritage.A third great stepwas impliedin the acceptance which Darwin in particular won for the general idea of descent, for it ishardly too much to say that the scientific study of theproblems of heredity began when it was recognisedthat heredity is a fundamental condition of evolution.

156 HERBERT SPENCERProblems of Heredity. In regard to Heredity thereare three large problems which tower above thecrowd of more detailed problems. The firstis : Inwhat way are the germ-cells peculiar, how do theydiffer from ordinary cells, what gives them theirunique reproductive power, how do they come to besuch marvellous units that their development results ina new organism?Only two answers have been suggested : (l) that the germ-cells become receptaclesof representative samples from the different parts ofthe body (the pangenetic theory), and (2)that thegerm-cells owe their unique character to the fact thatthey are, along lines of undifferentiated cell-lineage,the direct descendants of the fertilised ova of theparents (the theory of germinal continuity). Thanks,largely, to Weismann, the second view has prevailedover the first, for which there is little factual basis.The second large problemis as to the wayin whichit may be supposed that the hereditary qualities arerepresented in the germ-cell. Is the germ-cell anextremely complex chemical mixture without preformed architecture, which, as it lives and grows,gradually gives rise to heterogeneous elements,differentiating along diverse lines according to theirdiverse relations to one another and to their surrounding conditions ? Or is it from the first a complexarchitecture, an intricate organisation of a largenumber of items representing particular qualities,amosaic of inheritance-bearers ?The third large problemis as to the modes inwhich the inheritance, normally bi-parental, and insome sense always a mingling of ancestral contributions, can expressitself. Sometimes the expression

"""PHYSIOLOGICAL UNITS 157is one-sided, sometimes it is a blend. The mothermay look out of one eye, and the father out of another,or the grandfather may be re-incarnated. By interbreeding hybrids pure types may be got, or reversions, or an epidemic of variations." This is theproblem of the diverse modes of hereditary transmission, which we know in some cases to be expressiblein a formula, such as Mendel s law or Gallon s law,and for which we can sometimes hazard a hypotheticalphysiological interpretation.Physiological Units. To each of these three problemsSpencermade a contribution. He started with thelegitimate and fertile hypothesis of "physiologicalunits the ultimate life-bearing elements, intermediate between the chemical molecules and the cell.Just as the same kinds and even the same number ofatoms compose by different arrangements numerousquite different chemical molecules, e.g. in the proteingroup,so out of similar molecules diversely grouped"an immense variety of physiological units" may beevolved. Out of the same pieces of coloured glassone may get in the kaleidoscope a very large numberof distinct patterns,so in the course of nature similarmolecules, grouping themselves differently, haveformed a very large number of distinct physiologicalunits." The groupingis not merely positional andstatic as in the kaleidoscope , it isdynamic and vital.Since Spencer sketched his idea in1864 manybiologists have thought of units intermediate between the chemical molecules and the cell, andthe number of different names which have beenbestowed upon them is extraordinary, each voyagerre-naming his discovery, ignorant of or ignoring those

""""""158 HERBERT SPENCERwho had previously sailed the same seas. This recognition of physiological units was a natural stepin analysis as soon as itbegan to be recognised thatthe cell was a little world in itself, a "firm" withmany partners. While we cannot agree with Delagethat "Spencerest le vrai pere de la conception initiale,"since Brlicke expressed the same idea in 1861,Spencer s exposition in 1864 was quite independent,and it has not found the recognitionit deserved.It should be noted that the gemmules whichDarwin assumed in his provisional hypothesis ofpangenesis to be given off by thebody, were supposedvarious cells of theto be of innumerable unlikekinds, whereas in Spencer s argumenttion everywhere is that the physiologicalof one kind."theimplicaunits are allIt is admitted that the molecules of a crystallisablesubstance have more or less mysterious relationsto one another as we call them which"polarities"result in definite crystalline forms appearing in definiteconditions, with a certain amount of diversity as everyone may see in snow-crystals, and as is more preciselyknown in the case of certain substances which haveseveral forms of crystallisation. But just as chemicalmolecules have in virtue of their organisation (alwaysdynamic as well as static) certain prescribed modes ofrelating themselves to others like themselves, andbuilding up a beautiful integrate, a crystal, so, asSpencer pointed out, the "physiologicaltheiri.e. their inherent constitutionalpolarities,"units" havetendencies to build up forms along with their fellows.Here we have two useful suggestions, (l) thatdevelopment is like an elaborate organic crystallisa-

A DIGRESSION 159tion, only much more energetically dynamic, and (2)that the big fact of heredity that like tends to begetlike has its parallel in the way in which a minutefragment of a crystal can in the appropriate environment of a solution of the same substance build upa crystal like the original form from which it wasseparated. Germ-cells are potential samples of theorganisation which is expressed in the parent, butSpencer did not advance to the more distinctivelymodern position which recognises that they areseparatedoff rather from the fertilised ovum whichgave rise to the parent s body than from that bodyitself. The parental bodyis the trustee rather thanthe producer of the germ-cells.A Digression.Here we must digress a little tocompare Spencer s conception of physiological orconstitutional units with Weismann sconception ofthe Germ-Plasm. According to Weismann, there isin the nuclei of the germ-cells a distinctive physicalbasis of inheritance, the germ-plasm.It is thevehicle of the hereditary qualities, the architecturalsubstance which enables the germ-cell tobuild up anitorganism has an ;extremely complex and at thesame time persistentstructure. Following a hypothesis of De Vries, he supposed that the readilystainable nuclear bodies (the chromosomes or idants)consist of a colony of invisible self-propagating vitalunits or biophors, each of which has the power ofexpressing in development some particular quality.He supposed that these biophors are aggregated intounits of a higher order, known as determinants, onefor each structure of the body which is capable ofindependent variation. These determinants are sup-

""160 HERBERT SPENCERposed to be grouped together in ids, each of whichissupposed to possess a complete complement of thespecific characters of the organism and also to have anindividual character. The ids are arranged in linearseries to form the visible idants or chromosomes,which will be slightly different from one anotheraccording to the individualities of the component ids.When the fertilised egg-cell develops, it gives rise(1) to somatic cells which carry with them part of thegerm-plasm, and differentiate to form the body, and(2) to the germ cells which reserve part of the germplasmin an unchanged state, and eventually giverise in appropriate conditions to new individuals andtheir germ-cells.Spencer refused to acceptthe contrast betweenbody-cells and germ-cells as expressing a fact, andreferred for his reasons to the numerous cases inwhich small pieces of a plant or polyp may growinto an entire organism. But when he representedWeismann as maintaining that the soma containsin itscomponents none of those latent powerspossessed by those of the germ-plasm,"he did notdo justice to the comprehensive theory of the Germplasm."For Weismann assumes that in certaincases the body-cells, even though differentiated, maycarry with them some residual unused-up germ-plasm.When a lizard regrows a lost tail effectivelyresponding to a casualty which has been commonfor untold generations Weismann interprets themechanism of this as due to a reserve of tail-determinants resident at or near the place of breakage,and localised there as the result of a long-continuedprocessof selection. A chamaeleon does not re-

""""A DIGRESSION 161generate its tail, and thismay be interpreted in termsof the selection-theory, since the chamaeleon with itstail coiled up or embracing a branch has not been,in the course of its evolution, subjected to thefrequently recurrent casualty which has beset mostother lizards. Spencer said, We cannot arbitrarilyassume that wherever a missing organ has to bereproduced there exists the needful supply of determinants representing that organ,"but Weismann madeno such arbitrary assumption. Many organs are lostwhich are not regenerated, even when,materials or differentiation are concerned,as far asit wouldbe easy to replace them. Why the everywherepresent uniform physiological units that Spencerbelieved in should not replace them, we do not know ;but if the distribution of regenerative determinantshas been wrought out by selection, we understandthe facts.Spencer said that the hypothesis of a supply ofdeterminants lying latent at or near the seat of injury,and able to reproduce the missing part in all its details,"and to do this several times over, was a strongWe venture to think thatsupposition." the hypothesis that the same result is achieved by thephysiological units,"which are all of the samekind, is a weak supposition. Spencer said "Repro:duction of the lost part would seem to be a normalresult of the proclivity towards the form of the entireBut it is difficult to seeorganism." why proclivityof the physiological units towards the form of theentire organism should bring about the regenerationof a tail here and a head there, a claw here and aneye there. But Spencer was too acute a thinker notL

"""""have1 62 HERBERT SPENCERto feel that if the theory of regenerative determinantswas "incompetent,"his own theory, which interpretedregeneration as due to the activity of physiologicalunits, with a proclivity towards the organic form ofthedid not cover the factsspecies,"; e.g. theestablishment ofwhere the ends of afalse-joints,"broken bone failing to unite remain movable oneupon the other. Therefore he suggested a qualification of his hypothesis.In the social it is organism," often seen that thecomponents of an aggregatetheir activitiesand arrangements mainly settled by local conditions."A local group of units, determined by circumstancestowards a certain structure, coerces its individualunits into that structure." In an emigrant settlement, "individuals are led into occupations andofficial posts, often quite new to them, by the wantsof those around are now influenced and now coercedinto social arrangements which, as shown perhapsby gambling saloons, by shootings at sight, and bylynchings, are scarcely at all affected by the centralgovernment. Now the physiological units in eachspecies appearto have a similar combination ofcapacities. Besides their general proclivity towardsspecific organisation, they show us abilities toorganise themselves locally ;and these abilities arein some cases displayed in defiance of the generalcontrol, as in the supernumerary finger or the falsejoint. Apparently each physiological unit, whilehaving in a manner the whole organism as thestructure which, along with the rest, it tends toform, has also an aptitude to take part in formingany local structure, and to assume its place in that

""TheA DIGRESSION163structure under the influence of adjacent physiologicalunits" (Principles of Biology, revised edition, i. p. 364).The experiments of Born and others have shownthat fragments of a young tadpole may go on developing to some extent after they are cut off, and thatthe undifferentiated rudiment of a limb may besuccessfully grafted on to another tadpole."Inbrief, we may say that each part is in chief measureautogenous." Though all parts are composed ofphysiological units of the same nature, yet everywhere, in virtue of local conditions and the influenceof itsneighbours, each unit joins in forming the particular structure appropriate to its place,"This conclusion is very interesting when compared with thatreached more inductively by many embryologists (ofthe so-called epigenetic school), namely, that whata blastomere or cleavage-cell of an egg does, isdetermined by its intra-embryonic environment, byits relations, both statical and dynamical, to thewhole organisation of which it forms a part. AsDriesch putsit :relative position of a blastomere in the whole determines in general whatdevelops from it ; if its position be changed, it givesrise to something different ;in other words, its prospective value is a function of its position."Butthose who assume heterogeneous determinants dobe in thisnot thereby exclude what truth there mayview that what an early blastomere does is a functionof its inter-relations.But let us consider how much Spencer puts tothe credit of his "constitutional units."(l) Theyand evencarry within them the traits of the speciessome of the traits of the ancestors of the species, the

""we"""1 64 HERBERT SPENCERtraits of the parents and even some of the traits oftheir immediate ancestors, and the congenital idiosyncrasies of the individual itself. In this they resemblethe germ-plasm. (2) They must be at once in somerespects fixed and in other respects plastic while;their fundamental traits, expressing the structure ofthe type, must be unchangeable, their superficial traitsmust admit of modification without much difficulty ;and the modified traits, expressing variations in theparents and immediate ancestors, though unstable,must be considered as capable of becoming stable incourse of time."Again they resemble the germplasm.(3) Once more, have to think of thesephysiological units (orconstitutional units as I wouldnow re-name them) as having such natures thatwhile a minute modification, representing some smallchange of local structure, is inoperative on the proclivities of the units throughout the rest of thesystem, it becomes operative in the units which fallinto the localitywhere that occurs."change Herethey part company from the germ-plasm, except in sofar as itmay be said that the development of the distributed determinants is in part dependent on localconditions. (4) Finally, since Spencer supposed anunceasing circulation of protoplasm throughout ansuch that in the course of days, weeks,organism,"months, years, each portion of protoplasm visits everypart of the a wildbody" assumption we mustconceive that the complex forces of which each constitutional unit is the centre, and by which it acts onother units while it is acted on by them, tend continually to re-mould each unit into congruity withthe structures around :superposing on it modifica-

A DIGRESSION 165tions answering to the modifications which havearisen in these structures. Whence is to be drawnthe corollary that in the course of time all the circulating units physiological, or constitutional if weprefer so to call them visit all parts of the organism ;are severally bearers of traits expressing local modifications ;and that those units which are eventuallygathered into sperm-cells and germ-cells also bearthese superposed traits."This theory which is not unlike a combination ofDarwin spangenesis with De Vries s neo-pangenesisisvery significant, for it discloses Spencer s hypothesis as to the modus operandi of the transmissionof acquired characters. But there isunfortunatelyno factual warrant for the assumption that the constitutional units visit one another in various corners ofthe body, getting impressions as they go, or for theassumption that they are eventually gathered into thegerm-cells an assumption which shows how farSpencer deliberately stood from the conceptionof thecontinuity of the germ-plasm. Even if we supposean organism to undergo numerous modifications indifferent parts of itsbody, as a plant may do when itis transferred from the Alps to the lowlands ;even ifwe suppose the constitutional units which are all ofone kind to circulate and become bearers of thetraits expressing local modifications, we have to faceother questions: do they all become remoulded inrelation to all the modifications ? or do some becomeremoulded in relation to one modification and somein relation to another ? or do all the modifications sohang together that one kind of alteration impressedupon the constitutional units covers them all ? The

"At""1 66 HERBERT SPENCERdifficulties of the conception of constitutional-unitscertainly do not seem less than the difficulties of theconception of specific determinants.Even to the general reader, who is not concernedwith the problem of the mechanism of inheritance anddevelopment, who has a shrewd suspicion that it isone of those things no fellow can understand, ourdigression should be interesting, for it illustratesSpencer s fertility of invention and his adroitness inlugging in one hypothesis after another to eke out atheory which in its first statement appears to bevery simple. It is instructive to observe how theconstitutional units at first so harmlessly simple,grow under the conjurer s hands until they becomemore marvellous than Clerk Maxwell s sortingdemons."But it is more instructive still to hear the conclusion of the whole matter.last then we areobliged to admit that the actual organising processtranscends conception. It is not enough to say thatwe cannot know it ;we must say that we cannot evenconceive it. And this is just the conclusion whichmight have been drawn before contemplating the facts."For if, as we saw in the chapter on the DynamicElement in Life," it is impossible for us to understandthe nature of this element if even the ordinary manifestations of it which a living body yields frommoment to moment are at bottom incomprehensible ;then still more incomprehensible must be that astonishing manifestation of it which we have in the initiation andunfolding of a new organism."Thus all we can dois to find some way of symbolising the process soas to enable us most conveniently to generalise its

"TRANSMISSION OF MODIFICATIONS 167phenomena; and the only reason for adopting thehypothesis is that it best serves this purpose."But the hypothesis only serves the purpose because the constitutional units are gradually investedwith the powers of effective response, co-ordination,and the like which remain the secret of the organismas a whole the secret of which life, many think willnever be read until we recognise that it is also thesecret of mind.The Germ-Cells. According to Spencer, spermcellsand germ-cells are essentially nothing more thanvehicles in which are contained small groups of thephysiological units in a fit state for obeying theirproclivity towards the structural arrangement of thespecies they belong and to," "if the likeness ofoffspring to parents is thus determined,it becomesmanifest, a priori, that besides the transmission ofgeneric and specific peculiarities, there will be atransmission of those individual peculiarities which,arising without assignable causes,are classed asNotspontaneous." only are the main characterstransmitted, the same may be true of even minutedetails varietal characters, like the taillessness ofManx cats, and individual congenital peculiaritiessuch as a sixth finger ;normal qualities such as swiftness in race-horses, abnormal qualities such as nervousness in man. Here Spencer was of course at onewith all biologists.Transmission of Acquired Characters. He went on,however, to try to substantiate the proposition, whichhas been the subject of so much discussion, that modifications or acquired bodily characters are also transmissible, and we must follow his argument carefully.

"These"1 68 HERBERT SPENCERHe first points out that when a structure is alteredby a change of function the modification is oftenunobtrusive, and its transmission consequently difficultto detect. "Moreover, such specialities of structureas are due to specialities of function, are usuallyentangled with specialities which are, or may be, dueto selection, natural or artificial. In most cases it isimpossible to say that a structural peculiarity whichseems to have arisen in offspring from a functionalpeculiarity in a parent, is wholly independent of somecongenital peculiarity of structure in the parent,whence this functional peculiarityarose. We arerestricted to cases with which natural or artificialselection can have had nothing to do, and such casesare difficult to find.Some, however, maybe noted."When a plant is transferred from one soil toanother itundergoes a change of habit" its leaves;may become hairy, its stem itswoody, branchesdrooping.are modifications of structureconsequent on modifications of function that havebeen produced by modifications in the actions ofexternal forces. And as these modifications reappear in succeeding generations, we have, in them,examples of functionally-established variations thatare hereditarily transmitted." But this is a nonsequitur,since the modifications may re-appear merelybecause theyare re-impressed directlyon each successivegeneration.Spencer notes that in the domestic duck the bonesof the wing weigh less and the bones of the legmore in proportion to the whole skeleton than do thesame bones in the wild duck ;that in cows and goatswhich are habitually milked the udders are large j

TRANSMISSION OF MODIFICATIONS 169that moles and many cave-animals have rudimentaryeyes, and so on. But all these results may be readilyinterpreted as due to selection of germinal variations.The best examples of inherited modifications occur,he says, in mankind. "Thus in the United Statesthe descendants of the immigrant Irish lose theirCeltic aspect, and become Americanised. . . . Tosay that spontaneous variation increased by naturalselection can have producedthis effect isgoing tooBut if the vague statement as to the Americanisationfar."of the Irishman be correct, and if it betruethat intermarriageis rare, it remains probable thatthe Americanisation is a modificational veneer impressed afresh on each successive generation."Thatlarge hands are inherited by those whoseancestors led laborious lives, and that those descendedfrom ancestors unused to manual labour commonlyhave small hands, are established opinions."But ifwe accept the fact, it is easy to interpretthe size ofthe hands as a stock-character correlated with amuscularity and vigour, and established by selection.The prevalence of short-sightedness among the"notoriouslystudious" Germans is a singularlyunfortunate instance to give in support of the inheritance of functional modifications, for there is no reasonto believe that short-sightedness is primarily anacquired character. Nor is it confined to readers.Spencer twits those who are scepticalas to thetransmission of acquired modifications, for assigningthe most flimsy reasons for rejectinga conclusionthey are averse to; but when Spencer cites theinheritance of musical talent and a liability to consumption as evidence of the transmission of functional

"170 HERBERT SPENCERmodifications, we are reminded of the pot callingthe kettle black.Spencer made his position stronger by adducingwhat he calls negative evidence, namely those casesin which traits otherwise inexplicable are explainedif the structural effects of use and disuse aretransmitted."( i First he refers to the ) co-adaptation of co-operative parts.With the enormous antlers of a stag there is associated alarge number of co-adaptations of different parts of the body,and similarly with the giraffe slong neck and the kangaroo spower of leaping. Spencer argued that the co-adaptation ofnumerous parts cannot have been effected by natural selection,but might be effected by the hereditary accumulation of theresults of use. The difficultyis to discover how much deepseatedco-adjustment can be effected by exercise even inthe course of a long time, and the theory requires such databefore it can be more than a plausible interpretation, withcertain a prioridifficulties against it. If an animal suddenlytakes to leaping many individual adjustmentsto the newexercise will arise ; if the animals of successive generationsleap yet more freely, they will individually acquire morethorough adjustments up to a certain limit meanwhile there;may arise constitutional variations making towards adaptationto the new habit, and under the screen of the individualmodifications these may increase from minute beginnings tillthey acquire selection-value. Professors Mark Baldwin,Lloyd Morgan, and Osborn, have all made the same usefulsuggestion that adaptive modifications acquired individuallymay act as the fostering nurses of constitutional variations in thesame direction until these coincident variations are large enoughin amount to be themselves effective.(2) Secondly, Spencer dwelt upon the notably unlikepowers of tactile discrimination possessed by the human skin,and sought to show that while these could not be interpretedon the hypothesis of natural selection or on the correlatedhypothesis of panmixia, they could be ifinterpreted readilytheeffects of use are inherited. But the difficulty again is to

"TRANSMISSION OF MODIFICATIONS 171get secure data. It is uncertain how much of the inequalityin tactile sensitiveness is due to individual exercise andexperience, though it is certain that tactilityin little-usedparts can be greatly increased by use. Nor is it certain howmuch of the apparent unlikeness intactilityis due tounequal distribution of peripheral nerve-endings and howmuch tospecialised application of the power of centraldo notperception.As Prof. Lloyd Morgan says : "Weyet know the limits within which education and practicemay refine the application of central powers of discriminationwithin little-used areas. The facts which Mr Spenceradduces may be in large degree due to individual experience ;discrimination being continually exercised in the tongue andbut seldom on the back or breast. We need afinger-tips,broader basis of assured fact."Nor, it may be added, isthe action of selection to be excluded.(3) Spencer s third set of negative evidences was based onrudimentary organs which, like the hind limbs of the whale,have nearly disappeared. Dwindling by natural selection ishere out of the question;and dwindling by panmixia,i.e.the diminution of a structure when natural selection ceases toaffect its degree of development, would be incredible, evenwere the assumptions of the theoryvalid." But as asequence of disuse the change is clearly explained.Prof.Lloyd Morgan replies : "Is there any evidence that astructure really dwindles through disuse in the course ofindividual life ? Let us be sure of this before we accepttheargument that vestigial organs afford evidence that thissupposed dwindling is inherited. The assertion may behazarded that, in the individual life, what the evidence showsis that, without due use, an organ does not reach its fullfunctional or structural development.If this be so, thequestion follows How : is the mere absence of full development in the individual converted through heredity into apositive dwindling of the organ in "question ? Moreover,the convinced Neo-Darwinian is not in the least prepared toabandon the theory of dwindling in the course of panmixia,especially in the light which Weismann s conception ofGerminal Selection has thrown on this process.The inductive evidence in supportof the con-

172 HERBERT SPENCERelusion that bodily modifications due to use or disuseor environmental influence can be as such or in anyrepresentative degree transmitted, is very weak. Theso-called evidences are often anecdotal and vague,often irrelevant and fallacious, and those Spenceradduced are by no means convincing. Let us consider the question briefly from the a prioriside.The general argument against the hypothesis restson a realisation of the continuity of the germ-plasm.For if the germ-plasm, or the material basis of inheritance within the germ-cells, be somewhat apartfrom the general life of the body, often segregated atan early stage, and in any case not directly sharing inthe every day metabolism, then there is a presumptionagainst the likelihood of its being readily affected in aspecific manner by changes in the nature of the bodycells.The germ-cellis in a sense so apart that it isdifficult to conceive of the mechanism by which itmight be influenced in a specific or representativemanner by changes in the cells of the body.On the other hand, in many plants and loweranimals, the distinction between body-cells and germcellsis far from being demonstrably marked, andeven in higher animals we cannot think of the germcellsas if they led a charmed life uninfluenced by anyof the accidents and incidents in the daily life of thebody which is their nurse, though not exactly theirparent. No one believes this, Weismann least of all,for he finds one of the chief sources of germinalvariation in the nutritive stimuli exerted on the germplasmby the varying state of the body. Theorganism is a unity the;blood and lymph and otherbody-fluids form a common internal medium ;various

""TRANSMISSION OF MODIFICATIONS 173poisons may affect the whole system, germ-cellsincluded ;and there are real though dimly understood correlations between the reproductive systemand the rest of the organism.There are some who pretend to find in thisadmissiona concealed abandonment of the centralposition of Weismann," for if, they say, the germplasmis affected by changes in nutrition in the body,and if acquired characters affect changes in nutrition,then acquired characters or their consequences willbe inherited." But it is a quite illegitimate confusionof the issue to slump acquired characters and theirconsequences as if the distinction was immaterial.The illustrious author of the Germ-Plasm has made itquite clear that there is a greatdifference betweenadmitting that the germ-plasm has no charmed life,insulated from bodily influences, and admitting thetransmissibility of a particular acquired character, even inthe faintest degree. The whole pointis this : Doesa change in the body, induced by use or disuse or bya change in surroundings, influence the germ-plasmin such a specific or representative way that theoffspring will exhibit the same modification which theparent acquired, or even a tendency towards it ?Even when we fully recognise the unity of theorganism, or recognise it as fully as we know how,it is difficult to suggest any modus operandi wherebya particular modification in, say, the brain or thethumb can specificallyaffect the germinal material insuch a way that the modification or a tendencytowards it becomes part of the inheritance. Did weaccept Darwin s provisional hypothesis of pangenesisaccording to which the parts of the body give off

"""174 HERBERT SPENCERgemmules which are carried as samples to the germcells,the possibility of transfer might seem moreBut Darwin s suggestion remains a pureintelligible.hypothesis, and is admitted by none except inextremely modified form. In fairness, however, wemust note how little we understand of the modusoperandi of influences which certainly pass in theother direction, from the reproductive organs to thebody ;we must recall Prof. Lloyd Morgan s warningthat although we cannot conceive how a modificationmight as such saturate from body to germ-cells, thisdoes not exclude the possibility that itmay actuallydo so.As a matter of fact, Spencer has himself suggesteda modus operandi as already outlined. The constitutional units are supposed to circulate ;whenthey come to a modified organ and visit its modifiedconstitutional units, they are supposed to be themselves impressed ; they are supposed to be eventually gathered into sperm-cells and whichgerm-cells,"thus come to bear the superposed traits" resultingfrom modification. But, as we have seen, the difficultyis to find any basis in fact on which these assumptionscan rest. Indeed, they are contradictory to wellestablishedphysiological facts.Inconceivability.In reference to the difficultieswhich beset theories of heredity, Spencer remarks :If it is said that the mode in which functionally-wroughtchanges, especially in small parts, so affect the reproductiveelements as to repeat themselves in offspring, cannot beimagined if it be held inconceivable that those minutechanges in the organ of vision which cause myopia can betransmitted through the appropriately modified sperm-cellsorgerm-cells ;then the replyis that the opposed hypothesis

"INCONCEIVABILITY 175presents a corresponding inconceivability. Grant that thehabit of a pointer was produced by selection of those in whichan appropriatevariation in the nervous system had occurred ;it is impossible to imagine how a slightly different arrangement of a few nerve-cells and fibres could be conveyed bya spermatozoon. So too it is impossible to imagine how ina spermatozoon there can be conveyed the 480,000 independent variables requiredfor the construction of a single peacocksfeather, each having a proclivity towards itsproper place.Clearly the ultimate process by which inheritance is effectedin either case passes comprehension ;and in this respectneither hypothesis has an advantage over the other."Let us consider what Spencer has said in regard toconceivability."Most ova are very minute cells, oftenmicroscopically minute, and a spermatozoon may be onlyTcnj^nrctb. of the ovum s size inconceivably minute, butyet exceedingly real and potent. We cannot conceive howa complex inheritance made up of numerous contributions ispotentially contained in such small compass, and yet in someform it must be. Similarly, we cannot conceive how the"pin-headlike brain of the ant contains all the ant s wisdom."Those who find it difficult to believe that items so minuteinas the germ-cells can have room for the complexity ofhereditary organisation which seems to be a necessary postulatemay be reminded of three things : ( i ) They should recallwhat students of physics have told us in regard to the fineness,or, from another point of view, the coarse-grainedness ofmatter. They tell us that the picture of a Great Easternfilled with framework as intricate as that of the daintiestwatches does not exaggerate the possibilities of molecularcomplexity in a spermatozoon, whose actual size is usuallyvery much less than the smallest dot on the watch s face.(2) It should be remembered that in development onestep conditions the next, and one structure grows out ofanother, so that there is no need to think of the microscopicgerm-cells as stocked with more than initiatives. (3) Itshould be remembered that every development implies aninteraction between the growing organism and a complex environment without which the inheritance would remain unexpressed, and that the full-grown organism includes much that

""176 HERBERT SPENCERwas not as such inherited, but has been individually acquiredas the result of nurture or external influence.Now, returning to Spencer, we find that by an extraordinary argument he concludes that the number of determinants requiredfor the development of a single feather inthe peacocks tail must be 480,000, and he pointsto theinconceivability of these being contained, along with muchelse of course, in the spermatozoon. We are not at presentconcerned with the precise number of determinants, but wecan see no reason why a spermatozoon should not containmillions if they were needed. The inconceivability is ageneral one; it is due to the difficulty of imaging the complexity of matter.But the inconceivability of a particularmodification of thenose affecting the germ-cells in a specific and representativeway is a different kind of inconceivability.It is due to ourbeing unable to imagine any reasonable modus operandi consistent with our knowledge of the structure and metabolismof the organism. As we have seen and emphasised Spencerdoes himself suggest a modus operandi,but it seems to usto make unwarranted assumptions, and is for that reason tousinconceivable."A Priori Argument. But Spencer advanced an apriori argument to strengthen the position which hefelt bound to hold the transmissibility of acquiredcharacters. That changes of structure caused bychanges of action must be transmitted, howeverobscurely, appears to be a deduction from firstprinciplesor if not a specific deduction, still, ageneral implication. For if an organism A, has, byany peculiar habit or condition of life, been modifiedinto the form A it follows that all the functions of,A , reproductive function included, must be in somedegree different from the functions of A."[This, weventure to think, must depend on the nature andamount of the modification.] An organism being a

"A PRIORI ARGUMENT 177combination of rhythmically-acting parts in movingequilibrium, the action and structure of any one partcannot be altered without causing alterations of actionand structure in all the rest."[The appreciability ofthe change will depend on the amount and natureof the modification, and on the intimacy of the correlation subsisting in the organism. Dislodging arock may alter the centre of gravity of the earth, butit does not do so appreciably.] And if the organismA, when changed to A ,must be changedin all itsfunctions ;then the offspring of A cannot be thesame as they would have been had it retained theform A."[Assuming that is to say that the changein the physiologicalunits of the bodyaffects thephysiological units in the "Thatgerm-cells.]thechange in the offspring must, other things equal, bein the same direction as the change in the parent,appears implied by the fact that the change propagatedthroughout the parental system is a change towards anew state of equilibrium a change tending to bringthe actions of all organs, reproductive included, intoharmony with these new actions." [Itseems to us topassthe wit of man to conceive how or why an improved equilibrium in the use of the hand should involve any corresponding or representative change ofequilibrium in the germ-cells.]Spencer seems to have seen the matter quite clearly.If the physiologicalunits in the germ-cell mould theaggregate organism, the organism modified by incident actions will impress some corresponding modifications on the structures and polaritiesof its units.And if the physiologicalunits are in any degree soremoulded as to bring their polarMforces towards

"""178 HERBERT SPENCERequilibrium with the forces of the modified aggregate,then, when separated in [the shape of reproductivecentres, these units will tend to build themselvesup into an aggregate modified in the samedirection.The drawback to abstract biology based on firstprinciples is that it enables its devotee to developarguments which seem plausible until they are reducedto the concrete. Why had Herbert Spencer smallhands ? Because his grandfather and father wereschoolmasters who did little from day to day but wieldthe pen and sharpen the pencil Through disuse of!the sword and the spade their hands were directlyequilibrated towards smallness. But since Mr Spencer"senior, was a combination of rhythmically-actingparts in moving equilibrium, the dwindling of thehands and the moulding of the physiological unitsthereof reverberated through the whole aggregate ;a change towards a new state of equilibrium waspropagated throughout the parental systema changetending to bring the actions of all organs, reproductiveincluded, into harmony with these new actions," orinactions. The modified aggregate impressed somecorrespondingmodification on the structures andpolarities of the germ-units. And this was whyHerbert Spencer had small hands. At least so he tellsus, for the instance is his own.Practical Conclusion. It is obvious that we have notin these pages attempted to give an adequate discussion of an extremely difficult problem. We have endeavoured to give a fair statement of Spencer s positionin regard to a question which appeared to him of"transcendent importance."A right answer to the

"A"PRACTICAL CONCLUSION 179question whether acquired characters are or are not inherited, underlies right beliefs, not only in Biology andPsychology, but also in Education, Ethics, and Politics."grave responsibility rests on biologists in respectof the general question ; since wrong answers lead,among other effects, to wrongaffairs and to disastrous socialbeliefs about socialactions."It cannot be an easy question this, when we findSpencer on one side and Weismann on the other,Haeckel on one side and Ray Lankester on the other,Turner on one side and His on the other. Thereforewhile it seems to us that the transmission ofacquired characters as strictly defined is non-proven,and while there seems to us to be a strong presumptionthat they are not transmitted, the scientific positionshould remain one of active scepticismleading on toexperiment.And if there is little scientific warrant for our beingother than sceptical at present as to the transmissionof acquired characters, this scepticism lends greaterimportance than ever, on the one hand, to a good"nature,"to secure which is the business of carefulmating ; and, on the other hand, to a good nurture,"to secure which for our children is one of our mostobvious duties, the hopefulness of the task restingupon the fact that, unlike the beasts that perish, manhas a lasting external heritage, capable of endlessmodification for the better, a heritage of ideas andideals embodied in prose and verse, in statue andpainting,in Cathedral and University, in traditionand convention, and above all in society itself.

CHAPTER XIIFACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTIONVariation Selection Isolation Spencer s ContributionExternal Factors Internal Factors Direct Equilibration Indirect EquilibrationDARWIN rendered three great services to evolutiondoctrine,(l) By his marshalling of the evidenceswhich suggest the doctrine of descent, he won theconviction of the biological world. (2) He appliedthe evolution-idea to various sets of facts, not only tothe origin of species in general, but to the difficultcase of Man ;not only to the origin of the countlessadaptations with which organic nature is filled, but toparticular problems such as the expression of theemotions ;and in so doing he corroborated theevolution-formula by showing what a powerfulorganon it is. (3) Along with Alfred Russel Wallace,he elaborated the theory of natural selection, whichdisclosed one of the factors in the evolution-process.As we have seen, Herbert Spencer precededDarwin in his championing of the doctrine of descent,to which the natural mood of his mind, and theinfluences of Lamarck and von Baer had led him togive his adhesion. He also applied the evolutionformulato an even wider series of facts than Darwinventured to touch, viz., to the inorganic world and topsychological and sociological facts.It remains to be

VARIATION 181seen what his position was in regardof Organic Evolution.to the FactorsSpencer s position may be more clearly defined ifwe first sketch the answer which most biologistswould at present give to the question What are thefactors of Organic Evolution ?Variation.Postulating the powers of growing andreproducing, of acting on and reacting to the environment, postulating also heredity without whichno organic evolution is possible, biologists distinguishtwo sets of factors in the evolution process. On theone hand there are originative factors which producethose changes in living creatures which make themdifferent from their fellows. These changes orobserved differences are of two kinds (a) they mayhave their origin in the arcana of the germ and beinborn variations (germinal, constitutional, endogenous,etc.), or () they may be acquired modifications wroughton the body of the individual by environmentalinfluences or by use and disuse (somatic, acquired,exogenous, etc.).Thus "modifications" or "acquired characters" maybe defined as structuralchanges in the body of the individual organism,directly induced by changes in the environment or inthe function, and such that they transcend the limit oforganic elasticity and persistafter the inducing causeshave ceased to operate. Merely transient changeswhich disappear soon after their cause has ceased tooperate may be conveniently called "adjustments."Now when we subtract from the total of observeddifferences between individuals of the same stock, allthe modifications and adjustmentstinguish as such by their being causallywhich we can disrelated to

"1 82 HERBERT SPENCERsome alteration in function or environment, we havea remainder which we call variations." We cannotcausallyroundings, theyrelate them to differences in habit or surare often hinted at even beforebirth, and they are not alike even among formswhose conditions of life seem absolutely uniform.This distinction between modifications and variations,though clear in theory, is not always readily drawnin practice, but it is of great importance, for while allinnate variations, except complete sterility, are transmissible, and thus may form the raw materials ofprogress, there is no secure evidence that acquiredcharacters or somatic modifications are transmissible.Therefore, the latter, though very important for theindividual, and indirectly important for the race,cannot be assumed (without further proof) as directlyimportant in the transmutation of species.As to the nature and frequency of inborn variations, Biology has recently begun to accumulate precise observations, and has renounced the bad habit ofsimply postulating variability without statistically orotherwise definingit. Life is so abundant and soProtean that biologists have tended to draw chequesupon Nature as if they had unlimited credit, scarcewaiting in their impetuosity to see whether these arehonoured, but the verytitle Biometrika of a newjournal shows that the science isemerging from theslough of vagueness in which, to the physicistscontempt, it has so long floundered. All sciencebegins with measurement, and one of the great stepsthat have been made of recent yearsis in the tedious,but necessary task of recording the variations whichdo actually occur.From these we can argue with a

"VARIATION183clear intellectual conscience back to what may havebeen. One result isplain, that variation is a verygeneral fact of life ;whenever we settle down tomeasure we find that specific diagnoses are averages,that specific characters require a curve of frequencyfor their expression, that a living organism is usuallylike a Proteus. There are no doubt long-lived, nonplastic,conservative types, such as Lingula, where novisible variability can be detected (even in untoldages if we consider the hard parts preservable asfossils), but to judge from these as to the rate ofevolutionary change is like estimating the rush of ariver from the eddies of a sheltered pool. Anotherresult is that it becomes possible to distinguishbetween continuous variations, which are just likestages in continuous growth, in which the descendanthas a little more or a little less of a given characterthan its parents had, and discontinuous variations inwhich a new combination appears suddenly withoutgradational stages, and with no small degree of perfection. Although there is truth in Lamarck sdictum that "Nature is never brusque," althoughJack-in-the-box phenomena are rare, the evidence,e.g.of Bateson and De Vries, as to the frequentoccurrence of discontinuous variations appears conclusive. Such words as "freaks" and "sports"express a truth, suggested by Mr Galton sphrasethat organisms may pass withtransilient variations,"seeming abruptness from one form of equilibrium toanother. There is evidence that these sudden anddiscontinuous variations "mutations" many of themare called are often very heritable, that whenthey appear they come to stay ; and it seems likely,

""1 84 HERBERT SPENCERespecially from facts of breeding and cultivation, thatthese mutations, rather than the minute fluctuatingvariations, have supplied the raw material on whichselection has chiefly operated in the evolution ofspecies.It also becomes more and more evident that theliving creature may vary as a unity, so that if there ismore of one character there is less of another, and sothat one change brings another in its train. It seemsas if the organism as a whole through its germinalorganisation, of course may suddenly pass from oneposition of organic equilibrium to another. Thus weare not shut up to the assumption of the piecemealvariation of minute parts ;there is greater definitenessand less fortuitousness in variation than was previouslysupposed. We begin, from actual data, to see thetruth of the view which Goethe and Nageli suggested,that the evolution of organismsispre-eminently astory of self-differentiating and self-integratinggrowth, cumulative, selective, definite, and harmonious like crystallisation. As to the origin of variations,it must be admitted that until we know theactual facts better, we cannot expect to know much inregard to their antecedents. Many suggestions havebeen made, some of which may be summarised.There issomething comparable to the First Law ofMotion to be read out of the persistence of characteristics from generation to generation. Like tends tobeget like. But while the relation of genetic continuity which links generation to generation tends toensure this persistence,itpresents no more than acurb to the occurrence of variation. While completeand perfect inheritance and complete and perfect ex-

VARIATION 185pression of that inheritance in development wouldmean the absence of variation, there are many reasonswhy this completeness of hereditary resemblance israre. For the inheritance seems to consist of sets ofhereditary qualities not in duplicate merely but inmultiplicate ; they are not all of equal strength or ofequal stability there may be a , struggle amongstthem ;and they are subject to changes induced by thechanges in the complex nutritive supply which theparental body their bearer affords.A variation, which makes its possessor differentfrom the parents, is often interpretable as due to someincompleteness of inheritance or in the expressionof theinheritance. It seems as if the entail were sometimesbroken in regard to a particular characteristic.Oftener,perhaps, as the third generation shows, the inheritancehas been complete enough potentially, but the youngcreature has been prevented from realising its entirelegacy. Contrariwise, it may be that the novelty ofthe newborn is seen in an intensifying of the inheritance, for the contributions from the two parents may,as itwere, corroborate one another.But inmany cases a variation turns upwhich wemust call novel, some peculiar mental pattern,itmaybe, which spells originality,some structural changewhich suggests a new departure.We tentatively interpret this as due to some fresh permutationor combination of the complex substances which form thematerial basis of inheritance, and are mingled from twosources at the outset of every life sexually reproduced.It is not merely in an interminglingof maternal andpaternal contributions that a life begins, but of legaciesthrough the parents from remoter ancestors. The

1 86 HERBERT SPENCERpermutations and combinations may be due to astruggle between the elements which are the bearersof the heritable qualities, or they may be due tofluctuations in the nutritive stream which the bodysupplies to its germ-cells. It must be rememberedthat the"hereditary material isvery complex, and thatit has a complex environment within the parentalbody. In spite of its essential architectural stability,itmay have a tendency to instability as regards minorchange-excitingstimuli in the ceaseless nutritive oscillations withindetails, and we may perhaps find thethe body, while the mode of restoring a disturbedequilibrium may be through a germinal struggleamong the different sets of minute elements which wemay call the heritage-bearers.The idea of germinalselection has been elaborated with great subtlety byProf. Weismann.Nor does it seem to us legitimate to exclude thepossibility that the germ-cell, or the germ-plasm asthe essential part of it, may grow into a slightly moredifferentiated and integrated unity before itbegins itstask of development. For the power of growth ischaracteristic of everything living. Enough has beensaid, however, to indicate how uncertain is the voiceof biology in answering the fundamental questions asto the nature and origin of variations.Selection. The first and most important of the directive factorsis natural selection, and the most distinctivecontribution which Darwin and Wallace made toaetiology was to show how selection works and whatit can effect. The process admits of brief statement.Variability is a fact of life,or species are not born alike ;the members of a familysome may have qualities

"""SELECTION187which give an advantage both as to hunger and love ;others are relatively handicapped.But a struggle forexistence, as Malthus called it, is also a fact of life,necessitated especially by two facts first, that twoparent organisms usually produce many more thantwo children organisms, and that population thustends to outrun the means of subsistence ; and,secondly, that organisms are at the best only relativelywell-adapted to the complex and changeful conditionsof their life. This struggle expresses itself notmerely as an elbowing and jostling around the platterof subsistence, but at every point where the effectiveness of the response which the living creature makesto the stimuli playing upon it, is of critical moment.As Darwin said, though many seem to have forgotten,the phrase struggle for existence must be used ina wide and metaphoricalsense." It includes muchmore than an internecine scramble for the necessitiesof life ;it includes all endeavours for and allchangesthat make towards preservation and welfare, not onlyof the individual, but of the offspringas well. Inmany cases, indeed, the strugglefor existence bothamong men and beasts is fairly described as anendeavour after well-being, and what may have beenprimarily self-regarding impulses become replaced byothers which are thedistinctively species-maintaining,self failingto find full realisation apartfrom its kinand society.Now, in this struggle for existence, which has somany expressions, the relatively less fit to the presentconditions tend to be eliminated. Though the processmay work out progress, as measured by degree ofdifferentiation and integration, by increasing freedom

"1 88 HERBERT SPENCERand fullness of life, and has doubtless done so, yetuntil we come to its highest forms in subjective andfinally rational selection, it works not towards an idealbut towards a relative fitness to present conditions.And this may spell degeneration, as in parasites,when an extrinsic standard is used. Tapewormsmay be just as fit to survive as golden eagles. Again,the process of elimination does not necessarilymeanthat the handicapped variants come at once to a violentend, as when rat devours rat, or the cold decimates aflock of birds in a single night ;it often simply meansthat the less fit die before the average time, and areless successful than their neighbours as regards pairing and having offspring. Moreover, although theselective process is primarily eliminative or destructive,like thinning turnips or pruning fruit-trees, we cannot separate its positive and negative aspects. Thatnothing succeeds like success is continually verifiablein nature, the fit variant gets a start just as surely asthe unfit variant ishandicapped ;there isfavouringand fostering just because there is sifting and singling.Given variations and given some mode of selectionin the manifold struggle for existence, the argumentcontinues, then the result will be in Spencer s phrasethe survival of the fittest." And since many variations are transmitted from generation to generation,and may, through the pairing of similar or suitablemates, be gradually increased in amount and stability,the eliminative or selective process works towardsthe establishment of new adaptations and the originof new species.Darwin thought chiefly of the struggle betweenindividuals either between fellows of the same kin

"SELECTION189or between fellow-kin and foreign foes and ofthe struggle between organisms and the inanimateenvironment. He also emphasised the sexual selectionwhich occurs (a)when rival males fight or otherwisecompete for the possession of a desired mate ormates, and in so doing reduce the leet, and (b}whenthe females appear to choose their mates from amida crowd of suitors. While many now doubt if therange and effectiveness of preferential matingis sogreat as Darwin believed, there seems no reason todoubt that this mode of selection has been a factorin evolution. There are facts which warrant usin saying that das eiuig weibliche plays a partin theupward march of life, that Cupids darts as well asDeath s arrows have evolutionary significance.Even more important, however, are other extensions of the selection-idea. There may be strugglebetween groups as well as between individuals, aswhen one ant-colony goes to war with another, andthere may be struggle of the parts within theorganism just as there is struggle between organisms.There is struggle when one ovum survives in anovary by devouring all its sister-cells, as in the caseof Hydra and Tubularia, and, after allowing a widemargin for chance, there may be some form of selection among the crowd of spermatozoa encompassingthe egg which only one will fertilise, just as thereis some form of selection among the many droneswhich pursue the queen-bee in her nuptial flight.\Veismann has carried the selection-idea to a logicalfinesse in his theory that there may be a strugglebetween the different sets of hereditary qualitiesinthe germ-cell, or that there is a processofgerminal

190 HERBERT SPENCERselection" at the very beginning of the individuallife. There are, we admit, great differences betweenthe struggle of hereditary items and the struggle oflarge parts within the organism ;between intraorganismaland inter-organismal struggle ;betweenthe competition of individuals and the struggleagainst physical nature ;between personal selectionand the conflict of races jbetween objective andsubjective selection ; but, as it seems to us, they maybe all expressed in the same formula if it is useful soto do.Isolation. In organic evolution variation suppliesthe materials which some form of selection sifts.But besides selection another directive factor hasbeen indicated in what is called the theory of isolation.A formidable objection to the Darwinian doctrine,first clearlystated by Professor Fleeming Jenkin, isthat variations of small amount and sparse occurrencewould tend to be swamped out by inter-crossingbefore they had time to accumulate and gain stability.In artificial selection, the breeder takes measures toprevent this swamping-out by deliberately pairingsimilar or suitable forms together, or by deliberatelyremoving unsuitable mateable forms ;but what inNature corresponds to the breeder ?Itmay be that similar variations occur in manyindividuals at once and many times over it; maybe that many variations are not at first small inamount, but express big steps in organisation, as inBateson s instances of Discontinuous Variation or inDe Vries s instances of Mutation ;itmay be thatmany variations are not from the first unstable, butexpress changes of organic equilibrium which have

"ISOLATION191come to stay if they get a chance at all ; and itmaybe that the supposed swamping effects of intercrossing are in part illusory, as is strongly suggestedby some of the facts summed up in Mendel s Law ;but there seems to be still room and need for thetheory of Isolation worked out by Romanes, Gulick,and others.They point out the great variety of ways in which,in the course of nature, the range of inter-crossingis restricted e.g. by geographical barriers, bydifferences in habit, by psychical likes and dislikes,by reproductive variation causing mutual sterilitybetween two sections of a species living on a commonarea, and so on. According to Romanes,withoutisolation, or the prevention of free inter-crossing,organic evolution is in no case possible."Thesupporting bodyof illustrative facts is still unsatisfactorily small, but there seems sound sense in theidea.An interesting corollary has been recently indicatedby Professor Cossar Ewart. Breeding within anarrow range often occurs in nature, and often inhuman kind, being necessitated by geographical andother barriers. In artificial conditions, this in-breeding often results in the development of what iscalled prepotency. This means that certain formshave an unusual power of transmitting their peculiarities, even when mated with dissimilar forms, or,in other words, that some variations have a strongpower of persistence.Therefore, wherever throughin-breeding (which implies some form of isolation)prepotency has developed, there is no difficulty inunderstanding how even a small idiosyncrasy may

""From""192 HERBERT SPENCERcome to stay, even although the bridegroom doesnot meet a bride endowed with a peculiarity like hisown. Similarly, Dr A. Reibmayr has argued thatthe establishment of a successful human tribe or raceinvolves periods of in-breeding (i.e., marriage withina limited range of relationship),with the effect offixing constitutional characteristics, and periodsof cross-breeding (i.e. marriage between members ofdistinct stocks), with the effect of promoting a newcropof variations or initiatives.was led to becomeSpencer s contribution. Spenceran evolutionist by the workings of his own mind,influenced by Laplace s Nebular Hypothesis, by thetransformist theory of Lamarck, byvon Baer s lawof individual development, and by Malthus s recognition of the struggle for existence in mankind. On thewhole, it may be said that he came to the theory oforganic evolution from above, rather than from below,from his studies on the intellectual and social evolution of man rather than from acquaintance with thebiological data. Not unnaturally, therefore, he wasto begin with a Lamarckian, believing in the cumulative transmission of the transforming results of useand disuse and of environmental influences.In the essay on "atheory of Population" (1852) Spencerwas within sight of one of the great doctrines of Darwinism.the beginning,"he said, pressure of population hasbeen the proximate cause of "The progress." effect ofpressure of population, in increasing the abilityto maintainlife, and decreasing the abilityto multiply,is not a uniformeffect, but an average one. All mankind . . in turn . subjectthemselves more or less to the discipline described ; theyeithermay or may not advance under it ; but, in the natureof things, only those who do advance under it eventually

"such"""knew"""SPENCER S CONTRIBUTION193survive. . . . For as those prematurely carried off must, inthe average of cases, be those in whom the power of selfpreservationis the least, it unavoidably follows that those leftbehind to continue the race, are those in whom the powerof self-preservation is the greatest are the select of theirgeneration."Here Spencer recognised the eliminative and selectiveeffect of struggle in mankind.Why was he "blind to thefact,"as he afterwards said, that here was a universallyoperativefactor in the development of ?species In hisAutobiography he gives two reasons for his oversight, onewas his Lamarckian preconception that the inheritance offunctionally-produced modifications sufficed to explain the"facts of evolution. The other was, that he little ornothing about the phenomena of variation," that "he hadfailed to recognise the universal tendency to vary."Similarly, in his essay on ":Progressits Law and Cause(1857), he still "ascribed all modifications to direct adaptations to changing conditions ;and was unconscious that inthe absence of that indirect adaptation effected by the naturalselection of favourable variations, the explanation left the largerpart of the facts unaccounted for{Autobiography, i. p. 502).In his article "TranscendentalPhysiology" (1857),Spencer advanced a step beyond the position occupied in"his essay on HeProgress."showed that with advancein the forms of life there is an increasing differentiation ofthem from their environments, that integration as well asdifferentiation is part of the developmental process,but theleading conception of the essay was "the instability of thehomogeneous." This was recognised, like "themultiplication of effects," as a cause of progress,as a principleholding not among organic phenomena only, but among inorganicand super-organic phenomena."It was in this essay alsothat he began to use the word "evolution "in place of themore teleological word "progress."In the same year (1857) Spencer again approached theidea of selection as a directive factor in evolution. In anessay on State "Tamperings with Money and Banks hegave among other reasons for reprobating grandmotherlylegislation,thata policyinterferes with that normalN

"The"held"""the""""194 HERBERT SPENCERprocess which brings benefit to the sagacious and disaster to"the stupid."The ultimate result of shielding men from theeffects of folly,is to fill the world with fools." This wasa tacit assertion, recalling like assertions previously made,that the survival of the fittest operates beneficially in society."Darwin s Origin of Species appeared in 1859, and markedanother step in Spencer s evolutionism. Hitherto, thoughhe had several times approached the idea of Natural Selection,"he had that the sole cause of organic evolution is theinheritance of functionally-produced modifications; nowit became clear to him that he was wrong, and that the largerpart of the facts cannot be due to any such cause Autobiography, ii. 50).In 1864 Spencer definitely sought to assimilate theDarwinian idea of Natural Selection into his system. Hehad become convinced that the hereditary accumulation offunctional modifications could not be the sole factor inorganic evolution ;he had recognised the importance andefficacy of Natural Selection as a directive agency thinningand singling the crop of variations which is "abundant ;but he had not seen how to absorbalwaysNaturalSelection into his general physical theory of evolution.It seemed "to stand apart as an unrelated process."search for congruityled first of all to perception ofthe fact that what Mr Darwin called natural selection,might more literally be called survival of the fittest. Butwhat is survival of the fittest, considered as an outcome of"physical actions ?Spencer s answer was that the changes constituting evolution tend ever towards a state of equilibrium ;on the waysomemoving equilibriumto this there are stages of";organisms have their moving equilibrium less easily overthrown than others ;these are the fittest which survive ;they are, in Darwin s language, the select which naturepreserves ; and thus survival and multiplication of theselect becomes conceivable in purely physical terms, as anindirect outcome of a complex form of the universal redistribution of matter and motion Autobiography, ii. pp. 100-1 ).In short, natural selection ispart of the universal processtowards more stable equilibrium.

""EXTERNAL FACTORS195When formulating his views on the classification of thesciences and his reasons for dissenting from the philosophyof Comte, Spencer pointed out that all the concrete sciencesunder their most general aspects give accounts of the redistributions of matter and motion ; and he asked the question,What is the universal trait of all such redistributions? Hisanswer was thatincreasing integration of matter necessitatesa concomitant dissipation of motion, and thatincreasingamount of motion implies a concomitant disintegration ofmatter."Thus Evolution and Dissolution appeared"undertheir primordial aspects,"and differentiations, with resultingincrease of heterogeneity, were seen to be secondary notprimary traits of evolution. So he arrived at his famousdefinition of evolution : Evolution is an integration of matterand concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matterpasses from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite,coherent heterogeneity ; and during which the retained motionundergoes a parallel transformation(First Principles, p. 396).Having illustrated the evolution of the evolutiontheoryin Spencer s mind, we pass to his final statement of the factors of organic evolution.(l) External Factors. He begins by pointing outthat living creatures are in the grip of a complexenvironment, which acts on them and to which theyreact. And whether we think of the seasons or theclimate, the soil or the sea, we find that this environment is intricately variable. Every kind of plant andanimal may be regarded as for ever passing into anew environment, and with increasing fullness of lifethere is additional complexityexternal forces.in the incidence ofEvery increase of locomotive power,for instance, increases the multiplicity and multiformityof action and reaction between organism and environment. There are chemical, mechanical, dynamic,and animate influences which modify organisms, andas the actions of these several orders of factors are

""196 HERBERT SPENCERcompounded, there is produced a geometric progression of changes increasing with immense rapidity.All through the ages living creatures have as it werebeen passing over a series of anvils on which thehammers of external forces play, with tunes of everincreasingcomplexity.(2) Internal Factors. Passing to internal factors,Spencer started from the fact that organic matter isbuilt up of very unstable complex molecules. But asubstance which isbeyond all others changeable bythe actions and reactions of the forces liberated frominstant to instant within its own mass, must be asubstance which isbeyond all others changeable bythe forces acting on it from without." In any aggregatethe relations of outside and inside, and of comparativenearness to neighbouring sources of influences, implythe reception of influences that are unlike in quantity,or quality, or both ;and it follows that unlikechanges will be produced in the parts thus dissimilarlyacted on." Thus arise differentiations of structure, atransition from a uniform to a multiform state, apassage from homogeneity to heterogeneity, and thismust go on "cumulatively. For the more stronglycontrasted the parts of an aggregate become, themore different must be their reactions on incidentforces, and the more unlike must be the secondaryeffects which these initiate. This multiplication ofeffects conspires, with the instability of the homogeneous, to work an increasing multiformity ofstructure in an organism." Thus, if the head of abison becomes much heavier, what a multiplicationof effects mechanical and physiological must ensueon muscles and bones and blood-vessels. One

"DIRECT EQUILIBRATION 197modification brings another in its train ;there aresecondary and tertiary effects. And as the increasingassemblage of individuals arising from a commonstock is thus liable to lose its original uniformity andto grow more pronounced in its multiformity, indirecteffects follow from inter-crossing and from alteredcompetitive conditions. Moreover, as times andseasons and ages pass, the environment goes onchanging, and on previous complications wrought byincident forces, new complications are continuallysuperimposed by new incident forces. Thus there isan almost continuous movement towards heterogeneity.But how is that kind of heterogeneity insured whichis required to carry on life ? How is the evolutiondirected ?(3) Direct How is it that action andEquilibration.reaction between the organism and its environmentbring about effective adaptations ? sSpencer answer isthat every change is towards a balance of forces, andcan never cease until a balance of forces is reached.Any unequilibratedforce to which an aggregateissubject, if not of a kind to overthrow it altogether,must continue modifying its state until an equilibriumisbrought about." Thus "there goon in allorganisms, certain changes of function and structurethat are directly consequent on changes in the incidentforces inner changes by which the outer changesare balanced, and the equilibrium restored." "Thata new external action may be met by a new internalaction, it is needful that it shall either continuouslyor frequently be borne by the individuals of thespecies, without killing or seriously injuring them;and shall act in such a wayas to affect their functions."

"""some198 HERBERT SPENCERBut asmany of the environing agencies to whichorganisms have to be adjusted, either do notimmediately affect the functions at all, or else affectthem in ways that prove fatal, there must be at worksome other process which equilibrates the actions oforganisms with the actions they are exposed to.(4) Indirect Equilibration. There are many veryprecise adaptations, e.g.in the not-living hard parts ofmany animals, which no ingenuity can interpret as thedirectly equilibratedresults of incident forces. Tointerpret mimicry as due to direct equilibration ishopeless. Therefore, Spencer passedcalledindirect equilibration."to what heBesides those perturbations produced in anyorganism by special disturbing forces there are evergoing on many others the reverberating effects ofdisturbing forces previously experienced by theindividual, or by ancestors ;and the multiplieddeviations of function so caused implied multiplieddeviations of structure." A directly induced modification induces correlated secondary and tertiary perturbations, and when two differently endowed parentsare mated they will bequeath to their joint offspringcompound perturbations of function and compounddeviations of structure, endlessly varied in their kindsand amounts." In short, Spencer postulated variations as indirect results of the action of incident forces.As the individuals of a species are thus necessarilymade unlike in countless ways and degrees, thenamongst them "will be less liable than othersto have their equilibria overthrown by a particularincident force previously unexperienced. . . Inevitably, some will be more stable than others when

"INDIRECT EQUILIBRATION 199exposed to this new or altered factor. That is tosay, those individuals whose functions are most outof equilibrium with the modified aggregate of externalforces, will be those to die jand those will survivewhose functions happen to be most nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.But this survival of the fittestimplies the multiplication of the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multipliedthere will, as before, be an overthrowing of the movingequilibrium wherever it presents the least opposingforce to the new incident force. And by thecontinual destruction of the individuals least capableof maintaining their equilibria in presence of this newincident force, there must eventually be reached analtered type completely in equilibrium with the alteredconditions." In short, Spencer incorporated thecharacteristic Darwinian idea of Natural Selectionoperating upon a crop of variations, and thussecuring by the survival of the fittest an indirectequilibration.In an ingenious way, to which we have alreadyalluded, Spencer assimilated the theory of NaturalSelection with his own formula of evolution. Let usrecapitulate his argument. All the processes bywhich organisms are refitted to their ever-changingenvironments must be equilibrationsof one kind oranother, for change of every order is towardsequilibrium, and life itself is a moving equilibriumbetween inner and outer actions a continual adjustment of internal relations to external relations. Theprocess called Natural Selection is literally a survivalof the fittest ;and that is a maintenance of themoving equilibrium of the functions in presence of

""But200 HERBERT SPENCERouter actions j implying the possession of anequilibrium which is relatively stable in contrast withthe unstable equilibria of those which do not survive.". . . "Theconception of Natural Selection is manifestly one not known to physical science : its termsare not of a kind physical science can take cognisanceof. But here we have found in what manner itmaybe brought within the realm of physicalscience."It is to be feared that Spencer deluded himselfas to the success of his tour de force. For he did notshow that there is in inanimate nature anything corresponding to the struggle for existence, nor did hegive any instances where the degree of effectivenessof responseis of critical value in determining thesurvival of competing inanimate systems.After pointing out that the various factors in organicevolution must be thought of as co-operating, Spencerconsidered their respective shares in producing thetotal result. Briefly stated, his conclusions were thefollowing :At first, the direct action of the physical environment wasthe only cause of change.as, through the diffusionof organisms and consequent differential actions of inorganicforces, there arose unlikenesses among them, producingvarieties, species, genera, orders, classes, the actions of organisms on one another became new sources of organic modifications." The mutual actions of organisms became more andmore influential, and eventually became the chief factors.Always there must have been, and always there mustcontinue to be, a survival of the fittest : natural selectionmust have been in operation at the outset, and can never ceaseto operate! While organisms had small abilities of coordinating their actions and actively adjusting themselves,natural selection worked almost alone in moulding and remoulding organisms into fitness for their changing environ-

"As""VARIATION 201ments, but as activity increased and brains grew, the power ofvarying actions to fit varying requirements became considerable."fast as essential faculties multiply, and as fastas the number of organs which co-operate inany givenfunction increases, indirect equilibration through naturalselection becomes less and less capable of producing specificadaptations and remains ; capable only of maintaining thegeneral fitness of constitution to conditions. The productionof adaptations by direct equilibration then takes the firstplace indirect : equilibration servingto facilitate it. Until atlength, among the civilised human races, the equilibrationbecomes mainly direct : the action of natural selection beinglimited to the destruction of those who are too feeble to live,even with external aid."Returning to our scheme of Originative and Directive Factors, let us inquire into sSpencer views regarding Variation and Selection.Spencer recognised three causes of variation. Firstthere isheterogeneity among progenitors whichnew "generates deviations by composition of forcesin other words new patternsarise from the minglingof diverse hereditary contributions in fertilisation.Secondly, functional variation in the parents producesunlikeness in the offspring ; those begotten underdifferent constitutional states are different. In otherwords, fluctuations of nutrition in the parental bodymay cause variations in the germ-plasm. [In mammalsthere are also modifications produced during the prenatal life of the offspring which are congenitalin thesense that they are present at birth in latent or patentform, which do not, however, really affect the germplasmsince they disappear in the third generation.]Thirdly, an organism exposed to a marked change ofexternal conditions, may have itsequilibrium altered,and the offspring may be influenced. The larger;

""""The"202 HERBERT SPENCERfunctional variations produced by greater externalchanges, are the initiators of those structural variationswhich, when once commenced in a species, lead bytheir combinations and antagonisms to multiformresults. Whether they are or are not the directinitiators, they must stillbe the indirect initiators."But Spencer admitted that there were numerousminor so-called spontaneous variations, whichcould not be referred to the causes noticed above. Heattributed these to the fact that no two ova, no twospermatozoa, can be identical, since the process ofnutrition cannot be absolutely alike. Minute initialdifferences in the proportions of the physiologicalunits will lead, during development, to a continualmultiplication of differences.insensibledivergence at the outset will generate sensibledivergences at the conclusion." This is not differentfrom the general idea that nutritive fluctuations in thebody provoke variations in the complex germ-plasm,still itmay be fairly objected that however theattributes of the two parents are variously mingledintheir offspring, they must in all of them fallthe extremes displayed in the parents.betweenIn no characteristic could one of the young exceed both parents,"were there no cause of spontaneous variation butthe one alleged. Evidently, then, there is a cause yetunfound."Spencer s further answer was that the sperm-cellsor egg-cells which any organism produces will differfrom each other not quantitatively only butqualitatively, because inheritance is multiple. Insome the paternal units, in another the maternalunits, in another the grand-paternal or the grand-

""VARIATION 203maternal units will give the impress. Here, then,we have a clue to the multiplied variations, andsometimes extreme variations, that arise in raceswhich have once begun to vary. Amid countlessdifferent combinations of units derived from parents,and through them from ancestors, immediate andremote and the various conflicts in their slightlydifferent organic polarities, opposing and conspiringwith one another in allways and degrees, there willfrom time to time arise special proportions causingspecial deviations. From the general law of probabilities itmay be concluded that while these involvedinfluences, derived from many progenitors, must, onthe average of cases, obscure and partiallyneutraliseone another; there must occasionally result suchcombinations of them as will produce considerabledivergences from average structures ;and at rareintervals, such combinations as will produce verymarked divergences. There is thus a correspondencebetween the inferable results and the results ashabitually witnessed."In conclusion, after his wonted manner, Spencerpointed out that Variation, like everything else, isnecessitated by the Persistence of Force. Themembers of a species inhabiting any area cannot besubject to like sets of forces over the whole of thatarea. And if, in different parts of the area, differentkinds or amounts or combinations offerees act on them,they cannot but become different in themselves andin their progeny.To say otherwise, is to say thatdifferences in the forces will not produce differencesin the effects; which is to deny the persistence offorce."

"""204 HERBERT SPENCERSelection. As we have seen, Spencer incorporatedinto his scheme the Darwinian concept of Selection,and sought to show that it could be included underthe general concept of Evolution asacontinuousredistribution of matter and motion." "That naturalselection is, and always has been, operativeis incontestable. . . . The survival of the fittest is a necessity,its isnegationincontestable."That he did not take a narrow view of the processof Selection, which has so many forms and operates atso many levels, will be admitted ;and we mayillustrateof what Rouxthis by showing that he had a previsioncalled "intra-individual selection" or "intra-selection."In his essay on"wrote :The Social Organism" (1860), heThe different parts of a social organism, like the differentparts of an individual organism, compete for nutriment ;andseverally obtain more or less of it according as they aredischarging more or less duty." (See also Essays, i. 290.)And, again,in 1876, in his Principles of Sociology, heamplified his statement thus : "All other organs, therefore,jointly and individually, compete for blood with each organ,. . . local tissue formation (which under normal conditionsmeasures the waste of tissue in isdischarging function)itselfa cause of increased supply of materials . . . the resultingcompetition, not between units simply, but between organs,causes in a society,as in a Jiving body, high nutrition andgrowth of partscalled into the greatest activity by therequirements of the And once more rest." "For : clearly,if the survival of the fittestamong organisms is a process ofequilibration between actions in the environment and actionsin the organism ;so must the local modifications of theirparts,external and internal, be regarded as survivals ofstructures, the reactions of which are inequilibrium with theactions they are subjectto."Clearly Spencer had a previsionof what Roux calls Der Kanipf der Theile im Organismus"(The struggle of parts within the organism), and we have

""SELECTION205here another example of his biological insight. ThatSpencer was not far from the idea of a struggle betweenhereditary units, we see from the following passage: Inthe fertilised germ we have two groups of physiological units,slightlydifferent in their structures. These slightly differentunitsseverally multiply at the expense of the nutrimentsupplied to the unfolding germ each kind moulding thisnutriment into units of its own type. Throughout theprocess of development the two kinds of units, mainlyagreeing in their proclivities and in the form which they tendto build themselves into, but having minor differences, workin unison to produce an organism of the species from whichthey were derived, but work in antagonism to produce copiesof their respective parent-organisms. And hence ultimatelyresults an organism in which traits of the one are mixed withtraits of the other ;and in which, according to the predominance of one or other group of units, one or other sexwith all its concomitants is produced" (Principles of Biology,vol. i., revised ed., p. 315).While Spencer had this wide appreciation of thescope of selection, he firmly held that biologistsburdened it unjustifiably by disbelieving in the transmission of acquired characters, and, as we have seen,he gave a number of examples of phenomena which hebelieved the Darwinian theory minus the Lamarckianfactor was quite inadequate to interpret. He wentthe length of saying:Either there has been inheritance of acquired characters or there has been no evolution."Spencer indicated three general difficulties orlimitations besetting the theory of Natural Selection.(l) "The general argument proceeds upon theanalogy between natural selection and artificial selection. Yet all know that the first cannot do what thelast does. Natural Selection can do nothing morethan preserve those of which the aggregatecharactersare most favourable to life. It cannot pick out those

206 HERBERT SPENCERpossessed of one particular favourable character,unless this is of extreme importance."[It is admitted that we cannot prove that NaturalSelection effected this or that result in the distantof discriminatepast, but we know that a processelimination is a fact of life, and we argue from thepresent to the past.Given variations enough andtime enough, it is difficult to put limits to the efficacyof selection. If in a race of birds fairly well adaptedto the conditions of their life, variations occur in thelength of wing, there is no theoretical difficulty insupposing that if a longer wing is advantageous, thisparticular favourable character mayin the course oftime become through selection the property of thewhole race.](2) "In manycases a structure is of no service untilit has reached a certain development ;and it remainsto account for that increase of itby natural selectionwhich must be supposed to take place before itreaches the stage of usefulness."[One variation is often correlated with another, andthe stronger variation may afford point d appui for theaction of natural selection, and thus act as a coverfor the incipient variation until that reaches thestage of usefulness and becomes itself of selectionvalue.What Spencer himself says in regard to theselection of aggregates rather than items, seems halfthe answer to his difficulty.It has also been suggested that adaptive modifications may act as fostering nurses of germinal variationsin the same direction. Let us suppose a country inwhich a change of climate made ityear by year of theutmost importance that the inhabitants should become

"SELECTION207swarthy. Some individuals with a strong innatetendency in this direction would doubtless exist,and on them and their similarly endowed progeny,the success of the race would primarily, and mightwholly depend. At the same time, there might bemany individuals in whom the constitutional tendencyin the direction of swarthiness was too weak andincipient to be of use. If these, or some of them,made up for their lack of natural swarthiness bya great susceptibility to acquired swarthiness, tobecoming tanned by the sun,it is conceivable thatthis modification, though never taking organic root,might serve as a life-saving screen until coincidentcongenital variations in the direction of swarthinesshad time to grow strong and become of selectionvalue. We can also imagine that a stock withoutgreat mental ability might succeed, in conditionswhere a premium was put on brains, by theirapplication and docility, tilleventually innatevariations in the direction of real cleverness becameestablished in the stock. Similarly, many animalsby increased will-power or intelligence may surviveuntil bodily variations of an adaptive kind arise toeconomise the higher energies. Here and everywhere we venture to say that the more anthropomorphic we can reasonably make our conception oforganic evolution the truer it is likely to be.A third answer to Spencer s second difficulty isafforded by Weismann s subtle theoryof GerminalSelection.](3) Advantageous variations, not preserved innature as they are by the breeder, are liable to beswamped by crossing or to disappear by atavism."

""""We208 HERBERT SPENCER[We have already referred to various answers tothis difficultyin terms of Isolation, Prepotency,and other conceptions. But the answer which willoccur to everyone at the presenttime is in terms ofMendelism," into a discussion of which we cannotenter. Suffice it to say, that for the cases withwhich he dealt, Mendel has given evidence thatvariations which arisesuddenlyand are discontinuousmutations, as De Vries calls them are not likelyto be swamped by inbreeding with the normal form,and that he has given a reason why this swampingdoes not occur.]In regard to the second directive factor Isolation,Spencer had no criticism to offer. It seemed to himthat in whatever way effected, the isolation of agroup subjectto new conditions and in course ofbeing changed, is requisite as a means to permanentdifferentiation."But after allowing full playto variation andmodification, selection and isolation, Spencer feltthat though all phenomena of organic evolutionmust fall within the lines indicated, there remainmany unsolved problems."can only supposethat as there are devised by human beings manypuzzles apparently unanswerable till the answer isgiven, and many necromantic tricks which seemimpossible till the mode of performance is shown ;so there are apparently incomprehensible resultswhich are really achieved by natural processes. Or,otherwise, we must conclude that since Life itselfproves to be in its ultimate nature inconceivable,there isprobably an inconceivable element in itsultimate workings."

"""CHAPTER XIIIEVOLUTION UNIVERSALThe Starting-point Inorganic Evolution What Spencertried to do Summary of his Evolutionism Notesand Queries The Origin of Life Evolution ofMindAscent of Man The Scientific PositionEVERY attempt to describe how our world has cometo be as it is must begin somewhere. It mustpostulate an initial state of Being from which tostart any particular chapter in the story of BecomingHow the simplest conceivable raw material beganif it ever began the evolutionist cannot tell.The Starting-point. Spencer began as far back ashis scientific imagination could take him withformless diffused matter." With this to start with,he utilised the Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace,which showed how the planetary system may havearisen by the diffused matter becoming aggregatedthrough the force of attraction into different centres.This theory has been corroborated and improvedby subsequent researches in thermodynamics andspectroscopy, and in a modified form it is verygenerally accepted. The researches of Sir NormanLockyer on Evolution""Inorganic(1900) and ofM. Faye (Sur 1origine du monde, 2nd. ed., Paris1885) have strengthened and broadened the founda-

"""2 io HERBERT SPENCERtion of Spencers Evolutionism; many inquiries pointto the idea that matter has a homogeneous constitution ;and the recent revolutionary discoveries centred inradio-activity have given new life to the view thatthe eighty odd elements of the chemist have had along history behind them, and have evolved fromsimple homogeneous units. The alchemists dreamseems to be coming true, for we hear whispers of the"transmutation of elements. Itmay be true," asProf. R. K. Duncan says in his New Knowledge (1905)"that all bodily existence is but the manifestation ofunits of negative electricity lying embosomed in anomnipresent ether of which these units are, probably,a conditioned part."Inorganic We Evolution. cannot follow this fascinating new story of inorganic evolution, but we wishpoint out that the progress of science since Spencerwrote his First Principles has tended to justify him inbeginning with formless diffused homogeneous matter.Were that work being written to-day,it would haveto be entirely recast. It would probably begin (asProf. Duncan sketches) with units of negativeelectricity, assuming motion and carrying with thembound portions of the ether in which they are bathed,becoming corpuscles endowed with the primaryqualities of matter super-imposed upon those ofelectricity. Corpuscles congregating into groupsor various configurations constitute essentially theatoms of the chemical elements, locking upin theseconfigurations super-terrific energies, and leaving but"aslight residual effect" as chemical affinity or gravitation with which we attempt to carry on the work ofthe world. These atoms, congregating in their turnto

"the"""WHAT SPENCER TRIED TO DO 211as nebulas and under the slight residual force of gravitation condense into blazing suns. The suns decay intheir temperature and become ever more and morecomplexin their constitution as the atoms lock themselves into multiple forms. We then see thesemultiple atoms developing up into the molecules ofmatter to form a world. We see the moleculesgrowing ever more and more complex as the worldgrows colder until we attain to organic compounds.We see these organic compounds united to formliving beings and we see these living beingsdeveloping into countless forms, and, after aeons of time,evolving into a dominant race which is Us (TheNeiv Knowledge, pp. 252-3). Of course there is bothsee,"imagination and faith in Prof. Duncan s "Webut no one at all aware of recent advances will doubtthat the scientific cosmogony is evolving rapidly, andthat its movement is towards a fuller revelation ofthe Unity of Nature.What Spencer tried to do.Spencers aim was toshow that "our harmonious Universe once existedpotentially as formless diffused matter, and has slowlygrown into its present organised He state." soughtto account for itsgrowingin terms of Matter,Motion, and Force." Of course he was careful toexplain that interpretation of allphenomena interms of Matter, Motion, and Force, isnothing morethan the reduction of our complex symbols of thought,to the simplest symbols ;and when the equationhasbeen brought to its lowest terms the symbols remainstill."symbols His common denominator for allphenomena was "Matter, Motion, and Force," but healso recognised a greatest common measure the

"""212 HERBERT SPENCERunknown Cause co-extensive with all orders ofphenomena,"all things,""the unknown Reality which underliesa Power of which the nature remainsfor ever inconceivable," and of which phenomena aremerely the manifestations. But while he was technically an abstract Monist, he was practicallyamechanist," believingthat it was feasible to redescribeall evolution in terms of mechanical categories.The scientific ideal to which he looked forward isexpressed in the sentence "Given the Persistence:of Force, and given the various derivative laws ofForce, and there has to be shown not only how theactual existences of the inorganic world necessarilyexhibit the traits they do, but how there necessarilyresult the more numerous and involved traits exhibitedexistences how anby organic and super-organicorganism is evolved, what is the genesis of humanintelligence, whence social progressarises ?"(FirstPrinciples, p. 555)- He looked forward to a unification of knowledge, to one science, which has for itsobject-matter the continuous transformation which"the universe undergoes."Evolution being a universal process, one and continuous throughoutallforms of existence, there can be no break, nochange from one group of concrete phenomena toanother without a bridge of intermediate phenomena."Summary of Spencer s Evolutionism. Spencer drewup the following summary for publication in Appleton sAmerican Cyclopaedia^i.Throughout the universe, in general, and in detail,there is an unceasing redistribution of matter and motion.1Quoted from Prof. W. H. Hudson s Introduction to the Philosophyof Herbert Spencer.

SUMMARY OF EVOLUTIONISM 2132. This redistribution constitutes evolution where thereis a predominant integration of matter and dissipation ofmotion, and constitutes dissolution where there is a predominant absorption of motion and disintegration of matter.3. Evolution is simple when the process of integration, orthe formation of a coherent aggregate, proceeds uncomplicatedby other processes.4. Evolution iscompound when, along with this primarychange from an incoherent to a coherent state, there go onsecondary changes, due to differences in the circumstancesof the different partsof the aggregate.These5. secondary changes constitute a transformationof the homogeneous into the heterogeneous a transformationwhich, like the first, is exhibited in the universe as a wholeand in allits(or nearlydetails in theall)aggregate ofstars and nebulas ;in the planetary system in the earth as;an inorganic mass ;in each organism, vegetal or animal (vonBaer slaw) ; in the aggregate of organisms throughoutgeologic time ;in the mind ;in society;in all products ofsocial activity.6. The process of integration, acting locallyas well asgenerally, combines with the process of differentiation torender this change, not simply from homogeneity to heterogeneity, but from an indefinite homogeneity to a definiteheterogeneity ; and this trait of increasing definiteness,which accompaniesthe trait of increasing heterogeneity, is,like it, exhibited in the totality of things, and in all itsdivisions and sub-divisions down to the minutest.7. Along with this redistribution of the matter composing any evolving aggregate there goes on a redistribution ofthe retained motion of its in relation tocomponentsoneanother ;this also becomes, step by step, more definitelyheterogeneous.8. In the absence of a homogeneitythat is infinite andabsolute, this redistribution, of which evolution is one phase,is inevitable. The causes which necessitate it are :9. The instability of the homogeneous,which is consequent upon the different exposures of the different partsof any limited aggregate to incident forces. The transformations hence resulting are complicated by

2i 4HERBERT SPENCER10. The multiplicationof effects :every mass and partof a mass on which a force falls sub-divides and differentiatesthat force, which thereupon proceeds to work a variety ofchanges and each of these becomes the; parent of similarlymultiplying changes the : multiplication of these becominggreater in proportion as the aggregate becomes more heterogeneous.And these two causes of increasing differentiationsare furthered byn. Segregation, which is a process tending ever toseparate unlike units, and to bring together like units, soserving continually to sharpenor make definite differentiations otherwise caused.1 2. Equilibrationis the final result of these transformationsThe changes go onwhich an evolving aggregate undergoes.until there is reached an equilibrium between the forceswhich all parts of the aggregate are exposed to, and theforces these parts oppose to them. Equilibration may passthrough a transition stage of balanced motions (asin aplanetary system), or of balanced functions (as in a livingbody), on the way to ultimate equilibriumbut the state of;rest in inorganic bodies, or death in organic bodies, is thenecessary limit of the changes constituting evolution.13. Dissolution is the counterchange which sooner or laterevery evolved aggregate undergoes. Remaining exposed tosurrounding forces that are unequilibrated, each aggregate isever liable to be dissipated by the increase, gradual or sudden,of its contained motion ;and itsdissipation, quickly undergone by bodies lately animate, and slowly undergone byinanimate masses, remains to be undergone at an indefinitelyremote period by each planetary and stellar mass, which, sincean indefinitely remote periodin the past,has been slowlyevolving the :cycle of its transformations being thus completed.14. This rhythm of evolution and dissolution, completingitself during short periods in small aggregates, and in the vastaggregates distributed through space completing itself inperiods which are immeasurable by human thought, is, so faras we can see, universal and eternal : each alternating phaseof the process predominating now in this region of space,and now in that as local conditions determine.15. All these phenomena, from their greatfeatures down

""WhileNOTES AND QUERIES 215to their minutest details, are necessary results of the persistence of force under its forms of matter and motion.Given these in their known distributions through space, andtheir quantities being unchangeable, either by increase ordecrease, there inevitablyresult the continuous redistributionsdistinguishable as evolution and dissolution, as well as allthose specialtraits above enumerated.1 6. That which persists, unchanging in quantity,ever-changing in form, under these sensible appearanceswhich the universe presents to us, transcends human knowledge and conception ; is an unknown and an unknowablepower, which we are obliged to recognise as without limit inspace, and without beginning or end in time."And the universal formula of Evolution standsthus : "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion ; during which thematter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity ;andduring which the retained motion undergoes aparalleltransformation (First Principles, p. 396).Notes and Queries. (l)It should be noted thatSpencer never suggested that he had explained theorigin of things. On the contrary,thegenesis of the Solar System, and of countless othersystems like it, is thus rendered comprehensible, theultimate mystery remains as greatas ever. Theproblem of existence is not solved : it is simplymoved further back." What he offered was agenetic description, and that is all that the scientificevolutionist ever offers.(2) In the strict sense Spencer was no materialist."Though the relation of subject and object rendersnecessary to us these antithetical conceptions ofSpirit and Matter, the one is no less than the otherto be regarded as but a sign of the Unknown Realitybut

"Were""""216 HERBERT SPENCERwhich underlies both."Matter, Motion, and Forceare but symbols of the Unknown Reality." Only ina doctrine which recognises the Unknown Cause asco-extensive with allorders of phenomena, can therebe a consistent Religion, or a consistent Philosophy."we compelled to choose between thealternatives of translating mental phenomena intophysical phenomena, or of translating physicalphenomena into mental phenomena, the latter alternative would seem the more acceptable of the two."It is one of the difficulties of Spencer ssystem thateven when he is using physical concepts he is thinking of these not merely as symbols by which toformulate the routine of our sense-experience, but assymbols of the reality behind matter and motion ofwhich we do not know anything. He works withthe concept which he callsthe persistence of force,"and when the reader is feeling its inadequacy tomeet the situation, he is bluffed bythe reminderBy persistence of force we really mean the persistence of some Power which transcends our knowledge and conception": "Asserting the persistenceof Force is but another mode of asserting an Unconor end."ditioned Reality withoutWhen beginning(3) an investigator in giving an account ofa process insists on using higher categories than thesequences appear to require, he is guilty of "a transcendentalism? e.g., if he saysthat an instinctive action isrational, or that digestion is a psychical process.Similarly, when an investigator in giving an accountof a processinsists on using lower categories than thesequences appear to require, he is guiltyof "amaterialism" e.g.,if he says that a rational act is simply

""A"NOTES AND QUERIES 217a higher reflex, or that digestion is simply a chemicalreaction. Therefore, although Spencer was not amaterialist, we think that he was guilty of gross"materialisms,"of attempting to give a falsesimplicity to the facts, e.g.,in his attempt to trace theevolution of mind in terms of the evolution of thenervous system, and in his universal evolutionformulawhich iswholly in terms of Matter andMotion.(4) By keeping throughoutto mechanical categories, Spencer gives a semblance of simplicity andprecision to his evolutionism, and his skill is suchthat the unwary reader is led gently on from ordersof facts where mechanical categories (if not Spencer s)do certainly suffice, to other orders of facts inimmaterial evolution where they seem strangelyirrelevant. But if the reader, having his suspicionsaroused by sundry jolts and jars in the onward sweepof the chariot of First Principles, begins to inquireinto the reality of the apparent mechanical precision,he is likely to be disillusioned. Thus, at an earlystage, he may discover that Spencer uses the wordforce without specialdefinition in at least fivesenses, 1 which is not reassuring.As we have no expertnessin these matters, wewould submit the verdict of a recognised authority,Prof. Karl Pearson. One of Spencers principles is"the redistribution offeree,"which he states in thefollowing words :decreasing quantityof motion, sensible orinsensible, always has for its concomitant an increasing aggregation of matter, and conversely an increas-1See Karl Pearson. The Grammar of Science, p. 329.

"""2i8HERBERT SPENCERing quantity of motion,sensible or insensible, has forits concomitant a decreasing aggregation of matter."In regard to this Prof. Pearson remarks : "Thisprinciple has, so far as I am aware, no real foundationin physics ... it seems, so far as I can graspit atall, to flatly contradict the modern principleconservation of energysystem.of the. . . the keystone of Spencers(5) What has taken place since Spencer stereotypedhis First Principles seems to us to have renderedit almost useless to attempt a detailed criticism of hisscheme of evolution wonderful and stimulating as itwas and is. He spoke of his delight in intellectualhunting,"and a great huntsman he certainly was, butthe venue has changed since his day.He did notfully nor always rightly utilise the chemistry andphysics of his time, and we have now to deal with anew chemistry and a new physics.Mr J. B.Crozier speaks of Spencer as "of all thinkersancient or modern the one whose power of analysing,decomposing, and combining the complex web ofMatter, Motion, and Force is the most incontestableand assured." He describes Spencer s system as Nomere logical castle built of air and definitions, andassuming in its premises, like the systemsof themetaphysicians, the very difficulties to be explained,but a great granite pilesunk deep in the bed-rock ofthe world, each stone a scientific truth, and all socompacted and dove-tailed together that it was difficultto find anywhere a logical flaw among their seams."This is one view, but another will be found inWard s GifFord Lectures on "NaturalismProf. Jamesand Agnosticism,"in Mr Malcolm Guthrie s three

"NOTES AND QUERIES 219volumes of criticism, and in several luminous papersby Principal James Iverach.When we think of the evolution of the world andall that is therein of a universal process of Becomingwe recognise that at an uncertain time the earth wasframed, that living organisms appeared by and by, thatby and by some of these exhibited mental as well asbodily life, and that finally man emerged, a rationaland social person. This is a convenient and unifiedretrospect, but when we go further and say that allthis evolution is expressible in one descriptive formulawhose terms are mechanical, we are going furtherthan our present knowledge warrants. Even Spencerdid not really carry his evolution-formula throughout, for he admitted that "thedevelopment of Minditself cannot be explained by a series of deductionsfrom the Persistence of Force," thoughhe coveredhis retreat by the suggestion that Mind is the subjective concomitant of the objective nervous system whichhas been evolved according to formula. But even ifthis tour deforce seemed legitimate, we should still beunable to accept a universal formula of Evolution interms of mechanism.For we are not at present ableto think of the facts of bodily life in terms ofmechanical categories. Thus, in short, when we enterthe chariot of Spencers Evolution-formula, andattempt to make an intellectual "onejourney andcontinuous from the primitive nebula to humanWesociety, we confess to suffering serious joltings.must admit that on that chariot at least we havenever been able to arrive. Let us refer briefly tothree of the worst joltsat the origin of Life, at theorigin of Mind, at the origin of Man.

""had"To220 HERBERT SPENCEROriginSpencerof Life.It is much to be regretted thatto omit that part of the System ofPhilosophy, which deals with Inorganic Evolution.Two volumes are missing."The closing chapter of"the second volume was to have dealt with theevolution of organic matter the step preceding theevolution of livingforms." It is tantalisingto learnthat he habitually carried with him in thought thecontents of this unwritten chapter, for it wouldcertainly have been interesting reading. He did,however, give us some hint of his views.First of all negatively, Spencer did not believe inany alleged cases of spontaneous generation he did;not believe that any creature like an Infusorian couldarise from not-living matter ;he did not believe in anabsolute commencement of organic life,"or in a"first organism."But just as the chemist is able tobuild up complex organic compounds from simplesubstances, so Spencer supposed that organic compounds were evolved in nature. He supposed theevolution of some substance like protein, which iscapable of existing in many isomeric forms, and offorming with itself and other elements, substancesyet more intricate in composition.the mutualinfluences of itsmetamorphic forms under favouringconditions, we may ascribe the production of thestill more composite,still more sensitive, still morevariously - changeable portions of organic matter,which, in masses more minute and simpler than existing Protozoa, displayed actions verging little bylittle into those called vital."Bya continuance ofthe process, the nascent life displayed became graduallymore pronounced.

"""EVOLUTION OF MIND 221No one who is aware of recent achievements inchemical synthesis, or of the recent "vitalising"ofthe concept of matter, or of the apparent simplicityof life in its humblest expressions, will seek to foreclose the question of the possible origin of livingmatter from not-living matter. The conclusion whichmost biologists accept is, that while there is noknown evidence of not-living matter giving origin toliving organisms, this does not exclude (Vz) the possibility that this once took place, or () the possibilitythat itmay be made to take place again. It mustalways be remembered, however, that there is a greatgap between a drop of living matter and an integratedliving organism. We may firmly say that if livingmatter was once evolved from not-living matter, itmust have been the outcome of long preparatory processes, that if it occurred, we cannot at present suggesthow except in the vaguest way, and that if weknew it had occurred we should still be unable toexplain the organism in terms of its antecedents.Evolution of Mind. Spencer speaks of the evolutionprocessas one and continuous throughout, but hefelt, as other thorough-going evolutionists feel, thatthe emergence of psychical phenomena is a difficultyin the way of unified formulation.Let it be granted that all existence distinguishedas objective, may be resolved into the existence ofunits of one kind. Let it be granted that everyspecies of objective activity may be understood asdue to the rhythmical motions of such ultimate units ;and that among the objective activities so understood,are the waves of molecular motion propagated throughnerves and nerve-centres. And let it further be

"222 HERBERT SPENCERgranted that all existence distinguished as subjective,is resolvable into units of consciousness similar innature to those which we know as nervous shocks ;each of which is the correlative of a rhythmical motionof a material unit, or group of units. Can we thenthink of the subjective and objective activities as thesame ? Can the oscillation of a molecule be represented in consciousness side by side with a nervousshock, and the two be recognised as one ? No effortenables us to assimilate them. That a unit of feelinghas nothing in common with a unit of motion, becomesmore than ever manifest when we bring the twointo juxtaposition" (Principles of Psychology,i.p. 158).He concluded that there is not the remotest possibility of interpreting Mind in terms of Matter."ideas of Matter and Motion, merelySince our"symbolic of unknowable realities, are complex statesof consciousness built out of units of"itfeeling,"seems easier to translate so-called Matter into so-calledSpirit, than to translate so-called Spirit into so-calledMatter, which latter is, indeed, wholly impossible."The obvious difficulty, of which Spencer was well"aware, is how mental evolution is to be affiliated onEvolution at large, regarded as a process of physicaltransformation ?"Specifically stated, the problem is to interpretmental evolution in terms of the redistribution ofMatter and Motion. Though under its subjectiveaspect Mind is known only as an aggregate of states ofconsciousness, which cannot be conceived as forms ofMatter and Motion, and do not therefore necessarilyconform to the same laws of redistribution j| yetunder its objective aspect, Mind is known as an

"EVOLUTION OF MIND223aggregate of activities manifested by an organismis the correlative, therefore, of certain material transformations, which must come within the generalprocess of material evolution, if that process is trulyuniversal. Though the development of Mind itselfcannot be explained by a series of deductions fromthe Persistence of Force, yet itremains possible thatits obverse, the development of physical changes in aphysical organ, may be so explained ;and until it isso explained, the conception of mental evolution as apart of Evolution in general, remains incomplete"(Principles of Psychology, i. p. 58)Therefore Spencer passes to discuss the genesis ofnervous systems andnervous functions, and by treating Mind as a mere aspect or epiphenomenon, eventually gets "an adequate explanation of nervous evolution, and the concomitant evolution of Mind," the Ultimate Reality being always postulated as the amalgam."See then our predicament. We can think ofMatter only in terms of Mind. We can think ofMind only in terms of Matter, when we have pushedour explorations of the first to the uttermost limit,we are referred to the second for a final answer ;andwhen we have got the final answer of the second,we are referred back to the first for an interpretationof it. We find the value of x in terms of y then;we find the value of yin terms of x ;and so on wemay continue for ever without coming nearer to asolution. The antithesis of subject and object, neverto be transcended while consciousness lasts, rendersimpossible all knowledge of that Ultimate Reality inwhich subject and object are united (Principles ofPsychology, i. 627).

"""""an"224 HERBERT SPENCERAscent of Man. Spencer was careful to say that itis not necessary to suppose absolute commencement of social life or a first social organism."But an ascent has to be accounted for however gradualthe inclined plane may be, and like the origin of life,and the evolution of mind,level of a rational and social person isthe ascent of man to thea very difficultproblem, to the solution of which Spencer paid relatively little attention.From our frankly biological point of view thereseems considerable warrant for the suggestion thatMan arose as a saltatory or transilient variation orsport"in a gregarious Simian stock, which was nottoo hard-pressed by a struggle for subsistence eitheras regards food or climate, which was not too severelymenaced by ever-persecuting stronger foes, whichlived in conditions implying some measure oftemporary isolation, in-breeding, and daily brainstretchingeducation. It seems likely that thetransilient advance was in the direction of increasedcerebral complexity, associated with greater freedomof speech, and a strengthened sense of kinship. Itmay be imagined that the advance occurred in timesof relative peace and in a stimulating environment,where the seasons were well-defined, or where recurrent vicissitudes gave an advantage to memoryand capacity for prevision.Various useful suggestions have been made as tothe possible factors in ihe evolution of man. (a)When the incipient man with his growing brain goton to his hind-legs, and walked more or less erectupon the earth, the new attitude, however prompted,would leave the hands more free for manipulation,

ASCENT OF MAN225for using a stone, a tool, or a weapon, for feelinground things and appreciating their three dimensions,it would react on other parts of the body, such asthe spinal column, the pelvis, and perhaps even thelarynx. In his address to the Anthropological Sectionof the British Association in 1893, ^r Robert Munrodirected attention to three propositions: (i) themechanical and physical advantages of the erectposition, (2) the consequent differentiation of thelimbs into hands and feet, and (3)the causal relationbetween this and the development of the brain.(b) Fiske and others have called attention to theprolonged helpless infancy, so characteristic of humanoffspring, and illustrated in a less marked degreeamong Simian races. It would tend, in conditionsnot too severe, to tighten the family bond, and toevolve gentleness and a habit of altruistic outlook.should also be remembered that the type of brainwhich characterises man is marked byits relativepoverty in inherited instinct and byeducability.Itits eminent(f) The influence of the family was probably animportant factor, fostering sympathy and mutual aid,prompting talk and division of labour. Even in earlydays, children would educate their parents. It mustbe remembered that many animals exhibit family life,and also pairing for prolonged periods or for life.(d) If we grant the incipientman a growing,plastic, and restless brain, a strong feeling of kinship,some family ties, an erect attitude, the habit of usinghis hands and voice, all of which the anthropoidanalogy suggests, and if we deny him sufficientphysical strength to keep his foothold by virtue of thatP

226 HERBERT SPENCERalone, then itseems more than a platitude to say thatnatural selection would favour the development ofwits, and not only of wits, but in the widest sense(partly through sexual selection) of "love,"whichbecame a new source of strength.With (e)the development of tool-using and sentencemaking,with recognition of the seasons as a fundamental illustration of the uniformity of nature, withthe gaining of a firmer foothold in the struggle forexistence, with slowly increasing altruism and sociality,and with the occasional emergence of the genius,there might gradually arise in permanent products,in symbols and songs, in traditions and customs anexternal heritage, which, it appears to us, has beenthe most potent factor in securing and furtheringhuman evolution.Ignorant as we are as to the factors in humanevolution, there is a convergence of various lines ofevidence towards the conclusion that man must havecome of a social stock. It is difficult to conceive ofhis survival on any other supposition. In a deepersense, perhaps, than Rousseau thought of, it seemstrue that Man did not make Society, Society (prehuman) made Man.By some means or other, probably along variouspaths through kinship-sympathies, through linguisticbonds, for economic or life-and-death reasons, man became definitely social, and a new order of thingsbegan, which Spencer has pictured with great skill.Just as it was a new event in the history of Hymenopterousinsects when ants made an ant-hill, or beesa natural hive, so it was a new event in the historyof Man when unified societary groups came into being.

"THE SCIENTIFIC POSITION 227Now all this isvague, and, it may be, unconvincing ;but we are not aware that Spencer had any furtherlight to throw on the problema problemso difficultthat Alfred Russel Wallace, the Nestor among livingevolutionists, has declared his conviction that the development of man s higher qualities cannot be conceivedwithout postulatinginflux."spiritual Our pointat present is that the difficulties are greater thanSpencer publicly recognised, and that his formula ofevolution is not only too remotely abstract to berelevant, but that it is in its mechanical phrasing quiteinapplicable.The ScientificPosition.The idea of organic evolutionsuggests that the forms of life have had a naturalhistory, that they have descended from a far-distantrelatively simple ancestry, that they have risen fromlevel to level throughout many millions of years justas individual animals in their development rise fromlevel to level in a few days or months or years.It isthe only scientific conception we have of the Becomingof the world of life.The theory of organic evolution raises this modalinterpretation into a causal interpretation by disclosingthe factors such as Variation and Selection in thelong process. To some minds, the known factorsappear inadequate to describe the process, especiallyin relation to the emergence of mental life and theascent of man. Thus an attemptis often made to sit onboth sides of the fence, acceptingscientific factors forwhat they are worth, but eking them out by postulating"ultra-scientific" causes. This procedure, however,lands in mental confusion ; it is like trying to speaktwo languages at once. It is also very premature.

228 HERBERT SPENCERWhen we extend the concept of evolution to theinorganic world, we find that itapplies there also,that it enables us to resume the history of the solarsystem as a whole, and of the earth in particular in aconvenient formula. Here again we are aware offactors of evolution, which enable us to give ainterpretation of how thecausalinanimate world came to beas it is. The factors are not the same as those verifiable in organic evolution ; theyare in terms of thelaws of motion and other physical concepts.Again the idea of evolution may be applied to theforms of mental life and to the forms of social life,and in these realms the factors are not the same asthose used in interpreting the history of organisms(objectively considered) or the history of inanimatesystems.In all cases the general concept of evolution is thesame the idea of natural progressive change butthe factors are different. The reason for this is thatthe organism is very different from a planet or acrystal, that mind is quite different from metabolism,that a society is more than the sum of its parts.It is quite plain that the sociological evolutionistwill not advance far if he disregards the concept ofthe social organism, if he shuts his eyes to the factthat a societary form, however simple,is an integrate ;not a mere congeries of persons, but a unity with a lifeand mind of its own. Yet he may quite consistentlytry to trace the emergence of societary forms from asimply gregarious stock, and that again from entirelynon-social organisms.In the same way the psychological evolutionist willnot advance far if he disregards the distinctiveness of

"THE SCIENTIFIC POSITION 229mental life, with principles of its own quite differentfrom those of the bodily life with which it is inextricably associated. That is to say he must be morethan a physiologist of the nervous system.So, the biological evolutionist must admit that hecannot trace the evolution of organisms in terms ofthe concepts which suffice for inanimate systems. Inso doing he does not dogmatically say that the activityof organisms cannot be described in terms of mechanism,he only saysthat it has not been done ;he only saysthat neither physics nor physiologyis at presentwithin sight of deducing the laws of motion of organiccorpuscles from the laws of motion of other corpuscles.There is no reason why he should stand aloof fromthe theory that inorganic and organic evolutionare continuous, in other words from the theory ofthe spontaneous generation of living matter at anappropriate time in the Earth s history a theory whichissuggested by many facts. If that is a legitimatetheory it increases our respect for what we call theinanimate, but it does not make our biologicalevolutionism any easier, nor are we any nearer explaininglife. The organism remains what it is, a living creaturewith a behaviour which we are unable to redescribein terms of mechanism. And inanimate matter remains what it is, except that we should be able to saydefinitely that it had once given origin to livingmatter and might conceivably do so again. Therewould be no gain in adding to the properties ofmatter a mysteriouscapacity-of-sharing-in-the-spontaneous-generation-of-life."Let us state the positiononce more.When one ofthe higher animals, in the course of its development,

230 HERBERT SPENCERreaches a certain, or rather uncertain, degree of differentiation, its functioning becomes behaviour ; itsactivities are such that we cannot interpret themwithout using psychical terms, such as awareness orintelligence. This expression of fuller life is associated with the increased development of the nervoussystem, and we have no knowledge of any psychicallife apart from nervous metabolism. Yet we remainwhich the metaquite unable to think of any way bybolism of nerve-cells gives rise to what we know inourselves as sensations or perceptions, ideas or feelings.Therefore while we see no reason to doubt the continuity of the individual development, we recognise asfact of experience that the merely sentient embryobecomes a thoughtful child, whose behaviour cannotbe formulated in terms of our present biological orour present mechanical categories.And as it is with the individual development, so itis with the evolution of organisms ;when they exhibita certain, or rather uncertain, degree of differentiationthey behave in a way which we cannot interpret without using psychical terms. We know of very simpleforms whose whole behaviour seems to be summed upin one reflex action, at least if there is more we cannotwe know of other unicellular animals whosedetect it ;behaviour is such that we are forced to say that theyseem to pursue the method of trial and error ;andfrom that level we know of a long inclined plane leading up to very alert intelligence. Again we see noreason to doubt the continuity of the process, thoughwe recognise that at a certain level of organisationthe biological categories of metabolism and the likeare no longer sufficient to formulate the facts. How

THE SCIENTIFIC POSITION231it is that the activity of the nervous system does express itself in such a way, that we must use a newset of terms psychical ones to cover the facts ofbehaviour, no one has at present any conception.A living creature behaves in such away that wecannot interpret what it does in terms of the motionsof the organic corpuscles which composeit. We donot know how to formulate inphysical terms itsgrowth, its development, its power of effective reits sponse, co-ordination of activities. Therefore weintroduce a special series of biological concepts, without denying that a greater unity of formulation maysome day be attained either by a further simplificationof the biological concepts or by some change in thephysical concepts, such as, indeed, seems comingabout at present.But again, a living creature behaves in such awaythat our biological concepts are insufficient to formulate its behaviour.We do not know how to interpretwhat it does without psychological concepts of thinking,feeling, and willing. It is possible that here, too, agreater unity of formulation may some day be attainedeither by a further simplification of the psychologicalconcepts or by some change in the biological concepts.But sufficient unto the isday the science thereof.

CHAPTER XIVPSYCHOLOGICALEvolution of Mind Body and Mind Experience andIntuitions Test of TruthIN seeking to appreciate Spencers contributions toPsychology, it seems necessary to distinguish betweenwhat he tried to do and his success in it.doing Foran attempt, especially a pioneer attempt, may havegreat historical importance although it is only to alimited degree successful. The attempts to cross acontinent, or to scale a mountain, to make a flyingmachine, or to discover the nature of protoplasm, maybe relative failures, but even the attempts may spellprogress. They may offer clues for other attempts,or they may show that certain ways of attacking theproblem are unpromising. And so while the doctorsof philosophy differ as to the value of many of Spencer spsychological essays, there are few who go the lengthof denying their historical interest and importance.(l) Evolution of Mind. In his imaginary review ofhis Principles of Psychology, which is not without a grimhumour, Spencer supposes the critic to begin by"Oursaying: attitude towards this work is something like that of the Roman poetto whom thepoetaster brought some verses with the request thathe would erase any parts he did not like, and who23*

""EVOLUTION OF MIND 233replied one erasure will suffice. We rejectabsolutely the entire doctrine which the book contains;and for the sufficient reason that it is foundedon a fallacy."The fallacy was, of course, the evolution-idea, and it was Spencers chief contribution toPsychology that he insisted on regarding the humanmind as a product, the outlines of whose history couldbe more or less clearly descried. In other words,he attempted a genetic interpretation of our mentallife in the light of antecedent simpler expressions ofmentality in the child and in the animal world. In sodoing he was a pioneer, and he doubtless made apioneer s mistakes. None the less he helped to effectfor psychology the transition from a static and morphological mode of interpretationto one which is distinctively kinetic, physiological, and historical. That thisisnowadays the mood of all ispsychologistswellknown.Thus one of our leading modern exponentssays,We may define psychology as the science of theldevelopment of mind."Spencer sought to make mental processes moreintelligible by disclosing the gradualness of theirevolution. It is not more certain that, from thesimple reflex action by which the infant sucks, up tothe elaborate reasoning of the adult man, the progress is by daily infinitesimal steps,than it is certainthat between the automatic actions of the lowestcreatures and the highest conscious actions of thehuman race, a series of actions displayed by thevarious tribes of the animal kingdom may be soplaced as to render it impossible to say of any onestep in the series, Here intelligence begins." Objec-1G. F. Stout, Analytic Psychology^ vol. i., 1896, p. 9.

"The"HERBERT SPENCERlively, with data drawn from the animal world andfrom child-study, he attempted to trace the evolutionof mind from reflex action through instinct to reason,memory, feeling, and will, by the interaction of thenervous system with its gradually widening environment. Subjectively, in his analytic task, he endeavoured to show that all mental states are referableto primitive elements of consciousness or units offeeling, which he called nervous or psychical shocks.Spencer s general position is thus summed up :Law of Evolution holds of the inner world as itdoes of the outer world. On tracing up from its low andvague beginnings the intelligence which becomes so marvellous in the highest beings, we find that under whatever aspectcontemplated, it presents a progressive transformation of likenature with the progressive transformation we trace in theUniverse as a whole, no less than in each of its parts.Ifwe study the development of the nervous system, we see itadvancing in integration, in in complexity, definiteness. Ifwe turn to its functions, we find these similarly show an everincreasinginter-dependence, an augmentation in number andheterogeneity, and a greater precision.If we examine therelations of these functions to the actions going on in theworld around, we see that the correspondence between themprogresses in range and amount, becomes continually more complex and special, and advances through differentiations and inon. And when wetegrations like those everywhere goingobserve the correlative states of consciousness, we discover thatthese, too, beginning as simple, vague, and incoherent, becomeincreasingly numerous in their kinds, are united into aggregateswhich are larger, more multitudinous, and more multiform,and eventually assume those finishedshapes we see inscientificgeneralisations, where eledefinitely-quantitativements are co-ordinated in definitely-quantitativerelations(Principles of Psychology, i. p. 627).In Spencer s system mind is a secondary and derivative expression of life ;itemerges after corporeal

"EVOLUTION OF MIND 235evolution has made some strides ;it isalways dependenton the development of the nervous system. This isan inference from the facts of individual developmentand racial evolution, which clearly show that mentallifeemerges from antecedent stages in which onlybodily life can be discerned. And if mental life werea merely incidental quality, like the possession of redblood, there would be no objection to the inference.But since mental life is almost from the first anecessary postulate wherever we have to deal withbehaviour and as we are quite unable to suggesthow it can arise out of metabolism, it seems moreof mindscientific, at present, to regard the potentiality as being just as primitive as metabolism. It shouldbe noted that the most recent researches l on thebehaviour of the simplest animals disclose somethingmore than reflex actions, namely a pursuitof themethod of trial and error, involving some of thefundamental qualities seen in higher animals.Just as inorganic evolution must have made manyadvances before organisms became possible, so organicevolution must have made many advances before themental side of life could find distinct expression. Butas we cannot retranslate the daily activities of even avery simple animal into chemico-physical language,we are forced at present to conclude that what iscalled inanimate matter has somehow wrapped upwith it the potentialityof life ;and as we cannot retranslate behaviour into the metabolism of nerve-cells,we are forced at presentto conclude that life hassomehow wrapped up with it the potentialityof mind.JH. S. Jennings, Publications of CarnegieNo. 16(1904), pp. 1-256.Institute," Washington,

"236 HERBERT SPENCERIn other words, what is called the evolution of mindis a genetic description of the stages in its emergencefrom its state of universal potentiality.(2) Body and Mind. A second service Spencerrendered to Psychology was that of linking it to Biology.He gave clear expression to the doctrine, which manyworkers had been reaching towards, of the correlationof mind and body. Although sagacious thinkers atmany different dates had pointed out that the fleshnot only wars against the spirit, but in a humiliatingway conditions its activity, the recognition of theintimate correlation of body and mind was still requiring its advocate when Spencer wrote his Psychology.Ignoring what had been clearly shown even byDescartes and the truth in sHartley Observations on Man(1749), there was still a school who practically dealtwith the mind and its faculties on the one side, thebody and its functions on the other side, as entirelyindependent existences. The old idea that characterinheres in the ghost, and that the body is merely theghost s house, having no causal relation to it, stilllingered in more or less refined form when Spencerset himself to show "that, in both amounts and kinds,mental manifestations are in part dependent on bodilystructures. Mind is not as deep as the brain only,but is, in a sense, as deep as the viscera." In adetailed way, he sought to show that the amountsand kinds of the mental actions constituting consciousness vary, other things equal, according to the rapidity,the quantity, and the quality, of the blood-supply;and all these vary according to the sizes and proportionsof the sundry organs which unite in preparing bloodfrom food, the organs which circulate it, and the

"The"Modern""AndBODY AND MIND 2 37organs which purify it from waste products." Toput it concretely, he contended that when we considerHandel, for instance, so wonderfully productive, somarvellous for the number and vigour of his musicalwe must alsocompositions,"remember that he had anunusually active digestion.not the quantityof mind only, but the quality of mind also, is in partdetermined by these psycho-physical connections.Amount and structure of brain being the same, notonly may the totality of feelings and thoughts begreater or less according as this or that viscus is wellor ill-developed, but the feelings and thoughts mayalso be favourably or unfavourably modified in theirkinds." So morality, as well as mind, is as deep asthe viscera.Here again the general truth which Spencer forciblyexpounded, though it was not of course peculiarlyhis, is one that has met with almost universal recognition. As Prof. G. F. Stout says:life of the brain ispart of the life of the organismas a whole, and inasmuch as consciousness is the correlate ofbrain-process, it is conditioned by organic process in general.It is clear that the unity and connection of psychicalstatescannot be clearly conceived without taking into account theunity and connection of the processes of the organism asa whole." *As Prof. James Ward says 2 :science is content to ascertain co-existences andsuccessions between facts of mind and facts of body. Therelations so determined constitute the newest of the sciences,psychophysiology or psychophysics. From this science welearn that there exist manifold correspondences of the most1Of. dt., p. 27.2 Natural!jm anJ Agnosticism, 1899, vol. i. p. IO.

""""238 HERBERT SPENCERintimate and exact kind between states and changes of consciousness on the one hand, and states and changes of brainon the other. As respects complexity, intensity, and timeorder,the concomitance is apparently complete. Mind andbrain advance and decline pan passu ; the stimulants andnarcotics that enliven or depressthe action of the one tell inlike manner upon the other. Local lesions that suspendordestroy, more or less completely, the functions of the centresof sight and speech, for instance, involve an equivalent loss,temporary or permanent, of words and ideas."Experience and Intuitions. The history of psychologydiscloses a long drawn-out dispute between schoolsofwho said all our knowledge isempiricists,"derived from experience,"and schools of "intuitionalists,"who said, Nay, but we have innate ideas orintuitions which transcend experience."A paralleldispute was long continued in regard to moral ideas.Between the disputants Spencer appeared as a peacemaker, and the reconciliation he proposed was interms of evolution. We can best express it by asentence from a letter to John Stuart Mill :Just in the same way that I believe the intuition of space,possessed by any living individual, to have arisen fromorganised and consolidated experiences of all antecedentindividuals who bequeathed to him their slowly-developednervous organisations justas I believe that this intuition,requiring only to be made definite and complete by personalexperiences, has practically become a form of thought,apparently quite independent of experience so do I believe;that the experiencesof utility, organised and consolidatedthrough all past generations of the human race, have beenproducing corresponding nervous modifications, which, bycontinued transmission and accumulation have become in uscertain faculties of moral intuitioncertain emotions responding to right and wrong conduct, which have no apparentbasis in the individual experiencesof utility."

"WhatEXPERIENCE AND INTUITIONS 239In short, Spencer maintained that intellectual and moralintuitions had arisen from gradually organised andinherited experience.the transcendentalistcalled a priori principles the evolutionist regards asa priori indeed to the individual, but a posteriori tothe race ;that is as race experiences which in theindividual appear as intuitions." lThis was an ingenious eirenicon, but it does notseem to satisfyall the philosophers, those namely whofeel that intuitions both intellectual and moral havea validity, universality, and compelling necessity whichcannot be accounted for if they are simply the outcomeThe only alternative seems to beof race-experience.to say that their validity depends on the nature of minditself, or, what comes to the same thing, because theyare inharmony with the inspiritual principlenature.Nor are the biologists quite satisfied with Spencersreconciliation, between empiricism and apriorism, for,in the form he gave it, there is the tacit assumptionthat results of experienceare as such transmissible.But this is biologically a hazardous assumption. Theonly alternative would be to suppose that the advanceto rational intuitions came about by the selection ofvariations towards that type of mental constitutionwhich rational and moral intuitions express aprobably very slow processwhich would be shelteredhimself to the socialby the individual mouldingheritage in which many results of experience areregistered and entailed independently of any germplasm.is possibleIt that there has been an underestimate of the extent to which what are regarded as1W. H. Hudson,Spencer.Introduction to the Philosophy of Herbert

""That"240 HERBERT SPENCERintuitions are sustained by tradition in the widest sense,and an under-estimate of the extent to which they areindividually acquired by each successive generation.When we speak of either instincts or intuitionsarising by the selection of variations, we need notthink of such wonderful results as originating infortuitous mental sports ;we are quite entitled tothink of definiteness in mental (atthe same timeneural) variation as in bodily variation ;we are quiteentitled to think of mental (atthe same time neural)mutations as well as bodily mutations ;we do notrequire to burden natural selection with more than thepruning off of irrationalities, instabilities, disharmonies,and imbecilities. Thus even biologically we may admit that the validity of intuitions depends on the natureof mind itself, socially confirmed from age to age.Test ofTruth. Spencer took great stock in intuitions," especially in his First Principles, and yet hebelieved in their empirical origin ;and this leads usto ask what his test of truth was. Itmay be summedup in the phrase "the inconceivability of the opposite."After a curiously self-contradictory attempt to showby reasoning that a certainty greater than thatwhich any reasoning can yield has to be recognisedat the outset of all reasoning,"he states the "universalpostulate":is"The inconceivableness of its negationthat which shows a cognition to possess the highestrank is the criterion by which its insurpassablevalidity is known."He admitted, however, that there were limitations to theutility of this test of truth.some propositions havebeen wrongly accepted as true, because their negations weresupposed inconceivable when they were not, does notdisprove the validity of the test, for these reasons : ( i ) That

"TEST OF TRUTH 24 ,they were complex propositions, not to be established bya test applicable only to propositions no further decomposable ;(2) that this test, in common with any test, is liabletoyield untrue results, either from incapacity or fromcarelessness in those who use it." In regard to whichProf. Sidgwick says: 1 "These two qualifications surelyreduce very much the practical value of the criterion. Forhow are we to proceed if philosophers disagree about theapplication of the criteria ? How are we to test undecompos-?abilityFor notions which on first reflection appear tous simple are so often found on further reflective analysistobe composite. Which conclusion, then, are we to trust, theearlier or the later ?This seems to me a serious dilemma forMr Spencer ; whichever way he answers he is in a difficulty."It would seem then that Spencer did not getmuch further than others who have tried to answerthe question: What is the test of truth 1 ? Nor for ourpart can we supply the deficiency. It isprobablymore profitable, as "toSidgwick says, turn from infallible criteria to methods of verification, from thesearch after an absolute test of truth to the humblertask of devising modes of excludingerror." Theseverifications are based on experience of the ways inwhich the human mind has actually been convincedof error, and been led to discard it ; i.e., three modesof conflict, conflict between a judgment first formed,and the view of this judgment taken by the samemind on subsequent reconsideration ;conflict betweentwo different judgments, or the implications of twopartially different judgments formed by the samemind under different conditions ;and finally, conflictbetween the judgments of different minds." In otherwords, what is true for us is that which survivesthese conflicts, but the conflict isunceasing.1The Philosophy of Kant and other Lecturers , 1905, P- 3 9Q

"no""XVSOCIOLOGICALWhat Sociologyis Criticism of Sociology SociologyandHistory Spencer s SociologicalData Central Ideasof Spencer s Sociology The Idea of the Social Organism Parallelisms between a Societyand an IndividualOrganismWHILE Spencer had littleagreement with Comte, hewas at one with him in regarding Sociology as apossible science and as the crowning science.What is. Sociology By sociology is meant the studyof the structure and activity, development and evolution of social groups, which have sufficient integrationor unity to justify their being regarded as organisms,"with a life and a mind of their own. Thatmany active-minded people persist in looking askanceat sociology as a mass of facts about society,"andscience," is not unnatural, since the science is stillvery young and its definition is still elastic. Atcertain pointsitnecessarily comes in contact withbiology, e.g. in the study of heredity and eugenics ;with psychology, e.g.in the study of tradition andreligion with; anthropology and history with;economics and politics.But it has a distinctiveplace to fill as the study of human integrates, ofgroups capable of acting, consciously242or uncon-

"" we""CRITICISM OF SOCIOLOGY 243sciously, as unities, as more than the sum of theirparts.When it has grown up and done more work,it will be justified, like Wisdom in general, of itschildren, and any discussion of its claims to bea "science" will be an anachronism. Meanwhile,though the youngest of the sciences is still strugglingfor existence, we need not fear for its safetyit is aHercules in the cradle.Criticism of TheSociology. distrust which manythoughtful minds have ofSociologyis wellexpressed by Prof. Henry Sidgwickin one of hisessays :It is not necessary to show that if we could ascertainfrom the past history of human societythe fundamental lawsof social evolution as a whole, so that we could accuratelyforecast the main features of the future state with which ourpresent social world is pregnantit is not needful, I say,to show that the science which gave this foresight wouldbe of the highest value to a statesman, and would absorb ordominate our present political economy. What has to beproved is that this issupremely important knowledge withinour graspthat the; sociology which professesthis previsionisareally an established science."He goes on to saythat there are two simple tests of theestablishment of a science, recognised by Comte in hisdiscussion of this very subject, which can be quickly anddecisively appliedto the claims of existing sociology.These testsmay be characterised as (i)Consensus orContinuity, and (2) Prevision. The former Sedgwick exinplainsComte s own words: "When we find that recentworks, instead of being the result and development of whathas gone before, have a character as personalas that oftheir authors, and bring the most fundamental ideas intoquestionthen," says Comte,maybe sure we are notdealing with any doctrine deserving the name of positive1"TheScope and Method of Economic Science," MisctllancouiEssays and Addresses, 1904; P. 93-

"If244 HERBERT SPENCERscience."[The validity of Comte s criterion seems verydoubtful, but let that pass.]]"Now," Sidgwick continues, we "if compare the mostelaborate and ambitious treatises on sociology, of whichthere happens to be one in each of the three leading scientificlanguages Comte sPolitlque Positive, Spencer s Sociology,and Schaffle s Bau und Leben des soda/en Korpers we seeat once that they exhibit the most complete and conspicuousabsence of agreement or continuity in their treatment ofthe fundamental questionsof social evolution."Sidgwickillustrates this, in the first place, by taking the exceedinglydifficult question of the future of religion, and shows easilyenough how the three doctors differ. itPerhaps wouldhave been fairer to have selected a less difficult problem.It seems profitableto follow Sidgwick s contrastsince itbrings out some of Spencer s characteristicdoctrines.we inquireafter the characteristics of the religionof which their science leads them to foresee the coming prevalence, they give with nearly equal confidence answers asdivergent as can be conceived. Schaffle cannot comprehendthat the place of the great Christian Churches can be takenby anything but a purified form of Christianity ; Spencercontemplates complacently the reduction of religious thoughtand sentiment to a perfectlyindefinite consciousness of anUnknowable and the emotion that accompanies this peculiarintellectual exercise ;while Comte has no doubt that thewhole history of religion which, as he says, shouldresume the entire history of human development/ has beenleading up to the worship of the Great Being, Humanity,personified domestically for each normal male individual byhis nearest female relatives. It would seem that the sciencewhich allows these discrepanciesin its chief expositors must"be still in its I infancy."do not doubt that our sociologists are sincere in setting before us their conception of thecoming social state as the last term of a series of which thelaw has been discovered by patient historical studybut;when we look closelyinto their work it becomes only too

"when"Nor"OneCRITICISM OF SOCIOLOGY 245evident that each philosopher has constructed on the basisof personal feeling and experience his ideal future in whichour present social deficiencies are to be remedied ;and thatthe process by which historyisarranged in steps pointingtowards his Utopia bears not the faintest resemblance to ascientific demonstration."The remark on the influence of"personal feeling andexperiencerecalls the interesting sentence in the preface toSpencer s Autobiography,significant truth has beenmade clear that in the genesis of a system of thought theemotional nature is a large factor :perhapsas large a factoras the intellectual nature." One cannot but ask ifSidgwicksupposed that his own contributions were uninfluenced by his*personal feeling and experience."Is it not almost atruism that until science reaches the stage of measurement orother modes of direct perceptual verification, it must betinctured with personal feeling?Sidgwick goes on to point out that similar discrepancies"are evident we turn from religionto industry, andexamine the forecasts of industrial development offered tothe statesman in the name of scientific sociology as asubstitute for the discarded calculations of the mere economist.With equal confidence, history is represented as leading up,now to the nai ve and unqualifiedindividualism of Spencer,now to the carefully guarded and elaborated socialism ofSchaffle, now to Comte s dream of securing seven-roomedhouses for allworking men with other comforts tocorrespond solely by the impressive moral preceptsof hisphilosophic priests. Guidance, truly,is here enough and to:sparebut how is the bewildered statesman to select hisguidance when his sociological doctors exhibit this portentous"disagreement ? is itonly that they adopt diametrically opposed conclusions : we find that each adopts hisconclusion with the most serene and completeindifference tothe line of historical reasoning on which his brothersociologist relies."Now this is wholesome criticism, but its force isdue to the fact that sociology is still very young.Itwould be equally easy to discredit evolution-lore by

"l"when"There"246 HERBERT SPENCERshowing the discrepancies between the aetiology ofDarwin and Wallace, or Spencer and Weismann.But it must not be imagined that Sidgwick wasopposed to Sociology or doubted its validity ;he wassimply advocating caution.is no reason todespair of the progress of general sociology ;but Ido not think that itsdevelopment can be really promoted by shutting our eyes to its present veryrudimentary He condition." evidently looked forwardwith hope to a timethe general science ofsociety has solved the problems which it has as yetonly managed to define more or less clearlywhenfor positive knowledgeit can offer us somethingbetter than a mixture of vague and variously appliedphysiological analogies, imperfectlyverified historicalgeneralisations, and unwarranted political predictionswhen it has succeeded in establishing on the basisof a really scientific induction its forecasts of socialevolution." The recently establishedSocietySociologicalhas in its first volume of publicationsin which those interested cansuggested many waysassist in the development of this new science, andalready as one of its indirect fruits we can point tothe establishment of well defined courses of Sociologyin the University of London.Sociology and History. Somethingmust be said in1For a discussion of the validity and scope of Sociologywe may refer to the following papers: "On the Origin andUse of the word Sociology,""Note on the History of Sociology,""by Mr Victor V. Branford ;The Relation of Sociology to the SocialSciences and to Philosophy,"two papers by Prof. E. Durkheim andMr Branford; "Sociologyand the Social Sciences," by Prof.Durkheim and M. E. Fauconnet ;all published in "Sociological Papers,"the first volume of the Sociological Society sProceedings.

""""SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY 247regard to Spencer s somewhat peculiar attitude toIhistory.take," he said, but little interest inwhat are called histories, but am interested only inSociology, which stands related to these so-calledhistories much as a vast building stands related tothe heaps of stones and brick around it." He wentthe length of saying: Had Greece and Rome neverexisted, human life, and the right conduct of it,would have been in their essentials exactly what theynow are : survival or death, health or disease,prosperity or adversity, happiness or misery, wouldhave been just in the same ways determined by theadjustment or non-adjustment of actions to requirements." When we reflect on the complex ways inwhich the influence of Greece and Rome has saturatedinto our life, and has become bone of our bone andflesh of our flesh, in literature and art, in philosophyand science, so that the ideas and feelings among andin which we live and move are hardly intelligibleapart from it, we can hardly believe our ears whenwe listen to Spencers sentence. It seems to throw aweird light on his Sociology.For lack of personal interest and in his preoccupation with general movements, Spencer failed todo justice to what is ordinarily called history. Whilewe can sympathise with his recoil from historicalstudies which lose the wood in the trees, which arelike palaeontologiesthat never disclose the ascent oflife,the same limitation befalls every kind of specialiststudy, and is almost a necessary evil, due as Spencerwould phraseit to the imbecilities of ourunderstanding."Spencer s pointof view was this :

"To"248 HERBERT SPENCERhave before us, in manageable form, evidenceproving the correlations which everywhere exist betweengreat militantactivity and the degradation of women,between a despotic form of government and elaborateceremonial in social intercourse, between relatively peacefulsocial activities and the relaxation of coercive institutions,promises furtherance of human welfare in a much greaterdegree than does learning whether the story of Alfred andthe cakes is a fact or a myth, whether Queen Elizabethintrigued with Essex or not, where Prince Charles hidhimself, and what were the details of this battle or that siegepieces of historical gossip which cannot in the least affectmen s conceptions of the ways in which social phenomenahang together, or aid them in shaping their public conduct."Here, of course, Spencer was making game of whathe termed so-called histories," for, to do themjustice, they are not wholly composed of gossip, elsethey would be more read, but he was scoring adefinite point that history is incomplete withoutsociological generalisation. He did not seem to seethat we need the most scrupulous historical scholarship if we are to make sure of our generalisations.Nor did he understand how essential it is to someminds to have in their vision of the past just thosepersonal details and picturesque touches, which hedespised as gossip.The antithesis between the sociologist and theconventional historian iscomparable to that betweenthe biologist and the descriptive naturalist. Thepainstaking scrupulous describer, with an almostpersonal affection for his subjects, the gatherer ofexact data to whom nothingis common or unclean,nothing trivial or without significance, often shrinksfrom the sweeping statements and far-reachingformulas of the generaliser ;his detailed knowledge

SPENCER S SOCIOLOGICAL DATA 249makes him a purist in science, enables him to recalldifficult exceptions, makes him distrustful of thesumming-up phrases which cover a multitude ofindividualised occurrences. But just as the specialistisindispensable, so there can be no science withoutinterpretation.We presume, however, that the historians agreewith Spencer that their chief aim is to give anaccount, as rational as ispossible for them,of the movement of human history, as Gibbon, forinstance, did in his "Decline and Fall of the Romanhave a scientific instinct ofbutEmpire," that theyrecoil from generalising formulae, and probably doubtthe validity of some of Spencers. We presume thatthey admit that all events are not equally important,and that they are laws of perspective applicable tohistorical pictures, but that they doubt Spencer scompetence especiallyregardingGreece and Rome toafter that sentence of hisact as judge of whatisimportant or in proportion. Just as the descriptivenaturalist justly resents any dictation from thebiologist as to what is or is not worth observing, sothe descriptivehistorian resents the sociologist sinterference. And it is to be feared that men, bothin history and in life, were too much mere"phenomena"to the Synthetic Philosopher, and thathis Sociology was more biologicalthan human.Spencers Sociological Data. Spencer may be accusedof a lack of personalinterest in the details of humanhistory, of a lack of of what modernappreciationsocieties owe to the past, and of taking too mechanicala view of social evolution, but to accuse him of apriori methods is gratuitously unjust.Darwin in his

"""250 HERBERT SPENCERtheorising was no less scrupulously careful than hewas in his monographing of barnacles, and, howeverwe may disagree with any of Spencers sociologicalgeneralisations,we must remember the carefulnesswith which he prepared himself for his task. From1867 to 1874, with the help of Mr David Duncan,Mr James Collier, and Dr Scheppig, he worked at thecompilation of sociological data, showinginfitlyclassified groups and tables, facts of all kinds, presented by numerous races, which illustrate socialevolution under its various aspects."This detailedwork was begun solelyto facilitate his own generalisations ; it was published "apartfrom hypotheses,so as to aid all students of Social Science in testingsuch conclusions as they have drawn and in drawingothers."Most admirable was the ideal which Spencer hadbefore him in collecting his data of Sociology.Indications of the climate, contour, soil, and minerals, ofthe region inhabited by each society delineated, seemed tome needful. Some accounts of the Flora and Fauna, in sofar as they affected human life, had to be given. And thecharacters of the surrounding tribes or nations were factorswhich could not be overlooked. The characters of thepeople, individually considered, had also to be describedtheir physical, moral, and intellectual traits. Then, besidesthe political, ecclesiastical, industrial and other institutions ofthe societybesides the knowledge, beliefs, and sentiments,the language, habits, customs, and tastes of its members therehad to be noticed their clothing, food, and arts of life."Central Ideas of Spencer s Sociology.The central ideasof Spencer s sociological work are thus summed up byProf. F. H. Giddings:Spencer s propositions could be arranged in the

"CENTRAL IDEAS OF SOCIOLOGY 251following order : (l) Society is an organism ; (2) in thestruggle of social organisms for existence and theirconsequent differentiation, fear of both the living andthe dead arises, and for countless agesis a controllingemotion; (3) dominated by fear, men for ages arehabitually engaged in military activities ; (4) thetransition from militarism to industrialism, madepossible by the consolidation of small social groupsinto large ones, which war accomplishes, to its ownultimate decline, transforms human nature andsocialinstitutions ;and this fact affords the true interpretation of all social progress."Spencer sought to disclose the evolution of humanideas and customs, ceremonials and institutions. Heemphasised the true idea that any society worthy ofthe name is an integratelike an individual organism,with the capacity of co-ordinated action or unifiedbehaviour distinct from the life of the componentunits, and he used other biological concepts to rendersocial evolution more intelligible.He relied greatly on the influence of Fear in theearly stages of social evolution fear of living com:petitors gave rise to politicalcontrol to ceremoniesand institutions ;fear of the dead gave originto religion whose primitive expressionsare seen in ancestorworshipor worship of the dead. The conception ofanother life originated mainly in such phenomena asshadows, reflections, and echoes," and gave origin toconceptions of gods.Pressure of populationand competitive strugglebetween societies have been potentfactors in evolution, promoting differentiation and integration,andcontinually tending to disappearas their ends are

"""252 HERBERT SPENCERachieved. Morality is developed as an adaptive expedient under the complex struggle for existence, andindustrial organisation replaces military organisationas the social integrates grow and multiply and coalesce.As solidarity deepens with increased peaceful synergy,the severe centralised control, necessary when militarism is dominant, should be replaced by greaterfreedom of individual life, and by a restriction ofgovernmental function to securing justice, to maintaining equitable relations, preventing one individualinfringing on his neighbour s liberty.The formulaof absolute justice is that "everyman is free to dothat which he wills, provided he infringes not theequal freedom of any other man." In militant timesthe individuals exist for the state ;in industrial timesthe state is to be maintained solely for the benefit ofthe citizens, and a better than industrial freedom isto be looked for when it is more fully realised that lifeis not for work but work is for life.Spencer believedso much in the beneficence of peace and individualliberty, that he said there needs but a continuanceof absolute peace externally, and a vigorous insistenceon non-agression internally, to ensure the moulding ofmen into a form characterised byall the virtues afine illustration of evolutionary optimism. To him thegoal of human progress was a completed individualism,but the ultimate individual will be one whose privaterequirements coincide with public ones. He will bethat manner of man who, in spontaneously fulfillinghis own nature, incidentally performs the functions ofa social unit, and yetisonly enabled so to fulfil hisown nature by all others doing the like."The Idea ofthe Social Organism. Spencer has been

"WestminsterTHE SOCIAL ORGANISM 253largely responsible for popularising the conceptionexpressed in the phrase "The Social Organism"that a society or societary form is inmany ways comparable to an individual organism, e.g. in growing, indifferentiating, in showing increased mutual dependence of its parts, and so on. It is true that the comparison of society to an organismis at least as old asthe philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, but Spencerwas one of the first to fill in the analogy with biological details. The idea was briefly expressed inSocial Statics, and was elaborated in an essay which appeared in theReview" in January 1860.There he likened government to the central nervoussystem, agriculture and industry to the alimentarytract, transport and exchange to the vascular systemof an animal, and pointed out that like an individualorganism a society grows, becomes more complex,shows increasing inter-relations, division of labour,and mutual dependence amongitsparts, and has alife immense in length when compared with the livesof the component units. At the same time, it shouldbe carefully noted that it was Spencer who introduced the term super-organic as descriptiveof socialphenomena, indicating thereby that the biologicalcategories may requireconsiderable modification before they can be safely used in Sociology.Parallelisms between a and an IndividualSocietyOrganism. Spencer indicated four chief parallelismsbetween a society and an individual organism :1 I ) Starting as small aggregates both growin size.(2) As they grow their initial relative simplicityisreplaced by increasing complexity ofstructure.

254 HERBERT SPENCER(3) With increasing differentiation there comesabout an increasing mutual dependence ofthe component parts, until the life andnormal functioning of each becomes dependent on the life of the whole.(4) The life of the whole becomes independentof and far more prolonged than the life ofthe component units.It is obvious that this pleasing analogy may bepursued far. Thus a society may be compared to anof the comorganism as regards the genetic kinshipponent units (the cells being compared to individuals) ;in the fact that continued existence depends on continued functioning ;in the power of retaining integrityor viable equilibrium in spite of ceaseless changesboth internal and external ;in the internal struggleof parts which co-exists with some measure of mutualsubordination; in owing its peculiarvirtue to thesubtle inter-relations between its unified elements ;in itspower of coalescingwith another form or ofgiving birth to another form ;in itspower of varyingas a whole ;in its habit of competing with otherforms, as the result of which adaptation or eliminationmay ensue and so on. In,fact the analogyis farreachingand persuasive and it is helped over some ofits difficulties by the consideration that just as thereare many grades of social-group, from the nomadherd to the French Republic, so there are manygrades of organism from sponge to eagle.Schaffle, in his famous work on the Structure andLife of the Social Body carried the (l875)> metaphor ofthe social organism to an extreme which has inducedmany to recoil from it altogether. The familyis the

THE SOCIAL ORGANISM 255cell, and the body consists of simple connective tissue(expressed in unity of speech, etc.), and of variousdifferentiated tissues, such as sensory and motorapparatus. The comparisonis as interesting as agame, but when we find writers speakingof thesocial ectoderm and endoderm, and so forth, we cannot but feel that the metaphor is beingstretched tothe breaking-point.Spencer was himself quite conscious that the metaphor had its limitations, for he indicates four contrastsbetween a society and an individual organism.(1) Societies have no specific external forms.(2) The units of an organism are physically continuous, but the units of a society are dispersed persons.(3) The elements of an organism are mostly fixedin their relative positions ;while units of asociety are capable of moving from place toplace.(4) In the body of an animal only a special tissueis endowed with feeling ;in a societyallthe members are so endowed. The socialnervous system is happilygovernment.There are other limitations, e.g.,wider than thethat the socialorganism does not seem to pass necessarily through acurve of life ending in senility and death ,thnt whena particularform disappearsit is usually by beingincorporatedinto another in whose life it shares.As itappears to us the real isanalogy between ahuman societary form and an animal societary form,such as an ant-hill or a bee-hive or a beaver-village,and not between a society and an individual organism.

""256 HERBERT SPENCERMoreover, since the biologist has not yet arrived ata clear conception of the innermost secret of theindividual organism, notably the secret of its unity,the comparison implied in the metaphor of the socialorganism is an attempt to interpret obscurum perobscurius. The analogy, such as it is, isprobablydestined to be of more use to the biologist than tothe sociologist.In thinking of the unity of the individual organismwhich remains in great measure an enigma toBiology we have to distinguish (a)the physical unity,which rests on the fact that all the component unitsare closely akin, beinglineal descendants of thefertilised ovum, and on the fact that they are subtlyconnected with each other in mutual dependence andco-operation, whether by intercellular bridges, or bythe commonalty established by the vascular andnervous systems and ; () the correlated/u^/Va/ unity,the espritde corps,which in a manner inconceivable tous makes the whole body one. That there are organisms, like sponges, in which the psychical unity isquiteunverifiable isprobably only a passing difficulty,greatly lessened by our increasing knowledge of thelife of the simplest unicellular organisms whosebehaviour is now seen to include trialbyerror andother traits which we cannot interpret without usingpsychical terms.The same is true in regard to the social organism ;we have here to distinguish (a)the physical unitywhichrests on hereditary kinship and on similar environmental conditions, and () the psychical unity, themind," developedwith relation to certain endsunity which is the end of its parts."Itsocialaseems

"whileTHE SOCIAL ORGANISM 257probable that in early days, the physical unity wasmore prominent than later on, when, as in the case ofmixed racial groups, the psychical bond is practicallysupreme. But genetic and environmental bonds donot as physical facts constitute a society. Until thereisenough of correlated psychical unity for the groupto act, however imperfectly, as a group with a mindof its own, controlling the egoism of the individualmembers, there is no human society.In short, if we continue to speak of a society asa social organism, we must safeguard the analogyby remembering that the character of society asan organism exists in the thoughts, feelings, andactivities of the component members, and that thesocial bonds are not those of sympathy and synergyonly, but that the rational life is intrinsically social.As Green said,to thought."Social life is to personality whatlanguage isThe chief difficulty that Spencer had with hismetaphor was that in the individual organism there isa centred consciousness in the nervous system, whereas the social group as a whole has no corporate con"sciousness. Thus in individual bodies thewelfare of all other parts is rightly subservient to thewelfare of the nervous system, whose pleasurableorpainful activities make up the good or ill of life ;inbodies politic the same thing does not hold, or holdsonly to a very slightextent. It was well that thelives of all parts of an animal should be inmerged thelife of the whole, because the whole has a corporateconsciousness capable of happinessor misery. But itis not so with a society,since its living units do notand cannot lose individual consciousness, and sinceR

258 HERBERT SPENCERthe community as a whole has no corporate consciousness. And this is an everlasting reason whythe welfare of citizens cannot rightly be sacrificedto some supposed benefit of the State : but why,on the other hand, the State is to be maintainedsolely for the benefit of citizens. The corporatelife must here be subservient to the lives of the parts,instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to thecorporate life" ("The Social Organism," Essays, vol.In otheri.).words, Spencer found the metaphoruseful even when it broke down, for it enabled him tocorroborate his doctrine of individualism. If he hadpursued the analogy between the human social groupand the animal social group, such as that of bees orbeavers, the corroboration would not have been soeasy, though Spencer would doubtless have arrivedat the same result.

"The"CHAPTER XVITHE POPULATION QUESTIONWE have not in this volume discussed any of Spencerscontributions to practical life, for the task of indicatinghis scientific position was more than enough. Furthermore, his Education is the best known of all hisworks, and many of its suggestionsare now realised ineveryday practice ;his political recommendations aretoo debatable ;and as to ethical advice he has himselfsaid :doctrine of Evolution has not furnishedguidance to the extent I had hoped. Most of theconclusions drawn empirically are such as rightfeelings, enlightened by cultivated intelligence, havealreadysufficed to establish." But there is onepractical suggestion to which we must refer,namely Spencer s contribution to the populationquestion."The Abundance of Life" the title of a verysuggestive essay by Prof. Jolyis one of the greatfacts of Nature. The river of life isalways tendingto overflow its banks. Hence, in part, thefor Existence."StruggleThere are greatdifferences in the number of offspring produced by different kinds of organisms, andgreat differences in the mortality-rate among thecrowds of those produced. The rate of reproductiondepends primarily on the constitution of the organism,259

260 HERBERT SPENCERbut it also varies in response to external conditions,notably in relation to the food-supply. Some organismsare intrinsically more reproductive than others, thusthe unicellular organisms,such as Bacteria and Infusorians,which multiply by dividing into two ormany units, head the list ; and, on the whole, it maybe said that relatively simple creatures multiply mostrapidly, especially if their mode of reproduction, e.g.,the equipment of the germ-cells, is relatively simpleand inexpensive, and if the period required forisreaching reproductive maturity short. But as wefind very different reproductivity in animals and plantswhich occupy the same grade of organisation, we areled to the conclusion, which Weismann, for instance,has worked out, that the constitutional capacity ofproducing many or few offspring has been regulatedby selection working throughout the ages, and isadapted to the particular conditions of life. As thecontinuance of the race is an ideal aim, which couldnot be present to the animal consciousness not tospeak of the slumbering analogue of this in plantsall that we can sayis that in certain conditions variations towards greater fertilitywould be relativelymore successful because there were more of them tosurvive, and that variations towards relative sterilitywould seal their own doom. The survivors survivedbecause they were many and capable of producingmany. Moreover it is possible in certain conditionsthat a variation towards greater fertility may havebeen correlated with some other variation, such asgreater vigour on which the process of selection couldimmediately operate. In any case, however, we maywork out the theory, the rate of reproductivity cannot

"""THE POPULATION QUESTION 261be satisfactorily interpreted without regardingit as ingreat part an adaptive character.But while the rate of reproduction depends uponthe constitution of the individual organism, modifiablewithin variable limits by the direct influence of food,warmth, and the like, the rate of increase or decreasein an animal or plant population depends upon thewide and complex conditions of the entire animateand inanimate environment. In short, it is a functionof the Struggle for Existence.When there are no checks to prolific multiplicationa single Infusorian may become, in the course of aweek, the ancestor of several millions, and the sameis true of a Bacterium within a day. Huxley has computed that the progeny of single mother Aphis orgreen-fly, if they all lived a charmed life, would in afew months literally outweigh the population ofChina, which probably amounts to between two andthree hundred millions. If there were no checks toincrease, a few pairs of cod-fish and conger-eels wouldsoon put an end to fishing and much else, by makingthe North Sea solid. And apart from problematicalcases, every now and then, with locusts or voles, withrabbits in Australia, or sparrows in America, we geta vivid glimpse of what a spate of lifemay mean.In the main, however, the river of life overflows itsbanks only locally and temporarily.An adjustmentof the abundance of life to the limitations of subsistence isspeedily effected in nature, and the flood"subsides. The positivechecks of disease, starvation, lack of room, internecine competition,increase ofenemies, and so on, re-establish a balance, though perhaps with a slightly changed centre of gravity.The

262 HERBERT SPENCERstruggle for existence punctuatesthe increase ofpopulation.In the history of mankind various aspects of thepopulation question are familiar. Whether we inquireinto what isknown of the history of uncivilised races,or into present-day conditions in more or less isolatedcommunities and even in large countries, we read thestory of population-crises of increase in numbersout-running the means of livelihood. Among racesin contact one often increases at a much more rapidrate than the other, and we hear of "perils"ofvarious colours. Within a given race we find greatdifferences in the fertility of different sections orstocks and dangerous results impending. One nationis troubled by its teeming millions, and another by itsdwindling birth-rate. The whole isquestion one ofgreat biological interest and human importance, andit is one to which Spencer had a very definite contribution to make.But before we consider Spencer s theory, it may beprofitable to notice what other suggestions have beenmade.(a) Malthusian. In 1798, in his Theory of Population,Malthus riveted the attention of all thoughtful menby seeking to establish the induction that populationtends to outrun the means of subsistence. In itsearliest form, his thesis was that population tends toincrease in geometrical ratio, while the means of subsistence increase only in arithmetical ratio. Soprecise a statement cannot be justified, but Malthuswas right in insisting on the general fact that incertain conditions and incertain stocks multiplicationtends to exceed the means of subsistence. His dis-

""""""THE POPULATION QUESTION 263"cussion of this thesis, and the conception of thestruggle for existence" which he developed for thephrase was his had a profound influence on manyminds, including Spencer, Darwin, and Wallace.Malthus pointed out, with abundant concreteillustration, that the increase of population is met bypositive such checks," as disease, starvation, war,and infanticide, and that itmay also be met byprudential checks," such as late marriage and moralcontrol. His practical corollary was that to avoid thepositive checks which are almost always appallingand pity-moving,we must develop the prudentialchecks," which tend to prevent further swelling of thepopulation-tide.To a rational being the prudentialcheck to population ought to be considered as equallynatural with the check from poverty and prematuremortality" (Malthus, 1806). The obvious objectionsare, that extended celibacy or postponed marriage tendsto increase of sexual vice that , very late marriages arebiologically and psychologically inadvisable, tendingfor instance on an averageto increased mortality in childbirth, to less fit children, and to a diminution of thehappiness of married life and that moral control is,aptto be most exercised where it is least needed,namely among the more highly developed stocks, andthat it is a very uncertain check since great conjugaltemperance seems often to render conceptionthe morecertain.(b) Darwinian. The Darwinian theory,that is thetheory of Natural Selection, supplied an importantsupplement to the Malthusian For itposition.pointedto the course of nature wherein the strugglefor existence has opened up the pathway of In-progress.

"264 HERBERT SPENCERcrease of population brings about or accentuates thestruggle for existence wherein the relatively less fitare eliminated. Althoughthis Natural Selectionworks slowlyit works surely, hence the Darwiniancorollary is practically nil, that is to say, a laissez-fairepolicy. The obvious objections are, that man as arational and social being has a higher standard thanmere survival, and that a confidence in uncontrollednatural selection is altogether optimistic. He cannotabrogate his task of endeavouring, by rational selection,to accelerate what he believes to be progressiveevolution and to hinder degenerative change. Moreover, it is not in him to stand by contemplating themills of Nature grinding slowly, ignoring the wellbeingof the individual in considering the merelypossible advancement of the species. And as a matterof fact he is continually interfering with natural selection by introducing various modes of what he believesto be rational selection.(c) Neo-Malthusian. The general position ofmodern Malthusians may be summed up in a few propositions. Population has a constant tendency to outrun the means of subsistence ; over-population is afruitful source of pauperism, ignorance, crime anddisease ;the positive or life-destroying checks arecruel, and their reduction is in the line of social progress abstention frommarriageis for normal organisms;unnatural and anti-social, postponement of marriageisalso unnatural and tends to vice and unfitness ;thecheck that remains to be advocated isprudence afterand marriage," bythis the Neo-Malthusians mostdistinctly mean attention to methods which securesmall families. So far as these scientific checks imply

"THE POPULATION QUESTION 265control and conjugal temperance and obviate or lessenmisery, they commend themselves, but the obviousobjections are,that their use is often not without itsphysiological risks, and that by annullingthe responsibility of consequences, while allowing thegratification of sexual appetites to continue, they mayhave the result of increasing an already sufficientlyintense sexuality, of facilitating unchastity, and ofexaggerating the tendency of marriage to sink intomonogamic On the otherprostitution." hand, itseems probable that the transition from impulsiveanimalism to deliberate regulation somewhatmechanical itthough be would tend in some todecrease not increase sexual intemperance. Whilethe ideal surely is that there should be a retention,throughout married life, of a large measure of thatself-control which must always form the organic basisof the enthusiasm and idealism of lovers,it remains afact that even exemplary temperance does not obviatean unduly large family, and that some form of Neo-Malthusian practiceis in many cases the only practicable suggestion pis aller itthough be.(d) Spencers Contribution. In his keen analysis of1the conditions of multiplication, Spencer showed thata species cannot be maintained unless self-preservativeand reproductive powers vary inversely, and gave aphysiological reason why these two powers cannotdo other than vary inversely.If we group underthe term individuation all those race-preservativeprocesses by which individual life is completed and1A summary of his argument is given in"The Evolution ofSex," by P. Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson. Walter Scott,London. Revised edition, 1901.

266 HERBERT SPENCERmaintained, and extend the term genesis to includeall those processes aiding the formation and perfecting of new individuals, the result of the wholeargument may be tersely expressed inthe formulaIndividuation and Genesis vary inversely.And fromthis conception important corollaries follow ; thus,other things equal, advancing evolution must beaccompanied by declining fertility ; again, if thedifficulties of self-preservation permanently diminish,there will be a permanent increase in the rate ofmultiplication, and conversely.The next step was an inductive verification ofthese a priori inferences, and here Spencer utilisedwealth of evidence drawn from a wide survey of theanimal and vegetable world. He measured individ nation by amount of growth, degree of development,and fullness of activity, and his result always was thatgenesis and individuation vary inversely. To thequestion How : is the ratio established in each specialcase ?Spencer answered By Natural Selection.:According to the particular conditions of the species,natural selection determines whether the quantity ofamatter spared from individuation for genesis bedivided into many small ova or a few large ones ;whether there shall be small broods at shortintervalsor larger broods at longer intervals or whether;there shall be many unprotected offspring, or a fewcarefully protected by the parent.In other words,natural selection determines the particular form whichthe antithesis between individuationand genesiswilltake. Finally, Spencer introduced the followingqualification.If time be left out of account, or ifspecies be considered as permanent,then the in-

THE POPULATION QUESTION 267verse ratio between individuation and genesis holdsabsolutely, but each, advance in individual development implies an economy the advantage must exceed:the cost, else it would not be perpetuated. Theorganism has an augmentation of total wealth toshare between its individuation and its genesis, andthough the increment of individuation tends to produce a corresponding decrement of genesis, this latterwill be somewhat less than accurately proportionate.In short, genesis decreases as individuation increases,yet not quite so fast. If the species be evolving, theadvance in individuation implies a certain economy, ofwhich a share may gogenesis.to diminish the decrement toSpencer then extended his hard-won generalisationto the case of man, in which, as everyone knows,very high individuation is associated with all but thelowest rate of multiplication.The same antithesisis seen on comparing different races or nations, oreven different social castes or occupations.Wherethere is relatively low individuation, or where nutrition is in obvious excess of expenditure requiredtoget it, there high multiplication prevails. Reviewingthe various possibilities of progressive human evolution, he concluded that this must take place mainlyon the psychicalside. Hence the corollarythat theculture of man s psychical nature constantly tends todiminish the rate of fertility, and pressureof population, which Spencer regardedas the main incentiveto progress,tends to disappearas it achieves its fulleffect. The acute pressureof population,with itsattendant evils, thus tends to cease as a more andmore highly individuated race busies itself with its

"For268 HERBERT SPENCERincreasingly complex yet normal and pleasurableactivities, its rate of reproduction meanwhile descending towards that minimum required to make good itsinevitable losses.This was Spencers contribution to the populationquestion, and it is one which suggests hope andideal ofaction, and is in harmony with the growing racialiteugenics.is obvious that the progressof the species and of the individual alike is securedand accelerated whenever action is transferred fromthe negative side of merely seeking directly to repressgenesis, to the positive yet indirect side of proportionally increasing individuation. This holds true of allspecies, yet most fully of man, since that modificationof psychical activities in which his evolution essentiallylies, is par excellence and increasingly the respect inwhich artificial or rational comes in to replace naturalselection. Without therefore ignoring the latter, orhoping ever wholly to escape from the iron grasp ofnature, we yet have within our power more and moreto mitigate the pressure of population, and thatwithout any sacrifice of progress, but actually byhastening it. Since then the remedy of pressure andthe hope of progress alike lie in advancing individuation, the course for practical action is clear it is inthe organisation of these alternate reactions betweenbettered environment (material, mental, social, moral)and better organism in which the whole evolution oflife is defined, in the conscious and rational adjustment of the struggle into the culture of existence." l1 Evolution of Sex. Chapter xx.

""while"CHAPTER XVIIBEYOND SCIENCEMetaphysics Early Attitude to Religion IncreasedSympathy with ReligionSPENCER was always clear thatlife isnot for workand learning, but work and learning are for life."Thus he valued science because it is "fructiferous"to use Bacon s word, making for the amelioration ofbut he valued it still more because it is " luciferous"for the lightit throws on our own nature and thelife jnature of the Universe." He spoke with regret of"theordinary scientific specialist, who, deeplyinterested in his speciality,and often displayingcomparatively little interest in other departments ofscience, is rarely much interested in the relationsbetween Science at large amd the great questionswhich lie Science."beyond He ranked himself withthose who,seeking scientific knowledge foritsproximate value, have an ever-increasing consciousness of its ultimate value as a transfigurationofthings, which, marvellous enough within the limitsof the knowable, suggests a profoundermarvel thancan be known." Thus it is not surprisingto findthat he had a metaphysical system of his own, and ifhe had not a religionhe had at least "a humility inpresence of the inscrutable,"and a reverence forNature deeperthan many religious minds exhibit."69

"no""""""270 HERBERT SPENCERMetaphysics, Metaphysician was with Spencer aterm of reproach, employed (as Prof. Sidgwick says)exclusively to designatea class of thinkers who havefollowed an erroneous method to untenable conclusions," yet he himself had a metaphysical systemwhich Sidgwick defines as "asystematic view of thenature and relations of finite minds to the materialworld, and to the Primal Being or ultimate ground ofA critical discussion ofBeing."Spencer s metaphysicaland epistemological doctrines will be found in Sidgwicks "Philosophy of Kant and other Lectures," 1905.In his doctrine of "the Unknowable," in whichexperts discover the influence of Kant throughHamilton and Mansel, Spencer reached the conclusionthat tenable hypothesis can be formed as to theorigin or nature of the Universe regarded as a whole."He offered for the reconciliation of Religion andScience the Supremethat theVerity," realityunderlying appearances is totally and for ever inconceivable to us ... but we are obliged to regardevery phenomenonas the manifestation of an incomprehensible power, called Omnipresent from inabilityto assign its limits, isthough Omnipresence unthinkable."Similarly when we try to understand Time,Space, Matter, Force, Consciousness, we have toconfess that the "reality underlying appearances isand must be totally and for ever inconceivable by us."At the same time Spencer was able to attain to someknowledge of his Unknowable, concluding, forinstance, in spite of the antithesis between subject andobject, never to be transcended while consciousnesslasts,thatit is one and the same Ultimate Realitythat is manifested to us subjectively and objectively" ;

""""EARLY ATTITUDE TO RELIGION 271that whilethe manifestations, as occurring either inourselves or outside of us, do not persist: that whichispersiststhe Unknown Cause of these manifestations an unconditioned Reality without beginningor end."Early attitude to Religion. Spencer came of a religiousstock, but the traditional beliefs took no grip of him.Even as a boy he had what may be called a cosmicoutlook, but he tells us of no religious tendrils, andif there were any they found no support in the faithof his fathers. Though surrounded in early life bya religious atmosphere, he never seems to have movedor even drawn breath in it. He passed by theologicalbeliefs as if he were immune ;he developed into anagnostic without passing through any crisis or perplexity he had not even what Prof.;James has calledthe religion of healthy-mindedness."The explanation of this may be looked for partly inthe self-sufficiency of his strong intellect, partly inthe limitations of the emotional side of his nature, andpartly in his fine heritage of natural goodness.the religiousmood does not arise naturallyWhenas analmost spontaneous expressionof inherited dispositionand nurture-influences, it isusually reached by oneof three paths, or by more than one of these at once.These paths to religion, which apply to the racial as wellas to the individual history, may be called the practical,the emotional, and the intellectual approachesto faith.When men reach the limits of their practicalendeavoursand find themselves baffled, when they feel theimpotence of their utmost strength, when they arefilled with fear of the past,the present,and the future,then they sometimes become religious.When men

""As"InHERBERT SPENCERreach the limits of their emotional strength, and thetension of joy or of sorrow, of delight in nature orlove of kin becomes almost an oppression, then theysometimes become religious. When men reach thelimit of their intellectual endeavours after clearness andunity and are baffled, they sometimes become religious.As Spencer was never at his wit s end practically,and was born too good to be troubled by a sense ofsin, and as he had a somewhat lukewarm emotionalnature, and was singularly devoid of any poetical ormystical sense, he was not likely to approach religionby either the practical or the emotional path.Thethird path, reached by baffled intelligence, was moreor less closed by Spencer s postulate of the Unknowable, though there was even in this some tinge ofreligiousfeeling.He had been brought up among those who heldalmost as an axiom to thebelief thatthe beginning God created the heaven and the earth," but thisnever seems to have meant anything practically oremotionally to him, while as a cosmological statementit seemed quite unverifiable. Most thinkers havetried by searching to find out God, to find some wayof thinking of the ultimate origin, nature, and purposeof things, but at an early age Herbert Spencer foreclosed this quest, and was quitedoing, chiefly, it must be suspected,comfortable in sobecause it neverappealed to him save as a purely intellectual puzzle.Nur was dufublst,das 1st deln Eigenthutn"Thus when he was twenty-six (1848) he wrote to hisfather, regards the ultimate nature of things or originof them, my position is simply that I know nothing aboutit,and never can know anythingabout it, and must be

""EARLY ATTITUDE TO RELIGION 273content inmy ignorance. I deny nothing,and I affirmnothing, and to any one who says that the current theory isnot true, I say justas I say to those who assert its truthyou have no evidence. Either alternative leaves us ininextricable difficulties. An uncaused Deityisjustasinconceivable as an uncaused Universe. If the existenceof matter from all eternity is incomprehensible, the creationof matter out of nothing is equally incomprehensible. Thusfinding that either attempt to conceive the origin of thingsis futile, I am content to leave the question unsettled asthe insoluble mystery". . .(Autobiography, \. p. 346).This was written in 1848, twelve yearsbefore FirstPrinciples, in which he afterwards sought more fullyto justify the which position Huxley calledagnostic."Just because his emotions were so little engaged,the agnostic position seemed to him a very simple andsatisfactory one, and we find no evidence that heever tried to get below the surface of theistic orChristian doctrine. He was so much repelled byparticular anthropomorphic and superstitious expressionsor formulae of religious belief that henever appreciatedtheir true inwardness or value.Otherwise, he would never have spoken of theradical incongruity between the Bible and the orderOtherwise he would never have writtenof Nature."the following passage,"The creed of Christendomis evidently alien to my nature, both emotional andintellectual. To many, and apparentlyto most,religious worship yields a species of pleasure.Tome it never did so ; unless, indeed, I count as suchthe emotion produced by sacred music. . . . But theexpressions of adoration of a personal being, theutterance of laudations, and the humble professionsof obedience, never found in me anyechoes."s

274 HERBERT SPENCERLater Attitude to Religion. But while it seems to uspreposterous to speak of "the religion of HerbertSpencer," beyond a reverence for the mysteries beyondscience, it is important to note that in his later yearshe became more appreciative of the important role thatreligion has filled, and continues to fill in human life.The Reflections at the close of the Autobiographyof outlook.illustrate this changeIn his earlier days Spencer was an uncompromisingcritic of many of the established governmental forms,such as the monarchy ,in later years, while he didnot change his views, he became more acquiescent,feeling that institutions must be judged by theirrelative fitness to the average characters and conditionsof the citizens at any given time. He saw, moreover,that mere morphological changes matter little sincethe temper of a people alters so slowly. There is arhythm of change in external forms, but the actualconstitution of the social organism varies very little."We have been livingin the midst of a social exuviation,and the old coercive shell having been cast off, a newcoercive shell is in course of development;for in our day,as in past days,there co-exist the readiness to coerce andthe readiness to submit to coercion. Here, then, I see achange in my political views which has become increasinglymarked with increasing years. Whereas, in the days ofearly enthusiasm, I thought that all would go well ifgovernmental arrangements were transformed, I now thinkthat transformations in governmental arrangements can be ofuse only in so far as they expressthe transformed natures ofcitizens"(1893).A similar change marks his ideas about religiousinstitutions. In early days he was an uncompromising critic of particular theological doctrines and

""Thus"""LATER ATTITUDE TO RELIGION 275religious customs,but a wider knowledge convincedhim almost against his will that some sort of religiouscult has been an indispensable factor in social progress.Quite aware of the great changes in theologicalthought which had taken place during his life-time,he looked forward to a stage in which, recognisingthe mystery of things as insoluble, religious organisations will be devoted to ethical culture." As Prof.Spencer contemplates comHenry Sidgwick puts it,placently the reduction of religious thought andsentiment to a perfectly indefinite consciousness ofthe Unknowable and the emotion that accompaniesthispeculiarintellectual exercise."I have come more and more to look calmly onforms of religiousbelief to which I had, in earlier days, apronounced aversion. Holding that they are in the mainnownaturally adapted to their respective peoples and times, itseems to me well that they should severallylive and workas long as the conditions permit, and, further, that suddenchanges of religious institutions, as of political institutions, arecertain to be followed by reactions."It it be asked why, thinking thus, I have persevered insetting forth views at variance with current creeds, my replyis the one elsewhere made : It is for each to utter thatwhich he sincerelybelieves to be true, and, adding his unit ofinfluence to all other units, leave the results to work themselves out."Largely, however, Spencer s change of mood in regard to religious creeds and institutions resulted froma deepening conviction that the sphere occupied bythem can never become an unfilled sphere, but thatthere must continue to arise afresh the great questionsconcerning ourselves and surrounding things; andthat, if not positive answers, then modes of consciouss*

"An"So276 HERBERT SPENCERness standing in place of positiveanswers must everremain."unreflective mood, he said, is general among bothcultured and uncultured, characterised byindifference toeverything beyond material interests and the superficialaspects of things.". . . "But in both cultured and uncultured there occur lucid intervals. Some, at least, eitherfill the vacuum by stereotyped answers, or become consciousof unanswered questionsof transcendent moment. By thosewho know much, more than by those who know little, isthere felt the need for explanation.Whence this process,inconceivable however symbolised, by which alike the monadand the man build themselves up into their respectivestructures ? What must we say of the life, minute, multitudinous, degraded, which, covering the ocean-floor, occupiesby far the larger part of the Earth s area and which; yet,growing and decaying in utter darkness, presents hundreds ofspecies of a single type ? Or, when we think of the myriadsof yearsof the Earth s past, during which have arisen andpassed away low forms of creatures, small and great, which,murdering and being murdered, have gradually evolved, howshall we answer the questionTo what end? Ascendingto wider problems, in which way are we to interpretthe lifelessnessof the greater celestial masses the giant planets andthe Sun ;in proportionto which the habitable planetsaremere nothings? If we pass from these relatively near bodiesto the thirtymillions of remote suns and solar systems, whereshall we find a reason for all this apparently unconscious existence, infinite in amount compared with the existence whichis conscious a waste Universe as it seems ? Then behindthese mysterieslies the all-embracing mystery whence thisuniversal transformation which has gone on unceasinglythroughout a past eternity and will go on unceasingly throughout a future eternity? And along with this rises the paralysing thought what if, of all that is thus incomprehensibletous, there exists no comprehension anywhere? No wonder"that men take refuge in authoritative dogma !is it, too, with our own natures. No less inscrutableis this complex consciousness which has slowly evolved out

""LATER ATTITUDE TO RELIGION 277ot infantine vacuity consciousness which, during the development of every creature, makes itsappearance out of whatseems unconscious matter ;suggesting the thought that consciousness in some rudimentary form is omnipresent. Lastlycome the insoluble questions concerning our own fate : theevidence seeming so strong that the relations of mind andnervous structure are such that cessation of the one accompanies dissolution of the other, while, simultaneously, comesthe thought, so strange and so difficult to realise, that withdeath there lapses both the consciousness of existence and theconsciousness of havingexisted."Thus religious creeds, which in one way or otheroccupy the sphere that rational interpretation seeksto occupy and fails, and fails the more the more itseeks, I have come to regard with a sympathy basedon community of need :feeling that dissent from themresults from inability to accept the solutions offered,joined with the wish that solutions could be found(1893).

""CONCLUSIONEVEN those who have criticised Spencer s system mostseverely have been generous in recognising thegrandeur of his aim. Thus Principal James Iverach,while never sparing in his disclosure of what heregards as the weaknesses and inconsistenciesSynthetic Philosophy, writes as follows : "of theIt is agreat thing to be constrained to recognise that asystem is possible which may bring all human thoughtinto unity, that there may be a formula which mayexpress the law of change in all spheres where changehappens, and that the universe as a whole and in allits parts forms one system. Suppose that the particular formula of Mr Spencer is inadequate, is a failure,yet is it not something worthy of recognition, that aman has lived who gave his life to the elaboration ofthis thought, and has so far succeeded as to makemen think that such a consummation is possible anddesirable ? He has widened the thoughts of men,has enabled them to think in larger terms, and hasdone something to enable men to overcome a mereprovincialism of thought. In an age of specialism heendeavoured to be universal. And such an endeavourisworthy of the highest admiration."Perhaps the greatest of Spencer s services was hisinsistence on the Unity of Science, on the ideal of aunified outlook and inlook. Itmay be that hisSynthetic Philosophyleft most of the problems of

HERBERT SPENCER 279philosophy out, but no one will deny the grandeur ofhis aim in seeking to present a unified system ofscientific knowledge. As Prof. A. S. Pringle-Pattisonhas said: "It was much to hold aloft in an age ofspecialism the banner of completely unified knowledge;and this is, perhaps, after all, Spencers chief claim togratitude and remembrance. He brought home theidea of philosophic synthesis to a greater number ofthe Anglo-Saxonrace than had ever conceived theidea before. His own synthesis, in the particularform he gave it, will necessarily crumble away. Hespeaks of it himself, indeed,at the close of FirstPrinciples (ed. i.), modestly enough as a more orless rude attempt to accomplish a task which canbe achieved only in the remote future and by the conbinedefforts of many, which cannot be completelyachieved even then. But the idea of knowledge as acoherent whole, worked out on purely natural (thoughnot, therefore, naturalistic) principlesa whole inwhich all the facts of human experience should beincluded was a greatidea with which to familiarisethe minds of his contemporaries.germ of philosophy itself."It is the living

HERBERT SPENCER S WORKS(PUBLISHED BY MESSRS WILLIAMS & NORGATE)A System of SyntheticPhilosophy.First Principles. 1862 and1900.Principles of Biology. 2 vols.1864 and 1898-9.Principles of Psychology.2vols.1851; and 1876.Principles of Sociology, Vol.I.1877.Do. Vol.11. 1886.Do. Vol. III. 1896.Principles of Ethics, Vol. I.1879.Do. Vol. II. 1892.Justice.An Autobiography. 2 vols.1904.Other Works.The Study of Sociology.1873-Education. 1861.Essays. 3 vols.Social Statics. 1850.The Man -v. The State.Facts and Comments. 1902.Various Fragments. 1897.Reasons for dissenting fromthePhilosophy of M.Comte. 1864.A Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann.1893.Weismannism once more.Factors of Organic Evolution. 1886.Descriptive Sociology.Compiled and abstracted byDr Duncan, Dr Scheppig,andMr Collier. Folio. Boards.English.Ancient American Races.Lowest Races, Negritos,Polynesians.African Races.Asiatic Races.American Races.Hebrews and Phoenicians.French.280

SOME REFERENCES TO LITERATURE1876. Bowne, E. P. ThePhilosophy of HerbertSpencer : being an examination of the"Firstof Principles" his System.Nelson and Philipps,NewYork.1897. Clodd, Edward.Pioneers of Evolution.Grant Richards, London.Pp. 250.1889. Collins, F. Howard.An Epitome of theSynthetic Philosophy(904. Crozier, J. B. MrHerbert Spencer and theDangers of Specialism.Fortnightly Review, Ixxv.Pp. 105-120.875. Fischer. Ueber dasGesetz der Entwickelungmit Riicksicht auf Herbertbpencer.1874. Fiske, John. Outlinesof Cosmic Philosophy,based on the Doctrine ofEvolution. MacMillan &Co., London.1904. Gribble, Francis.Herbert Spencer His:Autobiographyand HisPhilosophy. Fortnightly Review, Ixxv. Pp. 984-995.1879. Guthrie, Malcolm.On Mr Spencers Formulaof Evolution as an exhaustive statement of thechanges of the universe.Triibner & Co., London.Pp. 267.1882. Guthrie, Malcolm. OnMr Spencers Unificationof Knowledge. Triibner,London. Pp. 476.1884. Guthrie, Malcolm.On Mr Spencers Data ofEthics, London. Pp. 122.Green. Mr Herbert Spencerand Mr G. H. Lewes:theirapplicationof theDoctrine of Evolutionto Thought. Contemporary Review. December1877, March and July,1878.1894. Hudson, W. H. Anintroduction to the philosophy of Herbert Spencer.PopularEdition. Watts& Co., 1904. Pp. 124.1904. Hudson, W. H.Herbert Spencers Autobiography. Independent Review, July.1904. Hudson, W. A H. Herbert Spencer.Character

I1879."282 HERBERT SPENCERStudy. Fortnightly Review,January.1904. Iverach, James. Herbert Spencer. The CriticalReview, xiv. Pp. 99- 1 1 2,195-209.1899. Mackintosh, Robert.From Comte to BenjaminKidd. The appealtobiology or evolution forhuman guidance. Macmillan& Co., London.Pp. 287.1900. Macpherson, Hector.Herbert Spencer. The manand his work. Chapmanj& Hall, London. Pp. 227.1872. Martineau, James.The Place of Mind in Nature. Williams & Norgate,London.1879. Martineau, James.Essays.2 vols. Triibner& Co., London.1882. Michelet. Spencer sSystem der Philosophic.sSpencer Lehre von demUnerkennbaren Leipzig,1891.1898. Morgan, C. Lloyd.Mr Herbert Spencer sBiology. Natural Science,xiii. pp. 377-383.1900. Pearson, K. TheGrammar of Science, 2nd.Edition. A. & C. Black,London. Pp. 548.1904. Pringle-Pattison, A.S. The Life and Philosophy of Herbert Spencer.The Quarterly Review, vol.2OO, pp. 240-267.1902. Sidgwick, Henry.Lectures on the Ethics ofT. H. Green, Mr HerbertSpencer and J. Martineau.Macmillan & Co., London,Pp- 374-1905. Sidgwick, Henry.The Philosophy of Mr"Herbert Spencer. In ThePhilosophy of Kant andother lectures." Macmillan & Co., London.Pp. 475.1904. Sorley, W. R. TheEthics of Naturalism : acriticism, 2nd Edition,Blackwood, Edinburgh.P P- 338.1892. Sorley,W. R. Herbert Spencer. Article inChambers s Encyclopaedia.Sully, James. Article,Evolution."Encyclopaedia Britannica, ninthedition.1899. Ward, James. Naturalism and agnosticism. 2vols. A. & C. Black,London. Pp. 302 and 291.Quarterly Review.October 1873, and JanuaryBritish1877.

""INDEXACQUIRED Characters, transmission of, 177Adaptation, 119America, visit to, 49Anti-Aggression League," 48Athenaeum Club, 42Autobiography, 52BAER S, Von, Law, 139, 140Bateson, 190Biologist, Spencer as, 93 9;Biology, Principles of, 94Blastodermic," 39Body and Mind, 236Bern sexperiments, 163CARLYLE, 30Cell-life, 120Comte, August, 29, 243Creation, 145DARWIN, 165, 180Darwinian Theory, 263Death, 51Descent, theory of, 146Development, 113Development Hypothesis , 31Driesch, 163Duncan, Prof., "The NewKnowledge," 210Dynamic element in life, 102Economist, The, Spencer as subeditor of, 28Education, Spencer s, 259Equilibration, direct, 197Indirect, 198Essays : Scientific, Political, andSpeculative, 35Evolution, factors of, 180External factors, 195Internal, 196Universal, 209Inorganic, 210Evolutionism, summary of Spencer s, 212Ewart, Prof. Cossar, 191Experience and Intuitions, 238First Principles, 38Geddes, Prof., 31Genesis, 123GEORGE ELIOT, friendship with,3 1Germ-cells, 150Germ-cells and Sperm-cells, 167Giddings, Prof. F. H., 250Gribble, Francis, 83, 86Growth, 1 10HEREDITY, problems of, 156Hudson, Prof., 51, 80, 85, 212,239Huxley, friendship with, 32Illogical Geology, 36"Inconceivability," 174Individual Organism, comparisonbetween it and Society, 253Intuitions, Experience and, 238Invalid bed, invention of, 41Isolation, 190Italy, tour in, 42Iverach, Prof. James, 219JENNINGS, H. S. ,235Joly, Prof., 259283

"284 INDEXLewes, G. H., 30Life, definition of, 98dynamic element in, 102mechanism of, 107origin of, 220MALTHUSIANIS.V, 262Neo-malthusianism, 264Man, Ascent of, 224Manners and Fashions, 33Mendelism, 208Metabolism, 98Metaphysics, Spencer s, 270Mill, J. S., 39Mind, evolution of, 221, 233Body and, 236Method in Education, 33Morgan, Prof. Lloyd, 93, 105,171Music, the origin and function of,34NUTRITION andReproduction, i 25ORGANIC matter, 96PEARSON, Prof. Karl, 108. 217Philosophy of Style, 70Physiological Units, 157Physiology of Laughter, 36Population, a theory of, 191question, 260Pringle-Pattison, Prof. A. S.,89Prison ethics, 36Progress, its La-w and Cause, 34)193Psychology, Principles of, 33, 235Rail-way Morals and Rail-wayPolicy, 33Regeneration, 118"Reader, The," 39Religion, early attitude to, 271Religion, later attitude, 274Reproduction, Nutrition and, 125SCHAFFLE, 254Science, the Genesis of, 33Selection, 186, 194, 196, 204Sidgwick, Prof., 241, 243-5Social Organism, The, 36, 252Special Creation, 145Social Statics, 29Sociological Society, 246Sociology, 44, 242criticism of, 243and history, 247data of, Spencer s, 249Spencer, Herbert, ancestry, i ;boyhood, 7 ; characteristics,emotional and ethical, 74 ;intellectual, 54 ; physical, 52;engineering, 17 human re;lations, 82; inventions, 18,27 ; limitations, 59 methods;of work, 65 ; delight in nature,81Stout, Prof. G. F., 233, 237Structure and function, 115Synthetic Philosophy, finished, 50Physiology, 34> 193Truth, test of, 241VARIATIONS, 182Vries, H. de, 165, 190WALLACE, A. R., 180, 227Ward, Prof. James, 218, 237Waste and Repair, 116Weismann, germ-plasm theory,59sexual reproduction, 129germinal selection, 186X"CLUB, 39YOUMANS, Prof., 40

PRINTUD BYTURNDULL ANU SPBARS,EDINBURGH

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE\CARDS OR SLIPSFROM THIS POCKETUNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARYThomson, (Sir) John Arthur1656 Herbert SpencerTZ61906