Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

Italics have been transcribed using underscores, bold with =equal signs=, small capitals as ALL CAPITALS. Sidenotes are placed between #hashtags# and are placed either above the paragraph they refer to or inline. Inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation have not been corrected. Minor punctuation errors and typographical discrepancies have been silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found at the end of the document.

THE MONIST

A

QUARTERLY MAGAZINE

VOL. I.

CHICAGO: THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO 1890-1891

COPYRIGHT BY

THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO.

1890-1891

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.

ARTICLES.

PAGE.

Anarchists, The Physiognomy of the. By Cesare Lombroso 336

Anarchist's Reply to Professor Lombroso, A Convicted. By Michael
Schwab 520

Architecture of Theories, The. By Charles S. Peirce 161

Criminal Anthropology, Illustrative Studies in. (1) "La Bête Humaine" and Criminal Anthropology. (2) Criminal Anthropology and Psychiatry. By Cesare Lombroso 177

Ethics, The Criterion of——an Objective Reality. Editor 552

Evolution, The Factors of. By Joseph Le Conte 321

Evolution, The Right of. By Moncure D. Conway 506

Feelings and the Elements of Feelings. Editor 401

Five Souls with but a Single Thought. By Carus Sterne 245

Höffding on the Relation of the Mind to the Body. By W. M. Salter 118

Immortality. By George M. Gould 372

Infusoria, The Immortality of. By Alfred Binet 21

Innovation and Inertia in the World of Psychology. By Cesare
Lombroso 344

Magic Mirror, The. By Max Dessoir 87

Mind, The Origin of. By Paul Carus 69

Mind, The Question of Duality of. By R. Meade Bache 362

Philosophy in American Colleges and Universities 148-156

Psycho-Physics, Some Questions of. A Discussion. (1) Sensations
and the Elements of Reality. By Ernst Mach 393
(2) Feelings and the Elements of Feelings. Editor 401

Psychology of Conception. By J. Sully 481

Sensations, The Analysis of the. By Ernst Mach 48

Sensations and the Elements of Reality. By Ernst Mach 393

Sex, On the Material Relations of—in Human Society. By E. D. Cope 38

Squaring of the Circle, The. By Hermann Schubert 197

Thought and Language, On. F. Max Müller 572

Truth, The Criterion of. Editor 229

Wallace on Physiological Selection, A. R. George J. Romanes 1

Welfare, The Principle of. By Harald Höffding 525

LITERARY CORRESPONDENCE.

France. By Lucien Arréat 124, 278, 421, 590

German Philosophy in the XIX Century. By F. Jodl 263

The Modern Literature of Italy since 1870. By C. Lombroso 428

The Science of Pedagogy in Germany. Chr. Ufer 597

BOOK REVIEWS.

Abbott, Francis Ellingwood. The Way Out of Agnosticism 129

Bois-Reymond, Paul Du. Ueber die Grundlagen der Erkenntnis in den exacten Wissenschaften 608

Booth, General. In Darkest England and the Way Out 451

Bray, Charles. The Philosophy of Necessity 136

Brinton, Daniel G. Races and Peoples 131

Büchner, Ludwig. Fremdes und Eigenes aus dem geistigen Leben der Gegenwart 303

Carneri, B. Der Moderne Mensch 607

Carus, Paul. The Soul of Man 620

Clarke, James Freeman. Deacon Herbert's Bible Class 305

Coit, Stanton. Die ethische Bewegung in der Religion 301

Cox, Charles F. Protoplasm and Life 297

Dewey, John. Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics 600

Dillmann, C. Die Mathematik die Fackelträgerin einer neuen Zeit 617

Edinger, Ludwig. Twelve Lectures on the Structure of the Central
Nervous System 604

Everett, Charles Carroll. The Science of Thought 287

Forel, August. Der Hypnotismus 605

Fullerton, George Stuart. On Sameness and Identity 291

Geddes, Patrick, and J. Arthur Thomson. The Evolution of Sex 439

Haeckel, Ernst. Plankton-Studien 455

Harris, William T. Introduction to the Study of Philosophy 438

Höffding, Harald. Ethik 139

James, William. The Principles of Psychology 284

Jastrow, Joseph. The Time-Relations of Mental Phenomena 290

Jodl, Friedrich. Geschichte der Ethik in der neueren Philosophie 137

Krause, Ernst. Tuisko-Land der arischen Stämme und
Götter-Urheimat 612

Kroman, K. Kurzgefasste Logik und Psychologie 142

Lehmann, Alfred. Die Hypnose und die damit verwandten normalen
Zustände 298

Loeb, Jacques. Der Heliotropismus der Thiere 300

Loeb, Jacques. Untersuchungen zur physiologischen Morphologie der Thiere 300

Lombroso, Cesare. Der geniale Mensch 146

Mackenzie, John S. An Introduction to Social Philosophy 601

Mantegazza, Paolo. Physiognomy and Expression 447

Moll, Albert. Hypnotism 604

Morgan, C. Lloyd. Animal Life and Intelligence 443

Naden, Constance C. W. Induction and Deduction 292

Natorp, Paul. Einleitung in die Psychologie nach kritischer
Methode 143

Peet, Stephen D. Emblematic Mounds and Animal Effigies 295

Post, Albert Hermann. Ueber die Aufgaben einer allgemeinen
Rechtswissenschaft 457

Royer, Madame Clémence. Nouveaux aperçus sur la Phylogenie
de l'Homme 297

Savage, M. J. Life 296

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Le Monde comme Volonté et comme
Representation 298

Sterrett, J. Macbride. Studies in Hegel's Philosophy of Religion 133

Sterne, Carus. Die allgemeine Weltanschauung 456

Taylor, Isaac. The Origin of the Aryans 435

Ufer, Christian. Geistesstörungen in der Schule 619

Wolff, Joh. Das Bewusstsein und sein Object 147

PERIODICALS 157-160; 307-320; 459-480; 621-640

VOL. I. OCTOBER, 1890. NO. 1.

THE MONIST.

MR. A. R. WALLACE ON PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION.[1]

[1] In a private letter to the editor of this magazine Professor Geo. J. Romanes writes: "The article refers to a completely new departure in the theory of evolution, striking in the principle of homogamy, the root-principle of the whole, and in physiological selection, one of the main branches. Yet neither principle has so far been perceived except by Mr. Gulick…. The theory of physiological selection has been better understood in America than in this country; and I should like the naturalists there, who have taken such a warm and appreciative interest in it, to see my reply to Mr. Wallace published in an American periodical."

In 1886 I published a paper entitled "Physiological Selection: an additional suggestion on the origin of species," (Zoölogical Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. XIX, p. 337). The view there expressed is, briefly, as follows.

Given the facts of heredity and variability, the whole theory of organic evolution becomes neither more nor less than a theory of the causes which determine the breeding of like with like, to the exclusion of unlike. For the more firmly that we believe in heredity with variability as the fundamental principle of organic evolution, the stronger must become our persuasion that segregate breeding (or exclusive mating of like with like) must lead to divergence, while indiscriminate breeding (or free intercrossing of all varieties) must lead to uniformity. So long as there is free intercrossing, heredity makes in favor of fixity of type—or, at most, can permit change only in a single line, where successive generations undergo a continuous improvement, which may give rise to a ladder-like series of species in time. But in order that there should be a tree-like multiplication of species in space, or a simultaneous divergence of type, it is essential that free intercrossing be prevented at the origin, and throughout the development, of each branch. In other words, it is only when assisted by some form of segregation—which determines exclusive breeding of like with like—that heredity can effect arborescent or polytypic, as distinguished from catenated or monotypic, evolution. For the sake of greater clearness, I will call segregation in this sense homogamy, or the exclusive mating of individuals which belong to the same variety.

Now homogamy may be secured in a very great number of different ways. Of these the most important, from every point of view, is natural selection. Here the exclusive breeding of like with like is determined by general fitness, and is effected by extermination of the unlike—i. e., the comparatively unfit. Moreover, this process leads to a continuous improvement in the way of adaptation, and in this important respect it stands alone among all the forms of homogamy. Nevertheless, we must note that, unless assisted by some other form of homogamy, natural selection can only produce monotypic evolution; never polytypic. Successive generations may thus continuously mount to higher stages of adaptation on the steps supplied by their own dead selves; but although they may thus give rise to a linear series of species in time, they can never thus give rise to a multiplication of species in space. In order to effect such multiplication, or divergence of types, natural selection must be supplemented by some other form of homogamy, which can prevent intercrossing between the equally fit at the origin, and throughout the development, of every separate branch.

Well, as I have said, these other forms of homogamy are very numerous. First we may notice geographical isolation. When a comparatively small portion of a species is thus separated from the rest of its kind, intercrossing is effectually prevented between the two sections; and inasmuch as the general average of specific characters in the isolated section will be somewhat different from that of the other section, heredity will determine that the two sections shall not run parallel in their subsequent lines of evolutionary history: there will arise an increasing divergence between them, as was first pointed out by the mathematician Delbœuf, subsequently by the naturalist Weismann, and more recently, with greater emphasis, by Mr. Gulick as well as myself.

Again, there is homogamy that arises as a result of sexual preference, or, as I have called it, "psychological selection." It is a matter of observation that the breeding of like with like is often determined among the higher vertebrata by individuals of each variety preferring to mate with other individuals of their own variety; and this is homogamy.

Not to occupy space with any attempt at enumerating all the many forms of homogamy[2] I will at once pass on to the form which constitutes the subject-matter of the present paper—and the form which, in my opinion, is probably of more importance than any other in the multiplication of species. This is the form of homogamy which I have termed Physiological Selection, or Segregation of the Fit, and Mr. Gulick—who independently perceived the principle—has called Segregate Fecundity.

[2] This has been done in a most careful and exhaustive manner by Mr. Gulick in his papers which have succeeded mine in the publications of the Linnean Society.

As my object on the present occasion is to answer criticisms which have been passed on my enunciation of this principle, I do not propose to go into further detail by way of explanation than is necessary in order to render intelligible both the criticisms and my reply thereto. Moreover, this reply is only an abstract of a fuller one which has been prepared for publication in a forthcoming book. Therefore it deals only with the main points. Lastly, I may remark that the criticisms which have hitherto appeared have all been derived from the same source, viz., from Mr. A. R. Wallace; for, although many other naturalists have expressed themselves as more or less opposed to the new theory, or "additional suggestion on the origin of species," they have all done so on the grounds, or for the reasons supplied by Mr. Wallace. Therefore, in dealing with Mr. Wallace's objections, I shall be dealing with the only objections which have thus far been advanced.

In order at once to restate the theory of physiological selection, and to do so in a form which cannot be suspected of being in any way influenced by Mr. Wallace's more recent criticisms, I will begin by reproducing the main features of the theory in the words which were employed for this purpose more than three years ago, when I supplied an article to the Nineteenth Century in answer to one by him in the Fortnightly Review. Moreover, for the most part this restatement of the theory is quoted verbatim from my original paper—the differences being due only to the conditions imposed by limits of an article.

The following, then, is quoted from the Nineteenth Century for
January, 1887:

"According to the Darwinian theory [which, as elsewhere fully explained, the present theory is in no way capable of supplanting, but only of supplementing, and this among other ways, by explaining why it is that some degree of mutual infertility is so general a phenomenon as between allied species—a phenomenon which Darwin expressly regarded as not explicable by the theory of natural selection], it is for the most part only those variations which happen to have been useful that have been preserved: yet, even as thus limited, the principle of variability is held able to furnish sufficient material out of which to construct the whole adaptive morphology of nature. How immense, therefore, must be the number of unuseful variations. Yet these are all, for the most part, still-born, or allowed to die out immediately by intercrossing. Should such intercrossing be prevented, however, there is no reason why unuseful variations should not be perpetuated by heredity quite as well as useful ones when under the nursing influence of natural selection—as, indeed, we see to be the case in our domesticated productions. Consequently, if from any reason a section of a species is prevented from intercrossing with the rest of its species, new varieties of a trivial or unuseful kind might be expected to arise within that section. And this is just what we find. Oceanic islands, for example, are well known to be extraordinarily rich in peculiar species; and this can best be explained by considering that a complete separation of the fauna and flora on such an island permits them to develop varietal histories of their own, without interference by intercrossing with their originally parent forms. We see the same principle exemplified by the influence of geographical barriers of any kind, and also by the consequences of migration. Therefore, given an absence of overwhelming intercrossing, and the principle of what I term independent variability may be trusted to evoke new species, without the aid of natural selection. [Homogamy.]

"Were it not for the very general occurrence of some degree of sterility between even closely allied species and were it not also for the fact, that closely allied species are not always—or even generally—separated from one another by geographical barriers, we might reasonably attribute all cases of species-formation by independent variability to the prevention of intercrossing by geographical barriers or by migration. But it is evident that these two facts can no more be explained by the influence of geographical barriers, or by migration, than they can be by the influence of natural selection.

"Now, of all parts of those variable objects which we call organisms, the most variable is the reproductive system; and the variations may be either in the direction of increased or diminished fertility. Consequently, variations in the way of greater or less sterility frequently take place both in plants and animals; and probably, if we had adequate means of observing this point, we should find that there is no one variation more common. But, of course, whenever it arises—whether as a result of changed conditions of life, or, as we say, spontaneously—it immediately becomes extinguished, seeing that the individuals which it affects are less able (if able at all) to propagate the variation. If, however, the variation should be such that, while showing some degree of sterility with the parent form, it continues to be as fertile as before within the limits of the varietal form, it would neither be swamped by intercrossing nor die out on account of sterility.

"For example, suppose the variation in the reproductive system is such that the season of flowering, or of pairing, becomes either advanced or retarded. Whether this variation be "spontaneous," or due to change of food, climate, habitat, etc., does not signify. The only point we need attend to is that some individuals, living on the same geographical area as the rest of their species, have demonstrably varied in their reproductive systems, so that they are perfectly fertile inter se, while absolutely sterile with the rest of their species. By inheritance there would thus arise a variety living on the same geographical area as its parent form, and yet prevented from intercrossing with that form by a barrier quite as effectual as a thousand miles of ocean; the only difference would be that the barrier, instead of being geographical, is physiological. And now, of course, the two sections of the physiologically divided species would be able to develop independent histories of their own without intercrossing; even though they are living together on the same geographical area, their physiological isolation would lead to their taking on distinct specific characters by independent variations, [or homogamy,] just as is the case with sections of a species when separated from each other by geographical isolation.

"To state this suggestion in another form, it enables us to regard many, if not most, species as the records of variations in the reproductive systems of ancestors. When variations of a non-useful kind occur in any of the other systems or parts of organisms, they are, as a rule, immediately extinguished by intercrossing. But whenever they happen to arise in the reproductive system in the way here suggested, they must tend to be preserved as new natural varieties, or incipient species. At first the difference would only be in respect of the reproductive systems; but eventually, on account of independent variation, other differences would supervene, and the new variety would take rank as a true species.

"The principle thus briefly sketched in some respects resembles, and in other respects differs from, the principle of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. For the sake of convenience, therefore, and in order to preserve analogies with already existing terms, I have called this principle Physiological Selection, or Segregation of the Fit.

"Let it be noted that we are not concerned either with the causes or the degrees of the particular kind of variation on which this principle depends. Not with the causes, because in this respect the theory of physiological selection is in just the same position as that of natural selection: it is enough for both that the needful variations are provided, without its being incumbent on either to explain the causes which in all cases underlie them. Neither are we concerned with the degrees of sterility which the variation in question may in any particular case supply. For whether the degree of sterility with the parent form be originally great or small, the result of it will be in the long run the same: the only difference will be that in the latter case a greater number of generations would be required in order to separate the varietal from the parent form. [In other words, homogamy due to such physiological isolation is cumulative.]

"The object of this paper being that of furnishing a general answer to criticisms on the hypothesis of physiological selection, I will not occupy space by detailing evidence of that hypothesis, further than is needful for the object just mentioned.[3] This evidence abundantly proves that the particular kind of variation which the theory of physiological selection requires does take place, (a) in individuals, (b) in races, and (c) in species. Next, the evidence goes on to show that the facts of organic nature are such as they ought to be, supposing it true that this variation has played any considerable part in the differentiation of specific types. In particular, it is shown that the general association between the one primary, or relatively constant, specific distinction (mutual sterility), and the innumerable secondary, or relatively variable, distinctions (slight morphological changes which may effect any parts of any organisms), of itself indicates that the former has been the original condition to the occurrence of the latter, in all cases where free intercrossing has not been otherwise prevented. For even in cases where the secondary distinctions may be supposed to have induced the primary,—or where morphological changes taking place in other parts of an organic type have exercised a reflex influence on the reproductive system, such that the changed organism is no longer fertile with its unchanged parent form,—even in such cases the theory of physiological selection is available to explain the association in question. For even in these cases, notwithstanding that the secondary changes are historically the prior changes, they still depend for their preservation on the principles of physiological selection. These principles have, in all such cases, selected the particular kinds of secondary distinction which have proved themselves capable of so reacting on the reproductive system as to bring about the primary distinction, and thus to protect themselves against the destructive power of free intercrossing."

[3] The evidence, so far as yet published, may be read by any one who cares to purchase the original paper, which can be obtained from the Linnean Society in a separate form.

Now for Mr. Wallace's criticism of this theory, as presented in his recently published work on "Darwinism."

Briefly put, he furnishes a numerical calculation, showing that when "the physiological peculiarity is not correlated with any external differences of form or color, or with inherent peculiarities of likes or dislikes leading to any choice as to pairing," even when so large a proportion as ten per cent. of the exceptional variety arises every year in the midst of the species, "it is unable to increase its numbers much above its starting-point, and remains wholly dependent on the continued renewal of the variety for its existence beyond a few years."

This, it must be observed, is a reproduction of the criticism which I answered in 1888; but, as Mr. Wallace ignores that answer, I must now repeat it.

The criticism does not dispute the fact that the required variation in the way of "selective sterility" occurs. Indeed, Mr. Wallace allows that it certainly must be of very general occurrence as between incipient species (or pronounced varieties in a state of nature), seeing that it is of such general occurrence as between allied species when fully differentiated as such. In other words, this variation in the way of selective sterility must be recognised as a very general fact, even if it be not regarded as a condition, or a cause, of specific differentiation. Which is merely another way of saying that the particular variation which is required by the theory in question is admittedly a variation which does occur; and occurs, moreover, in very frequent association with the origin of a new species. But Mr. Wallace's objection to regarding this variation as itself a cause of (or condition to) the origin of a new species is, as we have seen, that the changes must always be greatly against the similar variations of the opposite sexes meeting—i. e., of the "physiological complements" happening to pair. Now, I have already shown, in the Nineteenth Century of three years ago, that this criticism can only apply to species the sexes of which unite for every birth; but as Mr. Wallace continues to ignore this important consideration, I will now present it in somewhat more detail.

In considering any "supplementary theory" of the origin of species, it is obviously absurd to disregard the realm of organic nature as a whole, and to fasten attention exclusively upon the part of it where a particular difficulty against the theory may be supposed to lie. As will presently be shown, Mr. Wallace is entirely mistaken in supposing that his particular difficulty does lie against the theory in any part of organic nature; but, even if this could not have been shown, it would not have followed that the theory of physiological selection is inapplicable to all the classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, because it is taken to be inapplicable to some. One might just as well argue against Mr. Darwin's theory of sexual selection on the ground that it cannot be held to apply to the coloration and the sculpture of shells. If either sexual selection or physiological selection were put forward as an exclusive theory of the origin of all species, this kind of argument would, of course, have been valid; but as the matter actually stands, it is largely irrelevant.

I say largely irrelevant, because I do not dispute that there is this much force in it. If the theory of physiological selection can be proved inapplicable to Birds and Mammals (which are the only classes that Mr. Wallace considers in connection with it), its applicability to all other divisions, both of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, would be rendered doubtful; seeing that the process of species-formation appears to have been everywhere more or less associated with the occurrence of "selective sterility"; and hence, if in any division of organic nature it could be shown that selective sterility cannot possibly have been a cause of specific differentiation, we might well doubt whether it has been such a cause elsewhere—just as we may doubt whether sexual selection has been a cause of the brilliant colors of birds and butterflies, because we know, that it cannot have been a cause of the equally brilliant colors of corals and flowers. But, as far as physiological selection is concerned, no such question can arise, as I will presently proceed to show.

First of all, however, it is desirable briefly to indicate the strength of this theory in the parts of organic nature where Mr. Wallace's sole criticism cannot possibly be held to apply—viz., the larger part of the vegetable kingdom, where ovules are fertilised either by insects or by the wind. Here the phenomena of "prepotency" are highly suggestive—not to say, in my opinion, virtually demonstrative—of physiological selection; seeing that, as Mr. Darwin remarks in another connexion:

"There can be no doubt that if the pollen of all these species (of Compositae) could be simultaneously or successively placed on the stigma of any one species, this one would elect with unerring certainty its own pollen. This elective capacity is all the more wonderful; as it must have been acquired since the many species of this great group of plants branched off from a common progenitor."[4]

[4] Variation, etc., Vol. ii.

Darwin is here speaking of elective affinity in its more fully developed form, as this so often obtains between fully differentiated species. But we meet with all lower degrees of its development—sometimes between "incipient species," or varieties, and at other times between closely allied species. It is then known as "prepotency" of the pollen belonging to the same variety, or species, over the pollen of the other variety or species, when both sets of pollen are applied to the same stigma. This is one form of what I have called physiological selection, and in my view it serves to explain why it is that hybrids between closely allied forms growing on common areas (whether they be called "species" or "constant varieties") are so comparatively rare in nature, even in cases where there is no difficulty in producing hybrids artificially by an intentional exclusion of the pollen belonging to the same form. And I allude to these facts in the present connexion for two reasons. In the first place, they serve to show how entirely irrelevant Mr. Wallace's whole criticism is to the vegetable kingdom, as well as to the majority of aquatic animals. In the next place, they serve to show how entirely unwarranted is his statement, that "we have at present no evidence whatever" in support of my belief that a physiological incompatibility may affect a whole race or strain. Not only have we the multitudinous cases of prepotency, where the incompatibility is partial (or in course of becoming, as Mr. Darwin says in the above quotation, "acquired"); but we have also multitudinous cases where the incompatibility has become absolute, both as between closely allied species, and even as between varieties of the same species growing on common areas—as M. Jordan has experimentally proved. Therefore in the above remark we have but an additional example of Mr. Wallace's entire forgetfulness, in the present connexion, of any organisms other than those which belong to the class of Birds or of Mammals.[5]

[5] It seems scarcely worth while to add that Mr. Wallace is doubly mistaken where he says, "Mr. Romanes's theory of Physiological Selection—which assumes sterility or infertility between first crosses as the fundamental fact in the origin of species—does not accord with the general phenomena of hybridism in nature." In the first place, as shown above, "infertility between the first crosses" is by no means out of accord with "the general phenomena of hybridism in nature"—seeing that all degrees of such infertility, from the slightest perceptible amount of prepotency up to absolute sterility, are of the most general occurrence in nature. In the second place, why Mr. Wallace should suppose that in my view physiological selection can only act as regards first crosses, and not also as regards hybrid progeny, I have no means of surmising.

Turning, then, to the only parts of organic nature where his criticism can even appear to apply, I have here the sufficiently easy task of proving, that this appearance of application arises wholly and entirely out of Mr. Wallace's misapprehension of the theory against which the criticism is directed. In other words, he is not criticising the theory of physiological selection at all, but merely his own travesty of it. For, as repeatedly stated in my original paper, and again reiterated three years ago in the Nineteenth Century, it constitutes no part of my theory to deny the co-operation of other forms of segregate breeding or homogamy. On the contrary, I have always insisted—and Mr. Gulick has proved by calculation—that the more efficient the co-operation of other forms of homogamy, the greater must become the importance of the physiological form. Yet, as I trust has already been made fully apparent, the whole of Mr. Wallace's criticism (even as regards Birds and Mammals) goes upon the supposition that Mr. Gulick and I believe that, if physiological selection ever acts in any case at all, it must necessarily act alone. For reasons afterwards to be given, I do indeed believe that in some cases it may act alone (in this differing from Mr. Gulick); but, clearly, whether or not there are any such cases, is a question quite distinct from that touching the validity of a criticism which attributes to our theory the absurd dogma, that segregate breeding which arises from physiological isolation, can never be associated with segregate breeding that may arise from any other form of isolation. And that the whole of Mr. Wallace's criticism collapses when once this correction has been supplied, is proved most effectually by the curious fact that, after having himself supplied the correction, he reproduces our theory as an original one of his own. How he can have supposed that I did not entertain the possibility of physiological selection being associated with natural selection, "psychological selection," or any other known form of isolation (excepting only the geographical), I am quite at a loss to understand; seeing that from end to end of my paper I continually refer to such association—especially as regards natural selection. And, if possible, I am still less able to understand Mr. Wallace's carelessness in this connection with reference to Mr. Gulick's paper; because there the belief is repeatedly and most clearly expressed, that without such association, "segregate fecundity" can never act at all—which is precisely the theory which Mr. Wallace proceeds to elaborate on his own account.

It is now time to show, by means of quotations, how unequivocal and complete is Mr. Wallace's adoption of our theory:

"The simplest case to consider will be that in which two forms or varieties of a species, occupying an extensive area, are in process of adaptation to somewhat different modes of life within the same area. If these two forms freely intercross with each other, and produce mongrel offspring which are quite fertile inter se, then the further differentiation of the forms into two distinct species will be retarded, or perhaps entirely prevented; for the offspring of the crossed unions will be, perhaps, more vigorous on account of the cross, although less perfectly adapted to the conditions of existence than either of the pure breeds; and this would certainly establish a powerful antagonistic influence to the further differentiation of the two forms.

"Now, let us suppose that a partial sterility of the hybrids between the two forms arises, in correlation with the different modes of life and the slight external or internal peculiarities that exist between them, both of which we have seen to be real causes of infertility. The result will be that, even if the hybrids between the two forms are still freely produced, these hybrids will not themselves increase so rapidly as the two pure forms; and as these latter are, by the terms of the problem, better suited to their conditions of life than are the hybrids between them, they will not only increase more rapidly, but will also tend to supplant the hybrids altogether whenever the struggle for existence becomes exceptionally severe. Thus, the more complete the sterility of the hybrids the more rapidly will they die out and leave the two parent forms pure. Hence it will follow that, if there is greater infertility between the two forms in one part of the area than the other, these forms will be kept more pure wherever this greater infertility prevails, will therefore have an advantage at each recurring period of severe struggle for existence, and will thus ultimately supplant the less infertile or completely fertile forms that may exist in other portions of the area. It thus appears that, in such a case as here supposed, natural selection would preserve those portions of the two breeds which were most infertile with each other, or whose hybrid offspring were most infertile; and would, therefore, if variations in fertility continued to arise, tend to increase that infertility. It must particularly be noted that this effect would result, not by the preservation of the infertile variations on account of their infertility, but by the inferiority of the hybrid offspring, both as being fewer in numbers, less able to continue their race, and less adapted to the conditions of existence than either of the pure forms. It is this inferiority of the hybrid offspring that is the essential point; and as the number of these hybrids will be permanently less where the infertility is greatest, therefore those portions of the two forms in which infertility is greatest will have the advantage, and will ultimately survive in the struggle for existence."

We have here a full acceptance of the theory of physiological selection. For it is represented, as Mr. Gulick and I have represented, that, if "two forms or varieties" occupying a common area are to undergo further differentiation at the hands of natural selection, it becomes a highly favoring condition to the process that some degree of segregate fecundity should arise (if it has not already arisen) between these two forms or varieties; seeing that "if these two forms freely intercross with each other, and produce mongrel offspring which are quite fertile inter se, then the further differentiation of the forms into two distinct species will be retarded, or perhaps entirely prevented." Here the importance of segregate fecundity, or physiological selection, as a factor in the differentiation of specific types on common areas is fully recognised; and the only respect in which Mr. Wallace alleges that his view of the matter differs from the view of Mr. Gulick and myself, is in drawing special attention to the part which is played by the infertility, or other "inferiority," of the mongrels. But clearly, this infertility, or other inferiority, of the mongrels, in all cases where it occurs, is part and parcel of the segregate fecundity of the parent forms. Whether the segregate fecundity has reference to first crosses alone, or likewise to second crosses, it is segregate fecundity all the same; and the only difference is that for the same degree of segregate fecundity in first crosses, the process of physiological selection will become the more effective in proportion to the degree in which the infertility extends also to second crosses. But I think it is very doubtful whether such infertility (or inferiority) on the part of mongrels can react upon the sexual system of their parent forms, so as directly to increase whatever degree of segregate fecundity may have already arisen between these forms. Does the high sterility of mules and mutes, for instance, tend to diminish the degree of fertility that obtains between horses and asses? The only way in which even an absolute degree of sterility (or other inferiority) on the part of mongrels or hybrids may clearly be seen to operate in this direction, is as a negative condition; not as an active cause. In the proportion that mongrels are impotent with one another, they will not so much compete with their parent forms for food, etc.; and in the proportion that they are impotent with their parent forms, they will not counteract any tendency which the latter may continue to develop in the direction of a still further segregation. If the mongrels are fully vigorous and fully fertile, both inter se and with their parent forms, the effect will be to retard, if not altogether to prevent, any further progress of physiological separation between the parent forms; because the free intercrossing of the mongrels with one another, and also with their parent forms, will be continually supplying progeny in which the physiological peculiarity is either attenuated or altogether abolished. But this is quite a different thing from supposing that infertility (or inferiority) of the mongrels can react upon the generative system of the parent forms, so as to increase in them the physiological peculiarity on which their segregate breeding depends: infertility (or inferiority) of the mongrels is but a negative condition which favors the preservation of further degrees of this segregate breeding, if such further degrees should be induced by any other causes.

Now, it does not appear that Mr. Wallace has clearly perceived this important distinction, because he throughout speaks of "this inferiority of the hybrid offspring as the essential point." Obviously, however, the essential point is the physiological variation in the parent forms, i. e., the original occurrence and subsequent development of infertility between the first crosses. Granting to Mr. Wallace, for the sake of argument, that this development could not proceed at all, were it not for the inferiority of the mongrels; still the inferiority of the mongrels need not be the cause of this development. Therefore it is most incorrect to say, "it must be particularly noted that this effect (i. e., increase of infertility between the parent forms) would result, not by the preservation of the infertile variations on account of their infertility, but by the inferiority of the hybrid offspring." "This effect" must be due to causes which act upon the generative systems of the parent forms, even though such causes might be counteracted by the withdrawal of the negative condition in question.

I trust, then, it has now been rendered sufficiently clear that, no matter how infertile the hybrid progeny may become, and no matter at how great a disadvantage they may thus (or otherwise) be placed in their struggle for existence with the parent varieties, it is not apparent that their infertility (or their extinction) can ever become the cause of a further increase of infertility arising between their parent forms. Consequently, although this is the cause assigned by Mr. Wallace, when he comes to "the essential point" of showing how it is to act so as to increase cross-sterility between the parent forms, he naïvely substitutes the sentence which I have printed in italics—which assumes a "greater infertility between the two forms" as arising through any other causes that we may choose to suppose. The very thing that his entire argument professes to explain (i. e., the rise and development of cross-sterility between the parent varieties) is slipped in as granted, or given by other causes than those which are said to explain it.[6]

[6] The only conceivable way in which infertility (or other inferiority) of hybrids could react on the sexual system of their parent forms, is one which Mr. Wallace appears to have missed: at all events he has nowhere stated it. This way is as follows. Suppose A and B to be two varieties which produce comparatively infertile hybrids. In the proportion that the hybrids are infertile, or otherwise inferior, it must be a disadvantage to both varieties for individuals belonging to one to cross with individuals belonging to the other, because by so doing they are wasting their time and their energy in propagating comparatively poor offspring—thereby failing to impress their characters on the next generation as effectually as they might have done by pairing homogamously. Hence, those individuals which do pair homogamously will leave a larger number—or better quality—of offspring to the next generation, than is left by those which fail to pair homogamously. Hence, also, in the course of many generations a selective premium will be set on the homogamous pairing, A plus A, B plus B, whether such pairing be due to a sexual instinct or to a sexual incompatibility. For example, if horses and asses were to occupy the same area for a sufficient length of time, it is conceivable that the instinct which many horses now present of preferring asses to their own kind would become obsolete; because the horses or mares which have such an instinct would always fail to leave progeny that could transmit it, while such would not be the case with the horses and mares which preferred to pair homogamously, and so it might be if a physiological instead of a psychological character were concerned. But now observe, if this consideration were adduced, I should not be concerned to dispute it. For, even if such a principle of segregation does obtain, to what category does the principle belong? Clearly it does not belong to natural selection, inasmuch as a mere failure to impress individual characters on the next generation is not a matter of life and death in the struggle for existence. But, no less clearly, it does belong to physiological selection; and therefore, if it be an active principle in nature, it is an additional cause of segregate fecundity in first crosses. Moreover, such a principle, if it ever acts, presupposes some considerable degree of sexual differentiation as already given by some other cause.

Having thus endeavored to make it as clear as I can, that the causes of segregate fecundity, both in its origin and subsequent "increase," must be causes acting on the physiology of the segregating forms themselves, and not the effects of these causes in the character of their mongrel offspring; I must next comment upon the extraordinary idea which underlies the whole of Mr. Wallace's exposition, and which in one place he expressly states. This extraordinary idea is that the theory of physiological selection, as held both by Mr. Gulick and myself, takes no cognizance of the possible effects of cross-sterility in leading to infertility or inferiority on the part of mongrel progeny. I call this an extraordinary idea, because it appears to me most extraordinary that Mr. Wallace can have read our papers, and then have supposed that he was adding anything to our theory by arguing the points which he does argue in the above quotation. When once this argument is correctly stated, it amounts, as we have just seen, to nothing more than pointing out how a segregate fecundity of first crosses will have a better chance of increasing, if the mongrel progeny are infertile or inferior. But surely this goes without saying; or, if it be said, let it be added that physiological selection, when it thus extends to second crosses, is really or ultimately due to physiological selection as regards the first crosses. If the segregate fecundity of the first crosses is of such a kind, that, besides tending to a physiological isolation of the parent forms, it leads to inferiority of the mongrel progeny; this is merely a further expression of the segregate fecundity in question. Its effect is that of so far extinguishing the influence of progeny in the subsequent history of parental segregation: therefore, its effect is just the same as if, owing to a somewhat higher degree of segregate fertility in the first instance (i. e., in the first crosses), a proportionately smaller number of mongrel offspring had been produced at all. In either case the result (physiological differentiation) is equally due to causes acting on the sexual system of the parent forms; and whether this effect is brought about by a suppression of progeny as to their numbers alone, or likewise as to their efficiency, is quite immaterial to the theory of physiological selection. Which shows once more how wide of the mark is Mr. Wallace's statement, that "the inferiority of the hybrid offspring is the essential point" in any process of sexual segregation. The "essential point" must always be the original occurrence and subsequent "preservation of the infertile variations" arising between the parent forms, whether these variations are only in the direction of producing a smaller number of mongrels, or also in that of suppressing their efficiency when produced.

Upon the whole, then, it is surely the oddest of misconceptions on Mr. Wallace's part that has led him to present the above-quoted "argument" as a substitute for the theory of physiological selection. As far as it goes, and as far as it is sound, it is the theory of physiological selection pure and simple—neither adding to, nor detracting from it one iota. Nevertheless, the "argument" has not yet gone far enough to embody some of the other elements of the theory. Therefore I will now continue the quotation:

"The differentiation of the two forms into distinct species, with the increase of infertility between them, would be greatly assisted by two other important factors in the problem. It has already been shown that, with each modification of form and habits, and especially with modifications of color, there arises a disinclination of the two forms to pair together; and this would produce an amount of isolation which would greatly assist the specialisation of the forms in adaptation to their different conditions of life. Again, evidence has been adduced that change of conditions or of mode of life is a potent cause of disturbance of the reproductive system, and, consequently, of infertility. We may therefore assume that, as the two forms adopted more and more different modes of life, and perhaps acquired also decided peculiarities of form and coloration, the infertility between them would increase or become more general; and as we have seen that every such increase of infertility would give that portion of the species in which it arose an advantage over the remaining portions in which the two varieties were more fertile together, all this induced infertility would maintain itself, and still further increase the general infertility between the two forms of the species."

Here we perceive that Mr. Wallace, after having adopted the theory of physiological selection in its main elements, next proceeds to supplement that theory (as Mr. Gulick and myself had previously done), by showing how greatly the principle of physiological selection must be assisted by any association with other forms of isolation, or segregate breeding. The only difference between Mr. Wallace and ourselves here is, that while he instances but three or four forms of segregate breeding (or homogamy) with which physiological selection may be associated, I had previously considered several others in addition to these, while Mr. Gulick had gone into the matter still more exhaustively. Therefore, here as elsewhere, I can only account for the character of Mr. Wallace's criticism by supposing that he read our papers inattentively in the first instance, and was afterwards influenced by "unconscious memory" in his subsequent cogitations upon the problem of cross-sterility.

And now, finally, in order to show this still more completely, I may quote the whole paragraph which concludes his long discussion of that problem:

"The preceding argument, it will be seen, depends entirely upon the assumption that some amount of infertility characterises the distinct varieties which are in process of differentiation into species; and it may be objected that of such infertility there is no proof. This is admitted: but it is urged that facts have been adduced which render such infertility probable, at least in some cases, and this is all that is required. It is by no means necessary that all varieties should exhibit incipient infertility, but only some varieties; for we know that, of the innumerable varieties that occur, but few become developed into distinct species; and it may be that the absence of infertility, to obviate the effects of intercrossing, is one of the usual causes of their failure. All I have attempted to show is, that when incipient infertility does occur in correlation with other varietal differences, that infertility can be, and in fact must be, increased by natural selection; and this, it appears to me, is a decided step in advance in the solution of the problem."

This serves to convey a very accurate summary of the whole "preceding argument"; and it is likewise an admirably concise restatement of the theory of physiological selection. The only points in it to which I object—considered as an epitome of my own paper—are as follows. First, Mr. Wallace has not proved quite so good an advocate as he might have proved, had he looked more closely into the evidence "that some amount of infertility characterises the distinct varieties which are in process of differentiation into species." For although he says, properly enough, that his "preceding argument"—i. e., the theory of physiological selection—"depends entirely upon the assumption" that such infertility does "characterise distinct varieties which are in process of differentiation into species"; still he is wrong in saying it is "admitted" that in favor of this assumption there is "no proof" beyond what he has himself "urged" in the way of "facts which render such infertility probable": there are many other facts which not only render such infertility probable, but prove it to be actual. Secondly, although I quite agree with Mr. Wallace in holding that natural selection must often, as I said in my original paper, "co-operate" with physiological selection, still I must point out that the particular form of segregate breeding to which he here alludes is not natural selection at all; but (as explained in the foot-note to page 15) physiological selection pure and simple. My objections, however, with regard to these two points have no reference to the validity of Mr. Wallace's restatement of my views; and the fact that this restatement has been given with the most incomprehensible unconsciousness that it is a restatement, does not appear to me to detract from the significance of the argumentative suicide in which his entire criticism is thus found to terminate.[7]

[7] I am the more surprised that Mr. Wallace did not perceive his almost complete adoption of my views in this latest publication of his own, because I had previously had occasion to point out a partial adoption of them in an earlier publication of his on the same subject. The following is what I said upon that occasion—viz., in the Nineteenth Century, January, 1888:

"One very obvious and probably frequent instance of what may be termed collective variation in the reproductive system—or a variation due to a common cause acting on many individuals simultaneously—is actually quoted from my paper by Mr. Wallace himself, namely, changes in the season of flowering or of pairing, which insure that any section of a species so affected shall be fertile only within itself. Collective variation of this kind may be directly due to the incidence of some common cause, such as changed conditions of life with respect to food, climate, station, etc.; or, as in the case of bud-variation, it may be due to a single "sport" affecting all the blossoms growing upon the same branch. But besides such direct action of a common cause, it is easy to see that natural selection, use and disuse, etc., by operating in the production of organic changes elsewhere, may not unfrequently react on the sexual system indirectly, and so induce the sexual change required in a number of individuals simultaneously."

Now, in his Darwinism, Mr. Wallace again reproduces this instance of "physiological selection," without even yet appearing to perceive that both in my original paper upon the subject and in my answer to his criticism as above quoted, I adduce this particular instance of physiological selection as a typical one. Therefore, when he now says:—"Another mode of isolation is brought about by the variety—either owing to habits, climate, or constitutional change—breeding at a slightly different time from the parent species: this is known to produce complete isolation in the case of many varieties of plants": he is merely restating what I have repeatedly given as an unquestionable case of physiological selection.

With the self-destruction of this criticism I am left without any other to answer; and I should not have occupied so much space in dealing with this one, were it not that the high estimation in which Mr. Wallace is so deservedly held by all other naturalists is calculated to render almost incredible the peculiar position to which he has eventually gravitated with reference to my views—professing hostility on the one hand, while reproducing them as original on the other. The misunderstanding of my ideas which this state of matters represents, might have led me to wonder whether I could possibly have rendered my meaning more clear in the first instance, were it not that this misunderstanding extends in an even greater measure to Mr. Gulick's paper than it does to mine. For seeing that the whole criticism is founded on the erroneous idea that our theory supposes physiological selection always to act alone, the misconception becomes positively ludicrous in its relation to Mr. Gulick's views; seeing that, as previously stated, Mr. Gulick not only agrees with me in holding that physiological selection must be greatly fortified by being associated with any other form of homogamy, but even goes so far as to agree with Mr. Wallace that, unless it is so fortified, it can never act at all. So that, as far as physiological selection is concerned, Mr. Gulick's theory is precisely identical with that of Mr. Wallace, and differs from his statement of it only in recognising a number of forms of homogamy, in addition to natural selection, sexual selection, etc., with which the principle of physiological selection may be associated.

GEORGE J. ROMANES.

THE IMMORTALITY OF INFUSORIA.

The ingenious hypothesis that Weismann, the eminent Freiburg professor, promulgated several years ago regarding the vitality of all unicellular beings, but more especially of the Protozoans, is undoubtedly widely known. Weismann maintained that the Protozoans were distinguished from the Metazoans, or organisms composed of a number of cells, by the curious property they possessed of exemption from decay and death. The Protozoans exhibited, in the very words of the German savant, an instance of potential immortality;[8] that is to say, a natural physiological death did not exist for them; if they perished, it was by accident or chance, extraneous to the laws of their organisation. A great many authors have written upon this subject since Weismann, either in support of his opinion, or in refutation of it, and of them we may mention principally Goette,[9] Minot,[10] and M. Delboeuf.[11]

[8] Ueber die Dauer des Lebens. Jena, 1882.

[9] Ueber den Ursprung des Todes, 1883.

[10] La Mort et l'Individualité. (Bulletin Scientifique du Nord, 1884-85.)

[11] La Matière Brute et la Matière Vivante. Paris 1887.

It is to be observed that this idea of potential immortality is not the exclusive property of Weismann. We find it clearly indicated by Ehrenberg. And, moreover, as Bütschli remarks, it is so natural that it ought to occur of itself to the mind of every tolerably thoughtful observer that has devoted his time to the study of the biology of these minute creatures.[12]

[12] Gedanken über Leben und Tod (Zoologische Anzeige, Vol. v, 1882), cited by M. Maupas in Multiplication des Infusoires Ciliés—Arch. de Zool. Experimen., No. 2, 1888.

Weismann founded his theory in part upon metaphysical, or at least theoretical, considerations, which we deem it useless to discuss at this point. But it is also supported by observed facts, and these facts it will be profitable to recapitulate from the very onset. The idea of the immortality of Infusoria occurs naturally to the mind when one examines with care what happens when an Infusorian reproduces. We know that the reproduction consists in a bipartition of the body of the animal, and that consequently the parent does not die but lives in the two products of its bipartition. In subsequent multiplications the same phenomenon is always observed to occur, so that the entire substance of the parent is found preserved and living in the individuals to which it gives birth. This process Weismann expressed by the emphatic statement: In multiplication by division there are no corpses. It is wholly otherwise with the metazoans, and the reason of this fundamental difference is easily explained by the comparison of the organisation of the body of a metazoan with that of a protozoan. Whereas the protozoan is represented by a single cell that comprehends all the vital functions, the functions of reproduction as well as those of nutrition and relation, the metazoan, on the other hand, is composed of an aggregation, of a colony of distinct cells, among which a division of labor has been effected varying in complexity with the height that the animal has attained in the classificatory scale. It results from this division of labor that in the metazoan certain cells only—those namely which are called the sexual cells—are entrusted with the office of the conservation of the species, while the various other cells are more especially adapted to the conservation of the individual. When a metazoan reproduces, the sexual cells alone enter into activity, and after having suffered various modifications, the principal one of which is fecundation, the sexual cells become the seat of numerous segmentations that go to constitute a new animal distinct from the one that gave it birth. The moment the parent individual ceases to be blended with the individual it produces, it can perish without imperilling the conservation of the species, and thus it is that death appears in the animal kingdom as a logical consequence of division of labor.

We also know that Weismann, in developing these interesting facts, was led with many other naturalists to establish the doctrine that every metazoan may be considered as made up of two entirely distinct groups of cells: 1) of somatic cells, which represent the individual, and which are invested with the care of its nourishment, its sense-mechanism, its movements, and all the functions that have to do with individual life; and 2) of sexual cells, charged with the office of the maintenance of the species in time. Whereas the somatic cells are destined to perish, the sexual cells on the contrary, multiplying by division after the mode of the reproduction of micro-organisms, represent the protozoan type, which is immortal; and, by the intermediary agency of the fecundated ovum, the sexual cells pass from generation to generation, thus forming a material bond between successive generations. Though we have to succumb to death, there is at least a portion of us that ought not to die, from the fact that it is transmittible to our descendants. Naegeli expressed this idea in a felicitous form, when he compared the species to a creeping branch that sent out at successive points annual buds. The buds, which die, are the individuals—that is the somatic group; while the branch that survives after the death of the buds, and which represents the species, is the system of sexual cells. Weismann, finally, has described the same phenomenon by the expression 'continuity of the germinative plasm.'

A great many discussions have arisen with regard to this germinative plasm; for everything touches upon this domain, and Weismann has conceived a theory that endeavors to explain not only the phenomenon of fecundation, but also that of heredity. I cannot mention here the numerous works upon this subject, and refer the inquisitive reader for a knowledge of the same to a series of lectures by Professor Balbiani that I have epitomized in the Revue Philosophique for December 1889.

The theory of the potential immortality of the Infusoria has recently been attacked by M. Maupas, whose observations tend to show that natural death, caused by senescence, does obtain among the Infusoria, and that it is comparable in many points of view to the natural death of the metazoans. The researches of M. Maupas upon the multiplication of ciliate Infusoria are of a relatively recent date, having appeared in 1888 in Vol. VI. of the "Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale."

It is scarcely necessary to say that the ciliate Infusoria can propagate without previous coition. The agamic mode of reproduction appears to be almost the same, save in a few details, as that which follows coition. It consists in a bipartition or division of the body of the animal along a plane usually perpendicular to the grand axis of the nucleus, and it is a matter of course that that element takes part in the division at the same time with the protoplasm. These phenomena of reproduction it is possible to study upon a grand scale by supplying Infusoria kept in captivity with abundance of nourishment. The easiest way is to produce a putrid fermentation by means of vegetable fragments crushed and macerated in water. The Infusoria contained in this water find abundant food furnished by the bacteria developed in it, and they therefore multiply in great numbers. By means of appropriate methods of treatment and isolation we are able to follow the phenomenon step by step and to examine what the animal actually becomes after each agamic bipartition.

Weismann, when he laid the foundation of his theory of the immortality of Infusoria, supposed that the development of the Infusoria by bipartition had no limits and could be prolonged indefinitely without injury to the vitality of the protoplasm. Various authors had already made observations which were directly in contradiction with this view. M. Balbiani, in 1860, in a communication entitled, "Observations and Experiments upon the Phenomena of Fissiparous Reproduction among Ciliate Infusoria,"[13] concludes thus: "one of the most important questions … has been to determine whether this mode of propagation is really unlimited, or whether, after being continued throughout a greater or lesser number of generations, it becomes by degrees enfeebled, finally to disappear completely…. We have established that this mode of propagation has its limits, and ends invariably in one of the three following ways: either by the natural and almost simultaneous death of all the individuals belonging to the same cycle, or by the recurrence of sexual generation leading to the termination of one of the cycles and the commencement of a new cycle, or finally by the phenomenon of encystment, which in fact brings about only a momentary interruption of the process of reproduction by fissiparity" M. Balbiani, apropos of this subject, has called attention to a curious observation made by the celebrated Danish micrographer O. F. Müller, who lived in the last century. Müller had observed that the individuals of any one species most ordinarily found in coition were almost all of small stature. But he took them for the young individuals of the species. Now these individuals of small size are in reality the oldest, that is to say, they are the ones that are the result of a great number of successive bipartitions; and it is to be observed, that, in a great many species, in proportion as the bipartitions increase the size of the Infusoria decreases.

[13] C. R. Acad. des Sciences. Vol. iv. p. 1191.

In fine, without further concerning ourselves with the history of this question, we see that according to M. Balbiani the agamic reproduction of Infusoria has its limits, and that, when coition, that is to say fecundation, does not intervene, it may terminate by the natural death of the individuals or in certain species by encystment.

The chief new element contained in the recent researches of M. Maupas, which were made twenty years after the date of the preceding investigations, consists in his study of the various phenomena of senescence that the Infusoria after a long series of bipartitions present. M. Maupas has established that there exists in the Infusoria no part, no element, that by itself and by its own faculties, can live and be maintained indefinitely. The first outward sign of degeneration is manifested in a reduction of size. The individuals, according as the number of generations increases, become smaller and smaller. With Stylonichia pustulata, which in the normal state measures one hundred and sixty μ, the size of the body is seen gradually to fall to one hundred and thirty-five, one hundred and ten, seventy, and even to forty μ. When the effects of senescence become marked, the animal in its external organs undergoes atrophies and new and more profound degenerations. In Stylonichia pustulata the vibratile buccal apparatus becomes gradually atrophied and partly disappears, and in all species the body is reduced and becomes more and more shrunken, assuming forms and contours very far removed from the specific type. The degeneration of the nuclear apparatus at once begins. The first modifications affect the accessory or attendant nucleus, a cut of which will be found at page 118 of my work on Micro-organisms,[14] and of which the principal function seems to be the maintenance and conservation of the species, and which, therefore, ought to be considered as the real substratum of the immortal plasma. Far from enjoying the attribute of eternal youth, the accessory nucleus seems on the contrary to be affected with a weakness greater and more premature than that of the other parts of the organism. In fact it is this organ that is first atrophied and that disappears under the influence of senile degenerescence. Then, in its turn, the principal nucleus is affected. It takes, according to the species, a different form. Now it diminishes in volume, now it divides into two minute bodies that assume irregular contours, and at other times it assumes a ribbon-like shape.

[14] English translation by The Open Court Pub. Co., Chicago. Longmans & Co., London.

It is interesting to note that even after the disappearance of the accessory nucleus, whenever the principal nucleus still subsists, the Infusoria continue to live and divide by fission. This life, says M. Maupas, has some features of abnormality about it, since it has become wholly purposeless. The animals still live an individual life, but they are dead to the life of the species.[15]

[15] Page 262.

In concluding upon this point, I must mention the reservations that may be entertained with regard to the exactitude of the preceding observations and the value of the method employed in their attainment. A competent critic has remarked that it is difficult to assume that nine hundred and thirty-five specimens of the genus Stylonichia could find the gases necessary for the support of life, seeing that M. Maupas kept them under the same stage where they only had at their disposal a mass of water equal to one hundred cubic millimetres; and it may thus be asked whether the phenomena of senescence produced under these special conditions were not pathological. This criticism seems to be especially strengthened by the fact, that according to M. Maupas, the animalcula placed beneath the shield, all finally congregate at the edge of the preparation, evidently to seek there the air of which they are in need.

If we took our stand, however, upon the facts before cited we could conclude without hesitation that the celebrated thesis of Weismann regarding the immortality of the ciliate Infusoria had been overthrown. But the phenomena are not presented with this simplicity. When the vitality of the Infusoria has become weakened by a considerable number of agamic reproductions, and the animalcule is upon the point of dying a natural death, a new biological phenomenon can intervene, rejuvenating the animal and rendering it capable of reproducing itself anew for a long series of generations. That phenomenon is fecundation.

* * * * *

In our work upon Micro-Organisms we have spoken at length of the material process of fecundation in ciliate Infusoria, and of the phenomena preliminary to it, following as our guide the observations of Balbiani, Gruber, Bütschli, and Engelmann. It will be necessary to recur here to that subject and to supplement our preceding exposition with some important details. Moreover, recent researches, added to other older ones, afford us interesting information with regard to the conditions and determining causes of conjugation and also of the significance of fecundation itself.

We have seen above that according to M. Balbiani an active period of agamic bipartition in Infusoria can terminate in a period of conjugation; a circumstance which produces in effect a cyclical alternation between agamic generations and a sex-generation. The very word cycle is used in the observations of M. Balbiani. M. Maupas elevated this observation of M. Balbiani to the rank of a method; using, in order to procure the great number of coitions necessary for his investigations, the following process. He placed the Infusoria in water in which he had produced a putrid fermentation. The Infusoria, thanks to the abundance of the nutriment developed in great numbers. While thus swarming they were lifted out with a drop of water, which was kept upon the stage in a moist chamber. The Infusoria there continued to grow larger and multiply; but by reason of their great numbers it was not long before they exhausted the food brought with them in the drop of water. When the last remains of their nutriment had disappeared they were seen in the majority of cases to seek each other and to copulate.

According to M. Maupas, it is not solely the weakness produced by a series of bipartitions, but, in addition to that and more particularly, the scarcity of food, that excites in the ciliate Infusoria the conjugal appetite. The epidemics of conjugation of which the authors speak, are not otherwise explainable. M. Maupas even says, that when a number of pairs are about to copulate, it is only necessary to give them food to put an end to their conjugation. Scarcity, that author further remarks, ought evidently not to modify in any essential the internal organic state of the Infusoria in question; no more indeed than the opposed condition, that is, an abundance of rich food (page 403 of his memoir). But in the first case they copulate without any ado; in the second, they refuse to do so entirely. Rich alimentation deadens the conjugal appetite; fasting, on the contrary awakens and excites it. There exists moreover, according to the author last mentioned, in ciliate Infusoria, a particular period beyond which fecund coitions cannot take place. It is what he calls the period of karyogamic maturity. Thus, in Leucophrys, for example, fecund coitions are observed to take place only after the three-hundredth generation. Before that time the Infusoria may be placed in all the other conditions favorable to copulation, without being seen to contract a single union. On the other hand, beyond that time, a period extends in which numerous coitions are obtained. Although, indeed, the cyclical alternation of agamic generations and copulations is indisputable, further researches are still necessary to obtain a thorough knowledge of the extent of these cycles. It is certain that their duration varies in the different species, and perhaps, in conditions as yet imperfectly known, may in any one species be considerably abridged.

We are now come to the preliminaries of copulation. We have described them in our work, making use of the observations of Balbiani, Gruber, and of Engelmann, some of which we found confirmed by Bütschli. M. Maupas, who has recently again taken up this question, believes he has discovered in his predecessors, or rather in the observations of M. Balbiani, grave errors. I shall transcribe the passage in question: "When a numerous group of Infusoria of the same species are found in the conditions that determine copulation, these animalcula abandon themselves to certain movements, and exhibit an agitation the significance of which has been much exaggerated. Balbiani, who in fact always seeks analogies with the higher animals, has given us an animated description of these movements, to which a poetical imagination has contributed at least as much as exact and scientific observation. This description has met with a most favorable reception among certain philosophers and psychologists who have taken up with it in the belief that they could thereby reveal in microzoans the rudiments of the instincts and psychic faculties of higher-organized beings. As there is very much inexactitude and exaggeration in all that, it is time to calm this enthusiasm and to refer the facts and their explanation to some more exact criterion." (Page 413.)

I believe it useless to occupy my time in dealing with the aggressive tone that this author has seen fit to assume towards me, and which seems to be habitual with him when he criticises the works of people with whom he does not agree. I shall carefully examine his observations and seek to derive from them some profit, to the improvement and correction of my work upon the Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, if it is true that I have committed the grave errors of which he speaks. Besides, the question of the preliminaries of copulation is so interesting in itself that I have no fear of turning to it a second time.

It is necessary, here, clearly to distinguish two things: the facts and their explanations. In that which concerns observed facts, the errors that M. Maupas endeavors to point out in the descriptions of M. Balbiani appear to me to be capable of a reduction to a matter of so little significance—admitting that it comes at all from error—that if I had not been apprised of it, I should have regarded the researches of the first author as a confirmation in most details of those of the second. It is to be observed, in fact, that M. Maupas gives almost the same description that Balbiani does of the movements of Paramæcium aurelia. "I have followed animals of that species a number of times," he says, "during the preparations for copulation. They exhibit at that moment a very great agitation. They are seen to go and come, rapidly changing their direction. They approach and throw themselves against their congeners, halt in front of them, feel them an instant with their cilia, then leave them, assume the most varied positions, and, finally, when two individuals equally ready for union chance to meet each other, they face about by their anterior extremities so that the two bodies come together and join, with the exception of the posterior extremities, along their whole extent; the union is thus definitively effected."

Up to this point, let it be observed, our author's description is but a paraphrase of that of M. Balbiani, which we have given on page 69 of our work; and a simple comparison of the two suffices to prove this. The divergences of fact extend, as it seems to me, to the two following points only: The duration of the preliminaries, and the existence of an epidemic of copulation. M. Maupas thinks that the movements in question never last very long, at the most a quarter of or half an hour among individuals that have arrived at karyogamic maturity. Whereas M. Balbiani has observed these same movements last for several days. I do not know which of these two observations is the more exact; in fact, I do not think it necessary to choose between them, since both may be exact, the duration of the phenomenon generally being dependent upon conditions subject to great change, while M. Maupas himself remarks that the ciliate Infusoria in the variability of all their biological phenomena are veritable thermometers of a very great sensibility. However that may be, whether the movements that precede copulation in Paramæcium last a quarter of an hour, half an hour, or several days, that fact does not change their real character. The second divergence relates to the epidemics of copulation in the case of Paramæcium aurelia; observed by M. Balbiani and denied by M. Maupas. "All the individuals of a group," says M. Maupas, "are never found simultaneously in this condition. Hence the tentative preliminaries of copulation, that fail in their object and end in the individuals going to seek elsewhere another partner." I confess, I do not understand this statement, involving, as it does, M. Maupas in a contradiction; for two pages before this he speaks of the mode of the appearance of copulation as in the epidemic form. All observers, he says, that have occupied themselves with this phenomenon, state that it is suddenly developed in the little aquariums in which the animals are contained, and very rapidly becomes general (page 41).

To this then the divergences of fact are reduced—a matter entirely insignificant; and I believe it useless to dwell upon it longer. The question of interpretation remains. I shall also say a few words with reference to this, although the disagreement is at bottom not much more serious.

We have seen, that, according to M. Maupas, the Infusoria do not seek each other and copulate until after a fast of considerable duration caused by exhaustion of the store of food in the medium in which they live. The author concludes from this that scarcity of food is the sole and real cause of the great agitation in which they are then seen. "When an infusion thickly populated begins to get exhausted, the animalcula congregate together, always forming those whitish cloud-spots that we have described as the prelude to copulation…. Not until afterwards do the actual movements of copulation occur, which never last very long." Accordingly, there is first an agitation produced by hunger, and only in consequence of that are the preliminaries of copulation brought about. Admitting this interpretation as exact, which is indeed a question that I reserve, I conclude that M. Maupas completely accepts the facts of the preliminaries of copulation, distinguishing them from other phenomena that precede them. He says, moreover, and these are his own words, that the sexual impulse does indeed exist in these little creatures. Unquestionably he is right in adding that this sexual impulse presents in the ciliate Infusoria manifestations much simpler than in the higher animals, and that it is otherwise in accord with their simplicity of organisation. That is evident, and no one I believe has ever maintained the contrary.

Finally, the author refuses to admit that the sexual manifestations of the Infusoria can be compared with the phenomena of rut. "Rut," he says, "the external and psychic manifestations of which we know with any degree of exactitude only in mammals, is a reflex phenomenon concomitant with and consecutive to the maturation of the Graafian vesicles. It is therefore an especial phenomenon peculiar to the females of the highest group of the animal series. Males are not subject to rut, but are always ready to experience the sexual excitation whenever they find themselves in contact with females that are fallen into that condition" (page 414).

Naturalists will certainly read with great astonishment this definition of rut, which is wholly new and personal to the author. Hitherto the word rut has not been reserved for mammals; it has been applied to all classes of animals, even to the lowest, and Duvernoy, for example, has devoted an article to the rut of zoöphytes.

We now come, following the chronological order of the phenomena, to the material processes of conjugation, otherwise called fecundation, in the ciliate Infusoria. It is needless to take up in its entirety a question that we have already examined, and which will be found treated of at page 65 of our work. But it is certainly interesting to dwell upon the general significance of the question of fecundation. It is known that all ciliate Infusoria, excepting some species such as Opalina, a parasitic infusory of the frog, exhibit in their protoplasm two kinds of nuclear corpuscles. First a nucleus, a principal nucleus, which the authors designate by the names endoplast and macronucleus; this element is in some ways comparable to the nucleus of the cells of tissues. Besides this the ciliate Infusoria possess a smaller nuclear element than the former, called by the authors nucleolus, or endoplastule, or attendant nucleus, or finally micronucleus. This micronucleus comprises in its evolution the internal phenomena of the process of conjugation. The principal nucleus plays in the process but an accessory rôle, for it is a wasted element destined to be replaced by a nucleus of new formation; when it undergoes more or less complete elimination. The attendant nucleus passes through a series of complicated modifications which vary much in detail for each species. First, there are stages of division destined to prepare the way for the elimination of the used up corpuscles. But the most important fact is that at a given moment there exists in the protoplasm of each ciliate Infusory in conjugation, two corpuscles derived from the nucleus; then an exchange is effected between the two individuals in copulation; each transmits to the other one of the corpuscles, which copulates with the remaining corpuscle left in the interior of the body. These two little nuclei that play parts so different are, according to M. Maupas, completely identical with one another and do not show the least difference either in form, volume, or structure. "In the twelve species in which I have succeeded in closely studying these organs," says that author, "I have always seen them act with the most perfect similitude under the influence of coloring and fixitive re-agents." Nevertheless, in view of the future condition of these two elements, M. Maupas is led to give them the very significant names of male pronucleus and female pronucleus. The female pronucleus is the one that remains immobile in the body of the parent gamete; while the other, the male, is exchanged and passes into the body of the other gamete.

In what does the real nature of the copulation of these two pronuclei consist? Does it consist in a fusion of the elements mentioned, or, indeed, do the latter preserve their original independence and autonomy in the midst of the new mixed nucleus, standing in juxtaposition with and moving in and about one another? This is the question that M. Maupas immediately proceeded to examine. The recent researches of M. Ed. Van Beneden upon the internal mechanism of fecundation in Ascaris megalocephala are well known. We have published in the Revue Philosophique, following M. Balbiani, a résumé of these important investigations, and we may be permitted to reproduce here a few passages therefrom; for nothing is more interesting than the evolution followed by our ideas in that which concerns fecundation.

The notions that were formed of this phenomenon only took definite and precise shape from the time when the existence of the two elements of fecundation, the spermatozoön and the ovum, could be established. It was at first believed that the spermatozoön impregnated the ovum by the exercise of a purely physical action—an action of contact and influence. But observation demonstrated that something more took place, namely, an actual conjugation, a union, a blending of the spermatozoön and the ovule. A further step was made in 1875, when it was discovered, in studying the ova of Echinoderms, that but one single part of the ovule, the germinative vesicle, conjugated with but one part of the spermatozoön, namely the head, and that since these two elements have each the value of a nucleus, fecundation consisted in the conjugation of two nuclei. But there was still an element of obscurity in this idea, simple as it was. If the nuclei were vesicles like soap-bubbles they might burst, the one within the other; but the nucleus contains a great number of differentiated elements, the chromatic reticulated substance, the nuclear substance, the nucleoli, etc.: what becomes of all these elements during the conjugation of the two nuclei? In 1881, Flemming made a new advance in the question. He determined more precisely the nature of the fusion of the two pronuclei, establishing that it consisted in the blending of their chromatic substances. This he observed in the ova of the Echinoderms. According to the very recent works of M. Van Beneden upon Ascaris megalocephala, the great nematoid of the horse, there is no fusion whatever between the two pronuclei. They always remain distinct. Each passes through, separately, all the phases of karyokinesis, when the fecundated ovum divides. In this connection the recent observations of M. Balbiani confirm the opinion of Van Beneden, who had been sharply attacked by Carnoy and Zacharias. First, in each of the two pronuclei each reticulate substance is observed to present the initial phases of karyokinesis; the net-works form into a skein that contracts and thickens; the ribbon-like body thus formed divides into two segments, which bend so as to form acute-angled crooks or loops. There are thus produced two loops in the male pronucleus, and two in the female pronucleus. Then the two male loops approach the two female loops in a manner such that a sort of star is formed with eight branches turned towards the periphery of the ovum (nuclear or equatorial disk). Then the fecundated ovum begins to divide into segments. Now at every new equatorial stage of the subsequent divisions of the ovum these four loops are seen to reappear in such a manner that fusion never takes place between the male element and the female element. Each of the four primitive chromatic loops divides by longitudinal division into two secondary loops, whence result two equatorial semi-disks, each formed of four secondary loops, of which two come from the male pronucleus and two from the female pronucleus. Each of the two new nuclei contains therefore a certain number of male and female chromatic loops, and consequently presents an hermaphroditic constitution.

For Van Beneden, therefore, fecundation consists essentially in the presence in the ovum of two nuclei, one male and one female. The conjugation of the two nuclei is a phenomenon of no importance; it may take place, or it may not. The physiological signification of fecundation is a process of rejuvenation, in which the ovum replaces its old male element with a new male element, the spermatozoön.[16]

[16] Recherches sur la Maturation de l'Œuf, etc. Arch. de Biol. Vol. iv. 1883. Nouvelles Recherches sur la Fécondation. Bul. de l'Acad. Roy. des Sciences de Belgique, 3 Série, Vol. xiv. 1887.

M. Maupas remarks that the pronuclei of the Infusoria by reason of their complicated structures do not admit of these difficult investigations. Nevertheless he mentions the fact that these pronuclei are, in the elements mentioned, composed of two distinct substances, hyaloplasm and chromatin. He puts forth the opinion that the hyaloplasm constitutes an accessory portion, and that the chromatin is endowed with the fecundative properties. Which means that in certain ciliate Infusoria the male pronucleus at the moment of its migration is composed solely of chromatin. Finally, M. Maupas arrives at the conclusion that the supreme end of fecundationis the renovation, the reconstitution, of a rejuvenated nucleus formed by the copulation of two fecundative nuclei having distinct origins and of which the chromatin elements represent the essential part (page 434).

* * * * *

It is now time to return a moment to the theory of Weismann and to see if it has not been shaken by the new data that we have just placed before the reader. Accepting the results of the experiments of M. Maupas, who, as a matter of fact, has arrived at the same conclusions as M. Balbiani, we are led to the admission that when a ciliate Infusorian multiplies by agamic division a great number of times, the offspring that appear after from 50 to 100 bipartitions has not the same physiological value as its original progenitor; and that agamic multiplication ends in exhaustion and in natural death. But it must, on the other hand, be taken into account that this process of senescence is counteracted by that of conjugation, which consists in a nuclear renovation; and since the substance, the protoplasm, of the rejuvenated individual escapes death, a new argument might be found in these last mentioned facts for the theory of the immortality of Infusoria.

The question is, at bottom, whether the individual after conjugation is identically the same as before conjugation, or whether it constitutes a new animal. In that the solution rests. Now, the new element that the individual acquires by the act of conjugation is the male pronucleus of its partner. In addition it loses the greater part of its old accessory nucleus and the whole of its old principal nucleus. In return, by way of compensation, it preserves the integrity of its protoplasm and of its other organs. M. Gruber believes that physical identity persists in spite of these modifications. M. Maupas maintains the contrary.

It seems to us that a question of this character does not admit of a satisfactory solution, and this opinion will be shared by all who have considered the idea of physical identity. It is a notion obscure, uncertain, and full of contradictions. We have formed it because it answers our practical needs. But it is certainly evident that it corresponds to no well defined external phenomenon. In fact, we understand by physical identity the constant reunion of certain elements in a certain order. If the order of these elements is very slightly modified, or if a very small number of these elements is replaced by others, we do not hesitate to say that the physical identity in question has not been altered by these insignificant modifications. If, on the other hand, the order has been almost totally destroyed, if the greater portion of the elements has been renewed, we should, on the contrary, say that the identity of the thing in question had been lost in these alterations and that a new object had replaced the old. Replace a stone in a house and the latter remains the same house; rebuild the house upon a new plan and with different materials retaining very little of the first construction, and it is a different house. But between these two extreme cases there is a whole series of possible intermediate changes, and we are not able to establish clearly by any exterior mark the point where physical identity ends. This is a matter of personal estimation; I might even say of caprice; and all the discussions raised upon these questions appear to me wholly idle.

I believe, accordingly, that the thesis of Weismann regarding the immortality of Infusoria eludes a direct refutation. It is neither confirmed nor overturned by observed facts.

ALFRED BINET.

ON THE MATERIAL RELATIONS OF SEX IN HUMAN SOCIETY.

Much interest is displayed at present in the development of woman, both as to her personal characteristics, and in her relations to her surroundings in human society. It is justly said that the civilisation of a nation may be measured by the degree of humanity displayed by its men towards its women. This is for the reason that, since women are the weaker sex, man has only ethical reasons for self-restraint in his treatment of her. Nowhere is the sex-interest under better ethical control than in the United States; and it is in this country also that we hear the most of reforms which are necessary in order that woman may attain a further development, and assume a higher position in relation to the state. This being the case, it is extremely important that the foundation facts, or in other words the necessary natural conditions, under which the sexes co-operate in society, should be fully understood. That they are not understood, or that they are intentionally ignored in some quarters, is evident to any one who reads the current literature of the subject.

The relation of the male man to his environment involves the usual struggle for existence more or less active. His pièce de resistance is the mineral and vegetable world and its atmosphere, and his antagonist is his fellow man. The former generally yields more or less abundantly to his solicitations. What he gets from his fellow man is acquired through the necessities of the latter, and the benefit may be mutual, or it may be all on one side. His best friend may unconsciously and unintentionally, in the regular order of trade, reduce him to beggary, or compel him, as an alternative, to emigrate to a distant land. Such results are more frequent as population increases. To maintain himself against the destructive forces of nature, such as cold, heat, rains, tempests, fires, blights, etc., is his necessary occupation. If he pursue a profession, or if he be in trade, he must supply the actual needs of his fellow man, and beware that competition and monopoly do not deprive him of all return for his labor.

Woman, considered by herself, is subject to identical conditions. Her needs are the same and her environment is the same. But she is not so well endowed as man to supply the one or to meet the other. Her disabilities are of two kinds, physical and mental. The physical are: first, inferior muscular strength, and secondly, childbearing. The latter means more or less incompetence for active work at monthly periods, or several months of gestation and lactation, and some years of care of children. The mental disabilities are: first, inferior power of mental co-ordination; and secondly, greater emotional sensibility, which interferes more or less with rational action.[17]

[17] This is, of course, only true where the sexes of the same subspecies or race are compared.

From these facts it is evident that, were woman of the same sex as man, that is, were she simply another kind of man, she would soon be eliminated from the earth under the operation of the ordinary law of the survival of the fittest. This need not be through any agencies different from those now actually in operation among men under the circumstances of peaceful trade. And such is often the actual history of male men who possess marked feminine characteristics. It does not follow from this, that some women might not sustain themselves apart from men, in agriculture, trade, and the professions. This is especially possible where the struggle is not very severe; but in the cases which exist, few are really independent of male assistance, which has furnished the capital, either of cleared land, money, or as an appointing power. The general result, as above stated, is self-evident from the facts.

Remedies for this disability are frequently proposed. A higher education, while an unquestioned advantage, does not remove it. The ballot would only result in removing any disability of an artificial character which might exist, but could not effect those imposed by nature. There is no method of human contrivance by which the natural difficulty may be overcome.

But Nature has supplied a most effective remedy. Woman not being of the same sex as man, supplies a necessity which is almost universal, so that she is placed, if she exercise reasonable care, in a position better than that of man in relation to the struggle for existence. The antagonist of man, his fellow man, is eliminated from the list of the antagonists of woman, and that is an advantage which cannot be overestimated. Not only is man removed from the field as a competitor, but he becomes an active helper in resisting the forces of nature. More than this, he is willing under the circumstances, to divide with her what he extracts from both man and nature. Were these the only benefits that woman derives from man they would constitute a sufficient reason for the usual preference which she displays for his protection, rather than for a life of independence. But she is herself possessed of a sex-interest which is satisfied by such a relation. Not only this, but her love of children constitutes a further inducement, which is highly effective in bringing about her customary relation with man.

It is self-evident then that any system which looks to a career for women independent of man, such as man pursues, is abnormal, and injurious to her interests.

The support and protection given by man to woman is then clearly rendered as an equivalent for the services she renders him in the capacity of a wife. It is universally implied, if not distinctly stated in the contract between them, that she shall not be the wife of some other man, and that the children she bears shall be also those of the male party to the contract, or the husband. It is not necessary that any such obligation should be entered into by the man, for the obvious reason that he does not bear children. If the woman violates this contract, the man is under no moral or legal obligation to support her. If the man has other wives he does not thereby forfeit protection and support of the wife, since she has none to offer him. This general fact would not prevent a woman possessed of wealth who supported a husband, from withdrawing such support in case he should become polygamous. But such a situation is so exceptional as to deserve but a passing notice in a consideration of the whole question.

It is frequently insisted that responsibility of man to woman in the matter of monogamic relations, is ethically the same as that of woman to man. This has not been the view of mankind generally, and it is distinctly negatived by the facts in the case. The marriage relation is clearly a contract in which the consideration on one side is support and protection, and the consideration on the other is monogamic wifehood, or the definite paternity of children and their care and education. The immediate reason why particular men and women marry particular women and men, is, or ought to be, love and affection; but these admirable sentiments, are the offspring of natural conditions of sex, without which woman, and especially man, would not marry at all. And these natural conditions are clearly satisfied by the maintenance of the contract as above described. In order to further enforce this position I merely refer to the well-known fact that man cannot commit marital infidelity in the same sense that woman can, on account of his physical diversity. His unfaithfulness introduces no new blood into a family, and makes no defect in the inheritance, as does the same act on the part of the woman. The woman is in a position of trust, precisely like the responsible officers of a bank. It is in the power of both to defraud those who trust them. Hence it is that woman has been always held to stricter account in this matter than man, and always must be. For this reason the jealousy displayed by husbands is more justifiable than that displayed by wives; and the result of marital infidelity on the part of wives is usually more disastrous to the offending parties. It is in consequence of these facts that there exists some difference in the ethical feelings of the sexes on this question. It is undoubtedly true that there are more women willing to live in polygamy than men willing to live in polyandry, in spite of the verbal objections that women make to such a system in modern times. I do not now refer to promiscuity, in which the affections are in no wise concerned. In this everyway inferior relation, men are the most numerous offenders. It is for the reasons above stated that women are more monogamous in their tendencies than men. Not only does the question of support and protection during child-bearing and at other times make it more to their interest to be so, but they are more inclined to attach themselves to particular persons than men, on account of their superior affectional endowments. This is an inevitable result of their occupation in the family and with the family for countless ages, and is as much a product of their evolution, as is the superior rationality and self-control of the male sex.

The above picture may seem to some persons of progressive views on "the woman question" somewhat onesided. But the relation of man to the contract is not yet completely described. Meanwhile I refer to a sentiment attributed to a single woman, a teacher in a girls' school, I believe near Pittsburg, quoted by a lady writer in the Popular Science Monthly, several months ago. This lady, believing that the strength of the emotional elements of character in women constitutes a disability, and stands in the way of her so-called equality with man, had resolved to suppress that part of her nature, and to live a life free from its consequences. She hoped thus to attain a condition not only equal, but superior to that of men, and was prepared to teach the girls committed to her care that this was their duty to themselves and to the world. For this reason she would not marry. The fallacy in this reasoning consists in the omission of certain important premises. The principal one of these is, that neither she nor any other woman can exterminate in a life-time, the heritage which woman has derived from the entire history of the human species, to say nothing of the inheritance from the ancestors of mankind, where the same traits exist in the diminished ratio of a smaller mentality. In order to accomplish this change in female character, it would be necessary that the same course should be pursued by many successive generations of women; how many, it is impossible to calculate. This would require that such women should marry, which is what the lady whose views are referred to above, desired to avoid. In fact it is typical women who will marry, and typical women will be therefore produced to the end of time, unless some new system of sex relations shall be introduced.

It is sometimes suggested that a change in intersex relations is desirable in order to effect a fuller emancipation of women from present conditions. With the remark in passing, that the natural restraints imposed by the present marriage system on woman are not greater than those imposed on man, although different, we may refer to the alternative arrangement which has been sometimes adopted. This is that woman should be free from all obligation to fidelity to any particular man, and that man should be free from the obligation to support any particular woman. In other words it is sometimes proposed that we return to the primitive state of human society. Such a system has descended to us from ancient times, and it only needs to be mentioned to satisfy us that woman is the loser by it to a degree that is disastrous to the interests of society in every respect. It is only a being devoid of the developed traits of womanhood who could succeed in a polyandrous career, since she must renounce the pleasures of family life, even if she is exceptionally able to accumulate the means of support for her self and children in later years.

A second alternative, that woman may secure the support of one man, while her marital relations are polyandrous, is an impossible dream of the imagination. This could be only possible under the condition that the child-bearing sex should be the stronger sex, and fully capable of self-support and self-protection; a condition which is not found in mankind.

A third alternative is the communistic relation where the state supports women and children, without inquiry as to parentage, and without reference to the monogamic or promiscuous relation of the sexes. Such a system, could it continue long enough, would result in the breaking up of the sentiment of conjugal affection which now characterises our race, and the destruction of marital fidelity. The question is whether or not this system would be preferable to that of monogamic marriage above described. As it is a proposition for the amelioration of the present condition of women, the decision should rest with them. The women of the white race would probably declare against it by a very large majority, were a vote to be taken. This vote would be, however, largely influenced by custom, and not by a deliberate conclusion derived from experience. Since experience of such system cannot be had at present, we are compelled to rely on such knowledge as we possess in the premises.

It may be safely assumed that the monogamic tendency is constitutional with the majority of women. In spite of curiosity and other inducements, the idea of love for a single person is deeply ingrained in her nature. It is an ideal to be realised somehow and at some time, and anything short of it is a disaster only to be endured through some irresistible necessity. No normal woman would hazard the risks to person and property involved in indefinite matrimonial relations. The idea of the family becomes the more fixed in proportion as it is realised in actual experience. In spite of pessimists and unfortunates, the mutual love of man and woman is a sentiment deeply seated in the nature of both. Its strength is attested by the enormous popularity of the literature of which it forms the theme, and of the drama where its history and vicissitudes are depicted. Men and women who underrate its power, or who attempt to resist its effects, are like dead leaves before the winds. Would men and women be satisfied with a system which should place these affections in constant suspense, and which should afford no safeguard for the protection of inexperience, or defense against the temporary effects of superficial attractions and repulsions? I suspect not, for more would be lost than gained by such possibilities. Relief from unfortunate connections is certainly proper, but this can be had in such a way as to render it certain that the best interests of both parties are subserved, by a system of time contracts of marriage, such as I crudely suggested in The Open Court for November 1888. But the emotions of sex cannot be safely left without safeguards derived from the experience of mankind. This is not only on account of the force of these passions themselves, but because of the material necessities which are so intimately involved with them. The element of paternal interest will have to be eliminated from the man, and of conjugal fidelity from the woman before a communal system can be possible. And the absence of these traits is only characteristic of some of the lower races of men at the present time. Evolution has not weakened, but has greatly strengthened them, and it is not likely that our race will go backward in this respect.

Of course it may be asserted that this evolution has taken the wrong direction, and is not an improvement. I think the contrary may be shown to be true. The paternal instinct is as important to the adolescent stages of man as the maternal is for the period of infancy. Paternity stimulates the man to labor for the support and education of his children, and for their general well-being. Without such support many would die, reach an imperfect development, or become feeble members of society. The fidelity of the woman develops the same trait in man, and it stimulates him to the greatest exertions to secure her well-being also. Such forces as these cannot be withdrawn from society without infinite loss. It is the knowledge that this is my wife and that these are my children, that sustains more than half of human industry. With a communistic system these inducements would be withdrawn, and mankind would sink into comparative apathy, were it possible for the system to endure long enough.

It is evident that monogamic and polygamic systems are the only ones possible to modern society. The polygamic requires little notice because the general equality in numbers of the sexes deprives it of foundation. It is only possible where women are in excess, and where they are willing to sustain it. No man who is successfully married is likely to incur the additional obligations which it imposes. It may be therefore dismissed from notice with the further remark that it is not on the other hand deserving of the obloquy cast upon it by certain persons who are evidently "compounding for sins they have a mind to by damning those they're not inclined to."

The monogamic relation having been defined in the preceding paragraphs I recur to some of its obligations. I have spoken of the infidelity of woman as of a higher degree of criminality than that of man, and have shown the basis of justice on which this general sentiment rests. But it must not be forgotten that while he who hires a murderer, and he who receives stolen goods does not commit the actual crime, he is highly culpable, and shares in the condemnation which should follow it. In the case of the marital infidelity of the woman, he may be the greater criminal of the two, as the instigator to a deed which would not have been otherwise even suggested. In any case his folly is extraordinary, as he takes his life in his hands, and risks that of his partner; for men are wont to preserve their family rights by summary process. It would be incredible that such risks should be taken were it not that history and contemporary literature offer many examples. The few cases where palliating circumstances could be claimed would chiefly occur in countries where divorce laws do not exist.

The advantages to woman, arising from the monogamic relation, are then, support and protection, and undivided affection if she deserve it, together with the satisfaction of the conjugal and maternal instincts. In order to secure these advantages she must pursue a course towards her husband in some degree comparable to that by which her husband secures the confidence and esteem of his fellow man. Faithfulness in adhering to contracts, and personal complaisance cover much of the ground. As regards the man, he must see to it, that he does nothing that tends to the disintegration of the family relations of other men. The ill disguised laudation of the infidelity of wives which is so prominent in French literature, is a mark of a low civilisation, and it rightly excites the disgust of all men who have any respect for their own rights. It looks as though certain French literature had been written by boys. Men who are responsible for such invasion of the rights of others, cannot expect better treatment themselves, and they must not be surprised if they are repaid in their own coin. While the preservation of the rights of the marriage contract lies primarily with woman, for natural reasons; man is held by his fellow man to a strict accountability, and he attempts any invasion of them at his personal peril.

The principles above laid down are those out of which have grown our laws on the subject. Some women and men appear to think them unjust to women. It is true that in some respects, woman is at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is, however, of natural origin and cannot be overcome. On the other hand, she has a full equivalent in the advantages which she also derives from the natural order of things. The result is that there is no real cause of complaint, unless it be that sometimes the gallantry of men towards women whom they do not know, leads them to do injustice to man in cases of dispute. And here is an advantage to women which is an offset to the injustice which they sometimes experience from the same source. The correction of these faults is a part of the process of ethical development which is going on in human society. And perhaps the most effective agency in this development is the relation of the members of the family to each other, where affection takes the place of force, since it is the source of our deepest pleasures and our severest pains.

E. D. COPE.

THE ANALYSIS OF THE SENSATIONS.

ANTIMETAPHYSICAL.

I.

The great results that physical research in the last centuries has achieved, not only in its own domain, but also, by the assistance it has afforded, in the domain of other sciences, have brought it about that physical ways of thinking and physical methods of procedure have everywhere attained to especial prominence, and that the greatest expectations are associated with their employment. In conformity with this drift of modern research the physiology of the senses, gradually leaving the paths that had been entered upon by men like Goethe, Schopenhauer, and others, but especially with the greatest success by Johannes Müller, has also almost exclusively assumed a physical character. This tendency must appear to us as not exactly the proper and the desirable one, when we reflect that physics despite its considerable development nevertheless constitutes but a portion of a greater collective body of knowledge, and that it is incompetent with its limited intellectual methods, created for especial and limited purposes, to exhaust the entire material of the province now under consideration. However, without renouncing the support of the science of physics, it is possible for the physiology of the senses not only to continue its own special development, but also to afford physical science itself valuable assistance. The following simple considerations will serve to illustrate this relation.

II.

Colors, sounds, temperatures, pressures, spaces, times, and the like, are united with one another in the most manifold ways; and to these are joined moods of mind, feelings, and wills. Out of this complication, that which is relatively the more fixed and the more permanent stands prominently forth, engraves itself in the memory, and expresses itself in language. As relatively more permanent appear, first, complexes of colors, sounds, pressures, and so forth, that are connected in time and space, that therefore receive special names, and are designated as bodies. Such complexes are by no means absolutely permanent.

My table is now brightly and now darkly lighted. It may be warmer or colder. It may receive an ink stain. One of its legs may get broken. It can be repaired, polished, and replaced part for part. But for me, amid all, it remains the table at which I daily write.

My friend can put on a different coat. His countenance can assume a serious or joyful expression. The complexion of his face, under the effects of light or of emotion, can change. His shape can be altered by a movement, or can be permanently transformed. But the sum total of the permanent, as compared with gradual alterations of this kind, always remains so great, that the latter vanish. It is the same friend with whom I take my daily walk.

My coat can receive a stain, a tear. The very manner of my expression indicates that the gist of the thing is a quantity of permanency, to which the new element is added and from which that which is lacking is subsequently deducted.

Our greater intimacy with this quantity of permanency, and its preponderance as contrasted with the changeable, impel us to the partly instinctive, partly voluntary and conscious economy of mental representation and designation which is expressed in ordinary thought and speech. That which has been once perceptually represented receives a single designation, a single name.

As relatively permanent, is exhibited, further, that complex of memories, moods, and feelings, joined to a particular body (the human body), which is denominated the "I" or "Ego." I can be engaged with this subject or with that subject, I can be quiet or animated, excited or ill-humoured. Yet—pathological cases not considered—enough that is permanent remains to recognise the ego as the same. Moreover, the ego also is only of relative permanency.

* * * * *

The apparent permanency of the ego consists pre-eminently in the fact of its continuity, and in its slow change. The many thoughts and plans of yesterday that are continued to-day, and of which our environment in waking hours continually reminds us (and therefore in dreams the ego can be very indistinct, doubled, or entirely wanting), and the little habits that are unconsciously and involuntarily kept up for longer periods of time, constitute the fundamental root of the ego. There can hardly be greater differences in the ego of different people, than occur in the course of years in one person. When I recall to-day my early youth, I should take the boy that I then was, with the exception of a few single features, for a different person, did not the chain of memories that make up my personality now lie before me. Many a treatise that I myself wrote twenty years ago, now makes upon me a very strange impression. The very gradual character of the changes of the body also contributes to the permanency of the ego, but in a much less degree than people imagine. Such things are much less analysed and noticed than the intellectual and the moral ego. Individually, personally, people have a very poor knowledge of themselves.

Once, when a young man, I espied in the street a face in profile that was very displeasing and repulsive to me. I was not a little taken aback when a moment afterwards I found that it was my own, which, in passing by a place where mirrors were sold, I had perceived reflected from two mirrors that stood at the proper inclination to each other.

Not long ago, after a trying railway journey by night, being much fatigued, I got into an omnibus just as another gentleman appeared at the other end. "What degenerated pedagogue is that, who has just entered," thought I. It was myself: opposite me hung a large mirror. My ordinary dress, accordingly, was more familiar to me than my travelling attire.

The ego is as little absolutely permanent as bodies. That which we so greatly fear in death, the annihilation of our permanency, actually occurs in life in abundant measure. That which is most valued by us, remains preserved in countless copies, or, in cases of exceptional excellence, as a rule preserves itself. In the best human being, however, there are individual traits the loss of which neither he himself nor others need regret. Indeed, at times, death, viewed as liberation from individuality, can even become a pleasant thought.

* * * * *

After the first survey has been obtained, by the formation of the concepts of substance, "body" "ego" (matter, soul), the will is impelled to a more exact examination of the changes that take place in this relatively permanent existence. The changeable element in bodies and in the ego, indeed, is the very thing that moves the will. Now, for the first time, do the constituent elements of the complex stand forth as properties of the same. A fruit is sweet; but it can also be bitter. So, too, other fruits can be sweet. The red color that is sought is found in many bodies. The neighborhood of some bodies is pleasant, that of others unpleasant. Thus, gradually, do different complexes appear to be composed of common constituent elements. The visible, the audible, the tangible, are separated from bodies. The visible is broken up into color and into form. Out of the manifold constitution of colors issue, again, in lesser numbers, certain other constituent elements—the primary colors, and so forth. The complexes are disintegrated into elements.

III.

The proper and useful habit of designating that which is permanent by a single name, and of comprehending the same in a single thought, without analysing at each operation its constituent parts, is liable to come into singular conflict with the tendency to separate these constituent parts. The obscure image formed of the permanent, which does not perceptibly change when one or another constituent part is taken away, appears to be something existent by itself. Inasmuch as it is possible to take away singly every constituent part without effecting the capacity of the image formed to represent the totality involved, or effecting its subsequent recognition, it is imagined that it is possible to take away all these parts and yet have something remaining. Thus arises the monstrous idea of a thing of itself, different from, and incognisable with relation to, its "phenomenal" existence.

Thing, body, matter, are nothing apart from this complex of colors, sounds, and so forth—apart from their so-called marks, or characteristics. That Protean, illusory philosophical problem of a single independent thing with many properties, arises from the misunderstanding of the fact, that extensive comprehension and accurate separation, although both are temporarily justifiable and profitable for a number of purposes, can not and must not be employed simultaneously. A body is single and unchangeable so long as it is not required to take details into consideration. Thus both the earth and a billiard ball are spheres so long as we disregard all minor deviations from the spherical form, and greater exactitude is not necessary. But if we are compelled to carry on investigations in orography or microscopy both bodies cease to be spheres.

IV.

Man possesses in pre-eminence the power to determine arbitrarily and consciously his point of view. He can at one time disregard the most salient features, and immediately afterwards take into account the smallest trifles; now regard a current of electricity as fixed, without consideration of its contents, and now determine the width of a Frauenhofer line in the solar spectrum; he can rise, at will, to the most general abstractions, or bury himself in the minutest particulars. The animal possesses this capacity in a much less degree. It does not assume a point of view, but usually is brought to it by impressions. The baby that does not recognise its father with his hat on, the dog that is perplexed at the new coat of its master, have succumbed in the conflict of points of view. Who has not been thus worsted in similar cases? Even the man of philosophy at times succumbs, as the fantastic problem above referred to, shows.

Indeed, do not certain circumstances actually appear to furnish a justification of that problem? Colors, sounds, the odors of bodies are evanescent. But the tangible part, as a sort of constant, durable nucleus, not easily liable to annihilation, remains behind; appearing as the vehicle of the more fugitive properties annexed to it. Habit firmly affixes our thought to this central nucleus, even where the knowledge has found its way, that seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching are intimately akin in character. Added to this, also, comes the fact, that in consequence of the singularly extensive development of mechanical physics a kind of higher reality is ascribed to Space and Time than to colors, sounds, and odors. Agreeably to which, the junction in space and time of colors, sounds, and odors appears more real than colors, sounds, and odors themselves. The physiology of the senses, however, demonstrates, that spaces and times can with as much justice be termed sensations, as colors and sounds.

V.

Also the ego, as well as the relation of bodies to the ego, occasions the rise of analogous seeming-problems, the character of which may be briefly presented in the following manner.

The complexes of colors, sounds, and so forth, that are commonly called bodies, we shall designate for the sake of simplicity by A B C …; the complex that is known as our own body, and which constitutes a part of the former, we shall call K L M …; the complex composed of volitions, memory-images, and the like, we shall represent by α β γ. Usually, now, the complex α β γ … K L M … is opposed as ego, to the complex A B C … regarded as world of substance; sometimes, too, α β γ … is comprehended as ego, and K L M … A B C … comprehended as world of substance. Now A B C … first appears as independent of the ego. But this independence is only relative, and gives way before closer inspection. Much, it is true, may change in the complex α β γ … without much becoming noticeable in A B C …; and so vice versa. But many changes in α β γ … pass, by way of changes in K L M …, over to A B C …; and vice versa. (As, for example, when vivid ideas break forth into acts, or our environment brings about perceptible changes in our body.) At the same time K L M … appears to be more closely connected with α β γ … and A B C … respectively, than the latter do with one another; relations that find their commonest expression in thought and speech.

Closely examined, however, it appears that A B C … is always determined with and by K L M. A die, when seen close at hand, looks large; when seen at a distance, small; it looks different with the right eye from what it does with the left; sometimes it appears double; with closed eyes it is invisible. The properties of the same body, therefore, appear as modified by our own body; they appear as conditioned by it. But where, pray, is this same body that phenomenally appears so different? All that can be said is, that different A B C … are annexed to different K L M.[18]

[18] I expressed this thought many years ago (in the Vierteljahrsschrift für Psychiatrie, Leipsic and Neuwied, 1868: Ueber die Abhängigkeit der Netzhautstellen von einander) as follows: The expressions "sense-deception" and "illusion of the senses" prove, that we are not yet fully conscious, or at least that we have not yet found it necessary to incorporate this consciousness into our ordinary terminology, that the senses represent things neither wrongly nor correctly. All that can be truly said of the sensory organs is, that, under different circumstances they produce different sensations and perceptions. Since these "circumstances" are of so extremely manifold a character, being partly external (inherent in the objects), partly internal (inherent in the sensory organs), and partly interior (having the seat of their activity in the central organs), it would naturally seem, especially when attention is paid only to external circumstances, that an organ acts differently under like conditions. And it is customary to call the unusual effects, deceptions or illusions.

We see an object with a point S. If we touch S, that is bring it into relation with our body, we receive a prick. We can see S, without feeling the prick. But as soon as we feel the prick we find S. The visible point therefore is a permanent fact or nucleus, to which the prick is annexed, according to circumstances, as something accidental. From the frequency of occurrences analogous to this we ultimately accustom ourselves to regard all properties of bodies as "effects" proceeding from permanent persistent nuclei and conveyed to the ego through the mediation of the body; which effects we call sensations. By this very operation, however, these imagined nuclei lose their entire sensory content, and become mere mental symbols. The assertion is correct then that the world consists only of our sensations. In which case we have knowledge only of sensations, and the assumption of the nuclei mentioned, as well as of a reciprocal action between the same, from which sensations might be supposed originally to proceed, turns out to be wholly idle and superfluous. Such a view can only suit a halting realism or a half-matured philosophic criticism.

VI.

Ordinarily the complex α β γ … K L M … is opposed as ego to the complex A B C. Those elements only of A B C … that more actively alter α β γ …, as a prick, a pain, are we accustomed to comprehend in the ego. Afterwards, however, through observations of the kind above mentioned, it appears that the right to annex A B C … to the ego at no point ceases. In conformity to which the ego can be so extended as ultimately to comprehend the entire world.

* * * * *

When I say that the table, the tree, and so forth, are sensations of mine, there is contained in this, as contrasted with the method of representation of the ordinary man, an actual extension of my ego. And so, too, upon the emotional side, such extensions actually occur; as for the virtuoso, who possesses as perfect a mastery of his instrument as he does of his own body; for the skilful orator in whom the eyes of an audience converge, and who controls the thoughts of his hearers; for the energetic politician who directs with ease his party; and so on. In conditions of depression, on the other hand, such as nervous people often have to endure, the ego contracts and shrinks. A wall seems to separate it from the world.

* * * * *

The ego is not sharply defined, its limits are very indefinite, and arbitrarily displaceable. Only by mistaking this, and by unconsciously narrowing these limits, as well also as by enlarging them, do metaphysical difficulties, in the conflict of points of view, arise.

As soon as we have recognised that the supposed unities "body" and "ego" are only make-shifts for a provisional survey and for certain practical ends (that we may apprehend bodies, protect ourselves from pain, and so forth), we are obliged, in many thorough-going scientific investigations, to abandon them as insufficient and inappropriate. The opposition between ego and world, sensation (or phenomenon) and thing, then vanishes, and we are brought to deal simply with the connection and relation of the elements α β γ … A B C … K L M …, for which indeed this very opposition was only a partially appropriate, imperfect expression. This connection is nothing more than the combination of those elements with other homologous elements (time and space). This connection science has simply to accept, and set itself aright with regard to it, without attempting to explain its existence.

Upon superficial examination the complex α β γ … appears to consist of much more evanescent elements than A B C … and K L M …, in which two last the elements appear to be joined with more stability and in a more permanent manner (being joined to solid nuclei as it were). Although upon closer inspection the elements of all complexes appear as homologous, yet even in spite of the recognition of this fact, the ancient notion of an opposition of body and spirit easily creeps in. The spiritualist feels, at times, the difficulty of imparting the necessary solidity to his world of substance created by mind: the materialist is at a loss what to do when called upon to animate and endow with sensation the world of matter. The monistic point of view that reflection and reason have evolved, is easily overcast by the older and more powerful instinctive notions.

VII.

The difficulty described is especially felt in the following considerations. In the complex A B C … which we have designated as the material world, we find as part, not only our own body K L M …, but also the bodies of other persons (or animals) K' L' M' …, K" L" M" …, annexed to which, after the analogy of the complex α β γ …, we conceive similar α' β' γ' …, α" β" γ". As long as we deal with K' L' M' …, we find ourselves in a thoroughly familiar province, at every point sensorially accessible to us. But when we inquire after the sensations or feelings that belong to the body K' L' M' …, we no longer find in the province of sense the elements we seek: but we add them in thought. Not only is the domain into which we now enter much less familiar to us, but also the transition to it is relatively unsafe. We are possessed of a feeling as if we were about to plunge into an abyss. They that always pursue this direction of thought and this direction only, will never get completely rid of the feeling of insecurity that is very productive as a source of apparent problems.

But we are not limited to this way of reasoning. Let us consider first the reciprocal relation of the elements of the complex A B C …, without regarding K L M … (our body). Every physical investigation is of this kind. A white bullet falls upon a bell; a sound is heard. The bullet turns yellow before a sodium lamp, red before a lithium lamp. Here the elements (A B C …) appear to be connected only among each other and to be independent of our body (K L M …). But if we take santonine the bullet turns yellow again. If we turn one eye sidewise we see two bullets. If we close our eyes entirely we see no bullet at all. If we sever our auditory nerve no sound is heard. The elements A B C …, therefore, are not only connected among each other, but also with K L M. To this extent and to this extent only do we call A B C … sensations, and regard A B C … as belonging to the ego. In this way, accordingly, we do not meet with the gap between bodies and sensations before described, between that which is without and that which is within, between the material and the spiritual world.[19] All elements A B C … K L M … constitute but one single coherent mass, which when any one element in it is disturbed all is put in motion; except that a disturbance has a more extensive and profound action in K L M …, than in A B C. A magnet in our neighborhood disturbs the particles of iron near it; a falling boulder shakes the earth; but the severing of a nerve sets in motion the entire system of elements. Quite involuntarily does this relation of things suggest the picture of a viscous mass, at certain places (as in the ego) more firmly coherent than at others.

[19] Compare my Grundlinien der Lehre von den Bewegungsempfindungen. Leipsic, Engelmann, 1875, p. 54.

* * * * *

When I first came to Vienna from the country, as a boy four or five years of age, and was taken by my father upon the walls of the city's fortifications, I was very much surprised to see people below in the moat and could not understand how, regarded from my point of view, they could have gotten down there; for the thought of another possible way never occurred to me. I remarked the same amazement, once afterwards in life, in the case of a three-year old boy of mine, while taking a walk with him upon the walls about Prague. I recall this feeling to mind every time I engage myself with the reflection above referred to, and I frankly confess that this accidental experience of mine greatly helped to strengthen the opinion upon this point that I adopted a long time ago. The habit of pursuing the same ways in material and psychical things operates to confuse greatly our field of survey. A child forcing its way through a wall in a house in which it has long dwelt, can experience an actual enlargement of its view of the world, and a slight scientific hint can bring much enlightenment.

VIII.

Accordingly, the great chasm between physical and psychological research exists only for the common stereotyped method of observation. A color is a physical object when, for example, we regard its dependence upon its luminous source (upon other colors, upon heat, upon space, and so forth). Regarding however its dependence upon the retina (the elements K L M …), it becomes a psychological object, a sensation. Not the subject-matter, but the direction of our investigation is different in the two domains.

When, from the observation of the bodies of other men or animals, we infer their sensations, as well also as when we investigate the influence of our own body upon our own sensations, we are forced to complete observed facts by analogy. This work of completion by analogy is done with much more accuracy and facility, when it relates, let us say, to nervous processes, which cannot be fully observed in our own bodies—that is when it occurs in the more familiar physical domain—than when the completion relates to psychical processes. Otherwise there is no material difference.

IX.

The thoughts presented gain greatly in fixity and vividness if in addition to simply expressing them in abstract form we bring ourselves face to face with the facts from which they arise. For example, I lie upon my sofa. If I close my right eye the picture represented in the accompanying cut is presented to my left eye. In a frame formed by the ridge of my eyebrow, by my nose, and by my moustache, appears a part of my body, so far as it is visible, and also the things and space about it. My body differs from other human bodies—leaving out of account the fact that every vivid motory idea immediately passes into movement and that contact with it determines more perceptible changes than contact with other bodies—by the circumstance, that it is only partly seen, and, especially, is seen without a head. If I observe an element A within my field of vision, and investigate its connection with another element B within the same field, I go out of the domain of physics into that of physiology or psychology, if B, to use the apposite expression that a friend[20] of mine employed upon seeing this drawing, passes through my skin. Reflections like that for the field of vision may be made with regard to the province of touch and the perceptual domains of the other senses.

[20] J. Popper of Vienna.

[Illustration]

X.

Reference has already been made to the different character of the groups of elements that we have designated by A B C … and α β γ. As a matter of reality, when we see a green tree before us, or remember a green tree, that is conceive a green tree to ourselves, we know right well how to distinguish these two cases. The imaged tree has a much less determinate, a much more changeable form; its green is much paler and more evanescent; and, what is of especial note, it distinctly appears in a different sphere. A movement that we propose to execute is always only a conceived movement, and appears in a different field or sphere from that of the executed movement, which moreover always takes place where the image becomes vivid enough. The statement that the elements A or α appear in a different sphere, means, if we go to the bottom of it, nothing more than that they are united with divers other elements. To this extent, accordingly, the basal component parts in A B C …, α β γ … would be the same (colors, sounds, spaces, times, motory sensations, innervations …), and only the character of their union different.

Pain and pleasure are ordinarily regarded as different from sensory sensations. Yet not only tactile sensations, but also all other kinds of sensations, can gradually pass into pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain can also justly be called sensations. Only they are not so well analysed and so familiar as sensory sensations. Sensations of pleasure and pain, however faint the mode of their appearance, make up indeed the real content of all so-called feelings. Thus perceptions, as well as ideas, volition, and feelings, in short the entire inner and outer world, are composed of a small number of homologous elements united in relations now more evanescent and now more lasting. These elements are commonly called sensations. But since vestiges of a one-sided theory now inhere in this term, we prefer to speak simply of elements, as we have already done. All research aims at the resolution of the union of these elements.[21]

[21] Compare the remarks appended to my treatise: Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes der Erhaltung der Arbeit. Prague. Calve. 1872.

XI.

That out of this complex of elements which at bottom is simply one, the limits of bodies and the ego do not admit of being fixed in a manner certain and sufficient for all cases, has already been said. The composition of the elements, intimately connected with pleasure and pain, into an ideal mental-economical unity, the ego, is a work of the highest significance for the intellectual functions that act in the service of the pain-avoiding, pleasure-seeking will. The formation of the ego by this process of circumscription and delimitation is therefore instinctively effected, it grows familiar and natural, and fixes itself perhaps through heredity. By their high practical value, not only for the individual, but also for the entire race, the composites "ego" and "body" instinctively assert their existence, and operate with the power of original elements. In special circumstances, however, in which practical ends are not concerned, but knowledge becomes an object in itself, this delimitation often turns out to be insufficient, obstructive, and untenable.

Professional esprit de corps, and even professional bias, the sentiment of nationality, the most narrow-minded local patriotism may also have a high value, for certain purposes. But such conceptions will not characterise the far-sighted investigator, at least not in the moment of research. All these egoistic conceptions are adequate for practical purposes only. Of course, even the investigator can succumb to custom. Trifling scholastic fiddle-faddle, the cunning appropriation of others' labor and perfidious silence with regard to it, the numerous objections and complaints when unavoidably compelled to give recognition, and the scanty illumination of others' performances on such occasions, abundantly show that the scientist and scholar have also to fight the battle of existence, that the ways of science yet lead to the mouth, and that the pure quest of knowledge amid our present social relations is still an ideal.

* * * * *

The primary fact is not the I, the ego, but the elements (sensations). The elements constitute the I. I perceive the sensation green, means, that the element green occurs in a given complex of other elements (sensations, memories). When I cease to perceive the sensation green, when I die, then the elements no longer occur in their customary, common way of association. That is all. Only an ideal mental-economical unity, not a real unity, has ceased to exist.

* * * * *

The ego is not an unchangeable, definite, sharply-defined unity. The important factor is not unchangeability, not determinate distinguishability from other things, and not accurate limitation, for all these factors even vary within the sphere of individual life itself, and their alteration is even sought by the individual. Continuity alone is important. This view admirably accords with that to which Weismann recently attained by biological investigations ("Regarding the Immortality of Unicellular Beings," Biolog. Centralbl., Vol. IV, Nos. 21, 22; compare especially pp. 654 and 655, where the division of the individual into two equal halves is spoken of). But this continuity is only a means to dispose and to assure the content of the ego. This content and not the ego is the principal thing. But this content is not confined to the individual. With the exception of insignificant, valueless, personal memories or reminiscences, it remains preserved in others even after the death of the individual. The ego is unsavable. It is partly the discernment of this fact, partly the fear of the same, that leads to the most extravagant pessimistic and optimistic, religious and philosophical absurdities. We shall not be able in the long run to close our eyes to this simple truth, the immediate result of psychological analysis. We shall then no longer place so high a value upon the ego which even during individual life greatly changes, and which, indeed, in sleep or during absorption in some conception or in some thought, just in our happiest moments, may be partially or wholly absent. We shall then gladly renounce individual immortality, and shall not place more value upon the accessory elements than upon the principal. We shall in this way arrive at a freer and a more enlightened conception of life, which will exclude the neglect of other egos and the over-estimation of our own.

* * * * *

If, now, the knowledge of the connection of the elements (sensations) does not suffice us, and we must ask Who, What, possesses this connection of sensations, Who, What, perceives sensations? we have succumbed, we may be sure, to our old habit of arranging every element (every sensation) within some unanalysed complex, and we are falling back imperceptibly to an older, lower, and more limited point of view.

* * * * *

The habit of treating the unanalysed ego-complex as an indivisible unity is often scientifically presented in peculiar ways. First, the nervous system is separated from the body as the seat of sensations. In the nervous system again the brain is selected as fitted for the performance of this function, and finally, to save the pretended psychical unity, a further point is sought in the brain as the seat of the soul. But rough conceptions like these are hardly adapted to trace out even in the crudest lines the ways that future research will follow in investigating the connection of the physical and the psychical. The fact that the different organs of sensation and memory are physically connected with one another, and can be easily excited by one another is probably the foundation of the "psychical unity."

I once heard the question seriously discussed of "How the percept of a very large tree found room in the little head of a man?" Now though this "problem" does not exist, yet we perceive by the question the absurdity that is so easily committed in conceiving sensations to exist spacially in the brain. When I speak of the sensations of another person, these sensations of course present no activity in my optical space or my physical space generally; they are mentally added, and I conceive them to be causally annexed, not spacially, to the brain observed or represented. When I speak of my sensations, these sensations do not exist spacially in my head, but rather my "head" shares with them the same spacial field, as was explained above (compare what was said regarding the cut).

* * * * *

Let there be no mention of the so-called unity of consciousness. Since the apparent opposition of the real and the perceived world exists only in the mode according to which it is viewed, and no real chasm exists, a multiplex interconnected content of consciousness is in no respect more difficult to understand than the multiplex interconnection of the world.

If we are determined to regard the ego as an actual unity, we cannot extricate ourselves from the following dilemma: either to set over against it—viz., the ego—the world of incognisable substances (which would be wholly idle and purposeless), or to regard the whole world, the egos of other people included, as only contained in our own ego (to which, seriously, we could hardly make up our minds).

But if we take the ego merely as a practical unity, composed for purposes of provisional survey; in fact, take it as a more strongly coherent group of elements, which is less strongly connected with other groups of this kind; questions like these will not arise and research will have a free outlook.

In his philosophical notes Lichtenberg says: "We become conscious of certain ideas that are not dependent upon us; and there are other ideas that, at least as we think, are dependent upon us. Where is the border-line? We know only the existence of our sensations, percepts, and thoughts. We should say, It thinks, just as we say, It lightens. It is going too far to say cogito, when we translate it by I think. Assuming the I, postulating it, is merely practical necessity." Though the method by which Lichtenberg arrives at this result is somewhat different from our own, we must nevertheless give our assent to the conclusion itself.

XII.

Bodies do not produce sensations, but complexes of sensations (complexes of elements) form bodies. If bodies appear to the physicist as that which is permanent, that which is real, and sensations as their evanescent transitory semblance, the physicist forgets that all bodies are but thought-symbols for complexes of sensation (complexes of elements). The elements designated also form here the real, immediate, and ultimate foundation which physiological research has now further to investigate. Through the discernment of this, many things in psychology and physics assume more distinct and economical forms, and many imagined problems are disposed of.

The world therefore does not consist for us of mysterious substances, which through their interaction with another equally mysterious substance, the ego, produce sensations as solely accessible. Colors, sounds, spaces, times, … are for us the ultimate elements, whose given connection it is our task to investigate. In this investigation we dare not allow ourselves to be hindered by the composites and circumscriptions (body, ego, matter, mind …) that have been formed for especial, practical, provisional, and limited purposes. On the contrary, the appropriate and best adapted forms of thought must arise within research itself, as happens in every special science. In the place of the traditional instinctive conception must come a freer, fresher view, conforming with developed experience.

* * * * *

I have always felt it as a special good fortune, that early in my life, at about the age of 15, I came across in the library of my father Kant's "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic." The book made at that time a powerful, ineffaceable impression upon me, that I never afterwards experienced to the same degree in any of my philosophical reading. Some two or three years later I suddenly discovered the superfluous rôle that "the thing in itself" plays. On a bright summer day under the open heavens the world together with my ego all at once appeared to me as one coherent mass of sensations, but in the ego more strongly coherent. Although the actual working out of this thought did not occur until a later time, yet this moment became decisive for my whole view.

Moreover I had still to struggle long and hard before I was able to retain, in my own special department, the conception I had acquired. With what is valuable in physical doctrines we necessarily absorb a good dose of false metaphysics, which it is very difficult to separate from that which must be preserved, especially where these doctrines have become current and familiar. So, too, the traditional, instinctive conceptions often arose with great power and placed impediments in my way. Only by alternate studies in physics and the physiology of the senses and by historico-physical investigations, since about 1863, after having endeavored in vain to settle the conflict by a physico-psychological monadology, did I acquire in my views any considerable firmness. I make no pretensions to the title of philosopher. I only wish to adopt in physics a point of view that need not be instantly changed the moment our glance is carried into the domain of another science; since indeed, ultimately, all must form one whole. The molecular physics of to-day does certainly not meet this demand. What I say I have probably not been the first to say. I also do not wish to hold forth this exposition of mine as a special performance. It is rather my belief that every one will collaterally adopt the same view, who in a reflective manner holds survey in any province of science that is not too limited.[22]

[22] I have recently (1886) propounded these views in a pamphlet Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen. Avenarius, with whom I recently became acquainted, approaches my point of view (Philosophie als Denken der Welt nach dem Princip des kleinsten Kraftmasses, 1876). Hering, too, in his treatise upon Memory (Almanach der Wiener Akademie, 1870, p. 258; also published in Nos. 6 and 7 of The Open Court), and J. Popper in his beautiful book, "The Right to Live and the Duty to Die" (Leipsic 1878, p. 62), have advanced similar thoughts. Compare also my paper Ueber die ökonomische Natur der physikalischen Forschung (Almanach der Wiener Akademie, 1882, p. 179, note). Finally let me also refer here to the introduction to W. Preyer's Reine Empfindungslehre, and to Riehl's Freiburger Antrittsrede, p. 14. I should probably have to cite much additional matter that is in some way related to my line of thought if I possessed a more extensive bibliographical knowledge.

XIII.

Science always arises through a process of adaptation of thoughts to a certain department of experience. The results of this process are thought-elements, which represent the entire department. The result, of course, is different according to the character and extent of the province surveyed. If the province of experience in question is extended, or if several provinces hitherto separated become united, the traditional, familiar thought-elements no longer suffice for the province thus extended. In the struggle of acquired habit with the effort after adaptation, problems arise, which disappear when the adaptation is completed, to give way to others that have sprung up in the mean time.

To the physicist, pure and simple, the idea of a body facilitates the acquisition of a comprehensive survey in his department, and does not operate as a disturbance. So, also, the person that pursues purely practical ends, is materially assisted by the concept of the I or Ego. For, unquestionably, every form of thought that has been voluntarily or involuntarily constructed for some especial purpose, possesses for that particular purpose a permanent value. As soon, however, as physics and physiology touch, the ideas held in the one domain are discovered to be untenable in the other. From the striving after an adaptation of the one to the other arise the various atomic and monad theories—which are unsuccessful, however, in the attainment of their object. If we regard sensations, taken in the sense above defined, as world-elements or elements of the All, the problems referred to are practically removed, and the first and most important adaptation therefore effected. This basal notion (without any pretension to being a philosophy for all eternity) can at present be adhered to with respect to all provinces of experience; it is consequently the one that accommodates itself with the least expenditure, that is, more economically than any other, to the present temporary state of collective science. Moreover, in the consciousness of its purely economical office, this basal notion acts with most perfect tolerance. It does not obtrude itself into provinces in which the current conceptions are still adequate. It will ever be ready, upon subsequent extensions of the domain of experience, to give way to a better one.

The philosophical point of view of the average man—if that term may be applied to the naïve realism of the ordinary individual—has a claim to the highest consideration. It has arisen in the progress of immeasurable time without the purposed assistance of man. It is a product of nature, and is preserved and sustained by nature. Everything that philosophy has accomplished—the biological title of every advance, nay of every error, admitted—is, compared with it, but an insignificant and ephemeral product of art. And in reality, we see every thinker, every philosopher, the moment he is forced away from his one-sided intellectual occupation by some practical necessity, immediately fall back upon the universal point of view that all men hold in common.