[From the _Press_, 29 July, 1865]
There is a period in the evening, or more generally towards the still
small hours of the morning, in which we so far unbend as to take a single
glass of hot whisky and water. We will neither defend the practice nor
excuse it. We state it as a fact which must be borne in mind by the
readers of this article; for we know not how, whether it be the
inspiration of the drink, or the relief from the harassing work with
which the day has been occupied, or from whatever other cause, yet we are
certainly liable about this time to such a prophetic influence as we
seldom else experience. We are rapt in a dream such as we ourselves know
to be a dream, and which, like other dreams, we can hardly embody in a
distinct utterance. We know that what we see is but a sort of
intellectual Siamese twins, of which one is substance and the other
shadow, but we cannot set either free without killing both. We are
unable to rudely tear away the veil of phantasy in which the truth is
shrouded, so we present the reader with a draped figure, and his own
judgment must discriminate between the clothes and the body. A truth’s
prosperity is like a jest’s, it lies in the ear of him that hears it.
Some may see our lucubration as we saw it; and others may see nothing but
a drunken dream, or the nightmare of a distempered imagination. To
ourselves it as the speaking with unknown tongues to the early
Corinthians; we cannot fully understand our own speech, and we fear lest
there be not a sufficient number of interpreters present to make our
utterance edify. But there! (Go on straight to the body of the
article.)
The limbs of the lower animals have never been modified by any act of
deliberation and forethought on their own part. Recent researches have
thrown absolutely no light upon the origin of life—upon the initial force
which introduced a sense of identity, and a deliberate faculty into the
world; but they do certainly appear to show very clearly that each
species of the animal and vegetable kingdom has been moulded into its
present shape by chances and changes of many millions of years, by
chances and changes over which the creature modified had no control
whatever, and concerning whose aim it was alike unconscious and
indifferent, by forces which seem insensate to the pain which they
inflict, but by whose inexorably beneficent cruelty the brave and strong
keep coming to the fore, while the weak and bad drop behind and perish.
There was a moral government of this world before man came near it—a
moral government suited to the capacities of the governed, and which,
unperceived by them, has laid fast the foundations of courage, endurance
and cunning. It laid them so fast that they became more and more
hereditary. Horace says well, _fortes creantur fortibus et bonis_ good
men beget good children; the rule held even in the geological period;
good ichthyosauri begat good ichthyosauri, and would to our discomfort
have gone on doing so to the present time, had not better creatures been
begetting better things than ichthyosauri, or famine, or fire, or
convulsion put an end to them. Good apes begat good apes, and at last
when human intelligence stole like a late spring upon the mimicry of our
semi-simious ancestry, the creature learnt how he could, of his own
forethought, add extra-corporaneous limbs to the members of his body and
become not only a vertebrate mammal, but a vertebrate machinate mammal
into the bargain.
It was a wise monkey that first learned to carry a stick and a useful
monkey that mimicked him. For the race of man has learned to walk
uprightly much as a child learns the same thing. At first he crawls on
all fours, then he clambers, laying hold of whatever he can; and lastly
he stands upright alone and walks, but for a long time with an unsteady
step. So when the human race was in its gorilla-hood it generally
carried a stick; from carrying a stick for many million years it became
accustomed and modified to an upright position. The stick wherewith it
had learned to walk would now serve it to beat its younger brothers and
then it found out its service as a lever. Man would thus learn that the
limbs of his body were not the only limbs that he could command. His
body was already the most versatile in existence, but he could render it
more versatile still. With the improvement in his body his mind improved
also. He learnt to perceive the moral government under which he held the
feudal tenure of his life—perceiving it he symbolised it, and to this day
our poets and prophets still strive to symbolise it more and more
completely.
The mind grew because the body grew—more things were perceived—more
things were handled, and being handled became familiar. But this came
about chiefly because there was a hand to handle with; without the hand
there would be no handling; and no method of holding and examining is
comparable to the human hand. The tail of an opossum is a prehensile
thing, but it is too far from his eyes—the elephant’s trunk is better,
and it is probably to their trunks that the elephants owe their sagacity.
It is here that the bee in spite of her wings has failed. She has a high
civilisation but it is one whose equilibrium appears to have been already
attained; the appearance is a false one, for the bee changes, though more
slowly than man can watch her; but the reason of the very gradual nature
of the change is chiefly because the physical organisation of the insect
changes, but slowly also. She is poorly off for hands, and has never
fairly grasped the notion of tacking on other limbs to the limbs of her
own body and so, being short-lived to boot, she remains from century to
century to human eyes in _statu quo_. Her body never becomes machinate,
whereas this new phase of organism, which has been introduced with man
into the mundane economy, has made him a very quicksand for the
foundation of an unchanging civilisation; certain fundamental principles
will always remain, but every century the change in man’s physical
status, as compared with the elements around him, is greater and greater;
he is a shifting basis on which no equilibrium of habit and civilisation
can be established; were it not for this constant change in our physical
powers, which our mechanical limbs have brought about, man would have
long since apparently attained his limit of possibility; he would be a
creature of as much fixity as the ants and bees—he would still have
advanced but no faster than other animals advance. If there were a race
of men without any mechanical appliances we should see this clearly.
There are none, nor have there been, so far as we can tell, for millions
and millions of years. The lowest Australian savage carries weapons for
the fight or the chase, and has his cooking and drinking utensils at
home; a race without these things would be completely _ferae naturae_ and
not men at all. We are unable to point to any example of a race
absolutely devoid of extra-corporaneous limbs, but we can see among the
Chinese that with the failure to invent new limbs, a civilisation becomes
as much fixed as that of the ants; and among savage tribes we observe
that few implements involve a state of things scarcely human at all.
Such tribes only advance _pari passu_ with the creatures upon which they
feed.
It is a mistake, then, to take the view adopted by a previous
correspondent of this paper; to consider the machines as identities, to
animalise them, and to anticipate their final triumph over mankind. They
are to be regarded as the mode of development by which human organism is
most especially advancing, and every fresh invention is to be considered
as an additional member of the resources of the human body. Herein lies
the fundamental difference between man and his inferiors. As regards his
flesh and blood, his senses, appetites, and affections, the difference is
one of degree rather than of kind, but in the deliberate invention of
such unity of limbs as is exemplified by the railway train—that
seven-leagued foot which five hundred may own at once—he stands quite
alone.
In confirmation of the views concerning mechanism which we have been
advocating above, it must be remembered that men are not merely the
children of their parents, but they are begotten of the institutions of
the state of the mechanical sciences under which they are born and bred.
These things have made us what we are. We are children of the plough,
the spade, and the ship; we are children of the extended liberty and
knowledge which the printing press has diffused. Our ancestors added
these things to their previously existing members; the new limbs were
preserved by natural selection, and incorporated into human society; they
descended with modifications, and hence proceeds the difference between
our ancestors and ourselves. By the institutions and state of science
under which a man is born it is determined whether he shall have the
limbs of an Australian savage or those of a nineteenth century
Englishman. The former is supplemented with little save a rug and a
javelin; the latter varies his physique with the changes of the season,
with age, and with advancing or decreasing wealth. If it is wet he is
furnished with an organ which is called an umbrella and which seems
designed for the purpose of protecting either his clothes or his lungs
from the injurious effects of rain. His watch is of more importance to
him than a good deal of his hair, at any rate than of his whiskers;
besides this he carries a knife, and generally a pencil case. His memory
goes in a pocket book. He grows more complex as he becomes older and he
will then be seen with a pair of spectacles, perhaps also with false
teeth and a wig; but, if he be a really well-developed specimen of the
race, he will be furnished with a large box upon wheels, two horses, and
a coachman.
Let the reader ponder over these last remarks, and he will see that the
principal varieties and sub-varieties of the human race are not now to be
looked for among the negroes, the Circassians, the Malays, or the
American aborigines, but among the rich and the poor. The difference in
physical organisation between these two species of man is far greater
than that between the so-called types of humanity. The rich man can go
from here to England whenever he feels so inclined. The legs of the
other are by an invisible fatality prevented from carrying him beyond
certain narrow limits. Neither rich nor poor as yet see the philosophy
of the thing, or admit that he who can tack a portion of one of the P. &
O. boats on to his identity is a much more highly organised being than
one who cannot. Yet the fact is patent enough, if we once think it over,
from the mere consideration of the respect with which we so often treat
those who are richer than ourselves. We observe men for the most part
(admitting however some few abnormal exceptions) to be deeply impressed
by the superior organisation of those who have money. It is wrong to
attribute this respect to any unworthy motive, for the feeling is
strictly legitimate and springs from some of the very highest impulses of
our nature. It is the same sort of affectionate reverence which a dog
feels for man, and is not infrequently manifested in a similar manner.
We admit that these last sentences are open to question, and we should
hardly like to commit ourselves irrecoverably to the sentiments they
express; but we will say this much for certain, namely, that the rich man
is the true hundred-handed Gyges of the poets. He alone possesses the
full complement of limbs who stands at the summit of opulence, and we may
assert with strictly scientific accuracy that the Rothschilds are the
most astonishing organisms that the world has ever yet seen. For to the
nerves or tissues, or whatever it be that answers to the helm of a rich
man’s desires, there is a whole army of limbs seen and unseen attachable:
he may be reckoned by his horse-power—by the number of foot-pounds which
he has money enough to set in motion. Who, then, will deny that a man
whose will represents the motive power of a thousand horses is a being
very different from the one who is equivalent but to the power of a
single one?
Henceforward, then, instead of saying that a man is hard up, let us say
that his organisation is at a low ebb, or, if we wish him well, let us
hope that he will grow plenty of limbs. It must be remembered that we
are dealing with physical organisations only. We do not say that the
thousand-horse man is better than a one-horse man, we only say that he is
more highly organised, and should be recognised as being so by the
scientific leaders of the period. A man’s will, truth, endurance are
part of him also, and may, as in the case of the late Mr. Cobden, have in
themselves a power equivalent to all the horse-power which they can
influence; but were we to go into this part of the question we should
never have done, and we are compelled reluctantly to leave our dream in
its present fragmentary condition.