What is the purpose of primary intellectual education? I apprehend that

its first object is to train the young in the use of those tools

wherewith men extract knowledge from the ever-shifting succession of

phenomena which pass before their eyes; and that its second object is to

inform them of the fundamental laws which have been found by experience

to govern the course of things, so that they may not be turned out into

the world naked, defenceless, and a prey to the events they might

control.

A boy is taught to read his own and other languages, in order that he may

have access to infinitely wider stores of knowledge than could ever be

opened to him by oral intercourse with his fellow men; he learns to

write, that his means of communication with the rest of mankind may be

indefinitely enlarged, and that he may record and store up the knowledge

he acquires. He is taught elementary mathematics, that he may understand

all those relations of number and form, upon which the transactions of

men, associated in complicated societies, are built, and that he may have

some practice in deductive reasoning.

All these operations of reading, writing, and ciphering, are intellectual

tools, whose use should, before all things, be learned, and learned

thoroughly; so that the youth may be enabled to make his life that which

it ought to be, a continual progress in learning and in wisdom.

But, in addition, primary education endeavours to fit a boy out with a

certain equipment of positive knowledge. He is taught the great laws of

morality; the religion of his sect; so much history and geography as will

tell him where the great countries of the world are, what they are, and

how they have become what they are.

Without doubt all these are most fitting and excellent things to teach a

boy; I should be very sorry to omit any of them from any scheme of

primary intellectual education. The system is excellent, so far as it

goes.

But if I regard it closely, a curious reflection arises. I suppose that,

fifteen hundred years ago, the child of any well-to-do Roman citizen was

taught just these same things; reading and writing in his own, and,

perhaps, the Greek tongue; the elements of mathematics; and the religion,

morality, history, and geography current in his time. Furthermore, I do

not think I err in affirming, that, if such a Christian Roman boy, who

had finished his education, could be transplanted into one of our public

schools, and pass through its course of instruction, he would not meet

with a single unfamiliar line of thought; amidst all the new facts he

would have to learn, not one would suggest a different mode of regarding

the universe from that current in his own time.

And yet surely there is some great difference between the civilisation of

the fourth century and that of the nineteenth, and still more between the

intellectual habits and tone of thought of that day and this?

And what has made this difference? I answer fearlessly--The prodigious

development of physical science within the last two centuries.

Modern civilisation rests upon physical science; take away her gifts to

our own country, and our position among the leading nations of the world

is gone to-morrow; for it is physical science only that makes

intelligence and moral energy stronger than brute force.

The whole of modern thought is steeped in science; it has made its way

into the works of our best poets, and even the mere man of letters, who

affects to ignore and despise science, is unconsciously impregnated with

her spirit, and indebted for his best products to her methods. I believe

that the greatest intellectual revolution mankind has yet seen is now

slowly taking place by her agency. She is teaching the world that the

ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment, and not

authority; she is teaching it to estimate the value of evidence; she is

creating a firm and living faith in the existence of immutable moral and

physical laws, perfect obedience to which is the highest possible aim of

an intelligent being.

But of all this your old stereotyped system of education takes no note.

Physical science, its methods, its problems, and its difficulties, will

meet the poorest boy at every turn, and yet we educate him in such a

manner that he shall enter the world as ignorant of the existence of the

methods and facts of science as the day he was born. The modern world is

full of artillery; and we turn out our children to do battle in it,

equipped with the shield and sword of an ancient gladiator.

Posterity will cry shame on us if we do not remedy this deplorable state

of things. Nay, if we live twenty years longer, our own consciences will

cry shame on us.

It is my firm conviction that the only way to remedy it is to make the

elements of physical science an integral part of primary education. I

have endeavoured to show you how that may be done for that branch of

science which it is my business to pursue; and I can but add, that I

should look upon the day when every schoolmaster throughout this land was

a centre of genuine, however rudimentary, scientific knowledge, as an

epoch in the history of the country.

But let me entreat you to remember my last words. Addressing myself to

you, as teachers, I would say, mere book learning in physical science is

a sham and a delusion--what you teach, unless you wish to be impostors,

that you must first know; and real knowledge in science means personal

acquaintance with the facts, be they few or many.[2]

[Footnote 2: It has been suggested to me that these words may be taken to

imply a discouragement on my part of any sort of scientific instruction

which does not give an acquaintance with the facts at first hand. But

this is not my meaning. The ideal of scientific teaching is, no doubt, a

system by which the scholar sees every fact for himself, and the teacher

supplies only the explanations. Circumstances, however, do not often

allow of the attainment of that ideal, and we must put up with the next

best system--one in which the scholar takes a good deal on trust from a

teacher, who, knowing the facts by his own knowledge, can describe them

with so much vividness as to enable his audience to form competent ideas

concerning them. The system which I repudiate is that which allows

teachers who have not come into direct contact with the leading facts of

a science to pass their second-hand information on. The scientific virus,

like vaccine lymph, if passed through too long a succession of organisms,

will lose all its effect in protecting the young against the intellectual

epidemics to which they are exposed.

[The remarks on p. 222 applied to the Natural History Collection of the

British Museum in 1861. The visitor to the Natural History Museum in 1894

need go no further than the Great Hall to see the realisation of my hopes

by the present Director.]]

VIII

BIOGENESIS AND ABIOGENESIS

(THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

OF SCIENCE FOR 1870)

It has long been the custom for the newly installed President of the

British Association for the Advancement of Science to take advantage of

the elevation of the position in which the suffrages of his colleagues

had, for the time, placed him, and, casting his eyes around the horizon

of the scientific world, to report to them what could be seen from his

watch-tower; in what directions the multitudinous divisions of the noble

army of the improvers of natural knowledge were marching; what important

strongholds of the great enemy of us all, ignorance, had been recently

captured; and, also, with due impartiality, to mark where the advanced

posts of science had been driven in, or a long-continued siege had made

no progress.

I propose to endeavour to follow this ancient precedent, in a manner

suited to the limitations of my knowledge and of my capacity. I shall not

presume to attempt a panoramic survey of the world of science, nor even

to give a sketch of what is doing in the one great province of biology,

with some portions of which my ordinary occupations render me familiar.

But I shall endeavour to put before you the history of the rise and

progress of a single biological doctrine; and I shall try to give some

notion of the fruits, both intellectual and practical, which we owe,

directly or indirectly, to the working out, by seven generations of

patient and laborious investigators, of the thought which arose, more

than two centuries ago, in the mind of a sagacious and observant Italian

naturalist.

It is a matter of everyday experience that it is difficult to prevent

many articles of food from becoming covered with mould; that fruit, sound

enough to all appearance, often contains grubs at the core; that meat,

left to itself in the air, is apt to putrefy and swarm with maggots. Even

ordinary water, if allowed to stand in an open vessel, sooner or later

becomes turbid and full of living matter.

The philosophers of antiquity, interrogated as to the cause of these

phenomena, were provided with a ready and a plausible answer. It did not

enter their minds even to doubt that these low forms of life were

generated in the matters in which they made their appearance. Lucretius,

who had drunk deeper of the scientific spirit than any poet of ancient or

modern times except Goethe, intends to speak as a philosopher, rather

than as a poet, when he writes that "with good reason the earth has

gotten the name of mother, since all things are produced out of the

earth. And many living creatures, even now, spring out of the earth,

taking form by the rains and the heat of the sun."[1] The axiom of

ancient science, "that the corruption of one thing is the birth of

another," had its popular embodiment in the notion that a seed dies

before the young plant springs from it; a belief so widespread and so

fixed, that Saint Paul appeals to it in one of the most splendid

outbursts of his fervid eloquence:--

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."[2]

[Footnote 1: It is thus that Mr. Munro renders

"Linquitur, ut merito maternum nomen adepta

Terra sit, e terra quoniam sunt cuncta creata.

Multaque nunc etiam exsistant animalia terris

Imbribus et calido solis concreta vapore."

_De Rerum Natura_, lib. v. 793-796.

But would not the meaning of the last line be better rendered "Developed

in rain-water and in the warm vapours raised by the sun"?]

[Footnote 2: 1 Corinthians xv. 36.]

The proposition that life may, and does, proceed from that which has no

life, then, was held alike by the philosophers, the poets, and the

people, of the most enlightened nations, eighteen hundred years ago; and

it remained the accepted doctrine of learned and unlearned Europe,

through the Middle Ages, down even to the seventeenth century.

It is commonly counted among the many merits of our great countryman,

Harvey, that he was the first to declare the opposition of fact to

venerable authority in this, as in other matters; but I can discover no

justification for this widespread notion. After careful search through

the "Exercitationes de Generatione," the most that appears clear to me

is, that Harvey believed all animals and plants to spring from what he

terms a "_primordium vegetale_," a phrase which may nowadays be rendered

"a vegetative germ"; and this, he says, is _"oviforme_," or "egg-like";

not, he is careful to add, that it necessarily has the shape of an egg,

but because it has the constitution and nature of one. That this

"_primordium oviforme_" must needs, in all cases, proceed from a living

parent is nowhere expressly maintained by Harvey, though such an opinion

may be thought to be implied in one or two passages; while, on the other

hand, he does, more than once, use language which is consistent only with

a full belief in spontaneous or equivocal generation.[3] In fact, the

main concern of Harvey's wonderful little treatise is not with

generation, in the physiological sense, at all, but with development; and

his great object is the establishment of the doctrine of epigenesis.

[Footnote 3: See the following passage in Exercitatio I.:--"Item _sponte

nascentia_ dicuntur; non quod ex _putredine_ oriunda sint, sed quod casu,

naturae sponte, et aequivocâ (ut aiunt) generatione, a parentibus sui

dissimilibus proveniant." Again, in _De Uteri Membranis:_--"In cunctorum

viventium generatione (sicut diximus) hoc solenne est, ut ortum ducunt a

_primordio_ aliquo, quod tum materiam tum elficiendi potestatem in se

habet: sitque, adeo id, ex quo et a quo quicquid nascitur, ortum suum

ducat. Tale primordium in animalibus (_sive ab aliis generantibus

proveniant, sive sponte, aut ex putredine nascentur_) est humor in

tunicâ, aliquâaut putami ne conclusus." Compare also what Redi has to say

respecting Harvey's opinions, _Esperienze_, p. 11.]

The first distinct enunciation of the hypothesis that all living matter

has sprung from pre-existing living matter, came from a contemporary,

though a junior, of Harvey, a native of that country, fertile in men

great in all departments of human activity, which was to intellectual

Europe, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, what Germany is in

the nineteenth. It was in Italy, and from Italian teachers, that Harvey

received the most important part of his scientific education. And it was

a student trained in the same schools, Francesco Redi--a man of the

widest knowledge and most versatile abilities, distinguished alike as

scholar, poet, physician, and naturalist--who, just two hundred and two

years ago, published his "Esperienze intorno alla Generazione degl'

Insetti," and gave to the world the idea, the growth of which it is my

purpose to trace. Redi's book went through five editions in twenty years;

and the extreme simplicity of his experiments, and the clearness of his

arguments, gained for his views, and for their consequences, almost

universal acceptance.

Redi did not trouble himself much with speculative considerations, but

attacked particular cases of what was supposed to be "spontaneous

generation" experimentally. Here are dead animals, or pieces of meat,

says he; I expose them to the air in hot weather, and in a few days they

swarm with maggots. You tell me that these are generated in the dead

flesh; but if I put similar bodies, while quite fresh, into a jar, and

tie some fine gauze over the top of the jar, not a maggot makes its

appearance, while the dead substances, nevertheless, putrefy just in the

same way as before. It is obvious, therefore, that the maggots are not

generated by the corruption of the meat; and that the cause of their

formation must be a something which is kept away by gauze. But gauze will

not keep away aëriform bodies, or fluids. This something must, therefore,

exist in the form of solid particles too big to get through the gauze.

Nor is one long left in doubt what these solid particles are; for the

blowflies, attracted by the odour of the meat, swarm round the vessel,

and, urged by a powerful but in this case misleading instinct, lay eggs

out of which maggots are immediately hatched, upon the gauze. The

conclusion, therefore, is unavoidable; the maggots are not generated by

the meat, but the eggs which give rise to them are brought through the

air by the flies.

These experiments seem almost childishly simple, and one wonders how it

was that no one ever thought of them before. Simple as they are, however,

they are worthy of the most careful study, for every piece of

experimental work since done, in regard to this subject, has been shaped

upon the model furnished by the Italian philosopher. As the results of

his experiments were the same, however varied the nature of the materials

he used, it is not wonderful that there arose in Redi's mind a

presumption, that, in all such cases of the seeming production of life

from dead matter, the real explanation was the introduction of living

germs from without into that dead matter.[4] And thus the hypothesis that

living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter,

took definite shape; and had, henceforward, a right to be considered and

a claim to be refuted, in each particular case, before the production of

living matter in any other way could be admitted by careful reasoners. It

will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that,

to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of _Biogenesis_;

and I shall term the contrary doctrine--that living matter may be

produced by not living matter--the hypothesis of _Abiogenesis_.

[Footnote 4: "Pure contentandomi sempre in questa ed in ciascuna altro

cosa, da ciascuno più savio, là dove io difettuosamente parlassi, esser

corretto; non tacero, che per molte osservazioni molti volti da me fatte,

mi sento inclinato a credere che la terra, da quelle prime piante, e da

quei primi animali in poi, che ella nei primi giorni del mondo produsse

per comandemento del sovrano ed omnipotente Fattore, non abbia mai più

prodotto da se medesima nè erba nè albero, nè animale alcuno perfetto o

imperfetto che ei se fosse; e che tutto quello, che ne' tempi trapassati

è nato e che ora nascere in lei, o da lei veggiamo, venga tutto dalla

semenza reale e vera delle piante, e degli animali stessi, i quali col

mezzo del proprio seme la loro spezie conservano. E se bene tutto giorno

scorghiamo da' cadaveri degli animali, e da tutte quante le maniere dell'

erbe, e de' fiori, e dei frutti imputriditi, e corrotti nascere vermi

infiniti--

'Nonne vides quaecunque mora, fluidoque calore

Corpora tabescunt in parva animalia verti'--

Io mi sento, dico, inclinato, a credere che tutti quei vermi si generino

dal seme paterno; e che le carni, e l' erbe, e l' altre cose tutte

putrefatte, o putrefattibili non facciano altra parte, nè abbiano altro

ufizio nella generazione degl' insetti, se non d'apprestare un luogo o un

nido proporzionato, in cui dagli animali nel tempo della figliatura sieno

portati, e partoriti i vermi, o l' uova o l' altre semenze dei vermi, i

quali tosto che nati sono, trovano in esso nido un sufficiente alimento

abilissimo per nutricarsi: e se in quello non son portate dalle madri

queste suddette semenze, niente mai, e replicatamente niente, vi s'

ingegneri e nasca."--REDI, _Esperienze_, pp. 14-16.]

In the seventeenth century, as I have said, the latter was the dominant

view, sanctioned alike by antiquity and by authority; and it is

interesting to observe that Redi did not escape the customary tax upon a

discoverer of having to defend himself against the charge of impugning

the authority of the Scriptures;[5] for his adversaries declared that the

generation of bees from the carcase of a dead lion is affirmed, in the

Book of Judges, to have been the origin of the famous riddle with which

Samson perplexed the Philistines:--

Out of the eater came forth meat,

And out of the strong came forth sweetness.

[Footnote 5: "Molti, e molti altri ancora vi potrei annoverare, se non

fossi chiamato a rispondere alle rampogne di alcuni, che bruscamente mi

rammentano ciò, che si legge nel capitolo quattordicesimo del sacrosanto

Libro de' giudici ... "--REDI, _loc. cit._ p. 45.]

Against all odds, however, Redi, strong with the strength of demonstrable

fact, did splendid battle for Biogenesis; but it is remarkable that he

held the doctrine in a sense which, if he lead lived in these times,

would have infallibly caused him to be classed among the defenders of

"spontaneous generation." "Omne vivum ex vivo," "no life without

antecedent life," aphoristically sums up Redi's doctrine; but he went no

further. It is most remarkable evidence of the philosophic caution and

impartiality of his mind, that although he had speculatively anticipated

the manner in which grubs really are deposited in fruits and in the galls

of plants, he deliberately admits that the evidence is insufficient to

bear him out; and he therefore prefers the supposition that they are

generated by a modification of the living substance of the plants

themselves. Indeed, he regards these vegetable growths as organs, by

means of which the plant gives rise to an animal, and looks upon this

production of specific animals as the final cause of the galls and of, at

any rate, some fruits. And he proposes to explain the occurrence of

parasites within the animal body in the same way.[6]

[Footnote 6: The passage (_Esperienze_, p. 129) is worth quoting in

full:--

"Se dovessi palesarvi il mio sentimento crederei che i frutti, i legumi,

gli alberi e le foglie, in due maniere inverminassero. Una, perchè

venendo i bachi per dí fuora, e cercando l' alimento, col rodere ci

aprono la strada, ed arrivano alla più interna midolla de' frutti e de'

legni. L'altra maniera si è, che io per me stimerei, che non fosse gran

fatto disdicevole il credere, che quell' anima o quella virtù, la quale

genera i fiori ed i frutti nelle piante viventi, sia quella stessa che

generi ancora i bachi di esse piante. E chi sà, forse, che molti frutti

degli alberi non sieno prodotti, non per un fine primario e principale,

ma bensi per un uffizio secondario e servile, destinato alla generazione

di que' vermi, servendo a loro in vece di matrice, in cui dimorino un

prefisso e determinato tempo; il quale arrivato escan fuora a godere il

sole.

"Io m' immagino, che questo mio pensiero non vi parrà totalmento un

paradosso; mentro farete riflessione a quelle tanto sorte di galle, di

gallozzole, di coccole, di ricci, di calici, di cornetti ed i lappole,

che son produtte dalle quercel, dalle farnie, da' cerri, da' sugheri, da'

leeci e da altri simili alberi de ghianda; imperciocchè in quello

gallozzole, e particolarmente nelle più grosse, che si chiamano coronati,

ne' ricci capelluti, che ciuffoli da' nostri contadini son detti; nei

ricci legnosi del cerro, ne' ricci stellati della quercia, nelle galluzze

della foglia del leccio si vede evidentissimamente, che la prima e

principale intenzione della natura è formare dentro di quelle un animale

volante; vedendosi nel centro della gallozzola un uovo, che col crescere

e col maturarsi di essa gallozzola va crescendo e maturando anch' egli, e

cresce altresi a suo tempo quel verme, che nell' uovo si racchiude; il

qual verme, quando la gallozzola è finita di maturare e che è venuto il

termine destinato al suo nascimento, diventa, di verme che era, una

mosca.... Io vi confesso ingenuamente, che prima d'aver fatte queste mie

esperienze intorno alla generazione degl' insetti mi dava a credere, o

per dir meglio sospettava, che forse la gallozzola nascesse, perchè

arrivando la mosca nel tempo della primavera, e facendo una piccolissima

fessura ne' rami più teneri della quercia, in quella fessura nascondesse

uno de suoi semi, il quale fosse cagione che sbocciasse fuora la

gallozzola; e che mai non si vedessero galle o gallozzole o ricci o

cornetti o calici o coccole, se non in que' rami, ne' quali le mosche

avessero depositate le loro semenze; e mi dava ad intendere, che le

gallozzole fossero una malattia cagionata nelle querce dalle punture

delle mosche, in quella giusa stessa che dalle punture d'altri animaletti

simiglievoli veggiamo crescere de' tumori ne' corpi degli animali."]

It is of great importance to apprehend Redi's position rightly; for the

lines of thought he laid down for us are those upon which naturalists

have been working ever since. Clearly, he held _Biogenesis_ as against

_Abiogenesis;_ and I shall immediately proceed, in the first place, to

inquire how far subsequent investigation has borne him out in so doing.

Discourses: Biological & Geological Essays · 第 14 / 23 段