THE LAW OF EVOLUTION.[8]
§ 42. The class of phenomena to be considered under the title of
Evolution, is in a great measure co-extensive with the class commonly
indicated by the word Progress. But the word Progress is here
inappropriate, for several reasons. To specify these reasons will
perhaps be the best way of showing what is to be understood by
Evolution.
In the first place, the current conception of Progress is shifting and
indefinite. Sometimes it comprehends little more than simple growth—as
of a nation in the number of its members and the extent of territory
over which it has spread. At other times it has reference to quantity of
material products—as when the advance of agriculture and manufactures is
the topic. Now the superior quality of these products is contemplated;
and then the new or improved appliances by which they are produced.
When, again, we speak of moral or intellectual progress, we refer to the
state of the individual or people exhibiting it; while, when the
progress of Knowledge, of Science, of Art, is commented upon, we have in
view certain abstract results of human thought and action. In the
second place, besides being more or less vague, the ordinary idea of
Progress is in great measure erroneous. It takes in not so much the
reality as its accompaniments—not so much the substance as the shadow.
That progress in intelligence seen during the growth of the child into
the man, or the savage into the philosopher, is commonly regarded as
consisting in the greater number of facts known and laws understood;
whereas the actual progress consists in those internal modifications of
which this increased knowledge is the expression. Social progress is
supposed to consist in the produce of a greater quantity and variety of
the articles required for satisfying men’s wants—in the increasing
security of person and property—in widening freedom of action; whereas,
rightly understood, social progress consists in those changes of
structure in the social organism which have entailed these consequences.
The interpretation is a teleological one. The phenomena are contemplated
solely as bearing on human happiness. Only those changes are held to
constitute progress, which directly or indirectly tend to heighten human
happiness. And they are thought to constitute progress simply _because_
they tend to heighten human happiness. In the third place, in
consequence of its teleological implications, the term Progress is
rendered scarcely applicable to a wide range of phenomena which are
intrinsically of the same nature as those included under it. The
metamorphoses of an insect are only by analogy admitted within the scope
of the word, as popularly accepted; though, considered in themselves,
they have as much right there as the changes which constitute
civilization. Having no apparent bearing on human interests, an
increasing complication in the arrangement of ocean-currents, would not
ordinarily be regarded as progress; though really of the same character
as phenomena which are so regarded.
Hence the need for another word. Our purpose here is to analyze the
various class of changes usually considered as Progress, together with
others like them which are not so considered; and to see what is their
intrinsic peculiarity—what is their essential nature apart from their
bearings on our welfare. And that we may avoid the confusion of thought
likely to result from pre-established associations, it will be best to
substitute for the term Progress, the term Evolution. Our question is
then—what is Evolution?
* * * * *
§ 43. In respect to that evolution which individual organisms display,
this question has been answered. Pursuing an idea which Harvey set
afloat, Wolff, Goethe, and Von Baer, have established the truth that the
series of changes gone through during the development of a seed into a
tree, or an ovum into an animal, constitute an advance from homogeneity
of structure to heterogeneity of structure. In its primary stage, every
germ consists of a substance that is uniform throughout, both in texture
and chemical composition. The first step is the appearance of a
difference between two parts of this substance; or, as the phenomenon is
called in physiological language, a differentiation. Each of these
differentiated divisions presently begins itself to exhibit some
contrast of parts; and by and by these secondary differentiations become
as definite as the original one. This process is continuously
repeated—is simultaneously going on in all parts of the growing embryo;
and by endless such differentiations there is finally produced that
complex combination of tissues and organs, constituting the adult animal
or plant. This is the history of all organisms whatever. It is settled
beyond dispute that organic evolution consists in a change from the
homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
Now I propose in the first place to show, that this law of organic
evolution is the law of all evolution. Whether it be in the development
of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, in the
development of Society, of Government, of Manufactures, of Commerce, of
Language, Literature, Science, Art, this same advance from the simple to
the complex, through successive differentiations, holds uniformly. From
the earliest traceable cosmical changes down to the latest results of
civilization, we shall find that the transformation of the homogeneous
into the heterogeneous, is that in which Evolution essentially consists.
* * * * *
§ 44. With the view of showing that _if_ the Nebular Hypothesis be true,
the genesis of the solar system supplies one illustration of this law,
let us assume that the matter of which the sun and planets consist was
once in a diffused form; and that from the gravitation of its atoms
there resulted a gradual concentration. By the hypothesis, the solar
system in its nascent state existed as an indefinitely extended and
nearly homogeneous medium—a medium almost homogeneous in density, in
temperature, and in other physical attributes. The first advance towards
consolidation resulted in a differentiation between the occupied space
which the nebulous mass still filled, and the unoccupied space which it
previously filled. There simultaneously resulted a contrast in density
and a contrast in temperature, between the interior and the exterior of
this mass. And at the same time there arose throughout it, rotatory
movements, whose velocities varied according to their distances from its
centre. These differentiations increased in number and degree until
there was evolved the organized group of sun, planets, and satellites,
which we now know—a group which presents numerous contrasts of structure
and action among its members. There are the immense contrasts between
the sun and the planets, in bulk and in weight; as well as the
subordinate contrasts between one planet and another, and between the
planets and their satellites. There is the similarly marked contrast
between the sun as almost stationary, and the planets as moving round
him with great velocity; while there are the secondary contrasts between
the velocities and periods of the several planets, and between their
simple revolutions and the double ones of their satellites, which have
to move round their primaries while moving round the sun. There is the
yet further strong contrast between the sun and the planets in respect
of temperature; and there is reason to suppose that the planets and
satellites differ from each other in their proper heat, as well as in
the heat they receive from the sun. When we bear in mind that, in
addition to these various contrasts, the planets and satellites also
differ in respect to their distances from each other and their primary;
in respect to the inclinations of their orbits, the inclinations of
their axes, their times of rotation on their axes, their specific
gravities, and their physical constitutions; we see what a high degree
of heterogeneity the solar system exhibits, when compared with the
almost complete homogeneity of the nebulous mass out of which it is
supposed to have originated.
* * * * *
§ 45. Passing from this hypothetical illustration, which must be taken
for what it is worth, without prejudice to the general argument, let us
descend to a more certain order of evidence.
It is now generally agreed among geologists that the Earth was at first
a mass of molten matter; and that it is still fluid and incandescent at
the distance of a few miles beneath its surface. Originally, then, it
was homogeneous in consistence, and, because of the circulation that
takes place in heated fluids, must have been comparatively homogeneous
in temperature; and it must have been surrounded by an atmosphere
consisting partly of the elements of air and water, and partly of those
various other elements which assume a gaseous form at high temperatures.
That slow cooling by radiation which is still going on at an
inappreciable rate, and which, though originally far more rapid than
now, necessarily required an immense time to produce any decided change,
must ultimately have resulted in the solidification of the portion most
able to part with its heat; namely, the surface. In the thin crust thus
formed, we have the first marked differentiation. A still further
cooling, a consequent thickening of this crust, and an accompanying
deposition of all solidifiable elements contained in the atmosphere,
must finally have been followed by the condensation of the water
previously existing as vapour. A second marked differentiation must thus
have arisen; and as the condensation must have taken place on the
coolest parts of the surface—namely, about the poles—there must thus
have resulted the first geographical distinction of parts.
To these illustrations of growing heterogeneity, which, though deduced
from the known laws of matter, may be regarded as more or less
hypothetical, Geology adds an extensive series that have been
inductively established. Its investigations show that the Earth has been
continually becoming more heterogeneous through the multiplication of
the strata which form its crust; further, that it has been becoming more
heterogeneous in respect of the composition of these strata, the latter
of which, being made from the detritus of the older ones, are many of
them rendered highly complex by the mixture of materials they contain;
and that this heterogeneity has been vastly increased by the action of
the Earth’s still molten nucleus upon its envelope: whence have resulted
not only a great variety of igneous rocks, but the tilting up of
sedimentary strata at all angles, the formation of faults and metallic
veins, the production of endless dislocations and irregularities. Yet
again, geologists teach us that the Earth’s surface has been growing
more varied in elevation—that the most ancient mountain systems are the
smallest, and the Andes and Himalayas the most modern; while, in all
probability, there have been corresponding changes in the bed of the
ocean. As a consequence of these ceaseless differentiations, we now find
that no considerable portion of the Earth’s exposed surface is like any
other portion, either in contour, in geologic structure, or in chemical
composition; and that in most parts it changes from mile to mile in all
these characteristics.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that there has been simultaneously
going on a gradual differentiation of climates. As fast as the Earth
cooled and its crust solidified, there arose appreciable differences in
temperature between those parts of its surface most exposed to the sun
and those less exposed. Gradually, as the cooling progressed, these
differences became more pronounced; until there finally resulted the
marked contrasts between regions of perpetual ice and snow, regions
where winter and summer alternately reign for periods varying according
to the latitude, and regions where summer follows summer with scarcely
an appreciable variation. At the same time, the successive elevations
and subsidences of different portions of the Earth’s crust, tending as
they have done to the present irregular distribution of land and sea,
have entailed various modifications of climate beyond those dependent on
latitude; while a yet further series of such modifications have been
produced by increasing differences of elevation in the land, which have
in sundry places brought arctic, temperate, and tropical climates to
within a few miles of each other. And the general result of these
changes is, that not only has every extensive region its own
meteorologic conditions, but that every locality in each region differs
more or less from others in those conditions: as in its structure, its
contour, its soil.
Thus, between our existing Earth, the phenomena of whose varied crust
neither geographers, geologists, mineralogists nor meteorologists have
yet enumerated, and the molten globe out of which it was evolved, the
contrast in heterogeneity is sufficiently striking.
* * * * *
§ 46. When from the Earth itself we turn to the plants and animals that
have lived, or still live, upon its surface, we find ourselves in some
difficulty from lack of facts. That every existing organism has been
developed out of the simple into the complex, is indeed the first
established truth of all; and that every organism which has existed was
similarly developed, is an inference that no physiologist will hesitate
to draw. But when we pass from individual forms of life to Life in
general, and inquire whether the same law is seen in the _ensemble_ of
its manifestations,—whether modern plants and animals are of more
heterogeneous structure than ancient ones, and whether the Earth’s
present Flora and Fauna are more heterogeneous than the Flora and Fauna
of the past,—we find the evidence so fragmentary, that every conclusion
is open to dispute. Two-thirds of the Earth’s surface being covered by
water; a great part of the exposed land being inaccessible to, or
untravelled by, the geologist; the greater part of the remainder having
been scarcely more than glanced at; and even the most familiar portions,
as England, having been so imperfectly explored, that a new series of
strata has been added within these few years,—it is manifestly
impossible for us to say with any certainty what creatures have, and
what have not, existed at any particular period. Considering the
perishable nature of many of the lower organic forms, the metamorphosis
of many sedimentary strata, and the gaps that occur among the rest, we
shall see further reason for distrusting our deductions. On the one
hand, the repeated discovery of vertebrate remains in strata previously
supposed to contain none,—of reptiles where only fish were thought to
exist,—of mammals where it was believed there were no creatures higher
than reptiles; renders it daily more manifest how small is the value of
negative evidence. On the other hand, the worthlessness of the
assumption that we have discovered the earliest, or anything like the
earliest, organic remains, is becoming equally clear. That the oldest
known aqueous formations have been greatly changed by igneous action,
and that still older ones have been totally transformed by it, is
becoming undeniable. And the fact that sedimentary strata earlier than
any we know, have been melted up, being admitted, it must also be
admitted that we cannot say how far back in time this destruction of
sedimentary strata has been going on. Thus it is manifest that the title
_Palæozoic_, as applied to the earliest known fossiliferous strata,
involves a _petitio principii_; and that, for aught we know to the
contrary, only the last few chapters of the Earth’s biological history
may have come down to us.
All inferences drawn from such scattered facts as we find, must thus be
extremely questionable. If, looking at the general aspect of evidence, a
progressionist argues that the earliest known vertebrate remains are
those of Fishes, which are the most homogeneous of the vertebrata; that
Reptiles, which are more heterogeneous, are later; and that later still,
and more heterogeneous still, are Mammals and Birds; it may be replied
that the Palæozoic deposits, not being estuary deposits, are not likely
to contain the remains of terrestrial vertebrata, which may nevertheless
have existed at that era. The same answer may be made to the argument
that the vertebrate fauna of the Palæozoic period, consisting so far as
we know, entirely of Fishes, was less heterogeneous than the modern
vertebrate fauna, which includes Reptiles, Birds and Mammals, of
multitudinous genera; or the uniformitarian may contend with great show
of truth, that this appearance of higher and more varied forms in later
geologic eras, was due to progressive immigration—that a continent
slowly upheaved from the ocean at a point remote from pre-existing
continents, would necessarily be peopled from them in a succession like
that which our strata display. At the same time the
counter-arguments may be proved equally inconclusive. When, to show that
there cannot have been a continuous evolution of the more homogeneous
organic forms into the more heterogeneous ones, the uniformitarian
points to the breaks that occur in the succession of these forms; there
is the sufficient answer that current geological changes show us why
such breaks must occur, and why, by subsidences and elevations of large
area, there must be produced such marked breaks as those which divide
the three great geologic epochs. Or again, if the opponent of the
development hypothesis cites the facts set forth by Professor Huxley in
his lecture on “Persistent Types”—if he points out that “of some two
hundred known orders of plants, not one is exclusively fossil,” while
“among animals, there is not a single totally extinct class; and of the
orders, at the outside not more than seven per cent. are unrepresented
in the existing creation”—if he urges that among these some have
continued from the Silurian epoch to our own day with scarcely any
change—and if he infers that there is evidently a much greater average
resemblance between the living forms of the past and those of the
present, than consists with this hypothesis; there is still a
satisfactory reply, on which in fact Prof. Huxley insists; namely, that
we have evidence of a “pre-geologic era” of unknown duration. And
indeed, when it is remembered, that the enormous subsidences of the
Silurian period show the Earth’s crust to have been approximately as
thick then as it is now—when it is concluded that the time taken to form
so thick a crust, must have been immense as compared with the time which
has since elapsed—when it is assumed, as it must be, that during this
comparatively immense time the geologic and biologic changes went on at
their usual rates; it becomes manifest, not only that the
palæontological records which we find, do not negative the theory of
evolution, but that they are such as might rationally be looked for.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that though the evidence suffices
neither for proof nor disproof, yet some of its most conspicuous facts
support the belief, that the more heterogeneous organisms and groups of
organisms, have been evolved from the less heterogeneous ones. The
average community of type between the fossils of adjacent strata, and
still more the community that is found between the latest tertiary
fossils and creatures now existing, is one of these facts. The discovery
in some modern deposits of such forms as the Palæotherium and
Anaplotherium, which, if we may rely on Prof. Owen, had a type of
structure intermediate between some of the types now existing, is
another of these facts. And the comparatively recent appearance of Man,
is a third fact of this kind, which possesses still greater
significance. Hence we may say, that though our knowledge of past life
upon the Earth, is too scanty to justify us in asserting an evolution of
the simple into the complex, either in individual forms or in the
aggregate of forms; yet the knowledge we have, not only consists with
the belief that there has been such an evolution, but rather supports it
than otherwise.
* * * * *
§ 47. Whether an advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is or
is not displayed in the biological history of the globe, it is clearly
enough displayed in the progress of the latest and most heterogeneous
creature—Man. It is alike true that, during the period in which the
Earth has been peopled, the human organism has grown more heterogeneous
among the civilized divisions of the species; and that the species, as a
whole, has been made more heterogeneous by the multiplication of races
and the differentiation of these races from each other. In proof
of the first of these positions, we may cite the fact that, in the
relative development of the limbs, the civilized man departs more widely
from the general type of the placental mammalia, than do the lower human
races. Though often possessing well-developed body and arms, the Papuan
has extremely small legs: thus reminding us of the quadrumana, in which
there is no great contrast in size between the hind and fore limbs. But
in the European, the greater length and massiveness of the legs has
become very marked—the fore and hind limbs are relatively more
heterogeneous. Again, the greater ratio which the cranial bones bear to
the facial bones, illustrates the same truth. Among the vertebrata in
general, evolution is marked by an increasing heterogeneity in the
vertebral column, and more especially in the segments constituting the
skull: the higher forms being distinguished by the relatively larger
size of the bones which cover the brain, and the relatively smaller size
of those which form the jaws, &c. Now, this characteristic, which is
stronger in Man than in any other creature, is stronger in the European
than in the savage. Moreover, judging from the greater extent and
variety of faculty he exhibits, we may infer that the civilized man has
also a more complex or heterogeneous nervous system than the uncivilized
man; and indeed the fact is in part visible in the increased ratio which
his cerebrum bears to the subjacent ganglia. If further elucidation be
needed, we may find it in every nursery. The infant European has sundry
marked points of resemblance to the lower human races; as in the
flatness of the alæ of the nose, the depression of its bridge, the
divergence and forward opening of the nostrils, the form of the lips,
the absence of a frontal sinus, the width between the eyes, the
smallness of the legs. Now, as the developmental process by which these
traits are turned into those of the adult European, is a continuation of
that change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous displayed during
the previous evolution of the embryo, which every physiologist will
admit; it follows that the parallel developmental process by which the
like traits of the barbarous races have been turned into those of the
civilized races, has also been a continuation of the change from the
homogeneous to the heterogeneous. The truth of the second
position—that Mankind, as a whole, have become more heterogeneous—is so
obvious as scarcely to need illustration. Every work on Ethnology, by
its divisions and subdivisions of races, bears testimony to it. Even
were we to admit the hypothesis that Mankind originated from several
separate stocks, it would still remain true that as, from each of these
stocks, there have sprung many now widely different tribes, which are
proved by philological evidence to have had a common origin, the race as
a whole is far less homogeneous than it once was. Add to which, that we
have, in the Anglo-Americans, an example of a new variety arising within
these few generations; and that, if we may trust to the descriptions of
observers, we are likely soon to have another such example in Australia.
* * * * *
§ 48. On passing from Humanity under its individual form, to Humanity as
socially embodied, we find the general law still more variously
exemplified. The change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, is
displayed equally in the progress of civilization as a whole, and in the
progress of every tribe or nation; and is still going on with increasing
rapidity.
As we see in existing barbarous tribes, society in its first and lowest
form is a homogeneous aggregation of individuals having like powers and
like functions: the only marked difference of function being that which
accompanies difference of sex. Every man is warrior, hunter, fisherman,
tool-maker, builder; every woman performs the same drudgeries; every
family is self-sufficing, and, save for purposes of aggression and
defence, might as well live apart from the rest. Very early, however, in
the process of social evolution, we find an incipient differentiation
between the governing and the governed. Some kind of chieftainship seems
coeval with the first advance from the state of separate wandering
families to that of a nomadic tribe. The authority of the strongest
makes itself felt among a body of savages, as in a herd of animals, or a
posse of school-boys. At first, however, it is indefinite, uncertain; is
shared by others of scarcely inferior power; and is unaccompanied by any
difference in occupation or style of living: the first ruler kills his
own game, makes his own weapons, builds his own hut, and, economically
considered, does not differ from others of his tribe. Gradually, as the
tribe progresses, the contrast between the governing and the governed
grows more decided. Supreme power becomes hereditary in one family; the
head of that family, ceasing to provide for his own wants, is served by
others; and he begins to assume the sole office of ruling. At the
same time there has been arising a co-ordinate species of
government—that of Religion. As all ancient records and traditions
prove, the earliest rulers are regarded as divine personages. The maxims
and commands they uttered during their lives are held sacred after their
deaths, and are enforced by their divinely-descended successors; who in
their turns are promoted to the pantheon of the race, there to be
worshipped and propitiated along with their predecessors: the most
ancient of whom is the supreme god, and the rest subordinate gods. For a
long time these connate forms of government—civil and religious—continue
closely associated. For many generations the king continues to be the
chief priest, and the priesthood to be members of the royal race. For
many ages religious law continues to contain more or less of civil
regulation, and civil law to possess more or less of religious sanction;
and even among the most advanced nations these two controlling agencies
are by no means completely differentiated from each other. Having
a common root with these, and gradually diverging from them, we find yet
another controlling agency—that of Manners or ceremonial usages. All
titles of honour are originally the names of the god-king; afterwards of
God and the king; still later of persons of high rank; and finally come,
some of them, to be used between man and man. All forms of complimentary
address were at first the expressions of submission from prisoners to
their conqueror, or from subjects to their ruler, either human or
divine—expressions that were afterwards used to propitiate subordinate
authorities, and slowly descended into ordinary intercourse. All modes
of salutation were once obeisances made before the monarch and used in
worship of him after his death. Presently others of the god-descended
race were similarly saluted; and by degrees some of the salutations have
become the due of all.[9] Thus, no sooner does the originally
homogeneous social mass differentiate into the governed and the
governing parts, than this last exhibits an incipient differentiation
into religious and secular—Church and State; while at the same time
there begins to be differentiated from both, that less definite species
of government which rides our daily intercourse—a species of government
which, as we may see in heralds’ colleges, in books of the peerage, in
masters of ceremonies, is not without a certain embodiment of its own.
Each of these kinds of government is itself subject to successive
differentiations. In the course of ages, there arises, as among
ourselves, a highly complex political organization of monarch,
ministers, lords and commons, with their subordinate administrative
departments, courts of justice, revenue offices, &c., supplemented in
the provinces by municipal governments, county governments, parish or
union governments—all of them more or less elaborated. By its side there
grows up a highly complex religious organization, with its various
grades of officials from archbishops down to sextons, its colleges,
convocations, ecclesiastical courts, &c.; to all which must be added the
ever-multiplying independent sects, each with its general and local
authorities. And at the same time there is developed a highly complex
aggregation of customs, manners, and temporary fashions, enforced by
society at large, and serving to control those minor transactions
between man and man which are not regulated by civil and religious law.
Moreover, it is to be observed that this ever-increasing heterogeneity
in the governmental appliances of each nation, has been accompanied by
an increasing heterogeneity in the governmental appliances of different
nations: all of which are more or less unlike in their political systems
and legislation, in their creeds and religious institutions, in their
customs and ceremonial usages.
Simultaneously there has been going on a second differentiation of a
more familiar kind; that, namely, by which the mass of the community
has been segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers. While
the governing part has undergone the complex development above
detailed, the governed part has undergone an equally complex
development; which has resulted in that minute division of labour
characterizing advanced nations. It is needless to trace out
this progress from its first stages, up through the caste divisions of
the East and the incorporated guilds of Europe, to the elaborate
producing and distributing organization existing among ourselves.
Political economists have long since indicated the evolution which,
beginning with a tribe whose members severally perform the same
actions, each for himself ends with a civilized community whose
members severally perform different actions for each other; and they
have further pointed out the changes through which the solitary
producer of any one commodity, is transformed into a combination of
producers who, united under a master, take separate parts in the
manufacture of such commodity. But there are yet other and
higher phases of this advance from the homogeneous to the
heterogeneous in the industrial organization of society. Long after
considerable progress has been made in the division of labour among
the different classes of workers, there is still little or no division
of labour among the widely separated parts of the community: the
nation continues comparatively homogeneous in the respect that in each
district the same occupations are pursued. But when roads and other
means of transit become numerous and good, the different districts
begin to assume different functions, and to become mutually dependent.
The calico-manufacture locates itself in this county, the
woollen-manufacture in that; silks are produced here, lace there;
stockings in one place, shoes in another; pottery, hardware, cutlery,
come to have their special towns; and ultimately every locality grows
more or less distinguished from the rest by the leading occupation
carried on in it. Nay, more, this subdivision of functions shows
itself not only among the different parts of the same nation, but
among different nations. That exchange of commodities which free-trade
promises so greatly to increase, will ultimately have the effect of
specializing, in a greater or less degree, the industry of each
people. So that beginning with a barbarous tribe, almost if not
quite homogeneous in the functions of its members, the progress has
been, and still is, towards an economic aggregation of the whole human
race; growing ever more heterogeneous in respect of the separate
functions assumed by separate nations, the separate functions assumed
by the local sections of each nation, the separate functions assumed
by the many kinds of makers and traders in each town, and the separate
functions assumed by the workers united in producing each commodity.
* * * * *
§ 49. Not only is the law thus clearly exemplified in the evolution of
the social organism, but it is exemplified with equal clearness in the
evolution of all products of human thought and action; whether concrete
or abstract, real or ideal. Let us take Language as our first
illustration.
The lowest form of language is the exclamation, by which an entire idea
is vaguely conveyed through a single sound; as among the lower animals.
That human language ever consisted solely of exclamations, and so was
strictly homogeneous in respect of its parts of speech, we have no
evidence. But that language can be traced down to a form in which nouns
and verbs are its only elements, is an established fact. In the gradual
multiplication of parts of speech out of these primary ones—in the
differentiation of verbs into active and passive, of nouns into abstract
and concrete—in the rise of distinctions of mood, tense, person, of
number and case—in the formation of auxiliary verbs, of adjectives,
adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, articles—in the divergence of those
orders, genera, species, and varieties of parts of speech by which
civilized races express minute modifications of meaning—we see a change
from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. And it may be remarked, in
passing, that it is more especially in virtue of having carried this
subdivision of functions to a greater extent and completeness, that the
English language is superior to all others. Another aspect under
which we may trace the development of language, is the differentiation
of words of allied meanings. Philology early disclosed the truth that in
all languages words may be grouped into families having a common
ancestry. An aboriginal name, applied indiscriminately to each of an
extensive and ill-defined class of things or actions, presently
undergoes modifications by which the chief divisions of the class are
expressed. These several names springing from the primitive root,
themselves become the parents of other names still further modified. And
by the aid of those systematic modes which presently arise, of making
derivatives and forming compound terms expressing still smaller
distinctions, there is finally developed a tribe of words so
heterogeneous in sound and meaning, that to the uninitiated it seems
incredible they should have had a common origin. Meanwhile, from other
roots there are being evolved other such tribes, until there results a
language of some sixty thousand or more unlike words, signifying as many
unlike objects, qualities, acts. Yet another way in which language
in general advances from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, is in the
multiplication of languages. Whether, as Max Müller and Bunsen think,
all languages have grown from one stock, or whether, as some
philologists say, they have grown from two or more stocks, it is clear
that since large families of languages, as the Indo-European, are of one
parentage, they have become distinct through a process of continuous
divergence. The same diffusion over the Earth’s surface which has led to
the differentiation of the race, has simultaneously led to a
differentiation of their speech: a truth which we see further
illustrated in each nation by the peculiarities of dialect found in
separate districts. Thus the progress of Language conforms to the
general law, alike in the evolution of languages, in the evolution of
families of words, and in the evolution of parts of speech.
On passing from spoken to written language, we come upon several classes
of facts, all having similar implications. Written language is connate
with Painting and Sculpture; and at first all three are appendages of
Architecture, and have a direct connexion with the primary form of all
Government—the theocratic. Merely noting by the way the fact that sundry
wild races, as for example the Australians and the tribes of South
Africa, are given to depicting personages and events upon the walls of
caves, which are probably regarded as sacred places, let us pass to the
case of the Egyptians. Among them, as also among the Assyrians, we find
mural paintings used to decorate the temple of the god and the palace of
the king (which were, indeed, originally identical); and as such they
were governmental appliances in the same sense that state-pageants and
religious feasts were. Further, they were governmental appliances in
virtue of representing the worship of the god, the triumphs of the
god-king, the submission of his subjects, and the punishment of the
rebellious. And yet again they were governmental, as being the products
of an art reverenced by the people as a sacred mystery. From the
habitual use of this pictorial representation, there naturally grew up
the but slightly-modified practice of picture-writing—a practice which
was found still extant among the Mexicans at the time they were
discovered. By abbreviations analogous to those still going on in our
own written and spoken language, the most familiar of these pictured
figures were successively simplified; and ultimately there grew up a
system of symbols, most of which had but a distant resemblance to the
things for which they stood. The inference that the hieroglyphics of the
Egyptians were thus produced, is confirmed by the fact that the
picture-writing of the Mexicans was found to have given birth to a like
family of ideographic forms; and among them, as among the Egyptians,
these had been partially differentiated into the _kuriological_ or
imitative, and the _tropical_ or symbolic: which were, however, used
together in the same record. In Egypt, written language underwent a
further differentiation; whence resulted the _hieratic_ and the
_epistolographic_ or _enchorial_: both of which are derived from the
original hieroglyphic. At the same time we find that for the expression
of proper names, which could not be otherwise conveyed, phonetic symbols
were employed; and though it is alleged that the Egyptians never
actually achieved complete alphabetic writing, yet it can scarcely be
doubted that these phonetic symbols occasionally used in aid of their
ideographic ones, were the germs out of which alphabetic writing grew.
Once having become separate from hieroglyphics, alphabetic writing
itself underwent numerous differentiations—multiplied alphabets were
produced: between most of which, however, more or less connexion can
still be traced. And in each civilized nation there has now grown up,
for the representation of one set of sounds, several sets of written
signs, used for distinct purposes. Finally, through a yet more important
differentiation came printing; which, uniform in kind as it was at
first, has since become multiform.
* * * * *
§ 50. While written language was passing through its earlier stages of
development, the mural decoration which formed its root was being
differentiated into Painting and Sculpture. The gods, kings, men, and
animals represented, were originally marked by indented outlines and
coloured. In most cases these outlines were of such depth, and the
object they circumscribed so far rounded and marked out in its leading
parts, as to form a species of work intermediate between intaglio and
bas-relief. In other cases we see an advance upon this: the raised
spaces between the figures being chiselled off, and the figures
themselves appropriately tinted, a painted bas-relief was produced. The
restored Assyrian architecture at Sydenham, exhibits this style of art
carried to greater perfection—the persons and things represented, though
still barbarously coloured, are carved out with more truth and in
greater detail; and in the winged lions and bulls used for the angles of
gateways, we may see a considerable advance towards a completely
sculptured figure; which, nevertheless, is still coloured, and still
forms part of the building. But while in Assyria the production of a
statue proper, seems to have been little, if at all, attempted, we may
trace in Egyptian art the gradual separation of the sculptured figure
from the wall. A walk through the collection in the British Museum will
clearly show this; while it will at the same time afford an opportunity
of observing the evident traces which the independent statues bear of
their derivation from bas-relief: seeing that nearly all of them not
only display that union of the limbs with the body which is the
characteristic of bas-relief, but have the back of the statue united
from head to foot with a block which stands in place of the original
wall. Greece repeated the leading stages of this progress. As in
Egypt and Assyria, these twin arts were at first united with each other
and with their parent, Architecture; and were the aids of Religion and
Government. On the friezes of Greek temples, we see coloured bas-reliefs
representing sacrifices, battles, processions, games—all in some sort
religious. On the pediments we see painted sculptures more or less
united with the tympanum, and having for subjects the triumphs of gods
or heroes. Even when we come to statues that are definitely separated
from the buildings to which they pertain, we still find them coloured;
and only in the later periods of Greek civilization, does the
differentiation of sculpture from painting appear to have become
complete. In Christian art we may clearly trace a parallel
re-genesis. All early paintings and sculptures throughout Europe, were
religious in subject—represented Christs, crucifixions, virgins, holy
families, apostles, saints. They formed integral parts of church
architecture, and were among the means of exciting worship: as in Roman
Catholic countries they still are. Moreover, the early sculptures of
Christ on the cross, of virgins, of saints, were coloured; and it needs
but to call to mind the painted madonnas and crucifixes still abundant
in continental churches and highways, to perceive the significant fact
that painting and sculpture continue in closest connexion with each
other, where they continue in closest connexion with their parent. Even
when Christian sculpture was pretty clearly differentiated from
painting, it was still religious and governmental in its subjects—was
used for tombs in churches and statues of kings; while, at the same
time, painting, where not purely ecclesiastical, was applied to the
decoration of palaces, and besides representing royal personages, was
almost wholly devoted to sacred legends. Only in quite recent times have
painting and sculpture become entirely secular arts. Only within these
few centuries has painting been divided into historical, landscape,
marine, architectural, genre, animal, still-life, &c., and sculpture
grown heterogeneous in respect of the variety of real and ideal subjects
with which it occupies itself.
Strange as it seems then, we find it no less true, that all forms of
written language, of painting, and of sculpture, have a common root in
the politico-religious decorations of ancient temples and palaces.
Little resemblance as they now have, the bust that stands on the
console, the landscape that hangs against the wall, and the copy of the
_Times_ lying upon the table, are remotely akin; not only in nature, but
by extraction. The brazen face of the knocker which the postman has just
lifted, is related not only to the woodcuts of the _Illustrated London
News_ which he is delivering, but to the characters of the _billet-doux_
which accompanies it. Between the painted window, the prayer-book on
which its light falls, and the adjacent monument, there is
consanguinity. The effigies on our coins, the signs over shops, the
figures that fill every ledger, the coat of arms outside the
carriage-panel, and the placards inside the omnibus, are, in common with
dolls, blue-books and paper-hangings, lineally descended from the rude
sculpture-paintings in which the Egyptians represented the triumphs and
worship of their god-kings. Perhaps no example can be given which more
vividly illustrates the multiplicity and heterogeneity of the products
that in course of time may arise by successive differentiations from a
common stock.
Before passing to other classes of facts, it should be observed that the
evolution of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous is displayed not
only in the separation of Painting and Sculpture from Architecture and
from each other, and in the greater variety of subjects they embody; but
it is further shown in the structure of each work. A modern picture or
statue is of far more heterogeneous nature than an ancient one. An
Egyptian sculpture-fresco represents all its figures as on one
plane—that is, at the same distance from the eye; and so is less
heterogeneous than a painting that represents them as at various
distances from the eye. It exhibits all objects as exposed to the same
degree of light; and so is less heterogeneous than a painting which
exhibits different objects, and different parts of each object, as in
different degrees of light. It uses scarcely any but the primary
colours, and these in their full intensity; and so is less heterogeneous
than a painting which, introducing the primary colours but sparingly,
employs an endless variety of intermediate tints, each of heterogeneous
composition, and differing from the rest not only in quality but in
intensity. Moreover, we see in these earliest works a great
uniformity of conception. The same arrangement of figures is perpetually
reproduced—the same actions, attitudes, faces, dresses. In Egypt the
modes of representation were so fixed that it was sacrilege to introduce
a novelty; and indeed it could have been only in consequence of a fixed
mode of representation that a system of hieroglyphics became possible.
The Assyrian bas-reliefs display parallel characters. Deities, kings,
attendants, winged-figures and animals, are severally depicted in like
positions, holding like implements, doing like things, and with like
expression or non-expression of face. If a palm-grove is introduced, all
the trees are of the same height, have the same number of leaves, and
are equidistant. When water is imitated, each wave is a counterpart of
the rest; and the fish, almost always of one kind, are evenly
distributed over the surface. The beards of the kings, the gods, and the
winged-figures, are everywhere similar; as are the manes of the lions,
and equally so those of the horses. Hair is represented throughout by
one form of curl. The king’s beard is quite architecturally built up of
compound tiers of uniform curls, alternating with twisted tiers placed
in a transverse direction, and arranged with perfect regularity; and the
terminal tufts of the bulls’ tails are represented in exactly the same
manner. Without tracing out analogous facts in early Christian
art, in which, though less striking, they are still visible, the advance
in heterogeneity will be sufficiently manifest on remembering that in
the pictures of our own day the composition is endlessly varied; the
attitudes, faces, expressions, unlike; the subordinate objects different
in size, form, position, texture; and more or less of contrast even in
the smallest details. Or, if we compare an Egyptian statue, seated bolt
upright on a block, with hands on knees, fingers outspread and parallel,
eyes looking straight forward, and the two sides perfectly symmetrical
in every particular, with a statue of the advanced Greek or the modern
school, which is asymmetrical in respect of the position of the head,
the body, the limbs, the arrangement of the hair, dress, appendages, and
in its relations to neighbouring objects, we shall see the change from
the homogeneous to the heterogeneous clearly manifested.
* * * * *
§ 51. In the co-ordinate origin and gradual differentiation of Poetry,
Music, and Dancing, we have another series of illustrations. Rhythm in
speech, rhythm in sound, and rhythm in motion, were in the beginning,
parts of the same thing; and have only in process of time become
separate things. Among various existing barbarous tribes we find them
still united. The dances of savages are accompanied by some kind of
monotonous chant, the clapping of hands, the striking of rude
instruments: there are measured movements, measured words, and measured
tones; and the whole ceremony, usually having reference to war or
sacrifice, is of governmental character. In the early records of the
historic races we similarly find these three forms of metrical action
united in religious festivals. In the Hebrew writings we read that the
triumphal ode composed by Moses on the defeat of the Egyptians, was sung
to an accompaniment of dancing and timbrels. The Israelites danced and
sung “at the inauguration of the golden calf. And as it is generally
agreed that this representation of the Deity was borrowed from the
mysteries of Apis, it is probable that the dancing was copied from that
of the Egyptians on those occasions.” There was an annual dance in
Shiloh on the sacred festival; and David danced before the ark. Again,
in Greece the like relation is everywhere seen: the original type being
there, as probably in other cases, a simultaneous chanting and mimetic
representation of the life and adventures of the god. The Spartan dances
were accompanied by hymns and songs; and in general the Greeks had “no
festivals or religious assemblies but what were accompanied with songs
and dances”—both of them being forms of worship used before altars.
Among the Romans, too, there were sacred dances: the Salian and
Lupercalian being named as of that kind. And even in Christian
countries, as at Limoges in comparatively recent times, the people have
danced in the choir in honour of a saint. The incipient separation
of these once united arts from each other and from religion, was early
visible in Greece. Probably diverging from dances partly religious,
partly warlike, as the Corybantian, came the war-dances proper, of which
there were various kinds; and from these resulted secular dances.
Meanwhile Music and Poetry, though still united, came to have an
existence separate from dancing. The aboriginal Greek poems, religious
in subject, were not recited but chanted; and though at first the chant
of the poet was accompanied by the dance of the chorus, it ultimately
grew into independence. Later still, when the poem had been
differentiated into epic and lyric—when it became the custom to sing the
lyric and recite the epic—poetry proper was born. As during the same
period musical instruments were being multiplied, we may presume that
music came to have an existence apart from words. And both of them were
beginning to assume other forms besides the religious. Facts
having like implications might be cited from the histories of later
times and peoples; as the practices of our own early minstrels, who sang
to the harp heroic narratives versified by themselves to music of their
own composition: thus uniting the now separate offices of poet,
composer, vocalist, and instrumentalist. But, without further
illustration, the common origin and gradual differentiation of Dancing,
Poetry, and Music will be sufficiently manifest.
The advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is displayed not
only in the separation of these arts from each other and from religion,
but also in the multiplied differentiations which each of them
afterwards undergoes. Not to dwell upon the numberless kinds of dancing
that have, in course of time, come into use; and not to occupy space in
detailing the progress of poetry, as seen in the development of the
various forms of metre, of rhyme, and of general organization; let us
confine our attention to music as a type of the group. As argued
by Dr. Burney, and as implied by the customs of still extant barbarous
races, the first musical instruments were, without doubt,
percussive—sticks, calabashes, tom-toms—and were used simply to mark the
time of the dance; and in this constant repetition of the same sound, we
see music in its most homogeneous form. The Egyptians had a lyre with
three strings. The early lyre of the Greeks had four, constituting their
tetrachord. In course of some centuries lyres of seven and eight strings
were employed. And, by the expiration of a thousand years, they had
advanced to their “great system” of the double octave. Through all which
changes there of course arose a greater heterogeneity of melody.
Simultaneously there came into use the different modes—Dorian, Ionian,
Phrygian, Æolian, and Lydian—answering to our keys: and of these there
were ultimately fifteen. As yet, however, there was but little
heterogeneity in the time of their music. Instrumental music during this
period being merely the accompaniment of vocal music, and vocal music
being completely subordinated to words,—the singer being also the poet,
chanting his own compositions and making the lengths of his notes agree
with the feet of his verses; there unavoidably arose a tiresome
uniformity of measure, which, as Dr Burney says, “no resources of melody
could disguise.” Lacking the complex rhythm obtained by our equal bars
and unequal notes, the only rhythm was that produced by the quantity of
the syllables, and was of necessity comparatively monotonous. And
further, it may be observed that the chant thus resulting, being like
recitative, was much less clearly differentiated from ordinary speech
than is our modern song. Nevertheless, considering the extended range of
notes in use, the variety of modes, the occasional variations of time
consequent on changes of metre, and the multiplication of instruments,
we see that music had, towards the close of Greek civilization, attained
to considerable heterogeneity: not indeed as compared with our music,
but as compared with that which preceded it. As yet, however,
there existed nothing but melody: harmony was unknown. It was not until
Christian church-music had reached some development, that music in parts
was evolved; and then it came into existence through a very unobtrusive
differentiation. Difficult as it may be to conceive, _à priori_, how the
advance from melody to harmony could take place without a sudden leap,
it is none the less true that it did so. The circumstance which prepared
the way for it, was the employment of two choirs singing alternately the
same air. Afterwards it became the practice (very possibly first
suggested by a mistake) for the second choir to commence before the
first had ceased; thus producing a fugue. With the simple airs then in
use, a partially harmonious fugue might not improbably thus result; and
a very partially harmonious fugue satisfied the ears of that age, as we
know from still preserved examples. The idea having once been given, the
composing of airs productive of fugal harmony would naturally grow up;
as in some way it _did_ grow up out of this alternate choir-singing. And
from the fugue to concerted music of two, three, four, and more parts,
the transition was easy. Without pointing out in detail the
increasing complexity that resulted from introducing notes of various
lengths, from the multiplication of keys, from the use of accidentals,
from varieties of time, from modulations and so forth, it needs but to
contrast music as it is, with music as it was, to see how immense is the
increase of heterogeneity. We see this if, looking at music in its
_ensemble_, we enumerate its many different genera and species—if we
consider the divisions into vocal, instrumental, and mixed; and their
subdivisions into music for different voices and different
instruments—if we observe the many forms of sacred music, from the
simple hymn, the chant, the canon, motet, anthem, &c., up to the
oratorio; and the still more numerous forms of secular music, from the
ballad up to the serenata, from the instrumental solo up to the
symphony. Again, the same truth is seen on comparing any one sample of
aboriginal music with a sample of modern music—even an ordinary song for
the piano; which we find to be relatively highly heterogeneous, not only
in respect of the varieties in the pitch and in the length of the notes,
the number of different notes sounding at the same instant in company
with the voice, and the variations of strength with which they are
sounded and sung, but in respect of the changes of key, the changes of
time, the changes of _timbre_ of the voice, and the many other
modifications of expression. While between the old monotonous
dance-chant and a grand opera of our own day, with its endless
orchestral complexities and vocal combinations, the contrast in
heterogeneity is so extreme that it seems scarcely credible that the one
should have been the ancestor of the other.
* * * * *
§ 52. Were they needed, many further illustrations might be cited. Going
back to the early time when the deeds of the god-king, chanted and
mimetically represented in dances round his altar, were further narrated
in picture-writings on the walls of temples and palaces, and so
constituted a rude literature, we might trace the development of
Literature through phases in which, as in the Hebrew Scriptures it
presents in one work, theology, cosmogony, history, biography, civil
law, ethics, poetry; through other phases in which, as in the Iliad, the
religious, martial, historical, the epic, dramatic, and lyric elements
are similarly commingled; down to its present heterogeneous development,
in which its divisions and subdivisions are so numerous and varied as to
defy complete classification. Or we might track the evolution of
Science: beginning with the era in which it was not yet differentiated
from Art, and was, in union with Art, the handmaid of Religion; passing
through the era in which the sciences were so few and rudimentary, as to
be simultaneously cultivated by the same philosophers; and ending with
the era in which the genera and species are so numerous that few can
enumerate them, and no one can adequately grasp even one genus. Or we
might do the like with Architecture, with the Drama, with Dress. But
doubtless the reader is already weary of illustrations; and my promise
has been amply fulfilled. I believe it has been shown beyond question,
that that which the German physiologists have found to be the law of
organic development, is the law of all development. The advance from the
simple to the complex, through a process of successive differentiations,
is seen alike in the earliest changes of the Universe to which we can
reason our way back, and in the earliest changes which we can
inductively establish; it is seen in the geologic and climatic evolution
of the Earth, and of every single organism on its surface; it is seen in
the evolution of Humanity, whether contemplated in the civilized
individual, or in the aggregation of races; it is seen in the evolution
of Society, in respect alike of its political, its religious, and its
economical organization; and it is seen in the evolution of all those
endless concrete and abstract products of human activity, which
constitute the environment of our daily life. From the remotest past
which Science can fathom, up to the novelties of yesterday, that in
which Evolution essentially consists, is the transformation of the
homogeneous into the heterogeneous.
-----
Footnote 8:
The substance of this chapter is nearly identical with the first half
of an essay on “Progress: its Law and Cause,” which was originally
published in the _Westminster Review_ for April 1857: only a few
unimportant additions and alterations have been made. The succeeding
chapter, however, in which the subject is continued, is, with the
exception of a fragment embodied in it, wholly new.
Footnote 9:
For detailed proof of these assertions see essay on _Manners and
Fashion_.