MECHANISM
_Automatic._ _Spring._ _Species._ _Cause._ _Agnostic._ _Unction._
_Spiritualism._ _Humanitarianism._
“The material universe is the complement of the intellect,
and without the study of its laws reason would never have
awoke to its higher forms of self-consciousness at all. It
is the non-ego, through and by which the ego is endowed with
self-discernment.”—TYNDALL: _Fragments of Science_.
“Whatever else a child may be, in respect of this particular
question [respiration], it is a complicated piece of mechanism,
built up out of materials supplied by its mother; and in the course
of such building-up, provided with a set of motors—the muscles.
Each of these muscles contains a stock of substance capable of
yielding energy under certain conditions, one of which is a change
of state in the nerve fibres connected with it. The powder in a
loaded gun is such another stock of substance capable of yielding
energy in consequence of a change of state in the mechanism of the
lock....
“The infant is launched into altogether new surroundings; and these
operate through the mechanism of the nervous machinery, with the
result that the potential energy of some of the work-stuff in the
muscles which bring about inspiration is suddenly converted into
actual energy; and this, operating through the mechanism of the
respiratory apparatus, gives rise to an act of inspiration. As the
bullet is propelled by the ‘going-off’ of the powder, so it might
be said that the ribs are raised and the midriff depressed by the
‘going-off’ of certain portions of muscular work-stuff.”—HUXLEY:
_Science and Morals_.
The two most interesting points about the above passage are firstly,
that it was written, not by an engineer, but by a natural scientist;
and secondly, that the title of the essay from which it is taken is
_Capital and Labour_. That is to say, the abundance of mechanical
simile in it is neither the natural colouring of an imagination
subdued to what it works in, nor a deliberate system of metaphors
fabricated with the object of figuring forth a biological process to
the uninitiated. On the contrary, the notion of child-birth is itself
only introduced for the purpose of illustration. The images by which
it is conveyed are thus revealed as the natural furniture of the
writer’s imagination. They can no longer have been images to him, but
rather his normal outlook on the chain of facts in which he was most
interested; and the passage is, of course, only one of thousands in
which we can see nineteenth-century imagination working in a similar
way.
It would be of small general interest to give a list of all the
mechanical and technical words which had come into our vocabulary
since the middle of the seventeenth century—words like _calculus_,
_centrifugal_, _dynamic_, _galvanize_, _inertia_, _momentum_,
_oscillate_, _polarity_, _reciprocating_, _rotate_, _vibrate_ (except
in the sense ‘to brandish’),[55]... We are concerned more with their
influence on the meanings of older words. And from this point of
view the passage quoted from Huxley can indeed give us a fair idea
of the untold changes that were secretly brewing when, for instance,
the word _mechanic_ (Greek ‘mēchanē’, a ‘device’, or ‘contrivance’)
lost its old meaning of ‘pertaining to manual labour’, and began to
be applied to machines. This happened in the seventeenth century,
when also the word _machine_, which had formerly been used of plots
and intrigues, or for any kind of erection, was first used with its
modern meaning. We begin to hear of the six “Mechanick Faculties” or
“Simple Machines”, i.e. the _Balance_, _Lever_, _Pulley_, _Screw_,
_Wedge_, and _Wheel_; and in a little book called _Mathematicall
Magick_, by Bishop Wilkins, one of the first members of the Royal
Society, these are discussed with great enthusiasm and many
respectful references to Aristotle. It is in the same work that we
first hear in English of a science of _Mechanics_. This new science,
foreshadowed to some extent by Aristotle, from whose treatise with
that title we take the word, had quickly been carried farther by
his successor, Archimedes. Most civilizations seem to have produced
towards their close mechanical devices of one kind or another, but
more especially “engines” of war. What distinguishes our own is the
way in which mechanism has gradually entered into our outlook—a fact
which is marked, among other things, by our use of the Greek prefix
‘auto-’ (self) for things worked by machinery. In a Greek dictionary
we find upwards of two hundred words beginning with this prefix, but
not one of them is applied to anything mechanical.
Let us consider the word _automatic_. The Greek ‘automatos’, which
meant ‘self-moved’,[56] was Latinized in the form ‘automatus’ at
about the beginning of our era, and _automatous_—now obsolete—is
actually found in the works of the seventeenth-century writer, Sir
Thomas Browne. This old adjective had the sense of “spontaneous”, “of
one’s own free will”, and was used of the animal and vegetable worlds
as opposed to the mineral, or of events which came about “by chance”;
while in Plato’s philosophy the distinction between that which is
“self-moved”, and that which can only be moved by something outside
itself had been taken as the very antithesis between spirit and
matter, between eternal and perishable. _Automatic_ is first found
in English in the eighteenth century. The earliest quotation given
by the _Oxford Dictionary_ is taken from David Hartley, who wrote in
1748:
“The motions of the body are of two kinds, automatic and voluntary.
The automatic motions are those which arise from the mechanism
of the body in an evident manner. They are called automatic from
their resemblance to the motions of automata, or machines, whose
principle of motion is within themselves. Of this kind are the
motions of the heart and peristaltic motion of the bowels.”
In 1802 Paley pointed out “the difference between an animal and an
automatic statue”, and sixty years later a writer on physics, after
speaking of the amoeba as being “irritable and automatic”, added a
note to the effect that—
Automatic ... has recently acquired a meaning almost exactly
opposite to that which it originally bore, and an automatic action
is now by many understood to mean nothing more than an action
produced by some machinery or other. In this work I use it in the
older sense, as denoting an action of a body, the causes of which
appear to lie in the body itself.
The reason for this semantic _volte face_ may perhaps be detected
in the history of the parallel word _automaton_. This had long ago
(about 10 B.C.) been applied to the few primitive mechanical devices
which Aryan civilization had then evolved, and its appearance
in English seems to have preceded that of _automatic_ by nearly
two centuries, as it is found in 1611 describing “a picture of a
gentlewoman” made with eyes that open and shut. Then, later on in the
same century, it began to be applied to clocks and watches, and there
seems every reason to suppose that the presence of this particular
kind of apparent “self-mover” on so many mantelpieces and in so many
vest-pockets must have determined the peculiarly dead and mechanical
meaning which _automatic_ now possesses.
The ancients measured time by the regulated flow of water. Striking
clocks of some kind were known in Europe as far back as the twelfth
or thirteenth century. But they seem to have been unreliable,
costly, and rare until the discovery by Galileo of the “isochronism”
of pendulums. _Pendulum_ is first found in 1660, in Boyle’s
writings, _vibrate_ and _vibration_ in 1667. The new toy seems to
have taken hold of Europe’s imagination in the most extraordinary
way. Both _clockwork_ and _mainspring_ were used figuratively the
first time they are known to have been used in English at all, a
sixteenth-century writer even anticipating Paley so far as to write:
God’s the main spring, that maketh every way
All the small wheels of this great Engin play.
We hear talk almost at once of the _springs_[57] of people’s actions.
Descartes compared the souls of brutes to watches, and Leibnitz
actually compared the souls and bodies of men to _two_ watches! It
seems as though the works had started going in our heads.
And since then, so far from stopping, they have accelerated,
especially during the last century—to what extent it is difficult for
us to realize fully, simply because it has all happened so recently.
Differences of outlook on such matters as biology and physiology
between ourselves and the Middle Ages we readily perceive, though
we may not properly understand them; here we stand a long way off,
and can often see quite plainly how the old words have altered
their meanings. But from the way in which our great grandfathers
used such words as _energy_, _midriff_, _motor_, _muscle_, _nerve_,
_respiration_, _work_—to take examples only from the passage quoted
at the beginning of this chapter—we sometimes find it hard, even
when we have traced the history of their meanings up to that date,
to feel what different associations they must have called up to
the generations which died before Huxley was born. At this time,
thirty years after his death, it is only our own imagination,
working introspectively on such a phrase as “nervous machinery”, and
grasping, as it can do, how the meanings of the two words have been
running into one another, which can bring this difference before
us. When it has done so, we are again reminded of the simple yet
striking truth that all knowledge which has been conveyed by means of
speech to the reason has travelled in metaphors taken from man’s own
activities and from the solid things which he handles. The present
is no different from the past. Only the metaphors get buried deeper
and deeper beneath one another; they interact more subtly, and do
not always leave any _outward_ trace on the language. It would be
interesting, for example, were it possible, to discover just how
much of the average man’s idea of blood circulation is due to the
invention of that elementary mechanical device, the pump;[58] or how
much of the mental image which he has formed of the interaction of
muscle, nerve, and brain would fade from his consciousness if there
were no such thing as the electric telegraph.
We think by means of words, and we have to use the same ones for so
many different thoughts that as soon as new meanings have entered
into one set, they creep into all our theories and begin to mould
our whole cosmos; and from the theories they pass into more words,
and so into our lives and institutions. Thus, not only were the
Newtonian heavens the playground of just those forces which had been
used for the working of the six “simple machines”, but Montesquieu
insists that the English Whigs copied the new astronomy when they
were creating the modern British Constitution. Referring to this
in one of his essays, Woodrow Wilson drew attention to the fact
that the Constitution of the United States had been made on the
same principle. “They [writers in the _Federalist_] speak of the
_checks_ and _balances_ of the Constitution,” he said, “and use to
express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe,
and particularly of the solar system....” And we notice that the
late President, when he went on to speak of reconstructing the
Constitution, was fain to lean on another analogy, reminding his
hearers that government is “not a machine, but a living thing”; that
it is “modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped
to its functions by the sheer pressure of life”; and again that it
is a body of men “with highly differentiated functions”. In fact, we
are merely launched into another set of metaphors, of which, however,
the speaker is in this case conscious, for he explicitly affirms that
government is “accountable to Darwin, not to Newton”.
_Environment_, _evolution_, _development_, _instinct_, _species_,
_spontaneous_, _variation_ are some of the more important words,
whose modern meanings, if we look at their semantic history, are
found to bear the unmistakable stamp of Darwinism, and we ought
perhaps to add _ooze_[59] and _slime_.[59] To Darwin we should have
to attribute the tendency of _evolution_ to lose its etymological
suggestion of a vegetable growth, an unfolding from the centre
outwards. _Species_ (Latin ‘species’, ‘form’ or ‘appearance’) was
used by Cicero to translate Plato’s “Idea” (Chapter VI). It held an
important place in the logic of the Middle Ages as one of the five
“predicables” by which an object could be defined, and for centuries
its biological meaning was only one among many. This particular
interpretation did not begin to come into prominence until the
eighteenth century, when Addison, for instance, used the phrase “the
species” of the human race; but since Darwin published his _Origin
of Species_ (in which the word is, of course, given an exclusively
biological sense) it has, for the ordinary man, had practically no
other. It is interesting to observe that here again, as the words are
commonly employed, the Latin form has grown more concrete and the
Greek more abstract and intellectual.
But the change did not confine itself to such technical words as
these. One has only to pick up a journalistic article on almost
any subject and read it, endeavouring to let the words mean only
what they did a hundred years ago, to see how the whole scheme of
Natural Selection can lurk unseen, but not unfelt, behind some
colourless little word like _adapt_, _competition_, _gregarious_,
_modification_, _protective_, _selection_, and even _animal_,
_facts_, _law_, _life_, _man_, _Nature_,... Or we can see it in the
curious, absolute use of the word _fit_, in the sense of ‘physically
healthy’, which, appearing first in the seventies, is obviously due
to the famous phrase, the “survival of the fittest” (i.e. the fittest
to survive in a struggle for existence). How modern the new meanings
are may be gauged by the fact that the word _heredity_, the basic
principle of modern natural scientific theory, is recorded by Francis
Galton as having been considered “fanciful and unusual” in 1859,
while _atavism_ first appears in 1833.
But when a little more time has elapsed and the nineteenth century
can be properly studied from the semantic point of view, there
is little reason to doubt that the interfusion of mechanical and
biological conceptions and the penetration of both into meaning
will present one of its most striking features. One of the greatest
triumphs of mechanism—greater than the Forth Bridge or the St.
Gothard Tunnel—is the fact that it has wormed itself into the meaning
of the word _cause_. This is, of course, a word which tends to alter
its meaning a little every time it is used, and there is evidence
that in former times, while there were separate words to express
such separate ideas as “bringing to birth”, “making to grow”, “being
guilty of”, ... there was no general term into which the one single
essence common to all these relations had been distilled. The Greek
and Latin words for _cause_, for example, were both closely connected
from the earliest times with their legal procedure (cf. _ac-cuse_,
etc., and the modern use of _cause_ in the same sense). At some
period, however—perhaps in the last two centuries before our era—such
a concept must have been precipitated, and we find Cicero defining
the Latin ‘causa’, with mathematical precision, simply as ‘that which
effects the thing of which it is the cause’. The fascination which
this abstraction exerted on the medieval imagination may be judged
from the fact that the writer of a fifteenth-century treatise on Love
introduced into it the sentence: “Every cause of a cause is cause of
thing caused”; and we soon find the philosophers seeking through a
“chain” of causes for that First Cause, which they identified with
the Almighty. By the nineteenth century this thought-system of an
abstract _causality_, brought about by means of abstract “laws”, lay,
like an empty house, ready to be taken over by a new owner. The new
owner was mechanism.
“The great abstract law of mechanical causality” (mechanischen
kausalität), wrote Haeckel in 1899, “now rules the entire universe,
as it does the mind of man. It is the steady, immutable pole-star,
whose clear light falls on our path through the dark labyrinth of
the countless separate phenomena.”
Under its influence even consciousness itself was, and still is,
often conceived of as being _caused_ by mechanical movements taking
place within the body. We also find thought described as a _function_
of the brain. This curious word had become extremely popular; and
somewhere about the sixties the noun began to be used as a verb.
We hear of nerves, brain, heart, ... _functioning_ or refusing
to _function_, an expression in which the mechanical flavour is
especially strong.
Thus, in the light of words, the historical relation between
mechanics and physiology looks not unlike that relation between
mathematics and astronomy which was suggested in a previous chapter.
We drew from out our own bodies, it would seem, the sense-experiences
of _force_ and _pressure_ and the like,[60] on which mechanics are
based; then we externalized them in tools and machines, and turned
them into abstract “laws”; finally, we proceeded to re-apply the
“laws” to the familiar objects from which we had first extracted
them, and the result was that we turned our previous notions of
these inside out. For the typical intellectual position towards
the end of the nineteenth century was exactly the reverse of the
typical Academic position. Plato had deduced the sense-world from
what we have called the inner world, and, while he had worked out
an elaborate and wise knowledge of this inner world, with its moral
impulses and aspirations, his philosophy had remained admittedly
bankrupt as far as detailed knowledge of the mechanism of the outer
world was concerned. Nineteenth-century science, on the other hand,
deduced the inner from the outer; it had mapped and charted the
mechanical part of Nature to a tenth of a millimetre,[61] but it
was well-nigh bankrupt as far as the inner world was concerned.
Huxley invented the word _agnostic_ (not-knowing) to express his own
attitude, and that of many millions since his day, to the nature and
origin of all this part of the cosmos. One of the few things about
which practically all “men of science”, as the phrase now went,
besides all those laymen who took the trouble to follow out the
various scientific discoveries and to listen to their metaphysical
reverberations, were agreed upon was that his senses and his reason
had succeeded in placing man in a material environment which appeared
to bear no relation whatever to his inner feelings and moral impulses.
For the expression of these, his proper humanity, he continued,
irrespective of his conscious belief, to live on what had been
developed through Plato and the Gospels, the Church and the poets.
For it was these, as we have seen, which had built up the meanings
of those old words in terms of which he learnt to think and feel
about his fellow-men. Whenever the biologico-mechanical meanings did
creep into human relationships—as, for example, into the economic
relationship through the word _competition_ and otherwise—the result
was, almost without exception, disastrous. The famous Encyclical
Letter and Syllabus of 1864, in which modern movements of thought
were condemned and anathematized wholesale from the Vatican, was thus
in some sense an attempt to express in dogmatic form a principle
which was, in fact, already active throughout Europe. And the
pathetic impotence of this papal gesture probably marks the maximum
point of that divergence between science and religion, as modes of
experience, which first became noticeable in the Alexandrian world,
and of which nineteenth-century philosophy had become sufficiently
conscious to create the word _Dualism_.
The rapid conquest of intellectual Europe, which was achieved,
not only by the general idea of evolution, but by the particular
Darwinian theory of mechanical natural selection, is a matter of some
surprise when we consider that a full acceptance of it necessitated
a reversal of practically every metaphysical idea and feeling likely
to be present in a nineteenth-century soul. No doubt one could point
to a variety of causes. There is evidence, for instance, in a certain
class of word which had recently begun to multiply that even in
Protestant countries the custodians of the ancient outlook were not
always fortresses of wisdom and enlightenment. _Religionism_ appears
towards the close of the eighteenth century, and then _religiosity_
(in a bad sense),[62] and in the next century the now obsolete
_religiose_. The word _pious_, which had long been degenerating
towards an imputation of feeble-mindedness, formed an unpleasant
derivative, _pietism_, which in turn produced its adjective
_pietistic_; and in 1864—an appropriate year—we first come up against
_clericalism_. _Unction_—the name of one of the deepest mysteries
of the Catholic Church—is first recorded by the _Oxford English
Dictionary_ with an offensive meaning in 1870, when Lowell writes of
“that clerical unction which in a vulgar nature so easily degenerates
into greasiness”. _Unctuous_ was not long in following suit, and
instances could no doubt be multiplied. The extension towards the
priesthood of this particular shade of disapproval seems to have
been the product of the age. Possibly the single earlier example is
the old word _cant_, which dates back to the Middle Ages, and is
said to have been born of exasperation at the whining tone adopted
by the mendicant friars in their “chants” (cantare). In the same
way may we not suppose that the words quoted above grew up out of
that extraordinary atmosphere of partly bovine, partly hypocritical,
acquiescence in obsolete dogma which Stuart Mill hit off in his
famous phrase[63]?
Nevertheless, we should have to look deeper than all this for the
true causes of a change of outlook as rapid and emphatic as that
which swept through the last century. If we did so, we should
probably discern, as one of the most efficient, that vivid sense
of orderliness and _arrangement_ which had grown up during the
eighteenth century, the reverence for Reason, and especially for
Reason reflected[64] in the impartial laws which govern the working
of Nature. To minds thus attuned direct intervention by the divine
at any one point in the natural process could only seem like an
intolerable liberty; and feeling as well as thought began to
revolt at the conjuring-tricks apparently reported in the Gospels.
Perhaps there is a faint indication of the new point of view in the
nineteenth-century use of the word _freak_ to describe a _lusus
naturae_, instead of the old _monster_, which is derived from the
Latin ‘moneo’, and implies that the oddity is sent as a divine
warning or portent.
The new cosmos—a complex of matter and forces proceeding mechanically
from spiral nebula to everlasting ice—took such a firm hold
on the imagination of Europe that labels like _spiritualism_,
_spiritualist_, _spiritualistic_[65] were employed to describe those
who believed it was anything more, and even _Vitalism_ and _Vitalist_
to distinguish those who held that life, as such, had any purpose or
significance. It is a curious remark that the erection within men’s
imaginations of this severely mechanical framework for themselves
was accompanied by, and may have been partly responsible for, an
increase in their sense of self-consciousness. The more automatic the
cosmos, apparently, the more the vital ego must needs feel itself
detached. At any rate, we find upwards of forty words hyphened with
_self_ created in the nineteenth century, and of these only about six
(_self-acting_, _self-regulating_, ...) are mechanical. Nor was it
only the material world from which men felt themselves more aloof.
Herbert Spencer remarked on the recent extension of the meaning of
the word _phenomenon_ to cover the thoughts of human beings—a point
of view which suggests an increased degree of detachment even from
thought itself; and an enormous number of words with terminations
such as _-ism_, _-ist_, _-ite_, _-ology_, _-arian_, are indications
of a more contemplative attitude to all that we ourselves do and
feel and think. What a difference between being _feminine_ and
being a _feminist_, between _hope_ and _optimism_, _romance_ and
_romanticism_, between _Christianity_ and _Christology_, between
liking _vegetables_ and being a _vegetarian_! We are hardly
conscious at all of being _human_, more of being _humane_, more
still of being _humanitarian_, and very conscious indeed of being
_humanitarianists_.
Detachment, however, spells freedom; and words are not wanting to
remind us of that enhanced sense of the value of individual liberty
which now found expression in the writings of the great Romantics
and of men like John Stuart Mill. _Autonomy_ had not been applied to
individuals, but only to states and societies, until the close of
the eighteenth century, and in the following century the adjective
_autonomous_ was introduced. We may compare _liberalism_ and
_liberal-minded_ with the old _libertine_; _authoritarian_ implies
a feeling in him who uses the word that all authority, as such,
is bad; the nineteenth century also saw the distinction between
_broad-minded_ and _narrow-minded_, and between _obscurantism_ and
_enlightenment_—a word which met with some opposition, according to
FitzEdward Hall, who records in his _Modern English_ (1873) that:
Enlightenment is, to this day, always used by a certain class of
English writers with a manifest sneer. The writers referred to are
those who would rather have been born under the rule of the barons
than under the inchoate rule of reason, and would gladly exchange
the age of science for the ages of faith and folly. Those who
object to the word will ordinarily be found to object to all that
it stands for.
Since the sense of freedom often appeared at its strongest in
imaginations which were most possessed with the mechanical view of
the universe, the paradox was not infrequent—especially in Germany—of
philosophers and scientists insisting fiercely on the freedom of
thought and using it to deny the possibility of any freedom at all!
Such thinkers found the word _Determinism_ useful to express the
mechanical part of the old _predestination_ without the latter’s
theological assumptions.
Other words which seem to be connected with the same trend of
thought are those that confine themselves to expressing a sense of
the worth and dignity of man, _as_ man, and irrespective of his
cosmic connections. Such are _humanism_,[66] _humanitarian_,[66]
_humanitarianism_, _individualism_, _individualist_,
_individualistic_, and many of the _self_ words, such as Carlyle’s
_self-help_, or the semantic change of _self-respect_, which is
first recorded as used with a praiseworthy meaning in Wordsworth’s
_Prelude_. Now the consciousness of the absolute value and infinite
potentiality of each human soul is revealed, as we saw, by the
words in which it first began to take verbal form, as having been
essentially an attribute of Christianity. Yet how differently these
nineteenth-century words sound from the Christian vocabulary of
the human and social virtues—_charity_, _lovingkindness_, _mercy_,
_pity_, and the like! The modern words seem to be related to
these glowing old Christian terms as the unemphasized, because
unquestioned, mutual affection of a happy couple is related to the
voluble ardours of courting. They preserve, we may say—they have
even greatly developed—that divine sense of the value and autonomy
of each individual human soul. But it is now more of a _political_
autonomy. It is as though they respected it rather from a manly sense
of obligation, and the sense of obligation is even extended, as we
see in the later semantic development of _humane_, _humanity_, and
_humanitarian_, to the brutes.
Thus, if the one outlook is indeed a lineal descendant of the other,
we are constrained to ask a little sadly what had become of a certain
sunny element, a suppressed poetic energy, a wonder and a wild
surprise, which lurks in the former words, but somehow—with all our
respect for them—not in the latter. And for light upon this question
we must turn to yet another group of words—small, yet of such
far-reaching implications as to demand a final chapter to themselves.