President's Address to the British Association.] 'since the
publication of "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection," and it is
therefore not too early now to ask what progress that bold theory has
made in scientific estimation. Since the "Origin" appeared it has
passed through four English editions,' [Footnote: Published by Mr.
John Murray, the English publisher of Virchow's Lecture. Bane and
antidote are thus impartially distributed by the same hand.] two
American, two German, two French, several Russian, a Dutch, and an
Italian edition. So far from Natural Selection being a thing of the
past [the 'Athenaeum' had stated it to be so] it is an accepted
doctrine with almost every philosophical naturalist, including, it
will always be understood, a considerable proportion who are not
prepared to admit that it accounts for all Mr. Darwin assigns to it.'
In the following year, at Innsbruck, Helmholtz took up the same
ground. [Footnote: 'Noch besteht lebhafter Streit um die Wahrheit oder
Wahrscheinlichkeit von Darwin's Theorie; er dreht sich aber doch
eigentlich nur um die Grenzen, welche wir fuer die Veraenderlichkeit
der Arten annehmen duerfen. Dass innerhalb derselben Species erbliche
Racenverschiedenheiten auf die von Darwin beschriebene Weise zu kommen
koennen, ja dass viele der bisher als verschiedene Species derselben
Gattung betrachteten Formen von derselben Urform abstammen, werden
auch seine Gegner kaum leugnen.'--(Populaere Vortraege.)] Another
decade has now passed, and he is simply blind who cannot see the
enormous progress made by the theory during that time. Some of the
outward and visible signs of this advance are readily indicated. The
hostility and fear which so long prevented the recognition of Mr.
Darwin by his own university have vanished, and this year Cambridge,
amid universal acclamation, conferred on him her Doctor's degree. The
Academy of Sciences in Paris, which had so long persistently closed
its doors against Mr. Darwin, has also yielded at last; while sermons,
lectures, and published articles plainly show that even the clergy
have, to a great extent, become acclimatised to the Darwinian air. My
brief reference to Mr. Darwin in the Birmingham Address was based upon
the knowledge that such changes had been accomplished, and were still
going on.
That the lecture of Professor Virchow can, to any practical extent
disturb this progress of public faith in the theory of evolution, I do
not believe. That the special lessons of caution which he inculcates
were exemplified by me, years before his voice was heard upon this
subject, has been proved in the foregoing pages. In point of fact, if
he had preceded me instead of following me, and if my desire had been
to incorporate his wishes in my words, I could not have accomplished
this more completely. It is possible, moreover, to draw the
coincident lines still further, for most of what he has said about
spontaneous generation might have been uttered by me. I share his
opinion that the theory of evolution in its complete form involves the
passage from matter which we now hold to be inorganic into organised
matter; in other words, involves the assumption that at some period or
other of the earth's history there occurred what would be now called
'spontaneous generation.' I agree with him that the proofs of it are
still wanting.' 'Whoever,' he says, recalls to mind the lamentable
failure of all the attempts made very recently to discover a decided
support for the _generatio aequivoca_ in the lower forms of transition
from the inorganic to the organic world will feel it doubly serious to
demand that this theory, so utterly discredited, should be in any way
accepted as the basis of all our views of life.' I hold with Virchow
that the failures have been lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly
discredited. But my position here is so well known that I need not
dwell upon it further.
With one special utterance of Professor Virchow his translator
connects me by name. 'I have no objection,' observes the Professor,
'to your saying that atoms of carbon also possess mind, or that in
their connection with the Plastidule company they acquire mind; only I
do not know how I am to perceive this.' This is substantially what I
had said seventeen years previously in the 'Saturday Review.' The
Professor continues: 'If I explain attraction and repulsion as
exhibitions of mind, as psychical phenomena, I simply throw the Psyche
out of the window, and the Psyche ceases to be a Psyche.' I may say,
in passing, that the Psyche that could be cast out of the window is
not worth houseroom. At this point the translator, who is evidently a
man of culture, strikes in with a foot-note. 'As an illustration of
Professor Virchow's meaning, we may quote the conclusion at which
Doctor Tyndall arrives respecting the hypothesis of a human soul,
offered as an explanation or a simplification of a series of obscure
phenomena--psychical phenomena, as he calls them. "If you are
content to make your soul a poetic rendering of a phenomenon which
refuses the yoke of ordinary physical laws, I, for one, would not
object to this exercise of ideality."' [Footnote: 'Presidential
Address delivered before the Birmingham and Midland Institute, October
1, 1877. Fortnightly Review,' Nov. 1, 1877, p. 60] Professor
Virchow's meaning, I admit, required illustration; but I do not
clearly see how the quotation from me subserves this purpose. I do
not even know whether I am cited as meriting praise or deserving
opprobrium. In a far coarser fashion this utterance of mine has been
dealt with in other places: it may therefore be worth while to spend a
few words upon it.
The sting of a wasp at the finger-end announces itself to the brain as
pain. The impression made by the sting travels, in the first place,
with comparative slowness along the nerves affected; and only when it
reaches the brain have we the fact of consciousness. Those who think
most profoundly on this subject hold that a chemical change, which,
strictly interpreted, is atomic motion, is, in such a case, propagated
along the nerve, and communicated to the brain. Again, on feeling the
sting I flap the insect violently away. What has caused this motion
of my hand? The command from the brain to remove the insect travels
along the motor nerves to the proper muscles, and, their force being
unlocked, they perform the work demanded of them. But what moved the
nerve molecules which unlocked the muscle? The sense of pain, it may
be replied. But how can a sense of pain, or any other state of
consciousness, make matter move? Not all the sense of pain or
pleasure in the world could lift a stone or move a billiard-ball; why
should it stir a molecule? Try to express the motion numerically in
terms of the sensation, and the difficulty immediately appears. Hence
the idea long ago entertained by philosophers, but lately brought into
special prominence, that the physical processes are complete in
themselves, and would go on just as they do if consciousness were not
at all implicated. Consciousness, on this view, is a kind of
by-product inexpressible in terms of force and motion, and unessential
to the molecular changes going on in the brain.
Four years ago, I wrote thus: 'Do states of consciousness enter as
links into the chain of antecedence and sequence, which gives rise to
bodily actions? Speaking for myself, it is certain that I have no
power of imagining such states interposed between the molecules of the
brain, and influencing the transference of motion among the molecules.
The thing "eludes all mental presentation." Hence an iron strength
seems to belong to the logic which claims for the brain an automatic
action uninfluenced by consciousness. But it is, I believe, admitted
by those who hold the automaton theory, that states of consciousness
are produced by the motion of the molecules of the brain; and this
production of consciousness by molecular motion is to me quite as
unpresentable to the mental vision as the production of molecular
motion by consciousness. If I reject one result I must reject both.
I, however, reject neither, and thus stand in the presence of two
Incomprehensibles, instead of one Incomprehensible.' Here I secede
from the automaton theory, though maintained by friends who have all
my esteem, and fall back upon the avowal which occurs with such
wearisome iteration throughout the foregoing pages; namely, my own
utter incapacity to grasp the problem.
This avowal is repeated with emphasis in the passage to which
Professor Virchow's translator draws attention. What, I there
ask, is the causal connection between the objective and the
subjective--between molecular motions and states of consciousness?
My answer is: I do not see the connection, nor am I acquainted with
anybody who does. It is no explanation to say that the objective
and subjective are two sides of one and the same phenomenon.
Why should the phenomenon have two sides? This is the very core
of the difficulty. There are plenty of molecular motions which
do exhibit this two-sidedness. Does water think or feel when it
runs into frost-ferns upon a window pane? If not, why should
the molecular motion of the brain be yoked to this mysterious
companion--consciousness? We can form a coherent picture of all the
purely physical processes--the stirring of the brain, the thrilling of
the nerves, the discharging of the muscles, and all the subsequent
motions of the organism. We are here dealing with mechanical problems
which are mentally presentable.
But we can form no picture of the process whereby consciousness
emerges, either as a necessary link, or as an accidental by-product,
of this series of actions. The reverse process of the production of
motion by consciousness is equally unpresentable to the mind. We are
here in fact on the boundary line of the intellect, where the ordinary
canons of science fail to extricate us. If we are true to these
canons, we must deny to subjective phenomena all influence on physical
processes. The mechanical philosopher, as such, will never place a
state of consciousness and a group of molecules in the relation of
mover and moved. Observation proves them to interact; but, in passing
from the one to the other, we meet a blank which the logic of
deduction is unable to fill. This, the reader will remember, is the
conclusion at which I had arrived more than twenty years ago. I lay
bare unsparingly the central difficulty of the materialist, and tell
him that the facts of observation which he considers so simple are
'almost as difficult to be seized mentally as the idea of a soul.' I go
further, and say, in effect, to those who wish to retain this idea,
'If you abandon the interpretations of grosser minds, who image the
soul as a Psyche which could be thrown out of the window--an entity
which is usually occupied, we know not how, among the molecules of the
brain, but which on due occasion, such as the intrusion of a bullet or
the blow of a club, can fly away into other regions of space--if,
abandoning this heathen notion, you consent to approach the subject in
the only way in which approach is possible--if you consent to make
your soul a poetic rendering of a phenomenon which, as I have taken
more pains than anybody else to show you, refuses the yoke of ordinary
physical laws--then I, for one, would not object to this exercise of
ideality.' I say it strongly, but with good temper, that the
theologian, or the defender of theology, who hacks and scourges me for
putting the question in this light is guilty of black ingratitude.
*****
Notwithstanding the agreement thus far pointed out, there are certain
points in Professor Virchow's lecture to which I should feel inclined
to take exception. I think it was hardly necessary to associate the
theory of evolution with Socialism; it may be even questioned whether
it was correct to do so. As Lange remarks, the aim of Socialism, or
of its extreme leaders, is to overthrow the existing systems of
government, and anything that helps them to this end is welcomed,
whether it be atheism or papal infallibility. For long years the
Socialists saw Church and State united against them, and both were
therefore regarded with a common hatred. But no sooner does a serious
difference arise between Church and State, than a portion of the
Socialists begin immediately to dally with the former. [Footnote:
'Geschichte des Materialismus,' 2e Auflage, vol. ii. p. 538.] The
experience of the last German elections illustrates Lange's position.
Far nobler and truer to my mind than this fear of promoting Socialism
by a scientific theory which the best and soberest heads in the world
have substantially accepted, is the position assumed by Helmholtz, who
in his 'Popular Lectures' describes Darwin's theory as embracing 'an
essentially new creative thought' (einen wesentlich neuen
schoepferischen Gedanken), and who illustrates the greatness of this
thought by copious references to the solutions, previously undreamt
of, which it offers of the enigmas of life and organisation. He
points to the clouds of error and confusion which it has already
dispersed, and shows how the progress of discovery since its first
enunciation is simply a record of the approach of the theory towards
complete demonstration. One point in this 'popular' exposition
deserves especial mention here. Helmholtz refers to the dominant
position acquired by Germany in physiology and medicine, while other
nations have kept abreast of her in the investigation of inorganic
nature. He claims for German men the credit of pursuing with
unflagging and self-denying industry, with purely ideal aims, and
without any immediate prospect of practical utility, the cultivation
of pure science. But that which has determined German superiority in
the fields referred to was, in his opinion, something different from
this. Enquiries into the nature of life are intimately connected with
psychological and ethical questions; and he claims for his countrymen
a greater fearlessness of the consequences which a full knowledge of
the truth may here carry along with it, than reigns among the
enquirers of other nations. And why is this the case? 'England and
France,' he says, 'possess distinguished investigators--men competent
to follow up and illustrate with vigorous energy the methods of
natural science; but they have hitherto been compelled to bend before
social and theological prejudices, and could only utter their
convictions under the penalty of injuring their social influence and
usefulness. Germany has gone forward more courageously. She has
cherished the trust, which has never been deceived, that complete
truth carries with it the antidote against the bane and danger which
follow in the train of half knowledge. A cheerfully laborious and
temperate people--a people morally strong--can well afford to look
truth full in the face. Nor are they to be ruined by the enunciation
of one-sided theories, even when these may appear to threaten the
bases of society.' These words of Helmholtz are, in my opinion, wiser
and more applicable to the condition of Germany at the present moment
than those which express the fears of Professor Virchow. It will be
remembered that at the time of his lecture his chief anxieties were
directed towards France; but France has since that time given ample
evidence of her ability to crush, not only Socialists, but
anti-Socialists, who would impose on her a yoke which she refuses to
bear.
In close connection with these utterances of Helmholtz, I place
another utterance not less noble, which I trust was understood and
appreciated by those to whom it was addressed. 'If,' said the
President of the British Association in his opening address in Dublin,
we could lay down beforehand the precise limits of possible knowledge,
the problem of physical science would be already half solved. But the
question to which the scientific explorer has often to address himself
is, not merely whether he is able to solve this or that problem; but
whether he can so far unravel the tangled threads of the matter with
which he has to deal, as to weave them into a definite problem at
all ... If his eye seem dim, he must look steadfastly and with hope
into the misty vision, until the very clouds wreathe themselves into
definite forms. If his ear seem dull, he must listen patiently and
with sympathetic trust to the intricate whisperings of Nature--the
goddess, as she has been called, of a hundred voices--until here and
there he can pick out a few simple notes to which his own powers can
resound. If, then, at a moment when he finds himself placed on a
pinnacle from which he is called upon to take a perspective survey of
the range of science, and to tell us what he can see from his vantage
ground; if at such a moment after straining his gaze to the very verge
of the horizon, and after describing the most distant of well-defined
objects, he should give utterance also to some of the subjective
impressions which he is conscious of receiving from regions beyond; if
he should depict possibilities which seem opening to his view; if he
should explain why he thinks this a mere blind alley and that an open
path; _then the fault and the loss would be alike ours if we refused to
listen calmly, and temperately to form our own judgment on what we
hear; then assuredly it is we who would be committing the error of
confounding matters of fact with matters of opinion, if we failed to
discriminate between the various elements contained in such a
discourse, and assumed that they had been all put on the same
footing_.'
*****
While largely agreeing with him, I cannot quite accept the setting in
which Professor Virchow places the confessedly abortive attempts to
secure an experimental basis for the doctrine of spontaneous
generation. It is not a doctrine 'so discredited' that some of the
scientific thinkers of England accept 'as the basis of all their
views of life.' Their induction is by no means thus limited. They
have on their side more than the 'reasonable probability' deemed
sufficient by Bishop Butler for practical guidance in the gravest
affairs, that the members of the solar system which are now discrete
once formed a continuous mass; that in the course of untold ages,
during which the work of condensation, through the waste of heat in
space, went on, the planets were detached; and that our present sun is
the residual nucleus of the flocculent or gaseous ball from which the
planets were successively separated. Life, as we define it, was not
possible for aeons subsequent to this separation. When and how did it
appear? I have already pressed this question, but have received no
answer. [Footnote: In the 'Apology for the Belfast Address,' the
question is reasoned out.] If, with Professor Knight, we regard the
Bible account of the introduction of life upon the earth as a poem,
not as a statement of fact, where are we to seek for guidance as to
the fact? There does not exist a barrier possessing the strength of a
cobweb to oppose to the hypothesis, which ascribes the appearance of
life to that 'potency of matter' which finds expression in natural
evolution. [Footnote: 'We feel it an undeniable necessity,' says
Professor Virchow, not to sever the organic world from the whole, as
if it were something disjoined from the whole.' This grave statement
cannot be weakened by the subsequent pleasantry regarding 'Carbon &
Co.']
This hypothesis is not without its difficulties, but they vanish when
compared with those which encumber its rivals. There are various
facts in science obviously connected, and whose connections we are
unable to trace; but we do not think of filling the gap between them
by the intrusion of a separable spiritual agent. In like manner
though we are unable to trace the course of things from the nebula,
when there was no life in our sense, to the present earth where life
abounds, the spirit and practice of science pronounce against the
intrusion of an anthropomorphic creator. Theologians must liberate
and refine their conceptions or be prepared for the rejection of them
by thoughtful minds. It is they, not we, who lay claim to knowledge
never given to man. Our refusal of the creative hypothesis is less an
assertion of knowledge than a protest against the assumption of
knowledge which must long, if not always, lie beyond us, and the claim
to which is a source of perpetual confusion.' At the same time, when I
look with strenuous gaze into the whole problem as far as my
capacities allow, overwhelming wonder is the predominant feeling. This
wonder has come to me from the ages just as much as my understanding,
and it has an equal right to satisfaction. Hence I say, if,
abandoning your illegitimate claim to knowledge, you place, with Job,
your forehead in the dust and acknowledge the authorship of this
universe to be past finding out--if, having made this confession, and
relinquished the views of the mechanical theologian, you desire for
the satisfaction of feelings which I admit to be, in great part, those
of humanity at large, to give ideal form to the Power that moves all
things--it is not by me that you will find objections raised to this
exercise of ideality, if it be only consciously and worthily carried
out.
*****
Again, I think Professor Virchow's position, in regard to the question
of _contagium animatum_, is not altogether that of true philosophy. He
points to the antiquity of the doctrine. 'It is lost,' he says, 'in
the darkness of the middle ages. We have received this name from our
forefathers, and it already appears distinctly in the sixteenth
century. We possess several works of that time which put forward
_contagium animatum_ as a scientific doctrine, with the same confidence,
with the same sort of proof, with which the "Plastidulic soul" is now
set forth.'
These speculations of our 'forefathers' will appeal differently to
different minds. By some they will be dismissed with a sneer; to
others they will appeal as proofs of genius on the part of those who
enunciated them. There are men, and by no means the minority, who,
however wealthy in regard to facts, can never rise into the region of
principles; and they are sometimes intolerant of those who can. They
are formed to plod meritoriously on the lower levels of thought,
unpossessed of the pinions necessary to reach the heights. They cannot
realise the mental act--the act of inspiration it might well be
called--by which a man of genius, after long pondering and proving,
reaches a theoretic conception which unravels and illuminates the
tangle of centuries of observation and experiment. There are minds,
it may be said in passing, who at the present moment stand in this
relation to Mr. Darwin. For my part, I should be inclined to ascribe
to penetration rather than to presumption the notion of a _contagium
animatum_. He who invented the term ought, I think, to be held in
esteem; for he had before him the quantity of fact, and the measure of
analogy, that would justify a man of genius in taking a step so bold.
'Nevertheless,' says Professor Virchow, 'no one was able throughout
a long time to discover these living germs of disease. The sixteenth
century did not find them, nor did the seventeenth, nor the
eighteenth.' But it may be urged, in reply to this, that the theoretic
conjecture often legitimately comes first. It is the forecast of
genius which anticipates the fact and constitutes a spur towards its
discovery. If, instead of being a spur, the theoretic guess rendered
men content with imperfect knowledge, it would be a thing to be
deprecated. But in modern investigation this is distinctly not the
case; Darwin's theory, for example, like the undulatory theory, has
been a motive power and not an anodyne. 'At last,' continues
Professor Virchow, 'in the nineteenth century we have begun little by
little really to find _contagia animata_.' So much the more honour, I
infer, is due to those who, three centuries in advance, so put
together the facts and analogies of contagious disease as to divine
its root and character. Professor Virchow seems to deprecate the
'obstinacy' with which this notion of a _contagium vivum_ emerged. Here
I should not be inclined to follow him; because I do not know, nor
does he tell me, how much the discovery of facts in the nineteenth
century is indebted to the stimulus derived from the theoretic
discussions of preceding centuries. The genesis of scientific ideas
is a subject of profound interest and importance. He would be but a
poor philosopher who would sever modern chemistry from the efforts of
the alchemists, who would detach modern atomic doctrines from the
speculations of Lucretius and his predecessors, or who would claim for
our present knowledge of _contagia_ an origin altogether independent of
the efforts of our 'forefathers' to penetrate this enigma.
*****