f m o _D a CD m CD THE SYSTEM OF ANIMATE NATURE THE GIFFORD LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS IN THE YEARS 1915 AND 1916 BY J. ARTHUR THOMSON, M.A., LL.D. Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I LONDON WILLIAMS & NORGATE 1920 PRINTED IN US.A. 9obtn Company BOOK MANUFACTURERS RAHWAV NEW JERSEY GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED TO MY TEACHER, COLLEAGUE, AND FRIEND, PROFESSOR PATRICK GEDDES " All depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed on the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our imagi- nation for a pattern of the world : rather may He graciously grant us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the foot- steps of the Creator imprinted on His creatures." BACON " This I dare affirm in knowledge of Nature, that a little natural philosophy, and the first entrance into it, doth dispose the opinion to atheism, but on the other side, much natural philosophy and wading deep into it, will bring about men's minds to religion." BACON PKEFACE IT was evidently tho desire of the founder of the Gifford Lectureships in the Scottish Universities that each lecturer should, from his own special studies and in his own way, endeavour to make some contribution that would help others in considering tho highest questions that Man can ask: What kind of world is this in which we live a universe or a multiverse? How has it come to be as it is? Does it give any hint of a purpose? What is Man's place in Nature? To what extent does our knowledge of Nature conform with our conception of God ? Lord Gifford contemplated the possibility of very varied answers to these and similar questions; he thought it pos- sible that some of them might be held to be unanswerable; his one stipulation was for reverent study. Under provisions so liberal, no apology need be made for a contribution which is scientific rather than philosophical, being in the main confined to the biological outlook. What- ever be our philosophical interpretation or our religious con- viction, we must admit the desirability of having more than a passing acquaintance with the system of things of which our everyday life is in some measure part. The idea of Nature as a temptress leading man's soul astray has long since disappeared, and most of us turn to Nature with ex- pectancy, varying with our temperament and experience. If the world we call " outer " be in any sense God's creation, will it not reveal to us something of Him ? If it be our chief end to glorify God, should we not put ourselves in the way y vi PREFACE of intellectually enjoying the works of His hands? If Nature is expressing a thought, may we not try to spell this out by patient observation? Even if we have no philosophi- cal or religious preconceptions of this sort, we are likely to understand our own life better by inquiring into the order of things in which we are immersed, sometimes, perhaps, almost submerged. The aim of this study of Animate Nature is to state the general results of biological inquiry which must be taken ac- count of if we are to think of organic Nature as a whole and in relation to the rest of our experience. Both among care- ful thinkers and careless passers-by views of organic Nature are held, in regard, for instance, to the organism as mechan- ism, the determinism of heredity, the struggle for existence, which seem to the author to be lacking in accuracy or in adequacy, which therefore tend to involve unnecessary diffi- culties in systematisation and perhaps gratuitous confusion in conduct. It has been declared by some that the world of life is " a dismal cockpit ", that in the behaviour of living creatures mind is a negligible quantity, that the study of heredity must leave us fatalistic, and that evolution is largely " a chapter of accidents ". Such views engender what may be called natural irreligion, and it is the object of this course to show that such views are scientifically untenable. Nature doubtless presents many puzzling features, but care must be taken to make sure that what seem to be uncon- formabilities are not due to the inadequacy of our knowl- edge. While trying to keep wishes from fathering thoughts, we have been led in our study to see that the general results of Biology, when stated with accuracy, are not out of line with transcendental conclusions reached along other paths, con- clusions which different minds express in different forms. PREFACE vii It looks as if Nature were much more conformable than is often supposed to religious interpretation, hut we have not seen it to be our duty to justify the ways of God to man. We have tried to keep as close as possible to the facts of the case, leaving philosophical and religious inferences for those who are better qualified to draw them. Our endeavour to present the scientific view of Animate Nature has often led only to a disappointing balancing of alternative formulations, for science abounds in open ques- tions; it has also involved considerable noise of facts through- out the lectures, for there is no other way of getting beyond mere opinions. But it will be understood that the appeal to facts is not exactly for their own sake, as in a course of lec- tures on descriptive Biology, but as a basis for those distinc- tive biological and psycho-biological concepts of organism, behaviour, development, heredity, evolution, and so on, which must be included in a philosophical view of Nature. It would be ungracious not to use this opportunity of thanking many friends in St. Andrews and Dundee espe- cially Principal Sir John Herkless and Principal John Yule Mackay from whom I received much kindness while de- livering these lectures. UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN, May, 1919. CONTENTS PART I. THE REALM OF ORGANISMS AS IT IS. LECTURE I. PAGE THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE AND THE AIM OF SCIENCE . . . H . ... 3 1. Man's Early Outlook on Nature, 3 2. Growing Rec- ognition of a Scientific Order, 4 3. Aims of Science, 8 4. Limitations of Natural Knowledge, 13 5. The Func- tion of Feeling in our View of Nature, 25 6. Towards a Philosophical Interpretation of Nature, 34 7. Science and Religion, 39. LECTURE II. THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC .... 49 1. Things and Living Creatures, 49 2. The Charac- teristic Features of the Realm of Organisms, 50 3. A Multitude of Individualities, yet a Systema Naturae, 51- 4. Abundance and Insurgence of Life, 53 5. Struggle and Sifting, 56 6. A System of Inter-related Lives, 58- 7. The Prevalence of Adaptations, 59 8. The Pervasive- ness of Beauty, 62 9. The Other Side of the Picture, 63 10. Resemblances between the Realm of Organisms and the Domain of the Inorganic, 63 11. Contrasts between the Realm of Organisms and the Domain of the Inorganic, 71 12. The Suitability of the Inorganic to be the Basis and Environment of the Organic, 73. LECTURE III. THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS .... . 79 1. Living and Not-living, 79 2. The Essential Charac- teristics of Living Organisms, 80 3. Persistence of a Com- plex Specific Metabolism and of a Corresponding Specific Organisation, 81 4. The Capacity of Growth, Reproduc- tion, and Development, 91 5. Effective Behaviour, Regis- tration of Experience, and Variability, 97. ix x CONTENTS LECTURE IV. PAGE ORGANISM AND MECHANISM 107 1. Is Organism More than Mechanism?, 107 2. Chemical and Physical Laws Apply to Organisms, 110 3. Some Diffi- culties in the Application of Physical and Chemical Formula to Organisms, 113 4. Criticism of Mechanistic Descrip- tions of Everyday Functions, 117 5. Criticism of Mechan- istic Descriptions of Animal Behaviour, 122 6. Difficulty of Applying Mechanistic Formulae to Development, 126 7. Difficulty of Applying Mechanistic Formula to Organic Evo- lution, 131 8. Answers to Criticisms, 135. LECTURE V. THE UNIQUENESS OF LIFE 143 1. The Inadequacy of a Mechanistic Description of Organ- isms Is a Negative Conclusion, 143 2. The Problem: Vital- ism or Mechanism, or Neither?, 144 3. Are Organisms Unique in Virtue of their Complexity?, 147 4. Have Organ- isms a Monopoly of Some Peculiar Energy or Energies?, 149 5. Is there a Non-perceptual Vital Agency resident in Organisms and Operative in distinctively Vital Activities?, 153 6. Descriptive or Methodological Vitalism: the * Bio- logical ' View, 159 7. Speculative, 103 8. Retrospect, 166 - 9. Why Cannot the Controversy between Mechanistic and Vitalistic Theory be Ended?, 169. LECTURE VI. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 175 1. What Is Behaviour?, 175 2. Diverse Views as to Animal Behaviour, 177 3. Activities of Unicellular Organ- isms, 179 4. Special Case of Shell-building among Are- naceous Foraminifera, 185 5. Reflex Actions, 186 6. Tropisms, 192 7. Non-intelligent Experimentation, 195 8. Instinctive Behaviour, 198 9. Theories of Instinct, 203 10. Evidence of Intelligent Behaviour, 211 11. Sec- ondary Simplifications of Behaviour, 215 12. Rational Con- duct, 217 13. General Impressions of Animal Behaviour, 217. LECTURE VII. THE PROBLEM OF BODY AND MIND 227 1. The Approach to the Problem, 227 2. What Must Be Recognised from the Biological Side, 230 3. What Must Be Recognised from the Humanist Side, 234 4. Various Theories of the Relation of * Mind ' and Body ', 236 5. Monistic Speculation along the Line of the Double-Aspect or Correlation Theory, 251. CONTENTS xi LECTURE VIII. PAGE THE FACT OF BEAUTY 250 1. A Synoptic View of Animate Nature Must Include the Fact of the Pervasiveness of Beauty, 259 2. General Char- acteristics of the ./Esthetic Emotion, 260 3. Beauty a General Quality of Animate Nature, 261 4. Theoretical Objections to the Thesis, 261 5. Concrete Objections, 265- 6. Factors in /Esthetic Delight, 267 7. Aspects of Beauty in Animate Nature, 271 8. Biological Significance of Beauty to the Beautiful Animals themselves, 275 9. Beauty of Animal Artifice, 278 10. Evolution of /Esthetic Emotion, 279 11. The Significance of the Pervasive Beauty of Animate Nature, 282. LECTURE IX. THE ISSUES OF LIFE . . 289 1. The Tactics of Animate Nature, 289 2 The Twofold Business of Life, 291 3. The Struggle for Existence, 203- 4. Correction of Some Misconceptions of the Struggle for Existence, 301 5. The Welfare of the Species, 305 6. As regards Warfare, 308. LECTURE J. ADAPTIVENESS AND PURPOSIVENESS . 310 1. Animate Nature Abounds in Adaptations, 319 2 Their Origin neither by Design nor Mechanical, 325 3. Is There 'Purpose' in the Inorganic Domain?, 330 4. Purposefulness and Purposiveness in Human Behaviour, 331- 5. Purposiveness and Purposefulness in Animal Behaviour, 335 6. The Purposelikeness of the Ordinary Functioning of the Body is Covered by the Concept of Adaptation, 341- 7. Provisional Conclusion and Anticipation, 343. PART I. THE REALM OF ORGANISMS AS IT IS. LECTURE I. * THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE AND THE AIM OF SCIENCE. LECTUKE I. THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE AND THE AIM OF SCIENCE. 1. Man's Early Outlook on Nature. 2. Growing Recognition of a Scientific Order. 3. Aims of Science. 4. Limita- tions of Natural Knowledge. 5. The Function of Feeling in our View of Nature. 6. Towards a Philosophical Inter- pretation of Nature. 7. Science and Religion. 1. Mans Early Outlook on Nature. IN early days men must have looked somewhat dis- tractedly and uncomprehendingly on the crowded world without, discerning only glimpses of order amid the hig booming confusion. There is a ring of truth in the fine description ^Eschylus gave, that " first, beholding they beheld in vain, and, hearing, heard not, but like shapes in dreams, mixed all things wildly down the tedious time, nor knew to build a house against the sun with wicketed sides, nor any wood-work knew, but lived like silly ants, beneath the ground, in hollow caves unsunned. There came to them no steadfast sign of winter, nor of spring flower-perfumed, nor of summer full of fruit, but blindly and lawlessly they did all things." Poincare speaks of the days before Man learned from the stars that there was a reign of law. " Isolated amidst a nature where everything was a mystery to him, terrified at each unexpected manifestation of incomprehensible forces, he was incapable of seeing in the conduct of the universe anything but caprice' (1913, p. 290). So large were 3 4 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE the seas of ignorance, so many the straits, that there was as yet no discernment of the coherent continents of knowledge. Gradually, however, Man came to himself and grew in knowledge of the empirical order of Nature. It was a great step when he first recognised the year with its object-lesson of recurrent sequences a basis from which to observe other practically important uniformities. What a momentous be- ginning the Chaldseans made who first discerned that the multitude of the stars was " not a confused crowd wander- ing at random, but rather a disciplined army " ! It was a working knowledge of natural processes, rather than an understanding of them, that was in the first instance built up, and it was correlated, on the one hand, with a still very imperfect mastery of the forces of Nature, and, on the other, with a belief in magic and in the possession of things by spirits imaginative constructions which are perhaps analo- gous, as Prof. W. E. Hitter suggests, to the materialism and animism of later days. 2. Growing Recognition of a Scientific Order. The empirical order was gradually replaced by a scientific order. Some practical need pressed a question home; im- agination found a clue; measurement or some other form of accurate registration furnished reliable data ; a regularity of sequence was discovered and tested ; a law was formulated. Especially after the foundation-laying work of Galileo, did the scientific reconstruction of the physical world proceed apace. There was a period of the discovery of the ' Forces of Nature ' and of the i Laws of Nature ', and a growing clearness. " God said, Let Newton be, and there was light." THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 5 The scientific order has grown like an organism. Its methods have become more penetrating; improvements in instruments (such as telescope and microscope, spectroscope and radioscope) have almost meant new senses. Its stand- ard of accuracy has heen raised, many residual phenomena and minute discrepancies, previously neglected, have pointed the way to discoveries, as in the case of Argon. Its con- cepts have been periodically thrown into the crucible of criticism, and come out clearer, or not at all. Thus force, instead of being a power inherent in substances, became a measure of the rate of transference of energy, and heat became a mode of motion. Large bodies of facts which used to be regarded as beyond science, the weather and dreams for instance, have become amenable to scientific treat- ment. The progress of science wrought inevitable changes in man's outlook. The work of Copernicus and Galileo shat- tered the geocentric theory, which made our Earth the centre of the solar system, and subsequent discoveries showed what a small corner of the universe our whole system occupies. Not that we estimate man's kingdom in furlongs ! The great discoverers in astronomy, physics, and chemistry re- vealed more and more clearly the reign of law in the in- organic world. No room was left for guidance or control other than there is in the nature of things themselves; no room was left for interventions or influxes; and the idea that physical events were immediately ordered " by the hand of God " in relation to human interests disappeared like a dream. There came indeed to be an exaggeration of the omnipotence of the Laws of Nature man's formulations of observed uniformities of sequence, which, although they evidently approximate to reality, cannot be invested with 6 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE absolutism. Yet the old order changed, giving place to a new the whole inorganic world was more and more com- pletely and consistently analysed in terms of dynamics. In regard to the realm of organisms also the outlook changed. The filiations of living creatures were discovered and the special creationists retreated before the evolutionists. It was shown that the living body is the theatre of many chemical and physical operations in a line with those of the inorganic domain. The chains of physiological events that make up everyday functions and behaviour were disclosed. Plants and animals were brought under the reign of law. The fitnesses or adaptations which seemed to speak so elo- quently of a direct Designer were shown to be the outcome of long-continued processes of varying and sifting. And when Man's zoological place in Nature was recognised, the anthropocentric theory saw the beginning of its end. Even for those who continue to maintain, rightly we think, that organism is more than mechanism, that organic evolution is not a mechanical process, that thinking, feeling, and willing are activities that count, that man transcends his ancestry, and that it is not only legitimate but necessary to regard the cosmic process in the light of its outcome the whole aspect of the world has changed. But experience is the only limit to the application of scientific methods, and a new psychology began to accom- pany the new physiology, rather at the risk of its own life, to be sure, because of its partner's appetite. The outlook was changed by the disclosure of the close interdependence of what is conveniently called ' mind ' and what is con- veniently called ' body ', by increased knowledge of the individual development and racial evolution of mental powers or modes of behaviour, by a disclosure of a certain THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE amount of common ground between man and IH-JM, by an analysis of obligatory modes of activity which \\v call n- flexes and tropisms, and so on. Thus science has extended its claims. With the advance of natural knowledge at times very slowly, and again by leaps and bounds has come an in- creased control of Nature which is as rich in promise as in achievement. We have recalled the picture ^Eschylus gav<- of our ancestors living in caves, fearful of wild beasts, often dying of hunger or of poison, without wood-work <>r metals, without fire, without foresight, and unable to think of the general well-being. What a contrast between that picture and our life to-day. For nowadays the serpent that bites Man's heel is in nine cases out of ten microscopic; year by year Man increases his mastery over the physical forces; he coins wealth out of the thin air; he annihilates distance with his shrewd devices; he makes the ether carry his messages; he is extending his rule to the heavens; and he is making experiments on the control of life itself. In the so-called purely physical domain, at least, his dreams have more than come true. After a long period during which science consisted of numerous discrete bodies of knowledge, largely related to the practical control .of Nature, there began to be concentra- tion into a system, a sort of cosmology. Science entered upon a new and purely theoretical role of giving man a com- posite picture of the world and its processes. This is in- creasingly impressive, the more we realise it- -which means hard work. After a long ascent we get a new view, rcstheti- cally magnificent, intellectually a revelation of connected- ness. But, fine as it is, the scientific picture has satis- fied very few thinkers of distinction, the chief reason being 8 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE that the contributions which each science makes are always partial views, reached by processes of abstraction, by fo- cussing attention on certain aspects of things. Pooling the results of the several sciences does not of itself result even in a scientific system, for that requires correlation. Still less does it result in a philosophic system. This will be clearer if the aims of science are discriminated. 3. Aims of Science. Science expresses a quite specific endeavour to get phenom- ena under intellectual control, so that we can think of them economically and clearly in relation to the rest of our science, and so that we can use them as a basis for secure prediction and effective action. Knowledge is foresight, and foresight is power. The direct motives of science are, in the main, intellectual curiosity, a self-preservative dis- like of obscurities, a desire for unity and continuity in outlook. Often, in particular cases, the immediate motive may have been utilitarian a desire for mastery; but the great majority of important practical discoveries have be- hind them a long labour of theoretical research pursued for its own sake. That the chief end of science is descriptive formulation has probably been clear to keen analytic minds since the time of Galileo, especially to the great discoverers in astron- omy, mechanics, and dynamics. But as a definitely stated conception, corrective of misunderstandings, the view of science as essentially descriptive began to make itself felt about the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and may be associated with the names of Kirch- hoff and Mach. It was in 1876 that KirchhofF defined the task of mechanics as that of " describing completely and in THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 9 the simplest manner the motions which take place in Na- ture ". Widening this a little, we may say that the aim of science is to describe natural phenomena and occurrences as exactly as possible, as simply as possible, as completely as possible, as consistently as possible, and always in terms which are communicable and verifiable. This is a very dif- ferent role from that of solving the riddles of the universe, and it is well expressed in what Newton said in regard to the law of gravitation. " So far I have accounted for the phenomena presented to us by the heavens and the sea by means of the force of gravity, but I have as yet assigned no cause to this gravity. ... I have not been able to deduce from phenomena the raison d'etre of the properties of gravity and I have not set up hypotheses ' (Newton, Philosophies naturalis Principia Mathematica. 1687). "We must confess," said Prof. J. H. Poynting (1900, p. 616), "that physical laws have greatly fallen off in dignity. No long time ago they were quite commonly de- scribed as the Fixed Laws of Nature, and were supposed sufficient in themselves to govern the universe. Now we can only assign to them the humble rank of mere descrip- tions, often erroneous, of similarities which we believe we have observed. ... A law of nature explains nothing, it has no governing power, it is but a descriptive formula which the careless have sometimes personified." It used to be said that " the laws of Nature are the thoughts of God " ; now we say that they are the investigator's formulae sum- ming up regularities of recurrence. This view of the function of science must be accepted as expressing at least part of the truth, for who should know better what they are aiming at than the great discoverers themselves ? But is it not necessary to make certain reserva- 10 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE tions? (a) First, instead of explaining an event by show- ing that it obeys a law of Nature, the modern investigator is content to say that it is fully described or represented in such and such a formula, that it can be included in this or that typical case. As Aristotle said, from a great number of experiences one general conception .is formed which will embrace all similar cases. There is unification under a common law. As Clifford says, " A true explanation refers the previously unknown to the known." It assimilates the less known to the better known. But we must not overlook the preliminary analysis and reduction to a common denom- inator which made it possible to bring an apparent incom- mensurable into a series, and to recognise unity and continuity of process. Equations may not be explanations, but the analytic descriptions given by exact science are very different from the pictorial descriptions of everyday life. There is sometimes a mock modesty in the declaration of the scientific inquirer that he is describing not explaining; and there is deceptiveness in his formulation, if he reaches his simplification by violence, by a jugglery which coerces to a common denominator such fractions of reality as motion and emotion which are radically incommensurable. (&) Second, there are laws of Nature such as Gravita- tion, which sum up uniformities in terms largely independ- ent of hypothetical constructions. These must be distin- guished from summations in terms of what Rankine called " conceptions of a conjectural order ' which image the inti- mate nature of things and processes. Ohm's laws remain, whatever be our view of electrical energy. Mendel's law remains, whatever be our views as to what are called ' fac- tors ' in inheritance. As long as we consider moving bodies in bulk within sensible distances of the earth, the law of THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 11 gravitation holds absolutely, and states without hypothesis how the motions of the bodies and the earth are mutually affected. But if we proceed, with Le Sage or some other, to a theory of gravitation, we enter a realm of imaginative construction. We work with concepts which are, no doubt, ingenious, well-thought-out, consistent, and useful; but how far they correspond to, or are representative of objective entities is a question to be carefully considered. Sometimes the concepts that are effectively worked with are obviously mere symbols; thus no one supposes that carbon atoms are really like their quite useful quadrumanous diagrammatic representations in books on chemistry. The difficulty is in regard to subtler symbols or concepts, which work so well that we inevitably come to think of them as objective actual- ities. And it may be that what was at first an imaginative thought-economising symbol, part of a system of intellectual shorthand, will be actually verified in Nature. Thus many physicists now speak confidently and convincingly of the ' reality ' of the atom. When it is legitimate to speak of a scientific symbol as real is a matter for the experts only, as is plain enough from their disagreement. Thus the ether was declared by Lord Kelvin to be the greatest certainty in physics, while we find the upholders of the Principle of Relativity declaring that the Victorian ether and the Vic- torian matter must both go. Similarly in biological prob- lems, such as those centred in inheritance, there is diver- gence of opinion as to the objectivity of t biophores ', 6 determinants ', ' factors ', and i genes ', though these are very useful in formulating conclusions and prompting fur- ther questions. (c) Third, it has to be remembered that the descriptive formulae are more than summations of the routine of in- 12 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE dividual experience (a view which would lead us near the impasse of solipsism) , for they are verifiable by all normally constituted minds, and that they must have a close corre- spondence with the actualities of Nature since the predictions based on them are fulfilled. We continually risk our lives on the closeness of this correspondence. That we are not betrayed proves, not that the concepts or intellectual count- ers used in representation are like the real things, or are even the only usable concepts, but that the uniformities which the concepts are used to detect and to represent are real. Speaking of the electrical theory of matter, the late Prof. J. H. Poynting said : " The chief value of such hypothesis lies, not in its objective truth, but in its success in account- ing for, in co-ordinating, what we actually observe, and in predicting results which are afterwards verified. It is to be regarded as a ' working model ' which gives the same results as the actual atom, though, it may be, by quite different machinery." While adhering to this view, let us, however, safeguard it. by recognising that the validity of the working model depends on its verifiability, and on its correspondence with actualities. As Hertz said, the quality of scientific symbols is such that their intellectually necessary consequences correspond to occurrences. For certain purposes the view that the sun goes round the earth is just as effective as the conclusion that the earth goes round the sun. We can rise at dawn with equal punctuality on either hypothesis. But beyond a short radius the former will lead us hopelessly wrong, while the latter never will. (d) Fourthly, it is interesting to notice that Bacon did not include hisioria naturalis in his encyclopedia of the sciences, probably because it remained too concretely de- THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 13 scriptive and did not admit of formulation in terms of ab- stract concepts, as astronomy, for instance, does. Yet there is in natural history a kind of description which is just as essential in its own place as is mechanical or dynamical description namely, historical description. We would not buy a horse on the strength of a description in terms of the dynamics of particles, partly because we could not go far in the way of checking its accuracy, but mainly because of our shrewd conviction that the essential thing is to know what we can about the horse's history. Similarly, our science of the horse must include not only its whole architec- ture from skull to blood crystals, not only the consensus of its active parts from brain to phagocytes, but also its char- acter and its individual and racial becoming. Even within the sciences of the inorganic, when dealing, for instance, with the geological interpretation of scenery or the establish- ment of the solar system, the description must be genetic or historical. It is an interesting point that, just about the time when Physics began to proclaim emphatically that its office was to describe not to explain, Natural History in Darwin's hands passed emphatically from description to historical explanation. 4. Limitations of Natural Knowledge. Science makes so many permanent discoveries, which are never contradicted though often transcended, that she ac- quires an assured confidence which has only been equalled by that of Theology. For this very reason it is useful that she should be ever examining herself. One of the famous balance-sheets was that made by Du Bois-Keymond in his lectures on the Seven Riddles of the Universe and on the Limits of Natural Knowledge. He confessed that the 14 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE science of his day could not offer any explanation of the origin of life, the apparent purposiveness of Nature, and the origin of language; but he did not hold that these enigmas were insoluble. On the other hand, as to the essence of matter and energy, the origin of motion, the fact of sensa- tion, and the freedom of the will, his pronouncement was not only Ignoramus, but Ignorabimus. Similarly to-day, without ceasing for a moment to admire the splendour of scientific achievement, and the promise that there is of fur- ther conquests, we have to say many times Ignoramus, and perhaps it is no bad sign of the wholesomeness of modern science that it is acutely aware of its limitations both in- trinsic and extrinsic. (a) To begin with, there is less forgetfulness of the fact that we know Nature only as it is mirrored in our minds. When we think of what science would have been if the stars had been always hidden in cloud, we realise that much has depended on the stimuli of the outer world ; but the discernment of the cosmos has been within us, growing with our strength and hindered by our limitations. It is a familiar experience, for instance, that our immediate per- ceptual power increases at compound interest, the eye per- ceiving more and more as the mind is educated. Our concepts stimulate our perceptual powers to a higher degree of intensity. (b) A large part of even the near at hand world is invisible, like the air. Much may escape all our senses, as the ultra-violet rays, which the ants feel, escape our eyes. It is said that there are living creatures, the Chlamy- dozoa, which lie just on the border-line of microscopic visibility; and beyond these minima scnsibilia there may be organisms still smaller. An alien observer of the earth in THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 15 early days might have complained of its azoic dullness, while the primitive Biococci were proliferating in billions be- neath his feet. So to-day there may be forms of life and modes of energy around us which we do not know. In any case, how different our world is from that of the man born blind; and what, asks John Burroughs, if we could go on opening one eye after another to the number of a dozen or so, and were able, he should have added, to correlate our impressions ? What if we had three or more extra senses? How different our view of Animate Nature would have been if the microscope and the spectroscope, to name only two of our extraneous sense-organs, had not been invented ! Apart from such imaginings we have many re- markable facts in regard to the cultivation of the senses that we have. The blind man knows every footstep in the vil- lage. In the opinion of some experts, there are consider- able tracts of fallow ground in our brains, which may one day be tilled. How slow should Man be in supposing that he has exhausted a subject! There are few who have even a calculus which will show them how far they have suc- ceeded in discerning the more or less obvious inter-relations or ' aspects ' of the object of their study. Warned by such errors as that of Comte, who declared that Man could never know anything as to the chemical composition of the heavenly bodies, we have learned to be cautious in not put- ting in ' full stops '. There is a large library now on the animals of the Deep Sea, yet it is not very long since a great naturalist declared that of the possible tenants of the Oceanic Abysses we could not hope to know anything un- less some of them if there were any happened to tumble upwards to the superficial zones of reduced pressure. Science has reason to beware of saying " Non possunni* ". 16 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE Yet, as a warning against finality in another direction, we must admit the vagueness that is apt to invest our knowledge of the past. In the perfectly exact sciences, we can some- times work backwards with remarkable certainty to comets, eclipses, and the like; but in Biology how watchful we have to be lest we get entangled in the vicious circle of inventing a past from its continued life in the present, and then in- terpreting the present in terms of our invention. (c) A reasonable humility of mind is also engendered by recognising how limited, after all, is our range of exact data. The late Professor Rowland, a distinguished physi- cist, writes (1899, p. 408) : " In time we are limited by a few hundred or possibly thousand years. ... In space we have exact knowledge limited to portions of our earth's sur- face and a mile or so below the surface, together with what little we can learn from looking through powerful telescopes into the space beyond. In temperature our knowledge ex- tends from near the absolute zero to that of the sun, but exact knowledge is far more limited. In pressures we go from the Crookes vacuum, still containing myriads of flying atoms, to pressures limited by the strength of steel, but still very minute compared with the pressures at the centre of the earth and sun, where the hardest steel would flow like the most limpid water. In velocities we are limited to a few miles per second. In forces to possibly one hundred tons to the square inch. In mechanical rotations to a few hun- dred times a second." Perhaps some of these limits have been extended since Professor Rowland gave the address from which we have quoted, but that would not affect our point, the importance of bearing in mind the limits of exact knowledge. (d) Another limitation is involved in the very nature THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 17 of scientific procedure, which makes headway by abstraction. Divide et impera is the scientific rule. The scientific de- scription of Nature is made up of many partial views con- tributed by the several sciences. We have to confine our attention at a given time to certain aspects of a thing or process. We treat of the mass of a body as if we had the body under the influence of gravitation only, though we know that we cannot secure the entire absence of electrical, magnetic, and other forces. Science works with perfect levers, with pure masses, < ideal systems ' in general- which we do not meet in everyday life. In certain cases the abstracting is obvious and not danger- ous; in other cases it escapes attention and leads to fallacy. We know that biologically we cannot abstract the trout from the stream; even for the purposes of analytical anatomy we must remember the environment, still more when dynamical relations are considered. This is obvious, but is it so ob- vious that a theory of animal behaviour which reduces all to l forced movements ' or tropisms is the outcome of ' a process of abstraction which leaves out the characteristic features of the concrete fact to be explained ", the plasticity, the endeavour, the awareness of the organism ? (e) When we take the long and wide philosophical view of a subject, trying to see the phenomena or the process as a whole, the inevitable limitations of science must be borne in mind. If all Animate Nature is the outcome of a few Protists, we must see these in the light of the evolution as a whole. " The true nature of the antecedents, that is to say, of the apparent cause, is revealed only in the effects ' (Pringle-Pattison, 1917, p. 332) ; or should one not say the full nature? If we believe that Tyndall's " matter " (Brit- ish Association Address, Belfast, 1874), with its famous 18 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE " promise and potency of all terrestrial life ", is exhaust- ively described in terms of the dynamics of particles, then we cannot by any ingenuity evolve the conscious out of it; if on general grounds we feel bound to regard conscious life as evolved from Tyndall's " matter ", then the reality of that " matter " could not be exhaustively described in terms of the dynamics of particles. ' All explanation of the higher by the lower is philosoph- ically a hysteron-proteron. The antecedents assigned are not the causes of the consequents, for by antecedents the naturalistic theories mean the antecedents in abstraction from their consequents the antecedents taken as they ap- pear in themselves, or as we might suppose them to be if no such consequents had ever issued from them. So con- ceived, however, the antecedents (matter and energy, for ex- ample) have no real existence they are mere entia rationis, abstract aspects of the concrete fact which we call the universe ' (Pringle-Pattison, Mans Place in the Cosmos, pp. 11-12). (/) The aim of science is not so much " to give an ac- count of the whole matter ", as used to be said, but rather to work out, patiently and piecemeal, a number of descriptions and formulations of diverse aspects, each for a certain pur- pose, by certain methods, in certain symbols. The chemist's account of a peacock's tail is an abstraction, and so is the physicist's, the biologist's, and the psychologist's. But even when all these results, reached by scientific abstraction, are pooled, we have not " an account of the whole matter " of " the positive full-orbed reality ". That correlation often has to wait for genius. Moreover, the scientific synthesis, if it be achieved, requires to be assimilated with what the artist, the poet, and the genuine lover of birds may be able THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 19 to tell us concerning the peacock's tail. Huxley's de.-la ra- tion that the advance of science is .-ynnnynmus with de- scription in materialistic symbols, assumed too readily thai formulations which give Man a considerable power of predic- tion and a considerable degree of practical control arc there- fore theoretically exhaustive. t/ (g) But let us consider further limitations. \\Y de- scribe what goes on around us or within us in the simple-t possible terms, but the fundamental concepts we use are notably in process of development. As Kirchhoff said, It is thinkable that a description which to-day is the simplest that can be given may in the further development of science be replaced by one still more simple." It is also thinkable, we may add, that some of our present-day formulations will turn out to be too simple, for abstraction often leads to fal- lacy. This at least is certain, that when we describe oc- currences in terms of matter and energy, life and mind, or any similar grand concepts, we are working with what can- not be called self-explanatory. Every one of them is big with mystery, though some are in process of simplification. Much so-called ' explanation ' is reducing unusual unintel- ligibility to order rather than to radical understanding. No achievement in science has been more satisfactory than the Law of Gravitation, but can any one tell what actuaily happens in the unseen universe when the apple falls in the orchard? In language which is a survival we still speak of the force of gravity, the force of attraction, and so on, but we know that forces as causes do not exist. The earth does not pull the stone, the stone gravitates to the earth. Some have proposed to speak of bodies 'tractating' and ; p. Hat- ing ' instead of saying that they attract or repel one another. But, as Professor Soddy says, " Why two bodies tractate or 20 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE pellate is not known in a single instance, least of all per- haps in the oldest recognised case, gravitation ' (Matter and Energy, pp. 111-12). We know of over eighty elements and much about many of them, but do we know what being an element, like Mer- cury or Antimony, really means, or the import of their periodic classification ? Great libraries are filled with our descriptions of the structure and activities of plants and animals, but do we know what livingness essentially is ? We cannot define it at present in terms of anything else^ we take it as ' given \ We cannot tell wherein consists the essential difference between the flight of a bird and the movement of a comet. How much, relatively speaking, is known of ( mind ' and ' body ', how little is known in regard to the relation between them, if there is a relation ! (/&) We hear much of the achievements of science in tracing things back to their beginnings. That is the histor- ical or genetic method, and it yields very interesting results. The present becomes more intelligible in the light of the past. But, when we get far back, how mysterious the be- ginnings become. How mysterious still, to tell the truth, are many of the big steps between the beginning and the end ! In the inorganic sphere one collocation passes into another, usually without jolts. The course runs smoothly. But when we pass to organic evolution or even to individual development, we are almost driven back to a belief in magic ! Who can tell even in the sketchiest fashion how a Silver Wyandotte was evolved from an Indian Jungle Fowl, or how stage gives rise to stage as the chick develops in three weeks from a minute transparent spot on the top of the yolk of an egg? Matter has seemed to many easy-going minds a firm THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 21 basis to start from, but what is matter, and what has been its history? Must there not have been a differentiation of various forms of matter, may there not have been a pre- material state of things, do we ever get to beginnings ? This necessary limitation is well stated by Dr. Arthur Shipley :- " ]STo body of scientific doctrine succeeds in describing in terms of laws of succession more than some limited set of stages of a natural process; the whole process if, indeed, it can be regarded as a whole must for ever be beyond the reach of scientific grasp. The earliest stage to which science has succeeded in tracing back any part of a sequence of phenomena itself constitutes a new problem for science, and that without end. There is always an earlier stage and to an earliest we can never attain. The questions of origins concern the theologian, the metaphysician, perhaps the poet" (Schuster and Shipley, 1917, p. 276). (i) Another limitation has to do with causal sequences. In ordinary scientific discourse, as Bergson points out, three different meanings of the term i cause ? are common. A cause may act by impelling (one billiard ball striking an- other), or by releasing (a spark exploding the gunpowder), or by unwinding (the relaxing of the spring turning the cylinder of a gramophone and having the melody as effect). Now " only in the first case, really, does cause explain effect; in the others the effect is more or less given in ad- vance, and the antecedent invoked is in different degrees, of course its occasion rather than its cause ' (Creative Evolution, English Trans., p. 77). In the domain of mechanics, in Gravitational Astronomy, we see the high-water mark of scientific description, in exact- ness and approximate completeness. There, with a clear in- tellectual conscience, we can proclaim, " causa a?quat effec- 22 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE turn " ; for why, the resultant is just another form of the components. In the great majority of cases, however, where there is a qualitative change, we know that a given colloca- tion of matter and energy gives rise to another, and does so uniformly, but we cannot tell why the resultant must be as it is and not otherwise. In the great majority of cases all that science can say is, " If this, then that " ; and it is a very useful thing to be able to say. Every one knows that oxygen and hydrogen will unite vio- lently to form water, but all that we can say is that it is their nature to. Perhaps it may be explained as due to " the in- terplay between electricity and matter ", and then we shall shift the pegs of our claim in the desert of ignorance. We rub our eyes and say: " But surely it is the very business of Science to show how things happen, to explain occurrences." So in a sense it is, but as Professor Stout puts it, " What is really done is to show that a given result, often called an effect, is part of a continuous process which includes a known antecedent, often called the cause." In- deed, " the current scientific conception of a cause ' is the ' totality of the conditions in the presence of which an event occurs and in the absence of any member of which it does not occur" (Taylor, 1909, p. 170). (/) Finally there is a sense in which science, if not asymptotic, is bound for a long time to remain approximate. The Universe is still unfathomed. (1) A scientific law formulates an observed routine in the order of nature, but sometimes it is only a provisional i fit '. Residual phenomena emerge which lead to restate- ment. So Kepler improves on Copernicus, and Newton on Kepler. (2) Even when the ' fit ' of the formulation is more THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 23 than approximate, extension or intensification of inquiry may show that it does not apply beyond certain limits. Thus the law of gravitation, which must be very near to perfect accuracy when applied to planetary distances, may not hold either for very minute molecular distances or for immense stellar distances. (3) Even generalisations that work well and must bear a close correspondence to reality, since they afford a basis for effective prophecy, may require some modification, in their setting at least, in the light of some new fact or idea, of great magnitude. Thus Prof. Frederick Soddy writes : " It sounds incredible, but nevertheless it is true, that science up to the close of the nineteenth century had no sus- picion even of the existence of the original sources of natural energy. . . . The vista which has been opened up by these new discoveries [of the radio-active properties of some substances] is without parallel in the whole his- tory of science ' (Harper's Magazine, December, 1909, p. 53). (4) We cannot pass over the caution suggested by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that scientific observations cannot transcend the system in which they are - immersed. In Prof. Wildon Carr's words, " It showed us that observers within a system of reference, in uniform move- ment of translation relatively to other systems, have no absolute standard by which they can determine their move- ment. There is no absolute ether, no absolute space, and no absolute time, by reference to which we can determine our movements" (1918, p. 21). And Prof. Max Planck writes of this new idea of the relativity of time: With the revolution which it brings about in our conception of the physical universe, no other is comparable, in range 24 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE and profundity, except that due to the introduction of the Copernican Astronomy." (5) Finally, it may be useful to remember that, accord- ing to current and probably well-warranted scientific belief, there was once a time when what happened upon the earth might have been formulated in its immediacy with apparent exhaustiveness in terms of the dynamics of particles. But that cannot be said now. New aspects of reality have in the course of ages ' weljed up ' and required new sciences. We know, too, as we say, the ends of processes which in azoic days had only begun. And yet we are not sure that we know any ends (in the sense of goals), for the process continues. Science seems bound to be not only approxi- mate but asymptotic, for its subject-matter continues to evolve. One may have a more or less wholesome dislike of per- petual-motion mongers and their successors, but one resents scientific absolutism which will consider nothing that seems to infringe a law. For these laws, beyond those of mathemat- ics, are not more than summations of experience in a certain limited here and now. The Uniformity of Nature which the legalists hold over us as a sacrosanct principle is a big assumption. For who shall define its tenure in a world of seonic flux? We should remember, too, how thickly beset we are with unsolved problems of a less ultimate nature. What, for in- stance, is the commonest and most universal vital event? It is cell-division. And though the literature about it would fill a large library, we do not yet know the conditions of its occurrence or the forces at work in its accomplishment! When we succeed in stating a problem in a clear way it is gratuitous to speak of it as insoluble, but of the number of THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 25 unsolved problems and of the way in which the solution of one raises another, every one is aware. For the reasons we have indicated in this discussion and for others, there are many, in this age of extraordinarily rapid scientific discovery, who stand wondering before an unfathomed universe. We have made many charts, but there is still more sea. Perhaps one of the most hopeful signs at once of the progressiveness of science and of it- conformability "with the humanities and philosophies is in its vivid realisation of its own limitations. From the absence of a scientific answer to a scientific question, we do not dream of arguing, as has been often argued, that some other kind of answer, say theological, must be true. We have to render to Cresar the things that are Cassar's; and there is no exchange between scientific and transcendental coinage. But what we may usefully recog- nise is the self-imposed limitation of science, that it seeks, for certain purposes and by certain methods, to describe occurrences and processes in the simplest possible, universally verifiable terms, and that it does not pretend to exhaust their reality. This leads us to recognise the validity of feeling in an interpretation of Nature. 5. The Function of Feeling in our View of Nature. The world without has played a great part in the educa- tion 'of the human spirit. Its enigmas have quickened Man's intelligence; its practical problems have trained his will; Animate Nature in particular has been a school of feeling; the mother's face has been a factor in the evolution of per- sonality (see Merz, 1916). In her manifold opportunities Nature has thus helped man to polish the mirror of his mind, and the process continues. Nature still supplies us with 26 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE abundance of brain-stretching theoretical puzzles and we eagerly tackle them; there are more worlds to conquer and we do not let the sword sleep in our hand ; but how does it stand with feeling? Nature is beautiful, gladdening, awesome, mysterious, wonderful, as ever, but do we feel it as our forefathers did ? What is this feeling for Nature? It may be a -simple restfulness, such as Darwin once spoke of when for the moment he laid aside his questionings ; it may be a keen aesthetic joy; it may be the thrill of a starry night; it may be the pleasure of seeing trust and affection in a dog's eyes ; it may be the response our heart makes in spring when we hear the wild geese passing overhead on their northward migration, and know that another winter is over and gone; it may be that deep calls to deep, and we have a vicarious share in life's triumph over matter; it has often expressed itself in reverent worship ; it may be an awed elation in finding ourselves part of so sublime a process as cosmic evolution. This element of feeling in our outlook on Nature is a satisfaction in itself, but our plea for allowing it to operate in our interpretation of Nature is that we get closer to some things through feeling than we do through science. Just as feeling contributes to our total appreciation of people, so of Nature. Through feeling we discern what science cannot get into focus. Not that any one dreams of mingling feeling with science or of attempting to eke out science with feeling, but to try to exclude feeling from our total view of Nature is to try to close one of the right-of- way paths to reality. Goethe went the length of saying: " Sympathy and enjoyment in what we see is in fact the only reality, and, from such reality, reality as a natural product follows. All else is vanity." THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 27 In the preface to his Diversions of a Natunil/sf ( i:>i:,, p. vi), Sir Ray Lankester, who has so greatly enriched Zoology, speaks in a very interesting way of the value of science in giving us prevision and control, but goes on to say: " Science commends itself to us as does Honesty and as does great Art and all fine thought and deed- -not as a policy yielding material profits, but because it satisfies man's soul." This is very different from the old moan that increase of knowledge is increase of sorrow, and surely nmro \vlmli- some, but we wonder if it is true. Is it science that satisfies man's soul, or is it the attendant feeling and imagining which the study of Nature evokes ? There have always been men of science, tough-minded by birth, to whom an enthusiasm for natural knowledge has been in itself enough, who have asked for no satisfaction from either faith or feeling; and the world owes much to their preoccupation. But this has not been true on the whole ; the unsatisfyingness of an exclusively scientific view of Nature has been confessed age after age. In the ages of the empirical order Man had his imaginative constructions of early magic and of early animism. These were attempts to eke out very imperfect understanding and very imperfect control of Nature, but they were also sops to feeling. The replacement of the empirical order by the scientific order was great gain. It meant a less beclouded intellectual sky and a greatly increased mastery of natural resources. But with the gain came loss, for the reconstruc- tions of science are austere, not home-like to the human spirit. The creations of early days the attractive elves as well as the repellent gnomes were scattered by the growing light of science, save a few which found refuge and here and there still linger in the caverns of Man's mind. There is 28 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE no doubt that the scientific method is antipodal to feeling, and that scientific methods and systems are almost hostile. So we tend to get further away from " an original relation to Nature ", such as many children have, such as Emerson re- ferred to when he said : " The earlier generations saw God face to face ; we through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to Nature ? ' It might be thought that the more science grows the more feeling should deepen. " All knowledge," Coleridge said, " begins and ends with wonder, but the first wonder is the child of ignorance, while the second wonder is the parent of adoration." Truly progressive science should enrich our feeling, for it gives to our vision depth, order, connectedness, and continuity, and makes the whole world more translucent and more full of meaning. But we have, after all, to admit that the light of science is as cold as it is clear. Keats was right in lamenting that the rainbow had never been quite the same, in spite of what Wordsworth said, since Newton looked at it with his discerning eye. No doubt that for any wonder Science dissipates, she gives us twain ; but they are not the old homely wonders. No doubt, though Science is ever pushing the curtain back a little further, so that half- wonders disappear, the wonder remains. But the funda- mental mysteriousness of Nature is cold comfort for the loss of the wonder of the rainbow and of the Northern Lights, of the flower in the crannied wall and of the way of the eagle in the air. The fact is that it is rather the scientific mood than science that is opposed to feeling. For the eyes of the investigator have neither laughter nor tears. In the actual work of science, emotion is dangerous. For scientific purposes we must look out of one window only and with all possible con- THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 29 centration. It has been said, though it is a dangerous half- truth, that the worst kind of comparative psychologist is the observer who is devoted to his animals. Especially since Darwin's day, we have been learning in biology to see creatures in their spatial and temporal linkages, but it cannot be denied that the predominant method of science is analytic and deliberately abstract, whereas the tendency of feeling is always to see things whole -synoptically. As Goethe said, " these dissecting opera- tions, ever and ever continued, produce likewise many a disadvantage; the living is indeed analysed into elements, but it cannot be brought together again out of them and animated ". Compared with the biologist's insight the shep- herd's outlook is superficial, but unless the biologist can reconstruct and reanimate he has lost that view of things, in their totality which the shepherd has. We may have a profound knowledge of the life-history of a creature and yet fail to get that imaginative vision which the authors of Animal Biographies have with less material made their own. In the attempt to conserve what is reached through feeling, to which Man instinctively tries to hold firm, satisfaction has been sought in Nature-poetry, in symbolism, in Natural Theology, or in an idealisation of Nature in a religious halo. These avenues of satisfaction, these pathways to reality, for the two phrases mean much the same, remain happily open to many. To others, however, they are closed, partly because of the austerity of the scientific mood and partly because there is a lack of correlation. Thus much Nature- poetry is too like antiquarian or reminiscent architecture, evading the problem of idealising the present in offering us constructions whose beauty makes us forget for the time that they are anachronisms. Similarly, the spiritualisations 30 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE offered by philosophy and by theology have often seemed unconvincing because imposed from without, instead of aris- ing in minds saturated with the actualities of the case. It goes without saying that there have been poets, philosophers, and theologians who have seized on the universal elements in Nature which are for all time. It is also obvious that Nature-poems may be literary treasures though they are no longer significant to us in our world-outlook. But what we want to get at is simply this: What counteractives or compensations may there be for those in whom the scientific mood is strong, in whom neither Nature-poem nor ancient Theodicy, neither philosophical idealisation nor fairy tale finds satisfactory organic response. To conserve the feeling for Nature at once a satisfaction and a clue we may get what aid we sincerely can from Nature-poetry and other idealisations, we may give greater breadth and depth to our vision by more science, we may exercise ourselves in scientific reconstructions till the Dryad comes back into the tree, but all these are vanity unless we keep close to the concrete realities themselves, and receive with open minds the great primal impressions of immensity, flux, order, intricacy, and beauty, not refusing to be thrilled by what seemed to our more naive predecessors to be immedi- ately divine. There is grandeur in the spectacle of the star-strewn sky, so apparently crowded, but there are thousands of worlds unseen for every one our unaided eyes can image, and yet the astronomers tell us that the emptiness of space is its most striking characteristic. We are staggered by the fact that when we look at a Centauri, which lies some ten billions of miles nearer to us than any other known star, we see it, not as it is to-night, but as it was four years ago. We have THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 31 no mental picture of the remoteness of the sun, which is the earth's ' mother-country ', but if the sun were repre- sented in a model by a grain of sand one-hundredth of an inch in diameter, and the earth by a quite invisible speck one inch away, the nearest star would be represented on this scale by another grain of sand some four miles off. One knows indeed that size and distance are in a way the least important distinctions in the world, but just as men often lose their littleness in sojourning among the great mountains, so it is part of the significance of things to us that we belong to a system cast on big lines. We are citizens of no mean city. No one supposes that we are divided into scientific, aesthetic, and other parts, and function in bits as it were; or that there is an antithesis, like good and evil, between science and feeling; or that there is any such thing as ' pure perception '. As a matter of fact, as Professor Hitter says, " We know-and-feel, all in one breath, whenever we respond in an unsophisticated, natural manner to contacts with men and things' (1911, p. 126). Deeper science may deepen feeling, and deeper feeling may lead to deeper science. We are inclined to agree with Hitter that " we cannot interpret plant and animal life broadly and soundly either in technical science or in common intelligence unless the aesthetic side of our nature joins with the intellectual side in determining our attitude toward the beings we deal with." Progress is to be looked for in correlated, not dissociated development. There is no question of allowing feeling to influence our cal- culations or measurements, for the scientific accounts an- open to public inspection and are fortunately audited with severity. But we need not think that the ark of science IKH such an unstable equilibrium that a touch of imaginative 32 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE insight will upset it. There is no question, on the other hand, of admitting into our feeling for Nature any element that is incongruent with our intellectual experience. That way lies sentimentalism or worse. But we need not be too timorous in our anthropomorphism or afraid of exaggerating the wonder and subtlety of Nature. We cannot, for our life's sake, and for the sake of our philosophical reconstruc- tion, afford to lose in scientific analysis what the poets and artists and the lovers of Nature all see. It is intuitively felt, rather than intellectually perceived, the vision of things as totalities, root and all, all in all; neither fancifully, nor mystically, but sympathetically in their wholeness. There is a deep wisdom in Wordsworth's remark in one of his Prefaces: " Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge; it is the impassioned expression which is in the countenance of all science." To all those who remind us what " a dubious and vary- ing oracle ' feeling has proved to be in the past, we would answer, " But how often a wise counsellor ! ' In an exalted mood many have in the light of feeling made decisions from which the happiness of a lifetime flowed, and it was a wise man who declared that great ideas come from the heart. We mean by feeling in its finer expression the lamp which others have called intuition. It goes out if not tended, and if facts do not form part of its oil the flame will sputter. But it is a light in the region ( beyond science '. As M. Bergson writes, " Sur notre personnalite, sur notre liberte . . . sur notre origine et peut-etre aussi sur notre destinee, elle projette une lumiere vacillante et faible, mais qui n'en perce pas moins 1'obscurite de la nuit ou nous laisse P in- telligence." The words " The Unf at homed Universe ", used in the title THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 33 of this lecture, were suggested by Walt Whitman's well- known line " Prais'd be the fathomless universe, for life and joy, and for the objects and knowledge curious." Whit- man assuredly strikes the right note that of the joyous adventurer sailing into opulent seas unexplored. Wherever in the past he has sounded he has touched treasure, he looks forward to winning the secrets of deeps still unfathorned. Experience never disappointed surely warrants a feeling of expectancy, an impression of inexhaustible riches " these immense meadows, these interminable rivers ", horizon be- yond horizon, which are ours, here and now, to seek to appropriate. The climax of intuition is mysticism, and those of us who do not practise it must not brush it hastily aside. Many mystics are precise and logical thinkers though they ex- plore a kingdom beyond science and logic. Some psycholo- gists have suggested that in conditions of quiet or of exalta- tion, as in the presence of fine scenery, there may enter into the focus of consciousness some larger area of the unconscious mind than is usual in ordinary life. Others believe that the mystic is thrilled by extra-human influences. All that we plead for is a recognition of the fact that practical men and women of to-day do still manage to get into an original relation with Nature. In his Candle of Vision (1918), A. E. writes : " I draw attention to the mystery in common and obvious things, and ask that they be explained and not slurred over as if no explana- tion were necessary. I ask the doubters of my vision to penetrate a little into the mystery of their own thoughts and dreams before they cry out against me, who for many years travelled far and came upon lovely and inhabited regions to which I would also lead them. I know that my brain is a court where many living crea- tures throng, and I am never alone in it. You, too, can know that, 34 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE if you heighten the imagination and intensify the will. The dark- ness in you will begin to glow, and you will see clearly, and you will know that what you thought was but a mosaic of memories is rather the froth of a gigantic ocean of life, breaking on the shores of matter, casting up its own flotsam to mingle with the life of the shores it breaks on." And speaking of the concentration required in the habit of vision, he says : " It is an exercise this, a training for higher adventures of the soul : it is 110 light labour. The plough- man's cleaving the furrows is easier by far. Five minutes of this effort will at first leave us trembling as at the close of a laborious day." Surely students of science should be the last to dogmatise as to the possibilities of this life of ours. 6. Towards a Philosophical Interpretation of Nature. As the scientific order transcends the empirical, it is tran- scended in turn by a philosophical order which aims at a harmonious interpretation of our experience as a whole. The essential change is often referred to as passing from the ' how ' to the ' why ? , from analytic and historical description to interpretation, but there is also this difference that while science must keep feeling at an arm's length, philosophy seeks to give a view of the world that will satisfy the claims of feeling as well as those of the understanding. It is just our outlook on the whole of life, the world within as well as the world without, and it includes the assets of feeling as well as intellectual gains. To illustrate concretely : biologists are easily satisfied with their outlook on animate nature if they are willing to leave out of account the fact of human personality at its best, or the fact of human society. We may define our biology THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 35 so as to exclude them, that is a question of method, but to think of leaving them out in our total interpretation of our experience is to allow the light that is in us to he darkened. Similarly, although there is great difference of opinion in regard to the philosophy of the beautiful, there is general agreement that our total outlook on Nature is to be distrusted if the fact of beauty has been ignored. Feeling is to be excluded from scientific investigation, but it must be allowed to operate in our philosophical synthesi-. Perhaps we may say that feeling supplies the mortar in which are laid the stones contributed by Natural Sci< un- to the (synoptic) edifice which the genius of Philosophy is building. There are several hopeful indications of an advance towards a philosophical order of Nature. The first is the increasing correlation of the sciences, which are parts of one endeavour to understand the order of Nature and Man's life in its midst. The sciences work into one another's hands in correlation, and this has always been fruitful, as is well illustrated by the transforming and vitalising of chemistry after it joined hands with physics. The scientific study of animal behaviour, still in the freshness of its youth, shows us the effectiveness of a combined attack psychological and biological on a difficult set of problems. The autonomy of biology is not inconsistent with its correlation imperium in imperio with chemistry and physics on the one hand and psychology and sociology on the other. While the sciences are separated off for the sake of clearness, because they pursue different methods, use different tools, and sum up in different kinds of formula?, they work into one another's hands, and they are simply different modes of one rational inquiry. Their mutual influence is increased, not decreased, 36 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE when each recognises its abstractness ; and the hope of their leading on to a philosophical order is in proportion to the clearness with which it is recognised that a synthesis is not additive. It is customary to speak of the unity of the sciences, and no doubt they are beginning to form a system or hierarchy, but the ideal of one science of Nature the ideal of Descartes, of Hobbes, of Leibniz is giving place to an ideal of cor- relation rather than of unity. There has been much profit- able breaking down of artificial partitions, much fruitful co-operation of several sciences on one problem, many a use- ful discovery of a common denominator bringing apparently disconnected facts into comparable relationship, but the materialistic proposal to make physiology a branch of physics, and psychology a branch of physiology, has not been substantiated. Biology and Psychology remain autonomous, with categories of their own. Treating of the work of science, Prof. A. E. Dolbear writes : " By explanation is meant the presentation of the mechanical antecedents for a phenomenon in so complete a way that no supplementary or unknown factors are necessary." If that kind of explanation were feasible throughout, there would be one science of Nature, in terms of ideal motions, expressible in mathematical formula But this is false simplicity; it does not really work. Thus, to take a clear case, in the higher reaches of animal behaviour, most biologists admit the necessity of invoking other than mechanical factors. The second hopeful sign we have already referred to, the frank recognition on the part of science that it is not its role to solve the riddles of 'the universe. It remains more or less open to students of science to deny the feasibility of any solution and to doubt the value of any generalisations THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 37 save those called scientific, but there has been perfect open- ness in the retreat from the position of world-interpretation. No longer should it be possible to ask, as the title of a not very ancient book does, " God or Natural Selection?", for that is opposing an interpretative concept to a descriptive formula, in short, trying to talk two languages at once. The third hopeful sign, as it seems to an outsider, is a change on the part of Philosophy in its relations with Science. There is a growing recognition that Philosophy must use in her characteristically interpretative reconstruction all the gen- eral results of the sciences. The Procrustean attempt to force the facts of Nature to fit a premeditated abstract intellectual scheme is not more promising than the antipodal attempt to wring a philosophical system out of Nature alone. The reaction of Lotze from Schelling may serve as a diagrammatic illustration of what is now taking place in our midst ; that philosophy is using the best that science can give, and is systematising that along with the other winnings of the de- veloping human spirit. Prof. A. E. Taylor gives (1909, p. 192) a luminous statement of the relation between science and philosophy : " The work of the Philosophy of Nature and of Mind only begins where that of the experimental sciences leaves off. Its data are not particular facts, as directly amassed by experiment and observation, but the hypotheses used by experimental science for the co-ordina- tion and description of these facts. And it examines these hypoth- eses, not with the object of modifying their structure so as to in- clude new facts, or to include the old facts in a simpler form, but purely for the purpose of estimating their value as an account of ultimately real existence. Whether the hypotheses are adequate as implements for the calculation of natural processes is a question which Philosophy, when it understands its place, leaves entirely to the special sciences; whether they can claim to be more than useful formula for calculation, i.e., whether they give us knowledge 38 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE of ultimate Reality, is a problem which can only be dealt with by the science which systematically analyses the meaning of reality, i.e., by Metaphysics. We may perhaps follow the usage of some recent writers in marking this difference of object by a difference in terminology, and say that the goal of experimental science is the description of facts, the goal of Metaphysics their interpretation. The difference of aim is, however, not ultimate. Description of facts, when once we cease to be content with such description as will sub- serve the purpose of calculation, and call for the description of the fact as it really is, of itself becomes metaphysical interpretation." Along with the sympathetic interest that many modern philosophers (such as Ward, Royce, Pringle-Pattison, Stout, Taylor, Lovejoy, Bergson) have taken in the general results of science, there is benefit accruing to science through their expert criticism of scientific categories. For the mood and training of the scientific investigator is rarely such that it leads far in that direction. Some of the ablest scientific minds the world has known have betrayed in their would-be philosophical deliverances an extraordinary naivete. In thinking of the empirical, scientific, and philosophical orders as reconstructions of increasing completeness and, it is hoped, of increasing nearness to reality, it must be re- membered that they co-exist in our midst like outcrops of strata of different epochs. Thus we have little more than empirical knowledge in regard to the variability of living creatures, or in regard to certain obscure diseases. In med- ical practice, stock-breeding, and engineering, empirical knowledge has often worked extraordinarily well. The ex- planation is sometimes diagnostic genius, sometimes remark- able development of perception in quite ordinary individuals. A patiently accumulated working knowledge often leads a shrewd man a long way without much science in the strict THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 39 sense. Similarly there are many who have established for themselves scientific order over large areas, but have not sought to correlate it with other parts of their experience, thus failing of philosophical endeavour. And others who seek do not find. Similarly, many scholars who have a philosophy of history have neither a philosophy nor a science of Nature. It is to be recognised, then, that the empirical, the scientific, and the philosophical order co-exist in us and in our midst. Another note may be permitted. It has often been pointed out that progress in intellectual construction is correlated with mastery of environing conditions. As compared with the early working knowledge, the scientific order meant in- creased control of Nature, and as science has grown our mastery has widened and deepened. We have only to think of the successive harnessings of wind, water, steam, and elec- tricity. Preventive medicine and hygiene, the arts of agri- culture and breeding are good instances of the passage from control of the inorganic to the control of organisms. When we look around and see how much men suffer from a par- tiality of view that is remediable and from philosophies which are discreditable, is it too much to hope that the grow- ing philosophical order is going to lead us to an increased control of the higher issues of life an aid which Religion will be unwise to refuse ? 7. Science and Religion. Science is frankly empirical in method and aim ; it seeks to discover the laws of concrete being and becoming, and to formulate these in the simplest terms, which are either im- mediate data of experience or verifiably derived therefrom. The scientific ' universe of discourse ' docs not include tran- 40 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE scendental concepts; its aim does not include attempting to give ultimate explanations. Religion has been described as the orienting of our life towards the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. But this does not grip ; it leaves out the essential the mystical ele- ment. Religion in essence always implies a recognition practical, emotional, and intellectual of a higher or deeper order of reality than is reached in sense-experience. It means the recognition of an unseen universe, which throws light on the riddles of the observed world a light which may give aid. In the scientific light of common day are seen the hosts of the Assyrians encompassing the city; the opened religious eye sees the mountains crowded with the chariots of God. But let us quote an authority. Prof. D. S. Cairns writes (1918, p. 21) : " Religion is, fundamentally, on the human side, man's protest and appeal to the Supreme against the sorrows, indignities, and sins of this present world. It is the endeavour of man, through that appeal, to unite him- self with the life of that unseen and ruling world, and so to win the power from it to dominate and transmute the life of time. That is to say, in essence, religion, on the human side, is simply the sustained endeavour to meet this great human problem of the destroying Nature and the struggling personality. All religions have this at their heart. They, one and all, start from an act of faith in an unseen world which is mightier than the world of sense and time, and which is either already friendly or may be made friendly to the worshippers." He goes on to say that in all religions there may be recognised three great constant elements the conception of an unseen ruling world, some idea of the supreme good which the worshipper may derive from Heaven THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 41 for the enhancement of his life, and some way or means of uniting the worshipper with God or the gods. It is evident, then, that the religious language is not the scientific language, and that it is impossible to intermingle the two. The religious concepts are different and apparently more metaphysical ; their aim is interpretation rather than description. In short, science and religion are incommen- surables. But to call religion and science ' incommensurables ' is not to fall back on the old-fashioned impossible device of having idea-tight compartments. Just as a novel scientific generalisation is not incorporated in our scientific system unless consistent with previously established conclusions, or unless the latter can be adjusted to meet the new idea har- moniously, so at a greater height, where philosophical dis- cipline is invaluable, a religious idea, such as that of a Divine Creator, must be congruent with the rest of our world-picture, e.g., with the idea of evolution. It is the criterion of con- sistency that saves from superstition. Men are led to religion along many pathways from the perplexities of the moral life, from an appreciation of the facts of history, and from the experience of reaching the limits of practical endeavour, of emotional expression, and of intellectual inquiry. When we think of the last-named three pathways to religion, which many tread, through baulked struggle, over-strained emotion, and baffled search after clear understanding, we can see why the rapid devel- opment of science should, for a time of transition at least, work against religion. For science gives Man from time to time a greatly increased mastery over Nature; science, with its analytical triumphs, ever tends to diminish, in the shallow- minded, the saving grace of wonder; and science is ever 42 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE dispelling the darkness that oppresses the mind. Moreover, the scientific mood, inherently sceptical, has been widely dif- fused ; its activity has a growing fascination of its own ; it easily comes to preoccupy the mind, and thus tends to crowd out the aesthetic, the poetic, and the religious moods. And yet we believe that religious interpretation and scientific analysis are equally natural and necessary expressions of the developing human spirit. When we are thrilled with the wonder of the world, the heights and depths of things, the beauty of it all, we approach the door of natural religion. And when the Nature-feel ing is not superficial but informed with knowledge, with no gain of the hard-won analysis unused, we may reach the threshold. And when we feel that our scientific cosmology leaves Isis still veiled, and when our attempts at philosophical inter- pretation give us a reasoned conviction of a meaning behind the process, we may perhaps enter in. That the entrance is not easy is shown by the unhappy prevalence of a profane world-outlook outside the ranks of disciplined thinkers and investigators, on the one hand, and religious, poetical, and artistic lovers of Nature on the other. The difficulty of the entrance is partly due to race, for North Temperate peoples with no Celtic strain never find religion easy, partly due to preoccupation either with the good things or with the thick shadows of this life, and partly due to a misunder- standing of the results of science. It is the last hindrance to religion that concerns us in this course of lectures. What must be worked towards is a philosophical co-ordina- tion of the essential results of Biology and the other sciences with the results of intellectual inquiry in other fields and by other methods, allowing at the same time for those glimpses of reality that feeling alone affords. In this task THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 43 it is all-important that we get at the facts, for there are in currency many conclusions in regard to Nature which can no longer be accepted as well grounded. What we may reach can only be provisional, for the data of science are in process of rapid change; but there will be some reward if we can eliminate some spurious and obsolete coinage. Whatever be our philosophical interpretation or religious conviction, we do well to have more than a passing acquaint- ance with the world without, with the process of which our life is part. The aim of this course is to state the general results of biological inquiry which must be taken account of if we are to think of Nature as a whole and in relation to the rest of our experience. The first part of the course will deal with the realm of organisms as it is so far as its changefulness permits; the second, with its evolution, past, present, and possible. SUMMARY. In primitive times man had a slowly growing recognition of an empirical order of nature, a very imperfect control of natural forces, and a theory of magic or of animism. The empirical order has gradually given place to a scientific order, ever broadening and deepening; and man's control of Nature has increased in proportion. One science has been added to another in elaborate specialisation, and there has also grown up a scientific system or ' world-outlook ' which verges on philosophy. This world- outlook has ceased to be geocentric or narrowly anthropocentric. The reign of law and the process of evolution have been recognised. The direct motives of scientific inquiry are, in the main, intel- lectual curiosity, a self-preservative dislike of obscurities, a desire after unity and continuity in our outlook. It is a quite specific endeavour to get things under intelligent control, so that we can think of them clearly in relation to the rest of our knowledge, and so that we can act effectively on the basis they afford. The aim of science is to describe natural phenomena as precisely as possible, 44 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE as simply as possible, as completely as possible, and as consistently as possible. But this view of Laws of Nature as merely descriptive formulae must not be exaggerated; the formulae often imply a great deal of preliminary analysis and reduction, which is ' explanation ' of a sort ; they must be verifiable by all normally constituted minds ; and that they bear close correspondence to the actualities of Nature is shown by the way in which we use them safely in prediction. Moreover, the descriptive formulations of science must, in relevant cases, be followed by a historical or genetic account of the sub- jects of study especially, of course, when we are working w r ithin the boundaries of the realm of organisms. The limitations of natural knowledge are great. We know Nature only in the mirror of our minds; we are limited by our senses; we cannot make scientific progress without taking partial or abstract views, and the correlation of these is difficult; our fundamental con- cepts (like 'matter/ 'energy/ ' organism ') are not self-explanatory, but big with mystery; they are not final, but in process of develop- ment; the law of gravitation is perhaps the finest example of a far-reaching descriptive formula, but it does not tell us why the apple falls to the ground; in some departments of science we try to give historical descriptions or to trace genetic series, but we know little of any beginnings; the world is full of unsolved concrete problems thus such a common phenomenon as cell-division remains in great part an enigma; there are hints of facts beyond our present horizon; and so on. In an age of extraordinarily rapid scientific discovery, we stand wondering before an unfathomed universe. The world without has played an important part in the evolution of the human spirit. Its enigmas have educated our intelligence; its practical problems have trained our will; and in Animate Nature in particular Man has found a school of feeling. In her varied opportunities Nature has helped in polishing the mirror of our minds in which we see her, and there is no reason to believe that the polishing is finished. As regards feeling for Nature, however, the scientific mood, now so dominant, is antipodal, and the scientific systematisations may be actively hostile. Nature-poetry, symbolism, Natural Theology, philosophical idealisations, and religious spiritual- isations valuable as they may be to attuned minds fail in many cases to find any satisfactory organic response, and the life of feeling has been impoverished. Yet to try to leave feeling out in our view of Nature is to try to close one of the right-of-way paths to THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 45 reality. To conserve this element of feeling, to which the analytic mood of science is opposed, it is above all necessary to keep close to the concrete realities themselves, keeping an open mind to their influences. In this endeavour science may be of use, as a means of culture rather than as an intellectual formulation, adding depth, order, and connectedness to our vision. In the cultivation of feeling, which requires to be kept well in hand, mental elbow-room must be given to the fundamental impressions of immensity, flux, order, intricacy, and beauty. Movement towards a philosophical Order of Nature, i.e., towards a harmonious interpretation of Nature along with the rest of our experience, may be discerned in the growing correlation of the sciences, in the re-definition of their aim (descriptive rather than explanatory), in the aid that has been given to science by philo- sophical criticism of its categories, and in the endeavour that is increasingly made by philosophers to take the results of science into their consideration. Perhaps it may be said that feeling supplies the mortar in which are laid the stones contributed by Natural Science to the edifice which the genius of Philosophy is building. When we are thrilled with the wonder of the world, the heights and depths of things; when our Nature-feeling is informed with knowledge; when our science leaves us with a conviction of the mysteriousness of Nature the unfathomed universe; when our philosophical outlook leads us towards a realisation of a meaning behind the process; then there may be a total reaction on our part worthy of the name of Natural Religion. To facilitate this reaction by an accurate presentation of the facts is one of the objects of this course. LECTURE II. THE EEALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC. LECTUKE II. THE EEALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC. 1. Things and Living Creatures. 2. The Characteristic Features of the Realm of Organisms. 3. A Multitude of Individual- ities, yet a Systema Natures. 4. Abundance and Insurgence of Life. 5. Struggle and Sifting. 6. A System of Inter- related Lives. 7. The Prevalence of Adaptations. 8. The Pervasiveness of Beauty. 9. The Other Side of the Picture. 10. Resemblances between the Realm of Organisms and the Domain of the Inorganic. 11. Contrasts between the Realm of Organisms and the Domain of the Inorganic. 12. The Suitability of the Inorganic to be the Basis and Environment of the Organic. 1. Things and Living Creatures. IN the concrete fulness of the world without, we distin- guish by common consent the realm of organisms and the domain of the inorganic. Sun and stars, sky and sea, moun- tains and rivers, the air we breathe and the dust beneath our feet, crystals and precious stones, it seems like colour-blind- ness to sum this up in the negative and unattractive term ' inorganic \ But better that than use a question-begging word. We must not dogmatically say e inanimate ' Nature, for it is making a sweeping assertion to declare that the inor- ganic cannot have a meta-kinetic aspect. Nor is it quite satisfactory to speak of ' the mechanical order of things ' , for we ourselves illustrate mechanical principles, even when we raise our arm or eyebrow in protest. Moreover, it cannot 49 50 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED be said that a mechanical summing up of even not-living occurrences is necessarily exhaustive. Nor can we speak with satisfactory precision of the ' physical order ' , for living creatures are also physical systems, though more; and the phrase f purely physical J is again question-begging. So let us call it all from the solar system to the dew-drop the inorganic domain. We cannot hold it rigidly apart from living organisms, for it is continually undergoing mod- ification at their hands. Parts of it are ever entering into the bodies of organisms, and into its repository the disen- chanted dust of life is ever returning. We know the inor- ganic system of things only in terms of mind, and our first adventure of scientific faith is to believe in its external reality; yet it looms impressively over us a great dumb giant, holding us, even in our defiance, in its grip and bear- ing us with it on its stupendous journeying through space. 2. The Characteristic Features of the Realm of Organisms. Let us begin with an impressionist survey of the realm of organisms, and afterwards contrast this with a general view of the inorganic domain. It is surely a magnificent spectacle that the obviously animate presents. What a gamut of life from the microscopic Infusorian to the giant whale, from the hyssop on the wall to the cedar of Lebanon ! What abundance of life is revealed when the dredge comes up, or when the insects rise before us in a cloud as we walk through the grassland of a warm country. What variety of architecture, what abundance of individuality within the same style ! All is suggestive of fertile imagination. How strong the pressure, as the waves of life surge up against their shores; how numberless the hand-and-glove fitnesses; how subtle the linkages ; how constant the changef ulness ; WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 51 how universal the beauty! But let us be more analytic and illustrate in due order the deeper impressions which fill the mind after the crowd of details sinks to rest, for these must form part of the materials which Biology gives over to Philosophy to build with. 3. A Multitude of Individualities,, yet a Sy sterna Naturcz. When we look at Nature with a fresh eye, in a new coun- try, or in some novel experience such as dredging, we have a transient impression of overwhelming confusion, as if Aladdin's cave had been suddenly burst open before us. Many miss this in ordinary circumstances because familiarity breeds the contempt of inattention, and also because a very large number of living creatures are cryptozoic. For every conspicuous plant there are often a score inconspicuous, and for every readily visible animal there must be a hundred unseen. It is not of individuals that we are thinking, but of individualities, of species. There are at least 25,000 named backboned animals, ten times as many named back- boneless animals, and about as many plants. There are about 100,000 Dicotyledonous Flowering Plants. Darwin speaks of finding twenty different kinds of flowering plants on a patch of turf four feet by three, and there may be as many different kinds of animals on one stone brought up from the sea-floor. The study of marine animals has been enthusiastic and in- / tense for many years, but those who know most about it will agree with what the poet Spenser said long ago : " But what an endlesse worke have I in hand, To count the seas abundant progeny, Whose fruitful seede farre passeth those on land, And also those which wonne in th' azure sky ; For much more eath, to tell the starrcs on hy, 52 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED Albe they endlesse seem in estimation, Than to recount the seas posterity; So fertile be the floods in generation, So huge their numbers, and so numberlesse the.r nation. We shall come later on to the difficult problem of in- dividuality or species; but our view of Nature as a whole nut take account of the fact that species are multitudinous ; t a Ty represent discontinuous individualities, with much more constancy than the earlier Darwinians supposed 5nn*us said : " There are as many species as there were fdeasTn th Divine Mind , and there is no doubt that a good species is like a clear-cut idea. At the other extreme of ompari on, it is like a chemical element, but on a higher lie. As Goethe said, The one thing Nature seems to an at is Individuality; yet she cares nothing for indmd- uals " If we personify < Animate Nature ', it must at least be as an artist with inexhaustible imaginative resources, with extraordinary mastery of materials. But in the prodigal wealth of individually, it u iota demonic confusion, but a rational order that we see The species are remarkably unique and discontinuous, each with a' Lacter of its own, yet they are often like stages in ^in- dividual development, and they can o ten be classing n a logical series. Linna3us established his Systema Nature q ut apart from any evolutionist conception, and though the Lt of genetic relationship lies behind every so-called nat- nral LScation, our present point is simply that Each o her works has an essence of its own; each of her phenomena a special characterisation; and yet their diversity is unity ". WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 53 4. Abundance and Insurgence of Life. A second impression is that of wealth of numbers and of indomitable will to live. There are, indeed, organisms which multiply slowly, such as elephants, golden eagles, and cen- tury plants, but this is not the way with the majority. Most of the streams of life are ever tending to overflow their banks. Even the rarities may do so in appropriate condi- tions; thus a rather rare wingless Glacier-Insect was recently C_3 i/ found on one stretch of the mer-de-glace at Chamonix in numbers almost equal to the population of Great Britain and Ireland. In the case of organisms of low individuation, which hold their own rather because they are many than be- cause they are strong or wise, the productivity is beyond aU our powers of conception. From one Infusorian there may be a million by the end of a week, and in some of the floating meadows of the sea there may be a quarter of a million units in a gallon of water. There is a well-known British starfish, Luidia ciliaris, which produces at least two hundred millions of eggs, and yet it is not what one would call a common animal. We are familiar with calculations of what would occur if there were no thinning of the crops how soon the earth would be covered with a weed, or the sea filled solid with a fish, or the sky darkened with an insect, and recurrent plagues of locusts, sparrows, rabbits, and moles remind IH that a possibility may easily become an actuality. After allowing a prodigious mortality of 95 per cent., it is com- puted that the 10,000,000 pairs of breeding rats in Britain on New Year's Day, 1918, were represented by 40,000,000 pairs at the end of the year, and by 12,000,000 more pairs the following month ! There is a grimness in the well-known 54 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED remarks of Linnaeus that three flies will consume the car- case of a horse as quickly as a lion can. Professor Woodruff observed the successive asexual generations of the common slipper-animalcule (Paramecium) for five years between 1907 and 1912 and found that there were 3,029 of them over three every forty-eight hours. Careful calculation showed that they had given evidence of the capacity of producing in the five years a volume of protoplasm approximately equal to 10,000 times the volume of the earth. This power of self-increase must be taken account of in our conception of living organisms, and the resulting abundance of life must form part of our impressionist picture of Animal Mature. At the autumnal climax of productivity in lakes, there may be to the square yard 7,000 millions of a well-known Dia- tom, Melosira varians, so that the water is like a living soup. We have to remember, moreover, the obvious but notable fact that we are dealing not with items like grains of sand, but with individuals, each itself and no other. Mendel put an end to the phrase " as like as two peas ". Individual organisms differ greatly in degree of complex- ity and of integration. Many an Infusorian has an intri- cate organisation and lives a by no means monotonous life, though it is only what we somewhat fallaciously call " a single cell ". Hardly any larger than some Infusorians are some of the Rotifers, sometimes with about 1,000 cells; a minnow has its millions, and a bird its millions of millions. What a contrast between the very incipient integration of a sponge, the intricate division of labour in a ' Portuguese Man of War ' hesitating between colony and individual, and the compact co-ordination of the circumspect wren. As a recent student of the subject, Mr. Julian S. Huxley (1912), puts WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 55 it, we are confronted in Nature with closed independent sv terns with harmonious parts and with capacity for continu- ance. Such are individuals. " Though the closure is never complete, the independence never absolute, the harmony never perfect, yet systems and tendency alike have real exist- ence." The individual is Unity in Diversity in what it is and in what it does, a whole whose diverse parts all work together, ensuring continuance. When it transcends the limits of its substance, Mr. Huxley says, that is personality. But in addition to the abundance of life alike of individ- ualities and of individuals there is the quality of insur- gence. Living creatures press up against all barriers; they fill every possible niche all the world over; they show that Nature abhors a vacuum. We find animals among the snow on Monte Rosa at a height of over 10,000 feet; we dredge them from the floor of the sea, from those great ' deeps ' of over six miles where Mount Everest would be much more than engulfed. It is hard to say what difficulties living creatures may not conquer or circumvent. You may find insects in hot springs in which you cannot keep your hand im- mersed, or Rotifers and other small fry under fifteen feet of ice in the little lakes of Antarctica ; you find a Brine- * t/ Shrimp and two or three other animals in the Great Salt Lake; you find a fish climbing a tree, and thoroughly ter- restrial types like spiders with species living under water; there is, as Dr. Shipley has shown, a bustle of life on the dry twigs of the heather. When we consider the filling of every niche, the finding of homes in extraordinary places, the mas- tery of difficult conditions, the plasticity that adjusts to out- of-the-way exigencies, the circumvention of space (as in migration) and the conquest of time (as in hibernation), we begin to get an impression of the insurgence of life. 56 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED We see life persistent and intrusive spreading everywhere, insinuating itself, adapting itself, resisting everything, defying everything, surviving everything ! The great Sequoia trees may be taken as emblems of life's tenacity. For they have been known to flourish over two thousand years. One of the oldest had 2,425 annual rings when it was killed, and must have begun to live 525 years before the Christian era. " We have," wrote Prof. W. R. Dudley, i deep in their annual rings, records which extend far beyond the beginnings of Anglo-Saxon peoples, beyond even the earliest struggles for liberty and democracy among the Greeks records of forest conflagrations, of the vicis- situdes of the seasons, of periods of drought and periods of abundant and favouring rains." In our conception of life we must not forget these sublime instances of its power to endure. 5. Struggle and Sifting. By the insurgence of life we mean a certain quality of i push ? or aggressiveness often observable both in plants and animals. It is an outcome of a native self-assertiveness, and it is a factor in the struggle for existence as much as a con- sequence of it. More metaphorically, it is an expression of the i will to live ', or of the spirit of adventure. To the conception of the struggle for existence we shall have to give careful consideration at a later stage ; meanwhile we must notice that the phrase leads us astray if it is taken literally or woodenly. It includes every form of the clash between individuals and their environing difficulties, all the novel responses that individual living creatures are always making to the pressure of limiting conditions. These re- sponses may take the form of intensified competition, even of WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 57 intensified cannibalism ; but they have often taken the form, as Darwin emphasised, of some experiment in co-operation and socialisation, of some new departure which gives the next generation a better start in life. All theory apart, our picture of animate nature is fundamentally out of perspec- tive unless we recognise that a large proportion of the time and energy of living creatures, whether in the fighting line or safe for the time being in organised entrenchments, is devoted to securing not self-preservation, but the welfare of the race. Nature, as Goethe said, is continually taking- advantage of her children's " capacity for self -forget ful- ness ' Whenever the circumstances are critical, and there is in- equality or diversity in the response that living creatures make to their environing difficulties and limitations, a proc- ess of sifting begins to work, the process of discriminate elimination familiarly known as Natural Selection. This also will engage our attention later, but in the meantime let us not assume that the conventional statement of the process tells us the whole truth. Just as the struggle for existence is often more accurately described as an endeavour after well-being, so, in thinking of Nature's sifting, we go astray if we think of it as at all haphazard (that is a con- tradiction in terms), or as directed only to self-preservation, or as being necessarily sanguinary, or as a process in which organisms simply remain like passive branches for the prun- ing-shears. As a sagacious naturalist has well observed, though somewhat too paradoxically, it is not so much that Nature selects the organisms fittest to her; it is rather that each organism selects the natural conditions fittest to itself. 58 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED 6. A System of Inter-related Lives. The hosts of living organisms are not random creatures, they can be classified in battalions and regiments. Xeither are they isolated creatures, for every thread of life is inter- twined with others in a complex web. This is one of the fundamental biological concepts the correlation of organ- isms in the web of life and it is as characteristically Dar- winian as the struggle for existence. ]STo creature lives or dies to itself; there is no insulation. Long nutritive chains often bind a series of organisms together in the very funda- mental relation that one kind eats the other. All things are in flux, there is a ceaseless circulation of matter ; all flesh is grass and all fish is diatom; and so the stuff of the world goes round from one incarnation to another. One organism gets linked on to others, and becomes dependent on them for the continuance of its race. Flowers and insects are fit- ted to one another as hand to glove. Cats have to do with the plague in India as well as with the clover crop at home. The young of the fresh-water mussels are carried about for a time by minnows, and the young of the fish called the bitterling are harboured within the fresh-water mussel. Squirrels affect the cornfields and water wagtails the sheep- folds. In short, we get a glimpse of Nature as a vast sys- tem of inter-linked lives a Systema Nature in a new sense a web with a pattern (see Thomson, 1914, 1916). With- out entering upon any discussion of the weaving or evolu- tion of the web through untold ages, let us take the realm of organisms as it is, and emphasise the fact that just as there is a correlation of organs in the body, so there is a correlation of organisms in the world of life. When we learn something of the intricate give and take, supply and WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 59 demand, action and reaction between plants and animals, between flowers and insects, between herbivores and carni- vores, and between other conflicting yet correlated interests, we begin to get a glimpse of a vast self-regulating organisa- tion. There may be local and temporary friction and dis- order; there is the clash of fierce competition in some forms of the struggle for existence; but the larger fact is the smooth working of a balanced correlated system. In philosophical reconstruction we must surely take ac- count of this inter-relatedness of organisms. Is it not of interest to find in Animate Nature, as in mankind, advance from comparatively isolated units towards systematisation and solidarity? The multitudinous unique threads of life become more and more interwoven; the warp and the woof of the web are hunger and love; we get glimpses of a chang- ing pattern becoming ever finer. The web seems to become increasingly coherent, though man often rends the fabric ruthlessly. Another point of importance, demanding subsequent study, is that the intricacy of the web of life becomes in it- self of great significance in evolution. It is its subtlety that gives point and possibility of survival to minute variations. The very fact of complex interaction and systematisation tends to diminish fortuity and to make towards definite progression. The correlation of organisms which is a prod- uct of evolution becomes in turn a directive factor. 7. The Prevalence of Adaptations. The balance demonstrable on a large scale holds through- out; every higher organism is a complex bundle of adap- tations. It is suited to its surroundings, to its food, to it- own weight, to its way of moving, to the regularly recurrent 60 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED exigencies of the seasons, and to recurrent risks of injury. It may be subtly adapted to its mate, in exquisite symbiosis to its offspring, to its ante-natal life, and to dying at the proper time ! Wherever you tap organic Nature, Romanes said, it seems to flow with purpose. The theory of this will be discussed later on, but in the meantime without pressing the word purpose let us emphasise the fact that almost all living creatures are definitely and detailedly fit for the particular conditions of their life. There can be no doubt that we live in a world of fitnesses, that we need to search to find misfits. When we think we have found them, we have generally made a mistake. This adaptiveness is an- other large fact of life, which, whatever be the scientific theory of it, must be incorporated in a concrete Philosophy of Nature. Let us take a few illustrations. The structure of a long bone in a mammal is architectur- ally adapted to give the utmost firmness with the minimum expenditure of material; the pollen-basket on the hind-legs of worker-bees is adapted in detail to carrying the nutritive pollen, the golden, or otherwise coloured, germinal dust; the leaf of the Venus fly-trap or of the sundew is adapted with no little subtlety to catching insects ; the parts of flowers are often adapted to attract insect-visitors and to make the most of them when they come ; the colours and patterns of leaf-insects are adapted to harmonise with the foliage on which they settle; the heart of the ptarmigan is adapted to the strain of high altitudes, and the shoes which the ruffed grouse puts on in winter are adapted for treading on the lightly compacted snow; the mongoose is chemically adapted to resist snake poison; the tendrils of the mer- maid's purse are non-living products of the living skate physically adapted to fasten the egg to seaweed ; the flatfish WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 61 is adapted to put on a garment of invisibility again.-t cer- tain backgrounds; the hedgehog is adapted to meet the win- ter by hibernation; the peacock is adapted to captivate tlm peahen; the mother mammal is delicately adapted for the prolonged ante-natal life of the offspring; and the so-called 'egg-tooth' at the end of a young bird's bill is adapt- 7 binations of lines and colours that are imt beautiful are not uncommon, whereas in the organic realm t.lie non-beautiful is extremely rare, the reason being that beauty is correlated with individuality. If we assume the external independence of what we call matter and regard it as the building-stone of tin- \v.rld. those of us who are not chemists and physicists mu-i make an effort to rid ourselves of any picture of it as gro-- and inert. How much matter is invisible like tin- air! II..\\ much is transparent like the water! How tenuous is tin- film of the soap-bubble! How much is ever pas.-ini: I'mm phase to phase like an elusive genie! Those who are in- clined to think meanly of matter should look again at it.- magnificence in the starry heavens and at its exquisiteness in the miniature architecture of snow-crystals. We must also bear in mind how finely it lends itself to Life's purposes- the fashioning of a feather, the sculpturing of a shell, the casting within the bud of those blue bells which ring every day by the wayside. But when we pass from ordinary sight to scientific vision, how subtle and ethereal matter becomes! What pictures modern physics gives us of a restless activity suggestive of life! Matter is thought of as consisting of unit particles or molecules, which move freely with great velocity in gases, and these molecules are thought of as consisting of several atoms which exist in specific and constant configurations. Until 1896 atoms were regarded as the ultimate build inir- stones of the material universe, but it has since been sug- gested that an integration of hundreds of thousands of elec- trons might form an atom or form a revolving halo amund an atom. The study of radium has led to the view that the 68 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED atom is not the natural limit of the subdivision of matter, that the stream of energy poured forth by radium is due to a transmutation of the position of parts constituting the atom, the radium slowly changing into something else helium, and eventually lead. The individual molecules of matter in a gaseous state are believed to move with great velocity, incessantly collid- ing with one another and rebounding, making impacts on the walls of the vessel that contains them, or spreading themselves through any space to which there is free access. . . . We need not try to follow what is beyond our per- sonal scope, but to illustrate the subtlety of modern con- ceptions of matter which is all that concerns us at pres- ent let us take a few sentences from Professor Soddy's luminous Matter and Energy: " Every cubic centimetre of any gas, measured under standard conditions (0 C. and 760 millimetres baromet- ric pressure), contains twenty-seven million million mil- lion molecules. The weight of the single molecule of hydro- gen is about three million-million-million-millionths of a gram, and its velocity at C. is rather more than a mile a second. The hydrogen molecule is, it is true, the smallest and simplest molecule of matter known, but it is a large and sluggishly moving individual compared with another known particle, the electron or atom of negative electricity ' (Matter and Energy, p. 82). When the temperature of a gas is lowered the molecules come nearer one another, till their mutual tendency to draw together restricts their wandering movements, and a liquid is formed. Inside the surface skin of the liquid the molecules move very rapidly, and collide so frequently that they fol- low very zigzag paths, being perpetually turned back the WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 69 way they came. It is no dance of molecules, but a chaotic jostling. Every drop of liquid is in a state of commotion and turmoil indescribable (ibid., p. 89). Of solids relatively little is known, but in a crystalline solid where we have to deal with fixed architecture there can be no translatory motion. " But vibratory motion in constrained paths there must be among the molecules of a solid, increasing with the temperature until the molecules drag their anchors, as it were, and the substance melts ' (ibid., p. 9-i). Thus the concept of matter leads us to a very ethereal picture. What is to be said of energy? It is the power of doing work, and may be actual or potential, in motion or in position. But except when it changes, its existence can only be inferred. Professor Soddy writes : " The Apostle Paul had no thought of physical things in his mind when he used the words, i The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.' But the words can be applied with profit to illustrate, perhaps more forcibly than any other single sentence, the essential nature of energy. It is only the temporary changes in the form and relative amount of energy which are manifest. So long as energy neither changes in amount nor in position, it belongs to the unseen and eternal. ISTo direct evidence of its existence can be obtained." Yet we are never in doubt as to its reality, for it is always conserved. And besides Matter and Energy there is the Ether which Sir Oliver Lodge describes as " the universal connecting medium which binds the universe to- gether, and makes it a coherent whole instead of a chaotic collection of independent isolated fragments. It is the ve- hicle of transmission of all manner of force, from gravita- tion down to cohesion and chemical affinity; it is therefore the storehouse of potential energy. ... It does not 70 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED move in the sense of locomotion, though it is probably in a violent state of rotational or turbulent motion in its small- est parts; and to that motion its exceeding rigidity is due." Its density must be far greater than that of any form of matter, " yet matter moves through it with perfect free- dom, without any friction or viscosity ' (1913, p. 33). The ether, says Sir J. J. Thomson, " is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe. . . . The study of this all- pervading substance is perhaps the most fascinating and im- portant duty of the physicist." And Sir Oliver Lodge also speaks of the fascination of this portentous entity, material but no matter, " the great engine of continuity " : " Its curiously elusive and intangible character, combined with its universal and unifying permeance, its apparently infinite extent, its definite and perfect properties, make the ether the most fundamental ingredient in the material cosmos." We have delayed over these elementary ideas because those who are convinced of the apartness of living creatures are apt to fail in appreciation of the inorganic domain. Even the use of the word l inert ' betrays either prejudice or igno- rance, both probably unconscious. Professor Enriques rightly objects to the false antithesis involved in opposing the spontaneity and change of every- thing that lives to the inertia and immutability of matter. He uses " spontaneity ' here to mean " activity ' or " pos- sibility of changing through internal conditions," and rejects the idea of " an absolutely passive matter ". " The view seems far more adequate," he says, " which holds that every- thing around us is living and active, save for a difference in degree in the intensity or in the rapidity of the changes, and in the relative importance of the internal and external WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE IXOlUiAMC 71 factors for the course of the phenomena ' (Enriques, 1914, p. 368). It is useful, however, to keep a term like " living ' for organisms only. 11. Contrasts between the Realm of Organisms and the Domain of the Inorganic. Let us turn from the resemblances to the contrasts between the realm of organisms and the domain of the inorganic. The first great contrast is that there are no true individuals in the domain of the inorganic, though there is a great di- versity of quality. A crystal approaches some of the criteria of being an individual- -it has definiteness of form, coher- ence, a capacity for a sort of growth and repair ; but a crystal is homogeneous, not made up of inter-dependent parts work- ing together to secure continuance either of itself or of its kind. The crystal's regularity is not functional ; it is per- haps the visible expression of the molecular structure. Sim- ilarly, the solar system makes some approach to being an in- dividual, having independence and unity in diversity, but it can hardly be said that the solar system is an agent, or that its working is directed towards its own continuance. There are few phenomena in the domain of the inorganic which can be spoken of as propagative, though one may think of the origin of a double star, or of the earth giving birth to the moon, or of the multiplication of crystals. This is in marked contrast with the abundant multiplication characteristic of organisms. And while the volcano is insurgent enough in a sense, and the breakers seem furious in their assaults on the cliffs, we know that there is no freedom of action, that everything is without alternative. There seems no doubt as to the general fact that the solar 72 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED system developed from a much less differentiated, much more diffuse, condition; it is certain that our earth has passed through various stages of development, and has be- come increasingly differentiated in its pattern and features; and many facts point to the occasional origin of new chemical collocations in Nature; but there is nothing in the domain of the inorganic which can be compared with any precision to organic evolution and there is nothing that can be com- pared to the struggle for existence. We are not justified in saying that there may not have been elimination of unstable collocations which could not last and had to be scrapped, but this bears at most a superficial resemblance to the answering back to environing limitations and difficulties which is the essential feature of the organismal struggle for existence. There is neither endeavour nor selection in the inorganic domain, and till organisms emerged there was little or no power of learning in the school of time. For plain people it was a very useful classification that Samuel Butler suggested: Living Creatures, Machines, and Things-in-General. Machines are inorganic material sys- tems, but they must be kept quite by themselves in any dis- cussion like this, for they are collocations put together by man with a definite intention. They are purposive construc- tions, and they are the only non-living things of which this can be said. A river often cuts its way very effectively, but we*are romancing if we speak of its purpose. Its bed is not adapted to it, as a flower to its insect visitor. The concepts of adaptation and purposiveness do not apply in the inorganic world, where there are no alternatives. It seems that the domain of the inorganic is con- trasted with the realm of organisms by the absence of in* dividuaJity, reproductivity, freedom of action, endeavour, WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 73 and purposiveness. It is a domain of mechanically neces- sitated sequences without alternatives and of uniformities without exceptions. In all probability this quality of uni- formity has been a quite indispensable basis for the super- structure of life, affording stability for the experiments and endeavours that have doubtless been characteristic of organ- isms from the first. 12. The Suitability of the Inorganic to be the Basis and Environment of the Organic. We wish in conclusion to allude to the very interesting fact which will demand further attention later on that the not-living earth exhibits many remarkable fitnesses to be the home of life. Living means trafficking with the en- vironment ; to do this effectively organisms must be complex and yet coherent, plastic and yet durable, and they were able to gain these qualities because of the fundamental prop- erties of the primary constituents of the inanimate environ- ment. The properties of Water and Carbon dioxide, the tendency some forms of matter have to complexify, the prop- erties of the colloid state, the character of the sea as a medium, these and other inorganic data are, as Prof. L. J. Henderson (1913, 1917) has shown in detail, extraordina- rily well suited to be pre-conditions of organisms. We must, of course, avoid arguing in a circle, for that the earth should be ' friendly ' to living creatures is not surprising, since in their physical nature they are bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh her very children. Yet when we give full consideration to the fact that living creatures as material systems are in no wise foreign to the earth, but are in deep and subtle ways congruent and solidary with it, perhaps we shall not be inclined to brush aside hurriedly the suggestion 74 THE REALM OF ORGANISMS CONTRASTED that the domain of the inorganic is as it is for a purpose. At present we leave this as a pious anticipation. SUMMARY. The world without is conveniently divided into the realm of organisms and the domain of the inorganic, which stand in close inter-relation and sharp contrast. In the domain of the inorganic from solar system to snow crystal, from the hills and the sea to dust and dew-drops we are impressed by (a) the rich concrete fulness of different kinds of things and events, which, nevertheless, can be summed up, for most purposes, in terms of a few funda- mental concepts, such as matter and motion; (b) the orderly uni- formity that pervades it; and (c) the restless and subtle activity that appears to obtain throughout. A study of the realm of organisms discloses a multitude of in- dividualities and yet an orderly systema nature. There is an em- barrassment of different kinds 25,000 named Vertebrates, ten times as many named backboneless animals, and about as many plants, yet a rational classification is possible. A second impression is of the abundance and insurgence of life. Most of its streams tend to overflow their banks. Many species are represented by numberless individuals. There is also the quality of insurgence, for we see life intrusive everywhere, pressing up against limitations, circumventing or overcoming difficulties like a strong will. Another impression is of ceaseless struggle and endeavour on the one hand, ceaseless selection or sifting on the other. Living crea- tures react in manifold ways to environing limitations and difficul- ties, and in the clash that ensues there is often discriminate elimina- tion. The inter-relatedness of organisms is another fundamental fact. Animate nature is a vast system of interlinked lives, a web with a pattern. As in mankind, there is progress towards systematisa- tion and solidarity, and the correlation of organisms which is a product of evolution becomes in turn a directive factor. Another fundamental impression is that of fitnesses. Every higher organism is a complex bundle of adaptations. It is suited to its inanimate surroundings, to its food, it may be to other crea- tures, to its own weight, to its movements; it may be to a mate WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE INORGANIC 75 and to offspring; to regularly recurrent times and seasons and risks of injury; to its ante-natal life and to dying at the proper time! If we are to consider Animate Nature in its totality we must not v overlook the practically universal pervasiveness of beauty of form and colour. It may be said that this impressionist picture of Animate Nature is one-sided, that it ignores the redness of tooth and claw, tho cruelty, the ugliness, the parasitism, the obtrusively enormous mortal- ity, and the mis-adaptations. Much of this objection is due to misunderstanding; the admittedly great difficulties that remain will be discussed in Lecture XVIII. Comparing the realm of organisms with the domain of the in- organic, we must avoid the error of exaggerating the differences (so that an impression of discontinuity is created) and the error of merging the two (thus missing what is distinctive in each). In the domain of the inorganic there is little individuality (though much difference of quality), no apparent freedom of action, no endeavour, no purposiveness, no learning in the school of tinu'. But its uniformity has been a probably indispensable fulcrum for the lever of will. It should be noted too that the old view of inert matter has given place to a dynamic conception of extraordinary subtlety. LECTURE III. THE CKITERIA OF LIVINGNESS. LECTURE III. THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS. 1. Living and Not-living. 2. The Essential Characteristics of Living Organisms. 3. Persistence of a Complex Specific Metabolism and of a Corresponding Specific Organisation. 4. The Capacity of Growth, Reproduction, and Development. 5. Effective Behaviour, Registration of Experience, and Variability. 1. Living and Not-living. IF we are to reach a coherent view of Nature, such as could be included in a philosophy, we must arrive at some discernment of the characteristics which mark off living organisms from their not-living surroundings. In the pres- ent state of science a definition of the organism cannot be more than tentative, but it must be continually attempted. When we pass from watching a flowing stream or the wind-swept clouds, to look at the bees visiting the flowers, or the swallows building their nest, we feel that we are facing something new living. What we see is not, indeed, in every respect new as compared with the inorganic, for gravity acts on animals just as on drops of rain, and living creatures never disobey, so far as we know, the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry which sum up the routine of our analytic experience of the not-living. On the whole, however, especially if we look at animals rather than plants, the differences impress us more than the resemblances, we feel rightly that we are in the presence of something new. Organisms show characteristics which mark them off 80 THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS from their non-living environment. What are these charac- teristics ? What are the criteria of living organisms ? What is essential in the admitted contrast between the living and the not-living ? 2. The Essential Characteristics of Living Organisms. In the most general way what we see is plain enough. We see organisms acting on their environment displacing it, changing it, eating it, and so on ; and again we see that the environment acts upon the organism displacing it, changing it, stimulating it, oxidising part of it, and so on. So that living is a twofold relation between organisms and their environment a twofold relation of action and reaction, of thrust and parry, of doing and suffering. At one moment the organism is relatively the more active, at another the environment. Living is a continual adjustment between these two relations. When we look at the facts a little more closely we see that all living creatures plants as well as animals are active towards two main results, their own self-maintenance and the continuance of their race. Organisms have in their living just two main businesses caring for themselves and caring for their offspring. But all this is living rather than life ; we are only hiding the problem behind the word organ- ism. What are the marks of a living creature ? that is the question. What is the best answer we can give for the time being ? Many answers have been given, but none has found wide acceptance, which doubtless means that biologists have not yet seen the insignia of organisms in their entirety, or in proper perspective. One of the best statements is that of Roux, who recognises five " elementary functions " : THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS 81 I. Self-disassimilation. II. Self-preservation, including assimilation, growth, movement, feeding, etc. III. Self-multiplication. IV. Self-development. V. Self-regulation in the exercise of all functions, including self-differentiation, self-adjustment, self-adapt at i-.n, and in many organisms distinctly recognisable psychical func- tions. It is very interesting to notice bow this bard-headed found. T of what be calls " developmental mechanics " speaks deliber- ately of self-preservation, self-increase, self-differentiation, self-regulation, and so on. The statement we propose differs a little from this and from others, being an attempt at a logical grouping of the fundamental characteristics. 3. Persistence of a Complex Specific Metabolism and of a Corresponding Specific Organisation. The image of the organism is the burning bush of old ; it is all afire, yet it is not consumed. Nee tamen consumeba- tur. Or it is like the sunlit top of a fountain rising in the air; its component elements are restlessly changing on their way up or on their way down, yet the form remains approximately the same. The peculiarity is not that the or- ganism is in continual flux, for chemical change is the rule of the world ; the characteristic feature is, that the changes in the organism are so regulated and balanced that the integrity of the creature is retained. The great English physiologist, Sir Michael Foster, used to say that " A living body is a vortex of chemical and molecular change " ; and the image of a vortex expresses the fundamental fact of persistence in spite of ceaseless change. 82 THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS A vivid statement of this characteristic feature of life was given by Huxley in his Crayfish (1880, p. 84) : " The parallel between a whirlpool in a stream and a living being, which has often been drawn, is as just as it is striking. The whirlpool is permanent, but the particles of water which constitute it are incessantly changing. Those which enter it, on the one side, are whirled around and temporarily con- stitute a part of its individuality ; and as they leave it on the other side, their places are made good by new comers. " Those who have seen the wonderful whirlpool, three miles below the Falls of Niagara, will not have forgotten the heaped-up wave which tumbles and tosses, a very em- bodiment of restless energy, where the swift stream hurrying from the Falls is compelled to make a sudden turn towards Lake Ontario. However changeful in the contour of its crest, this wave has been visible, approximately in the same place, and with the same general form, for centuries past. Seen from a mile off, it would appear to be a stationary hillock of water. Viewed closely, it is a typical expression of the conflicting impulses generated by a swift rush of material particles. " Now, with all our appliances, we cannot get within a good many miles, so to speak, of the crayfish. If we could, we should see that it was nothing but the constant form of a similar turmoil of material molecules which are con- stantly flowing into the animal on the one side, and stream- ing out on the other." Without accepting the view that the organism is exhaust- ively described by calling it " nothing but the constant form of a turmoil of material molecules ", without forgetting that the organism- whirlpool acts on the stream, and gives rise to other whirlpools, we welcome the metaphor as vividly true THE CRITERIA Ol I.I VI \Ci.\KSS within its limits. But the ima^e is too ii> n. ral ! 1>.- ade- quate; we must inquire int> tin- eliaiiiiet'iil integrity "f ili<- organism more carefully. Three points are of out.-tandini: importance: (a) that the changes in the organism arc very complex, having essentially to do with protein substanci - in a colloid state; (b) that they are specific for each kind of creature, and (c) that they are correlated in such a way that they go on, and ttie specific structure likewise persists. Let us take each of these points in turn. (a) Metabolism of Proteins. According to some physiologists the only absolute differ- ence between living organisms and inorganic bodies is, that proteins are universally present in the former and absent in the latter. \ 7 erworn writes: " Since it is known that the nitrogenous proteids, with their allies, which in part are derived from the proteids and in part are necessary to their formation, are the sole organic compounds that an never wanting in living substance, that everywhere they constitute its chief mass and alone are sufficient for its for- mation, it can be said that all living organisms are charac- terised by the metabolism of proteids' (1899, p. 13G). These protein compounds, such as white of egg or tin- dut. n of bread, are peculiarly intricate, with a large number <>1 atoms or atom-groups in their molecules; they diffuse very slowly and do not readily pass through membranes; th. occur in a colloid state, and although some, e.g., haeinoirlnbin. are crystallisable, they are not known in a crystalloid state in the living organism; they are relatively stable bodi. -. yet they are continually breaking down and bein