Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) - Samuel Butler (digital e reader TXT) 📗

What Lamarck Maintained,  But Merely Repeating At

Secondhand Bad Caricatures Of His Teaching.

 

"When Will The Time Come When We May See Lamarck's Theory Discussed--

And,  I May As Well At Once Say,  Refuted In Some Important Points

{184a}--With At Any Rate The Respect Due To One Of The Most

Illustrious Masters Of Our Science?  And When Will This Theory,  The

Hardihood Of Which Has Been Greatly Exaggerated,  Become Freed From

The Interpretations And Commentaries By The False Light Of Which So

Many Naturalists Have Formed Their Opinion Concerning It?  If Its

Author Is To Be Condemned,  Let It Be,  At Any Rate,  Not Before He Has

Been Heard." {184b}

 

 

 

 

 

In 1873 M. Martin Published His Edition Of Lamarck's "Philosophie

Zoologique."  He Was Still Able To Say,  With,  I Believe,  Perfect

Truth,  That Lamarck's Theory Has "Never Yet Had The Honour Of Being

Discussed Seriously." {184c}

 

Professor Huxley In His Article On Evolution Is No Less Cavalier Than

Mr. Wallace.  He Writes:- {184d}

 

 

 

 

 

"Lamarck Introduced The Conception Of The Action Of An Animal On

Itself As A Factor In Producing Modification."

 

 

 

Chapter 13 (Conclusion) Pg 146

[Lamarck Did Nothing Of The Kind.  It Was Buffon And Dr. Darwin Who

Introduced This,  But More Especially Dr. Darwin.]

 

 

 

 

 

"But A Little Consideration Showed" (Italics Mine) "That Though

Lamarck Had Seized What,  As Far As It Goes,  Is A True Cause Of

Modification,  It Is A Cause The Actual Effects Of Which Are Wholly

Inadequate To Account For Any Considerable Modification In Animals,

And Which Can Have No Influence Whatever In The Vegetable World,  &C."

 

 

 

 

 

I Should Be Very Glad To Come Across Some Of The "Little

Consideration" Which Will Show This.  I Have Searched For It Far And

Wide,  And Have Never Been Able To Find It.

 

I Think Professor Huxley Has Been Exercising Some Of His Ineradicable

Tendency To Try To Make Things Clear In The Article On Evolution,

Already So Often Quoted From.  We Find Him (P. 750) Pooh-Poohing

Lamarck,  Yet On The Next Page He Says,  "How Far 'Natural Selection'

Suffices For The Production Of Species Remains To Be Seen."  And This

When "Natural Selection" Was Already So Nearly Of Age!  Why,  To Those

Who Know How To Read Between A Philosopher's Lines,  The Sentence

Comes To Very Nearly The Same As A Declaration That The Writer Has No

Great Opinion Of "Natural Selection."  Professor Huxley Continues,

"Few Can Doubt That,  If Not The Whole Cause,  It Is A Very Important

Factor In That Operation."  A Philosopher's Words Should Be Weighed

Carefully,  And When Professor Huxley Says "Few Can Doubt," We Must

Remember That He May Be Including Himself Among The Few Whom He

Considers To Have The Power Of Doubting On This Matter.  He Does Not

Say "Few Will," But "Few Can" Doubt,  As Though It Were Only The

Enlightened Who Would Have The Power Of Doing So.  Certainly

"Nature,"--For This Is What "Natural Selection" Comes To,--Is Rather

An Important Factor In The Operation,  But We Do Not Gain Much By

Being Told So.  If,  However,  Professor Huxley Neither Believes In The

Origin Of Species,  Through Sense Of Need On The Part Of Animals

Themselves,  Nor Yet In "Natural Selection," We Should Be Glad To Know

What He Does Believe In.

 

The Battle Is One Of Greater Importance Than Appears At First Sight.

It Is A Battle Between Teleology And Non-Teleology,  Between The

Purposiveness And The Non-Purposiveness Of The Organs In Animal And

Vegetable Bodies.  According To Erasmus Darwin,  Lamarck,  And Paley,

Organs Are Purposive; According To Mr. Darwin And His Followers,  They

Are Not Purposive.  But The Main Arguments Against The System Of Dr.

Erasmus Darwin Are Arguments Which,  So Far As They Have Any Weight,

Tell Against Evolution Generally.  Now That These Have Been Disposed

Of,  And The Prejudice Against Evolution Has Been Overcome,  It Will Be

Seen That There Is Nothing To Be Said Against The System Of Dr.

Darwin And Lamarck Which Does Not Tell With Far Greater Force Against

That Of Mr. Charles Darwin And Mr. Wallace.

 

 

Footnotes Pg 147

{0a}  This Is The Date On The Title-Page.  The Preface Is Dated

October 15,  1886,  And The First Copy Was Issued In November Of The

Same Year.  All The Dates Are Taken From The Bibliography By Mr. H.

Festing Jones Prefixed To The "Extracts" In The New Quarterly Review

(1909).

 

{0b}  I.E. After P. 285:  It Bears No Number Of Its Own!

 

{0c}  The Distinction Was Merely Implicit In His Published Writings,

But Has Been Printed Since His Death From His "Notebooks,"  New

Quarterly Review,  April,  1908.  I Had Developed This Thesis,  Without

Knowing Of Butler's Explicit Anticipation In An Article Then In The

Press:  "Mechanism And Life," Contemporary Review,  May,  1908.

 

{0d}  The Term Has Recently Been Revived By Prof. Hubrecht And By

Myself (Contemporary Review,  November 1908).

 

{0e}  See Fortnightly Review,  February 1908,  And Contemporary Review,

September And November 1909.  Since These Publications The Hypnosis

Seems To Have Somewhat Weakened.

 

{0f}  A "Hormone" Is A Chemical Substance Which,  Formed In One Part

Of The Body,  Alters The Reactions Of Another Part,  Normally For The

Good Of The Organism.

 

{0g}  Mr. H. Festing Jones First Directed My Attention To These

Passages And Their Bearing On The Mutation Theory.

 

{0i}  He Says In A Note,  "This General Type Of Reaction Was Described

And Illustrated In A Different Connection By Pfluger In 'Pfluger's

Archiv. F.D. Ges.  Physiologie,' Bd.  Xv."  The Essay Bears The

Significant Title "Die Teleologische Mechanik Der Lebendigen Natur,"

And Is A Very Remarkable One,  As Coming From An Official Physiologist

In 1877,  When The Chemico-Physical School Was Nearly At Its Zenith.

 

{0j}  "Contributions To The Study Of The Lower Animals" (1904),

"Modifiability In Behaviour" And "Method Of Regulability In Behaviour

And In Other Fields," In Journ. Experimental Zoology,  Vol. Ii.

(1905).

 

{0h}  See "The Hereditary Transmission Of Acquired Characters" In

Contemporary Review,  September And November 1908,  In Which References

Are Given To Earlier Statements.

Footnotes Pg 148

{0k}  Semon's Technical Terms Are Exclusively Taken From The Greek,

But As Experience Tells That Plain Men In England Have A Special

Dread Of Suchlike,  I Have Substituted "Imprint" For "Engram,"

"Outcome" For "Ecphoria"; For The Latter Term I Had Thought Of

"Efference," "Manifestation," Etc.,  But Decided On What Looked More

Homely,  And At The Same Time Was Quite Distinctive Enough To Avoid

That Confusion Which Semon Has Dodged With His Graecisms.

 

{0l}  "Between The 'Me' Of To-Day And The 'Me' Of Yesterday Lie Night

And Sleep,  Abysses Of Unconsciousness; Nor Is There Any Bridge But

Memory With Which To Span Them."--Unconscious Memory,  P. 71.

 

{0m}  Preface By Mr. Charles Darwin To "Erasmus Darwin."  The Museum

Has Copies Of A Kosmos That Was Published 1857-60 And Then

Discontinued; But This Is Clearly Not The Kosmos Referred To By Mr.

Darwin,  Which Began To Appear In 1878.

 

{0n}  Preface To "Erasmus Darwin."

 

{2}  May 1880.

 

{3}  Kosmos,  February 1879,  Leipsic.

 

{4}  Origin Of Species,  Ed. I.,  P. 459.

 

{8a}  Origin Of Species,  Ed. I.,  P. 1.

 

{8b}  Kosmos,  February 1879,  P. 397.

 

{8c}  Erasmus Darwin,  By Ernest Krause,  Pp. 132,  133.

 

{9a}  Origin Of Species,  Ed. I.,  P. 242.

 

{9b}  Ibid.,  P. 427.

 

{10a}  Nineteenth Century,  November 1878; Evolution,  Old And New,  Pp.

360. 361.

 

{10b}  Encyclopaedia Britannica,  Ed. Ix.,  Art.  "Evolution," P. 748.

 

{11}  Ibid.

 

{17}  Encycl. Brit.,  Ed. Ix.,  Art.  "Evolution," P. 750.

 

{23a}  Origin Of Species,  6th Ed.,  1876,  P. 206.

 

{23b}  Ibid.,  P. 233.

 

{24a}  Origin Of Species,  6th Ed.,  P. 171,  1876.

 

{24b}  Pp. 258-260.

 

{26}  Zoonomia,  Vol. I. P. 484; Evolution,  Old And New,  P. 214.

Footnotes Pg 149

{27}  "Erasmus Darwin," By Ernest Krause,  P. 211,  London,  1879.

 

{28a}  See "Evolution,  Old And New," P. 91,  And Buffon,  Tom. Iv. P.

383,  Ed. 1753.

 

{28b}  Evolution,  Old And New,  P. 104.

 

{29a}  Encycl. Brit.,  9th Ed.,  Art.  "Evolution," P. 748.

 

{29b}  Palingenesie Philosophique,  Part X. Chap. Ii. (Quoted From

Professor Huxley's Article On "Evolution," Encycl. Brit.,  9th Ed.,  P.

745).

 

{31}  The Note Began Thus:  "I Have Taken The Date Of The First

Publication Of Lamarck From Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire's (Hist.

Nat. Generale Tom. Ii. P. 405,  1859) Excellent History Of Opinion

Upon This Subject.  In This Work A Full Account Is Given Of Buffon's

Fluctuating Conclusions Upon The Same Subject."--Origin Of Species,

3d Ed.,  1861,  P. Xiv.

 

{33a}  Life Of Erasmus Darwin,  Pp. 84,  85.

 

{33b}  See Life And Habit,  P. 264 And Pp. 276,  277.

 

{33c}  See Evolution,  Old And New,  Pp. 159-165.

 

{33d}  Ibid.,  P. 122.

 

{34}  See Evolution,  Old And New,  Pp. 247,  248.

 

{35a}  Vestiges Of Creation,  Ed. 1860,  "Proofs,  Illustrations,  &C.,"

P. Lxiv.

 

{35b}  The First Announcement Was In The Examiner,  February 22,  1879.

 

{36}  Saturday Review,  May 31,  1879.

 

{37a}  May 26,  1879.

 

{37b}  May 31,  1879.

 

{37c}  July 26,  1879.

 

{37d}  July 1879.

 

{37e}  July 1879.

 

{37f}  July 29,  1879.

 

{37g}  January 1880.

 

{39}  How Far Kosmos Was "A Well-Known" Journal,  I Cannot Determine.

It Had Just Entered Upon Its Second Year.

 

Footnotes Pg 150

{41}  Evolution,  Old And New,  P. 120,  Line 5.

 

{43}  Kosmos,  February 1879,  P. 397.

 

{44a}  Kosmos,  February 1879,  P. 404.

 

{44b}  Page 39 Of This Volume.

 

{50}  See Appendix A.

 

{52}  Since Published As "God The Known And God The