360 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



there is nothing in the speculations to which I am now referring which 

 can stamp as unreasonable that particular view of mind and hody 

 which it is the object of this lecture to set forth cursorily. 



But what of that view of mind which arises out of the doctrine 

 with which the name of Mr. Darwin is at present especially connected 

 a name which must always command the highest respect of all nat- 

 uralists ? Is not the view arising out of the doctrine of evolution al- 

 together at variance with that which I have been led to take in this 

 lecture ? Unquestionably so. It is simply impossible to reconcile the 

 two views ; and it is also certain that, if that which arises out of the 

 doctrine of evolution be right, the other must be abandoned. What, 

 then, are the facts upon which this doctrine of evolution is based? 

 This is the question. Are they to be read only in favor of this doc- 

 trine, or is there another reading ? I venture to think that there is 

 another reading ; but how can I make good this statement with the 

 hands of the clock standing where they do ! At most I can only throw 

 out a hint or two of what I might say on the subject if I had the time, 

 and this is all I propose to do. 



No one can believe more firmly than I do that there is a common 

 plan in all animals and in all parts of animals, as well as in all plants 

 and in all parts of plants, or that there is a common unity for the 

 whole organic world, plant and animal alike. No one can believe 

 more firmly than I do that there are manifestations of mind, not dis- 

 similar in kind to human mind, in the brute creation, and that the law 

 of mind is one and the same everywhere. But it does not follow from 

 this belief in unity that I should believe that one organ should be de- 

 veloped into another organ, or one animal or plant into another an- 

 imal or plant. The doctrine of unity is quite consistent with a belief 

 that there are certain fixed differences in organs or organisms ; it has 

 nothing to do with the doctrine of evolution, except, perhaps, in 

 making its acceptance a little less difficult, for it is a little more easy 

 to suppose that a higher creature may be evolved from a lower if there 

 be the same archetypal unity of plan underlying the two ; more than 

 this it cannot do. 



I cannot doubt that in the embryonic life of the higher animals 

 there is a process of development at work by which the embryo before 

 arriving at maturity passes through certain stages which seem to 

 shadow forth certain permanent states of being lower down in the 

 scale of life. I cannot doubt that in this case the more perfect is pre- 

 ceded by the more crude, and that there is a process of evolution at 

 work up to a given point. But what follows ? Certainly not this 

 that these resemblances are realities, that the embryo of a higher ani- 

 mal, in developing to maturity, passed through a succession of different 

 animals each one a little more perfect than its predecessors. Certainly 

 not more than this that the higher animal in the embryonic period 

 of its history, without ever ceasing to be itself, passes through certain 



