316 DARWINIANISM. 



in the individual : and therefore he fails, as it seems to 

 me, to give the right explanation, or any explanation at 

 all." That is, there can be no explanation at all, if you 

 go directly to work like Gratiolet, and not indirectly like 

 Mr. Darwin himself. It is not enough just to point to 

 the " trad.uction," translation of inward sentiment into 

 outward expression we must turn our eyes from what 

 is immediate, and look away off to habit. The outward 

 expression is not to be considered as a mere natural sign, 

 dependent on the very constitution of the organism 

 concerned. Habit has intervened. The present move- 

 ment of expression may, as a movement, be useless now ; 

 but once on a time in a far back ancestor that move- 

 ment was itself an action, and an action so useful then 

 that it has become in reflexion hereditary now. Mr. 

 Darwin quotes an illustration of Gratiolet. At billiards 

 a player, after his stroke, especially if in any way 

 unsatisfactory, may be seen to follow his ball not only 

 intently with his eyes, but actually with his head and 

 shoulder, as though bodily to push it into the direction 

 wished. Now this will appear to most people, as it 

 appeared to Gratiolet, mere symbolism. No one, I should 

 say, is apt to think twice when he hears the player 

 mutter over his ball, " go left, you little beggar," or " right, 

 you little beggar," or " quicker, quicker, you little 

 beggar!" All seems so natural, so single, that he 

 has never a dream of a double. It may actually cause 

 astonishment to hear Mr. Darwin find no explanation for 

 what seems so simple and direct, but habit ! " When a 

 man," he says, "sees his ball travelling in a wrong 

 direction, he cannot avoid, from long habit, unconsciously 

 performing movements which in other cases he has found 

 effectual." Is this necessary? What is the use of 

 having recourse to habit in such a simple case at all ? 

 When I strop my razor, I may move with it, is that 



