THE CRITERIA OF LIVINGNESS 101 



a condensed individuality, may make experiments in self- 

 expression, which we call variations or mutations. Such, 

 at least, is our present view of a great mystery. 



What has all this to do with Natural Theology? Little, 

 perhaps, directly; but much indirectly. For a superficial 

 or flimsy conception of the essential characteristics of living 

 creatures means putting a bushel over one of the great 

 wonders of the world. A commonplace view of Animate 

 Nature is an impiety, and a mechanical view is a gratuitous 

 complication of the problems of existence. Geniuses like 

 Nietzsche of yesterday and D'Annunzio of to-day have ad- 

 mitted the darkening of their eyes by a mechanical view 

 of life, accepted as scientific. We seek to show that it need 

 not be accepted. 



But there are three concluding remarks that we wish to 

 make: (a) The subject is not yet a matter of exact science, 

 and we do not say that ours is the true or the truest way 

 of stating the criteria of organisms. It is the best answer 

 we personally can give for the time being. Some would 

 state, more definitely than we have done, that all organisms 

 are psycho-physical beings. And others would reject, erro- 

 neously, we think, all such categories as individuality, be- 

 haviour, experience, experiment, and self-expression. 



(6) Secondly, when we say that an organism has the 

 capacity of retaining its integrity in spite of ceaseless metab- 

 olism, we do not explain this capacity. If we could we 

 should know the secret of life, which remains hidden from us. 



(c) Thirdly, our description of the general characteris- 

 tics of living creatures remains too cold-blooded. Like every 

 analytical and formal treatment it falls far short of giving 

 an adequate idea of life in its concrete fulness. No one 

 who did not know plants and animals would gather from 



