NATURE OF INDIVIDUALITY. 469 



while it lasted, carried forward all the functions of the tree, as, in a na- 

 tion that may have endured for a thousand years, each generation of men 

 has borne its part in the general scheme, and made provision for its suc- 

 cessors. The individuality therefore lies not in the tree, but, perhaps, 

 as thus far considered, should be referred to the bud. 



But, moreover, when we consider the modes by which a tree may be 

 propagated, as, for instance, in the horticultural processes of budding or 

 grafting, our views of this question of individuality must again be modi- 

 fied. By these artificial operations an original stock may be multiplied 

 again and again, and each of the plants so arising is undistinguishable from 

 any other that may have come in the same way. Setting aside the inci- 

 dental difference that, through the intervention of artificial means, the buds 

 from which two such plants have originated have been brought under the 

 condition of physical independence of one another, the one, perhaps, grow- 

 ing in America, the other in Europe, is there any absolute and essential 

 difference between them more than there would have been had they been 

 permitted to remain upon the parent stock, and to develop themselves into 

 two branches thereof? Such facts suggest to us that individuality does 

 not belong to plants, as they thus present themselves to us, and that 

 perhaps we ought to assume an individuality of a higher order a race 

 individuality, as it were. In this manner, all weeping willows in Europe 

 and in America are one individual, because they have all been derived 

 from one original imported Babylonian stock ; and the same might be 

 said of every one of our cultivated fruits. But of these, if a seed be plant- 

 ed, the general aspect of the resulting growth may possibly be the same 

 as that derived from a graft, and how shall we then make a distinction 

 between the one and the other? for, though by seed development the 

 plant may chance to run back to a wilder form or to produce a new va- 

 riety, this result is by no means absolutely necessary. 



From similar considerations, some physiologists have been led to deny 

 individuality to the bud and the seed, and to refer it to the primary cell ; 

 but here, again, precisely the same difficulties are encountered. A cell 

 may multiply itself by fissure through its nucleus, as well as in an en- 

 dogenous way ; moreover, cells arise from granular material. Individu- 

 ality, therefore, except it be that of a lower order, can not be attributed 

 to them, and the question of the determination of it rests precisely where 

 we found it. 



In truth, are not all such discussions, in their very nature, illusory, so 

 long as we have no more definite idea of the term individu- The idea of in- 

 ality ? If a natural philosopher were to occupy himself with 

 similar discussions respecting the flame of a lamp, he too, piahts. 

 doubtless, would be led to precisely the same empty conclusion. He 

 might show how, in such a flame, there are separate, well-marked re- 



