260 BIOLOGICAL LECTURES. 



This Tableau, appearing for the first time in 1764 as a 

 preface to the Contemplation, stands about midway between 

 the first and the last of Bonnet's writings ; but as it presents 

 the earlier views as confirmed by the studies and reflections of 

 his maturer years, and as it was finally placed at the head of 

 the Palingenesie, and left in the final revision without correc- 

 tion on the points here considered, it may be said to span the 

 whole course of his speculation and to stand as an authorita- 

 tive certificate of steadfast adherence to the doctrine of pre- 

 formation. Far from holding less firmly to this doctrine, 

 Bonnet's faith outgrew the early lack of confidence which 

 could speak of the theory as a " romance," and comes forth at 

 the conclusion of the Palingtntsie proclaiming that the " en- 

 chanting system" already puts us in possession of the very 

 substance of things hoped for. 



The Doctrine of Germs. 



After thus vindicating his preference of the single miracle 

 of preformation to the endless miracle of epigenesis, Bonnet 

 continues the Tableau with a remark upon the signification of 

 the word germ, which recalls the passage cited by Huxley to 

 show that Bonnet finally admitted that " a germ need not be 

 an actual miniature of the organism, but that it may be merely 

 an * original preformation' capable of producing the latter." 



The remark is as follows : "J'ajoute id que j'entends en 

 gfatral par le mot de germe toute preordination, toute preforma- 

 tion de parties capable par elle-meme de determiner r existence 

 d"un Plante ou d y un Animal" (p. 68). 



If we allow to Bonnet "the right to be his own interpreter," 

 and read his remark in accord with what he has told us about 

 the "luminous principle of preordination" (p. 56), we shall 

 find it difficult to construe the definition as a modification in 

 favor of the doctrine he has just pronounced impossible and 

 absurd. Taking the statement, not for what it was intended, 

 but for what it might mean, coming from a writer of to-day, it 

 would not be difficult to read into it ideas suggestive of theories 

 now in the field. But if it is our purpose to find Bonnet's 



