An Introduction to a Biology 



the interpretation of a thing which is not the work of man 

 a thing in nature ? No ; emphatically no 4 



Let us regard the distance EP between the eye and the 

 phenomenon, when the latter is just so far away that it 

 can merely be perceived and nothing more, as 10 units of 

 linear measurement, and the distance El between the eye 

 and that part of the brain which imagines (wherever it may 

 be) 2 units. The interpretation of the clock consists in de- 

 creasing the length of the line EP by dividing it by 1,000, 

 say. But what about the interpretation of natural pheno- 

 menon ? Does it consist in the decrease of the length of 

 the line EP ? No. It consists in increasing it by the length 

 of the line El. So that whilst we think that the more we 

 interpret a phenomenon the more we are getting at close 

 quarters with it, as a matter of fact the inverse relation is 

 what really obtains. If we admit that interpretation con- 

 sists in going beyond the limits of our vision, we have to 

 admit that what we do on the other side of that limit is 

 not seeing, but imagining. And really it is tacitly conceded 

 that this is so. For when a particularly ingenious theory 

 which, we think, enables us to come to close quarters with 

 the inner mechanism of a phenomenon is put forward, our 

 praise is not for the marvellousness of the mechanism dis- 

 covered, but for the ingenuity of the brain that conceived 

 it. We praise Mendel, not the mechanism of segregation ; 

 how could we ? We have never seen it. We say, " What 

 intellect ! " and not " What works ! " Moreover, it is easily 

 proved that this is so, for if interpretation really meant a 

 making out of the works, there should be greater unanimity 

 in the sphere of interpretation than in that of description ; 

 because the closer we can look, the more accurately can we see. 



I hold, therefore, that the view that interpretation signifies 

 a coming to closer quarters with a thing is baseless. 



Another very fertile source of error in interpretation is 

 one which probably results from the nature of the mechanism 

 of thought. For whether we consider it to be a liquid run- 



248 



