ON ARCHiESTHETISM. 415 



as a matter of intellectual reflection. When there is no nervous 

 system we must suppose sensibility to be generally distributed 

 throughout the protoplasmic substance of the animal. The locali- 

 zation of consciousness must depend on a localization of the kind 

 and condition of protoplasm which sustains it ; while in other 

 parts of the body the protoplasm is modified in other directions 

 and for other purposes. If this be true, the nervous tissue of the 

 higher animals should retain the characters of the lowest simple 

 organisms. In point of fact this is the case, the nucleated cell 

 being the essentially active element in the functions of brain and 

 nerve, and being more numerous in that tissue than in any other. 



The remarkable evanescence of consciousness is one of its most 

 marked characteristics. It is this peculiarity which has led 

 many thinkers to deny its existence in the lower animals, and to 

 induce others to believe that it can have had but little place among 

 the causes of evolution. Partly for the same reason many biolo- 

 gists attempt to derive it by metamorphosis from some form of 

 force. 



But the nature of consciousness is such that it can not be de- 

 rived from unconsciousness, any more than matter can be derived 

 from no matter, or force from no force. The *' unthinkable dogma 

 of creation " (Haeckel) can not be applied to consciousness more 

 than to matter or force. It is a thing by itself, and with matter 

 and force forms a trio of primitive things which have to be 

 accepted as ultimate facts. This is perfectly consistent with the 

 position that consciousness is an attribute of matter, and neither 

 more nor less difficult to comprehend than the fact that force is 

 an attribute of matter. This view is maintained in a fashion of 

 his own by G. H. Lewes. Prof. Raymond* says in support of 

 the same position : 



*^ More temperate heads betrayed the weakness of their dia- 

 lectics in that they could not grasp the difference between the 

 view which I opposed, that consciousness can be explained upon a 

 mechanical basis, and the view which I did not question, but sup- 

 ported with new arguments, that consciousness is bound to mate- 

 rial antecedents." This position has been maintained by various 

 writers, among them Prof. Allman f and the writer. But Prof. 



* Address on the celebration of the Birthday of Leibnitz. " Pop. Science Month- 

 ly," Feb., 1882. 



f Address delivered before the British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science. 



