January i, 1903] 



XATURE 



197 



Moreover, the poor have the habit of constantly helping 

 one another in all their troubles. 



In every line of the book you see the eagerness of the 

 writer to make the lives of men happier. So zealous is 

 he that he attributes to the lower animals a benevolence 

 similar to his own. But has he correctly represented the 

 struggle for existence ? It is true that he partly succeeds 

 in making good his first contention, that there is not 

 much evidence of a fratricidal struggle between members 

 of the same species. Still, there is a great deal more 

 than he would have us imagine. Rats, he owns, are sad 

 offenders. Can we be sure that the same spirit does 

 not show itself among other animals when a crisis comes ? 

 And crises, though Prince Kropotkin does not allow it, 

 are all-important from the point of view of natural 

 selection. Do not cattle in time of drought trample each 

 other to death in their efforts to get what water remains 

 in a pool here and there ? Do they not, even in normal 

 times, prod with their horns and bully a weakly member 

 of the herd ? Mr. W. H. Hudson, a most unwilling 

 witness, testifies to this. Even maternal affection is 

 strictly subordinated to the needs of the species. I have 

 recently heard of a well-authenticated instance of a kid 

 which was being gored to death by its mother because it 

 was weakly, and it was only saved by being removed 

 from her. Pigeons are very affectionate towards their 

 young, but as soon as the young are able to fend for 

 themselves, the affection comes suddenly to an end, and 

 is often succeeded by a strong tendency to tease and 

 worry. 



Prince Kropotkin tells of crabs that worked hard 

 and long to put one of their kind, that had got over- 

 turned, right side uppermost. This is indeed a remark- 

 able phenomenon, hard to parallel even among animals a 

 great deal higher than crabs. Swans will drive their 

 young away from their pond. Eagles will not tolerate 

 rivals within a certain radius of their nest. Besides this, 

 there is sexual selection, which often takes the form of 

 selection by battle. I have read Prince Kropotkin's 

 book from cover to cover, and find no mention of the 

 habit, so common among males, of fighting for supremacy. 

 In the index there is no reference to it. Yet sexual 

 selection is an important form of natural selection ; its 

 total omission is extraordinary. 



Prince Kropotkin certainly succeeds in showing that 

 mutual aid is very frequent among members of the same 

 species. Probably Darwin underrated the amount. But 

 it is because they have formidable enemies that they 

 assist one another. In fact, the struggle for existence is 

 all the keener because they are formed into troops or 

 armies. Mutual aid cannot "eliminate competition" 

 (P- 74)- True, it dignifies and ennobles it, but it makes it 

 more intense. Whatever vigour any species possesses 

 results from competition. If civilised men are stronger 

 than barbarians, it is not because they suffer less from 

 competition. The civilised races have gained their 

 strength in the stress of the struggle for existence, and 

 they retain much of it because there is still a struggle 

 against cold, want and disease. The struggle against 

 physical conditions is the only one that Prince Kropotkin 

 recognises as normal and natural. As for lions and tigers, 

 he deprecates their existence ; in his eyes, they have no 

 NO. I 73 I, VOL. 67] 



taison a'e/tt-. Yet they may claim the credit of having 

 developed the habit of mutual aid among the ruminants. 

 What need for mutual defence if there are no enemies ? 

 Birds of prey in the same way have fostered cooperation 

 among the members of the species on which they make 

 their raids. 



As to the comparatively small numbers of the car- 

 nivorous animals, we need not attribute this, as our 

 author does, to their want of cooperation. It is a ques- 

 tion of food supply. Plants are more abundant than 

 animals because they live on inorganic food, and that is 

 plentiful. All animals require protoplasm that has been 

 prepared for them by vegetables. This introduces a limit- 

 ation of the food supply. The flesh-eaters must have it 

 still further prepared by the vegetable feeders. Were 

 there yet another class of animals that could subsist only 

 on the flesh of carnivores, they would be still fewer in 

 number than the class on which they preyed. Prince 

 Kropotkin seems unaware of the influence of one species 

 upon another. The keen eye of the falcon and his 

 splendid swoop have necessitated counter developments 

 in the species among which he seeks for his victims. 

 Mere physical conditions, seldom changing, would never 

 have brought about the evolution of the noblest forms 

 of life. This could only be achieved through the inter- 

 action of competing species. The advance of one— the 

 gain of keener sight, of greater speed or greater courage 

 — has necessitated a corresponding advance in others. 



Prince Kropotkin's failure to grasp this prevents him 

 from understanding the growth of civilisation. His 

 creed does not allow him to understand that the clan, the 

 village community, the mediaeval city, all derived their 

 vitality from the fact that they had enemies to contend 

 against. War necessitates loyalty and cooperation, as 

 our author, at least in one passage, owns, and yet he will 

 not allow that it has played any good part in evolution. 

 The passive friendliness of all law-abiding citizens to- 

 wards one another and the efficiency of the police prevent 

 cooperation from being what it once was. It is only the 

 largest cooperative association, the State, that can evoke 

 enthusiastic loyalty and devotion, and this is, obviously, 

 because nations have not yet done with war. If the law 

 did not prevent active hostilities between trading asso- 

 ciations, we should soon see institutions similar to the 

 mediaeval cities arising. Moreover, our philanthropic 

 principles hinder us from bringing that pressure to bear 

 upon the idle and corrupt which was essential to the 

 successful working of the old guilds. Prince Kropotkin 

 tells us that " the craft organisation required, of course, 

 a close supervision of the craftsmen by the guild." An 

 idle member might be ejected, and his fate would, 

 probably, be far worse than that of the modern idler who 

 tramps from workhouse to workhouse. It is not in 

 benevolence we fail so much as in the sternness that is 

 wanted for the proper treatment of the dregs of society. 

 There are many persons whom society can only help by 

 compelling them to help themselves. And such drastic 

 measures Prince Kropotkin does not seem to recommend. 

 He would abolish individualism. But how would he 

 make the loafers, who will not work for themselves, 

 bestir themselves on behalf of an association ? 



F. W. H. 



