Sune 26, 1873] 
NATURE 
163 
atoms, similarly endowed, the successive stages of creation were 
accomplished. There is so much resemblance between Gassendi’s 
account of the appearance of the different animal forms, and the 
Miltonic narrative of the time when ‘“‘the grassy sods now 
calved,” that the question suggests itself whether the ‘‘ Paradise 
Lost,” which appeared in 1667, might not have been influenced 
by the Syxtagma Philosophicum, its predecessor by some twenty 
years? From the side of Atomism Gassendi seeks to explain 
the Divine cessation from labour after the six stages of creation. 
Besides the atoms which, when endowed with kinetic energy, 
gave rise to the primordial plants and animals, there remained 
others in which their characteristic motions and affinities still 
continued potential, and which had been subject to distribution 
only. These account on the one hand for the seminal repro- 
duction of plants and animals, and on the other for the pheno- 
mena of so-called spontaneous generation. On this view, as 
may be supposed, spontaneous generation presents few difficul- 
ties to Gassendi. He needs but the hypothesis of the endurance 
from the creation of the atoms special to any peculiar form of 
life, Then, when their potential motions and affinities become 
kinetic, they must of necessity issue in the forms of life which 
by their concourse they were destined to produce. Two points 
are worthy of notice in this connection—Gassendi’s definition of 
spontaneous generation, and his list of animals produced spon- 
taneously. Spontaneous generation is not generation “sine 
seminibus” (germs), but ‘‘sine parentibus.” Amongst his 
‘*animalia sponte nascentia” are enumerated ‘‘ mures, vermes, 
ranz, muscz, aliaque insecta.” 
In a theory such as this is there no eyolution, no selection, 
The atoms themselves are unchangeable, and so are the specific 
characters of the aggregates which they build up. Plants and 
animals, as they now are, are but copies of the primitive forms, 
be they produced by gamogenesis or spontaneously. The natu- 
ral conditions also by which floral and faunal habitats and distri- 
bution are regulated, Gassendi seems to regard as having been 
fixed once for all at the creation. Reading ‘‘Deus” for 
“Natura,” Virgil’s lines express Gassendi’s views on this point— 
“Continuo has leges, zternaque fcedera certis 
Imposuit Natura locis."—(Geo. i., vv. 60, 61.) 
There is a sort of superficial resemblance between Gassendi’s 
atoms and Mr. Spencer’s ‘‘ physiological units,” but with capital 
points of difference. In both theories the molecules of each 
species of plant and animal have distinctive characteristics, and 
an inherent power of arranging themselves in the form of the 
organism to which they appertain. But while Gassendi’s atoms 
are simple and indivisible, as one of their synonymes, corpuscule 
insectlie, connotes, Mr. Spencer’s physiological units are com- 
plex. While Gassendi’s atoms are specific creations and endowed 
with unalterable properties, Mr. Spencer’s physiological units 
are themselyes the products of evolution, and are perpetually 
undergoing adaptation to equilibrate the action of forces internal 
and external. 
Tam inclined to suspect that Maupertuis may have, in the 
main, borrowed the atomic theory contained in the “Syst¢me 
de la Nature” from Gassendi. The materialism which led 
Maupertuis to'make perception a fundamental property of his 
atoms is, however, all his own ; at any rate it is not Gassendi’s, 
In Physics as in Ethics, the nearest affinity of the philosophy 
of Gassendi is to that of Epicurus, It is Epicurianism modern- 
ised, and modified so as not to clash, openly at least, with 
Christianity and with the dogmas of the current theology. By 
his want of originality he was led to base his philosophy on 
an already established system, and by his adoption of Bacon’s 
method he was attracted to Epicurus, for that philosopher and 
his school were the sole ancient representatives of the new 
a@ posteriori philosophy. De Gerando thinks that an additional 
link between Gassendi and Epicurus existed in the sim larity of 
their views on the physical doctrines of a vacuum and of atoms. 
But it seems at least as probable that the French philosopher 
adopted these conceptions from the Greek, as that he reached 
them by his own independent thought. While, however, he was 
essentially an Epicurean, Gassendi was careful not to commit 
himself to any doctrines which might cause his orthodoxy to be 
questioned ; in fact, he more than once clearly expresses this 
determination. 
“‘How far back can traces of the great theory of Dar- 
win and Spencer be discovered?” As 1 showed in my letter 
on Maupertuis, in NATURE, vol. vii. p. 402, the doctrine is 
discoverable in that writer; but De Maillet, with whom Mr. 
_ Spencer begins his historical sketch, is a quarter of a century 
earlier than Maupertuis. My examination of Gassendi leads me 
to the conclusion that the doctrine of Natural Selection is not to 
be found in his works, and further that his views, as far as I 
understand them, effectually preclude his holding the theory 
under any form. 
W. H. BREWER 
P.S.—On looking back over what I have written, I find 
that I have omitted to point out the different attitudes of 
Gassendi towards the two distinct portions of his cosmological 
views. When he is borrowing from the Mosaic account of the 
creation, all his assertions are positive, for here we have ‘‘ quod 
Fides et Sacrze Literze docent.” When, however, he is borrow- 
ing from Atomism his views take a hypothetical form, and are 
introduced by the phrase ‘‘nihil vetat supponere.” 
Grace’s Road, Camberwell 
Care of Monkeys for their Dead 
As a supplement to the extract from James Forbes’ ‘‘ Orienta 
Memoirs,” given by Dr. Gulliver in Nature (vol. viii. page 
103), the following incident, recorded by Capt. Johnson, deserves 
republication :— 
‘* T was one of a party at Jeekarry, in the Bahar district ; our 
tents were pitched in a large mango garden, and our horses were 
picqueted in the same garden at a little distance off. When we 
were at dinner, a Syce came to us complaining that some of the 
horses had broken loose in consequence of being frightened by 
monkeys (z.e. MJacacus Rhesus) on the trees... As soon as 
dinner was over, I went out with my gun to drive them off, and 
T fired with small shot at one of them, which instantly ran down 
to the lowest branch of the tree, as if he were going to fly at me, 
stopped suddenly, and coolly put his paw to the part wounded, 
covered with blood, and held it out for me to see. I was so 
much hurt at the time that it has left an impression never to be 
effaced, and I have never since fired a gun at any of the tribe, 
‘* Almost immediately on my return to the party, before I had 
fully described what had passed, a Syce came to inform us that 
the monkey was dead. We ordered the Syce to bring it to us, 
but by the time he returned, the other monkeys had carried the 
dead one off, and none of them could anywhere be seen.” 
GoJo 
The Intellect of Porpoises 
IN Prof. Huxley’s admirable criticism of ‘*Mr. Darwin’s 
Critics,”’ * the following passage occurs :—‘‘ The brain of a por- 
poise is quite wonderful for its mass, and for the development of 
the cerebral convolutions. And yet, since we have ceased to 
credit the story of Arion, it is hard to believe that porpoises are 
much troubled with intellect.” 
I have no doubt that Prof. Huxley will agree with me in 
further concluding that “it is hard to believe ” that the remark- 
ably developed cerebral hemispheres of the porpoise with their 
deep and numerous convolutions perform no more exalted func- 
tions than the smooth pair of mere pimples that stand behind 
the olfactory ganglia of a cod-fish, and constitute the whole of 
his claim to a cerebrum proper. 
The psychology of the porpoise (and also that of the dolphin 
and other cetaceans with similar brains) is thus a subject of 
primary interest to the student of cerebral physiology. As a 
contribution to the subject I offer the following facts :— 
Many years ago I made the voyage from Constantinople to 
London in a small schooner laden with box-wood, &c. The 
passage was very slow, occupying fully two months, including the 
whole of August, and parts of July and September. We were 
often becalmed, with porpoises playing about the ship. The 
sailors assured me that no sharks were in the neighbourhood 
while the porpoises were near, and accepting this generalisation 
I frequently plunged overboard and swam towards the porpoises, 
They usually surrounded me in a nearly circular shoal or com- 
pany, and directed towards their unusual visitor an amount of 
attention which I may venture to dignify with the title of curi- 
osity, Their respiratory necessities precluded any long-continued 
scrutiny, but after dashing upwards for their customary snort, 
they commonly resumed their investigations, sometimes ap- 
proaching uncomfortably near and then darting off to the circum- 
ference of the attendant circle. I am not able to describe the 
expression on the /ea/wres of a porpoise, but my recollection of 
that of the eyes of my swimming companions is very different 
* Contemporary Review, 1871. Reprinted in ‘‘ Critiques and Ad- 
dresses.” 
