io6 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



There is a debatable ground of considerable extent 

 on which " res " and " me," ego and non ego, luck and 

 cunning, necessity and freewill, meet and pass into one 

 another as night and day, or life and death. K"o one 

 can draw a sharp line between ego and non ego, nor 

 indeed any sharp line between any classes of pheno- 

 mena. Every part of the ego is non ego qud organ or 

 tool in use, and much of the non ego runs up into the ego 

 and is inseparably united with it ; still there is enough 

 that it is obviously most convenient to call ego, and 

 enough that it is no less obviously most convenient to 

 call non ego, as there is enough obvious day and obvious 

 night, or obvious luck and obvious cunning, to make us 

 think it advisable to keep separate accounts for each. 



I will say more on this head in a following 

 chapter ; in this present one my business should be 

 confined to pointing out as clearly and succinctly as I 

 can the issue between the two great main contending 

 opinions concerning organic development that obtain 

 among those who accept the theory of descent at 

 all ; nor do I believe that this can be done more effec- 

 tually and accurately than by saying, as above, that 

 Mr. Charles Darwin (whose name, by the way, was 

 " Charles Eobert," and not, as would appear from the 

 title-pages of his books, " Charles " only), Ms. A. E. 

 Wallace, and their supporters are the apostles of luck, 

 while Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, followed, more 

 or less timidly, by the Geoffreys and by Mr. Herbert 

 Spencer, and very timidly indeed by the Duke of 

 Argyll, preach cunning as the most important means 

 of organic modification. 



