Introduction. 



27 



ment, or that derived from the mental endowments 

 of mankind. 



Here the peculiarities called into evidence are, " the 

 Mathematical Faculty," " the Artistic Faculties," and 

 "the Moral Sense." With regard to the latter, he 

 avows himself a member of the intuitional school of 

 ethics ; but does not prove a very powerful advocate 

 as against the utilitarian ^. 



It comes, then, to this. According to Mr. Wallace's 



* E. g. " The special faculties we have been discussing clearly point to 

 the existence in man of something which he has not derived from 

 his animal progenitors — something which we may best refer to as 

 being of a spiritual essence or nature, capable of progressive de- 

 velopment under favourable conditions. On the hypothesis of this 

 spiritual nature, superadded to the animal nature of man, we are able 

 to understand much that is otherwise mysterious or unintelligible in 

 regard to him, especially the enormous influence of ideas, principles, 

 and beliefs over his whole life and action. Thus alone can we understand 

 the constancy of the martyr, the unselfishness of the philanthropist, 

 the devotion of the patriot, the enthusiasm of the artist, and the resolute 

 and persevering search of the scientific worker after nature's secrets. 

 Thus we may perceive that the love of truth, the delight in beauty, 

 the passion for justice, and the thrill of exultation with which we 

 hear of any act of courageous self-sacrifice, are the workings within 

 us of a higher nature which has not been developed by means of the 

 struggle for material existence." {Darwinism, p. 474.) I have quoted 

 this whole paragraph, because it is so inconsistent with the rest of 

 Mr. Wallace's system that a mere epitome of it might well have been 

 suspected of error. Given an intellectual being, howsoever produced, 

 and what is there " mysterious or unintelligible " in " the enormous 

 influence of ideas, principles, and beliefs over his whole life and 

 action"? Or again, if he be also a social being, what is the relevajicy 

 of adducing " the constancy of the martyr," " the unselfishness of the 

 philanthropist," "the devotion of the patriot," "the love of truth," 

 "the passion for justice," "the thrill of exultation when we hear of any 

 act of courageous self-sacrifice," in evidence against the law of utility, 

 or in order to prove that a " nature " thus endowed has " not been 

 developed by means of the struggle for existence," when once this 

 struggle has been transferred from individuals to communities? The 

 whole passage reads like an ironical satire in favour of " Darwinism," 

 rather than a serious argument against it. 



