Chapter XV: Part 15

The last article, by Prof. H. Ebbinghaus, is the first part of a criticism of Fechner's posthumous letters on _Negative Empfindungs verthe_, published in the first numbers of this periodical. These letters, Ebbinghaus declares, afford an interesting insight into the scientific personality of Fechner; yet the doctrine contained therein, he adds, has its drawbacks. Ebbinghaus does not accept Fechner's presentation of the case, but refers us to Delbœuf from whose experiments alone, he says, the correct interpretation of negative values of sensations can be derived. Delbœuf's views are not so clearly presented in his first statement as in a later article written in answer to the objections of Tannery, published in the _Revue Philosophique_ V. 1878, and republished under the title _Examen critique de la loi psychophysique_ (Paris, 1883). Ebbinghaus adopts Langer's definition of negative values of sensations. They are "such as under all circumstances if additively connected with equally great positive ones produce as a result zero."

The reports of the proceedings of the International Congress of Physicians, Berlin, 1890, will be of special value to physicians. The present number contains those of the sections of oculists and aurists.

The number contains a valuable bibliographical catalogue of the chief works on physiological psychology for the year 1889. (Hamburg and Leipsic: L. Voss.)

PHILOSOPHISCHE MONATSHEFTE. Vol. XXVII. Nos. 1 and 2.

CONTENTS:

QUANTITAET UND QUALITAET IN BEGRIFF, URTHEIL UND
GEGENSTAENDLICHER ERKENNTNISS. By _Paul Natorp_.

ZUM BEGRIFF DES NAIVEN REALISMUS. By _E. von Hartmann_.

BEMERKUNGEN ZU VORSTEHENDEM AUFSATZ. By _A. Döring_.

RECENSIONEN.

LITTERATURBERICHT.

Professor Paul Natorp, the editor, discusses Quantity and Quality in Concept, Judgment, and Objective Cognition. His object is the attempt not to proceed subjectively, or psychologically, or genetically, or causally, or teleologically, but purely objectively in the same sense as mathematics proceeds objectively. The result which he reaches is summarily expressed in the statement "that there is no formal logic ... and that it cannot exist at all—except it be based upon the logic of objective cognition (transcendental logic), or represents a part thereof, the severance of which from the whole to which it belongs can have merely technical not scientific reasons." (Heidelberg: Georg Weiss.)

RIVISTA ITALIANA DI FILOSOFIA. September and October, 1890.

CONTENTS:

DELLA PERCEZIONE DEL CORPO UMANO. By _L. Pietrobono_.

LE IDEE PEDAGOGICHE DI PIETRO CERETTI.

DELL' ATTENZIONE. By _V. Benini_.

LA SCUOLA E LA FILOSOFIA PITAGORICHE. By _S. Ferrari_.

BIBLIOGRAFIA.

BOLLETTINO PEDAGOGICO E FILOSOFICO.

NOTIZIE.

RECENTI PUBBLICAZIONI.

RIVISTA ITALIANA DI FILOSOFIA. November and December, 1890.

CONTENTS:

IL PRESENTE DELLA STORIA DELLA FILOSOFIA. By _L. Credaro_.

LA PEDAGOGIA DI JACOPO SADOLETO. By _A. Piazzi_.

DELLA PERCEZIONE DEL CORPO UMANO. By _L. Pietrobono_.

BIBLIOGRAFIA, etc.

There are two problems which at present command a general and a keen interest in all countries; viz. the psychological problem and the ethical problem, the latter comprising all the questions of education and instruction, religious as well as secular. If this is true of Germany, France, England, and the United States, it is no less true of Italy. The _Rivista Italiana di Filosofia_, so ably edited by Luigi Ferri, Professor at the University of Rome, shows this tendency in its latest numbers in a marked degree. They contain among other valuable materials an article by Luigi Pietrobono on the perception of the human body, a psycho-physiological investigation of sentient substance with special reference to sensation and perception. The author arrives at a result, which, if it could be sustained, would lead to an outspoken dualism. Pietrobono believes in two principles, a psychical and an organical, forming an original synthesis and antithesis, interdependent upon and inseparable from each other. Vittorio Benini discusses in the same number the captivating subject of Attention, starting from a discussion of Ribot's monograph on the subject, and devoting his main interest to what he calls "l' attenzione perceptiva è accompagnata dall' intelligenza." The latter kind of attention is of especial importance in education, a subject which is discussed in the conclusion of the article. This leads us to another essay which treats of an exclusively educational subject, proposing the pedagogical ideas of Pietro Ceretti. This article does not contain new truths, but emphasises truths which have perhaps been too little recognised in Italy. Starting from the maxim that all education must develop the faculties of body, soul, and mind (le facoltà del corpo, dell' anima e della mente), and that all education must be conducted so as to let the social body derive the benefits therefrom, he urges besides demanding the moral and intellectual culture of man a technical instruction, and among the sciences, literature, and history, he would give mathematics a prominent place.

It may be added that the department of Bibliography contains among other reviews discussions of the following works: 1) Reich's book on Gian Vincenzo Gravina as an author of æsthetics; 2) Antonio Rosmini's Fragments of a Philosophy of Law and Politics; 3) Robert Benzoni's The Philosophy of Our Day; 4) Pietro Ellero's The Social Question; 5), in the December number, Ferdinando Puglia's Evolution in the History of Italian Philosophical Systems; 6) The national edition of Galileo Galilei's works; and 7) La Somiglianza nella Scuola Positivista e l'Identità nella Metafisica Nuova, by Donato Jaia.

VOPROSY FILOSOFI I PSICHOLOGUII.[67] Vol. I. No. 4.

[67] _Questions of Philosophy and Psychology._ In the Russian
language.

CONTENTS:

(PART I.)

REMARKS. By the Editor, _Prof N. Grote_.

THE POLITICAL IDEALS OF PLATO AND OF ARISTOTLE IN THEIR UNIVERSAL
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. By _Prince E. N. Trubetzkoi_.

THE RELATIONS OF VOLTAIRE TO ROUSSEAU. (Conclusion.) By _E.
Radlow_.

THE ETHICAL DOCTRINE OF KANT. By _L. Lopatine_.

HYPNOTISM IN PEDAGOGY. By _A. Tokarsky_.

CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF FREEWILL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
HISTORICAL PROCESS. By _N. Karyew_.

THE VITAL PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY. By _N. Grote_.

NECROLOGY. M. I. Vladislavlew, Rector of the University of St.
Petersburg. By _K._

(PART II.)

EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: The Elements of Will. By _N. Lange_.

CRITIQUE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS. Concerning the conflict with the Occident
in connection with the literary activity of a Slavophil. By _V.
Rotzanow_. The ethical doctrine of Count Tolstoi and its most
recent criticism. By _P. E. Astafiew_.

BOOK REVIEWS. Reviews of Russian philosophical works on
Metaphysics, Logic, Psychology, Ethics, and Æsthetics. Reviews
of foreign philosophical periodicals. Philosophical articles in
Russian ecclesiastical periodicals.

MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA. (1855-1888).

TRANSACTIONS OF THE MOSCOW PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

The distinguished Editor, Prof. N. Grote, in his introductory remarks calls attention to the fact that the present issue of this philosophical and literary review in the Russian language, completes the series that had been promised during the first year of its existence. The review does not claim, during this brief lapse of time, to have been able to solve all the many problems incident to the task that it had assumed at the outset of its career; but it may at least modestly claim to have won the hearty sympathy of an intelligent fraction of the Russian people, expressed by the acquisition of a comparatively large number of subscribers. This material success, moreover, attests the fact that the editor did not deceive himself when at the original publication of the review he seemed to notice an awakening in his country of more serious intellectual interests, and the rise of a desire for a philosophical analysis of the principles of knowledge and of life.

On the other hand, with regard to whether the problems treated of in the pages of the review are identical with those that occupy by preference the minds of intelligent Russian readers; or whether the exposition and the methods of investigation have been properly adjusted to the degree of development and to the mental calibre of the mass of its readers, it will suffice to remark, says the editor, that the full development of all the potential forces of nature and of mind can be attained only through slow and persistent action. We have to bear in mind that the attempt is by no means easy to organise for the first time in a project of this kind the many active workers of a country in which people had never before been associated in a similar undertaking. Yet in confidently entering upon the publication of this review, the editor well knew that there existed in Russia abundant intellectual powers, perfectly adequate to the demands of a high-class philosophical magazine—scientists, learned specialists, talented thinkers, and men of letters; and the review without doubt will not fail to enlist the valuable assistance of all these men in the arduous task, which it will continue steadily to pursue. The main task above all, is to advance the development of _self-consciousness_ in modern Russian society, but the success of this aspiration depends of necessity on the continued sympathy and good will of the public.

As regards the external form of the review, for the greater convenience of the public, instead of four volumes of 20 sheets, as hitherto, there will be issued during the present year five volumes in all—one volume of 15-16 sheets bimonthly, except during the midsummer months.

The editor in conclusion expresses his acknowledgment to several of his western colleagues, to the editors of _Mind_, the _Revue Philosophique_, the _Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie_, and _The Open Court_—all of whom have promised to note with genuine interest the contents of the Russian review "Questions of Philosophy and of Psychology." (Moscow, 1890.)

VOL. I. APRIL, 1891. NO. 3.

THE MONIST.

THE FACTORS OF EVOLUTION.

THEIR GRADES AND THE ORDER OF THEIR INTRODUCTION.

The usually recognised factors of evolution are at least five; viz.: (1) Pressure of a changing _environment_ affecting function and function affecting structure, and the changed structure and function inherited and integrated through successive generations indefinitely. (2) _Use and disuse_ of organs reacting on growth-force and producing change in form, structure, and relative size of parts, and such change inherited and integrated through successive generations. (3) _Natural selection_ among individuals of a varying progeny, of those most in accord with an ever-changing environment—or as it has been otherwise called "_survival of the fittest_" in each successive generation. (4) _Sexual selection_: the selection by the female, among varying male individuals all competing for her possession, of the strongest or the most attractive. Among mammals the selection is mainly of the strongest as decided by _battle_; among birds, of the most attractive as determined by splendor of color or beauty of song. (5) _Physiological selection_, or selection of those varieties, the individuals of which are fertile among themselves, but sterile or less fertile with other varieties and with the parent stock. This has also been called "_segregate fecundity_" by Gulick, and homogamy by Romanes.

These five factors are all usually but not universally recognised. The first two are Lamarckian, the second two Darwinian factors. In the Lamarckian factors the changes occur _during individual life_, and the offspring is supposed to inherit them unchanged. In the Darwinian factors on the contrary the _changes are in the offspring_, and the individuals during life are supposed to remain substantially unchanged. The fifth factor has, only very recently, been brought forward by Romanes and Gulick and is not yet universally recognised; but we believe that with perhaps some modifications it is certain to triumph. (6) To these recognised factors of organic evolution must now be added, in _human evolution_, another and far higher factor, viz. conscious, voluntary _co-operation in the work of evolution_, conscious striving for the betterment of the individual and of the race. This factor consists essentially in the _formation and pursuit of ideals_. We call this a factor, but it is also much more than a factor. It stands in place of nature herself—it is a higher-rational nature using all the factors of physical nature for its own higher purposes. To distinguish the evolution determined by this factor from organic evolution, we often call it _progress_.

Underlying all these factors as their necessary condition, and therefore themselves not called factors, are two opposite operative principles, viz. _heredity and variability_. Like the conservative and progressive elements in society, one tends to fixedness, the other to change. The one initiates change, the other accumulates its effects in successive generations. The one tries all things, the other holds fast to whatever is good. They are both equally necessary to the successful operation of any or all of the factors.

Let us now compare these six factors, as to their grade or position in the scale of energy and as to the order of their introduction.

The first two—Pressure of the environment and Use and disuse, i. e. the Lamarckian factors—are the lowest in position, most fundamental in importance, and therefore most universal in their operation. They are therefore also first in the order of time. They precede all other factors and were _for a long time the only ones in operation_. For observe: all the selective factors, viz. those of Darwin and Romanes, are wholly conditioned on Reproduction; for the changes in the case of these are not in the individual life but only in the offspring. And not only so but they are also strictly _conditioned on sexual modes of reproduction_. For all non-sexual modes of reproduction such as fission and budding are but slight modifications of the process of growth, and the resulting multitude of organisms may be regarded as in some sense _only an extension of the first individual_. There is thus a kind of immortality in these lowest protozoa. Of course therefore the identical characters of the first individual are continued indefinitely _except in so far as they are modified_ in successive generations by the effect of the environment or by use and disuse of organs—i. e. by _Lamarckian factors_. In sexual generation, on the contrary, the characters of two diverse individuals are funded in a common offspring; and the same continuing through successive generations, it is evident that the inheritance in each individual offspring is infinitely multiple. Now the tendency to variation in offspring is in proportion to the multiplicity of the inheritance: for among the infinite number of slightly different characters, as it were offered for inheritance in every generation, some individuals will inherit more of one and some more of another character. In a word, sexual generation, by multiple inheritance, tends to variation of offspring and thus _furnishes material for natural selection_.

Thus then I repeat, all the selective factors are absolutely dependent for their operation upon sexual reproduction. _But there was a time when this mode of reproduction did not exist._ It is certain the non-sexual preceded the sexual modes of reproduction. I cannot stop now to give the reasons for believing this. I have already given them in some detail in a previous article[68] to which I would refer the reader. Suffice it to say now that the order of introduction of the various modes of reproduction culminating in the highest sexual modes is briefly as follows: (1) _Fission._ An organism of the lowest kind grows and divides into two. Each half grows to mature size and again divides; and so on indefinitely. In this case there is no distinction between parents and offspring. Each seems either or neither. (2) _Budding._ Growth-force concentrating in one part produces a _bud_, which continues to grow and individuate itself more and more until it separates as a distinct individual. This is a higher form than the last because in this case the individual is not sacrificed. Only a small part separates and the separated part is in some sense an _offspring_. We have therefore for the first time the distinction of parent and offspring. (3) By the _law of differentiation and localisation of functions_, the bud-forming function is next relegated to a special place and we now have a bud-forming organ. (4) By another general law, the law of _interior transfer_, the bud-forming organ is next transferred for greater safety to an interior surface and thus _simulates_ an ovary, although not yet a true ovary or _egg-forming_ organ. Examples of all these steps are found among existing animals.

[68] _Genesis of Sex, Pop. Sci. Monthly_, 1879, Vol. xvi. p.
167. _Revue Scientifique_, Feb. 14, 1880.

Thus far reproduction is non-sexual. But now comes the great step, i. e. the introduction of sexual reproduction, in its lowest forms. (5) This simulated ovary or bud-forming organ becomes a true ovary or egg-forming organ; or rather, at first, a combination of ovary and spermary. The same organ prepares two kinds of cells, male and female, germ-cell and sperm-cell, which by their union produce an egg which develops into an offspring; and not only an offspring in the sense of a separated part of a previous individual, but in some sense a new creature, the creation of a _new individual_. There is an enormous difference and even contrast between this and all preceding modes. In non-sexual modes one individual becomes two; in this, two individual cells unite to form one. It is an expensive, even wasteful mode unless attended with some great advantage. The nature of this advantage we will presently see.

Thus far we have given only the lowest form of sexual generation. The two sexual _elements_ only, germ-cell and sperm-cell are separated from each other, but not yet even the sexual organs, ovary and spermary, much less the sexual individuals, male and female. (6) The sex-element-forming function is next differentiated and localised in two different organs, ovary and spermary, but not yet in two different individuals. This is hermaphroditism so common in plants and in lower animals. (7) The already separated sexual organs are next localised in different individuals, and we now have male and female individuals. This is the case in many plants and in all the higher animals. (8) And finally these male and female individuals become more and more diverse in character.

The object of this whole process of separation, first of the elements, then of the organs, then of the individuals, and last the increasing divergence of the individuals, is undoubtedly the funding of more and more diverse characters in a common offspring; and thus by increasing multiplicity of inheritance to insure larger variation in offspring and thereby furnish more abundant material for natural selection. This is far more than a compensation for the apparent wastefulness of this mode of reproduction.

If then the non-sexual preceded the sexual modes of reproduction, evidently, _at first, only Lamarckian factors could operate_. Evolution was then carried forward wholly by changes in the individual produced by _the environment_ and by _use and disuse of organs_, continued and increased through successive generations indefinitely. It is probable therefore that for want of the selective factors, the rate of evolution was at first comparatively slow; unless indeed, as seems probable, the earliest forms were, as the lowest forms are now, more plastic under pressure of physical conditions than are the present higher forms. The great contrast between the Lamarckian and Darwinian factors in this regard, and the slowness of change _now_ in higher forms under _Lamarckian factors alone_, is best shown in plants where either kind of factors may be used at pleasure. In these, if we wish to _make_ varieties, we propagate by seeds—sexual reproduction—but if we wish to _preserve_ varieties, we propagate by buds and cuttings—non-sexual reproduction.

We have taken the two Lamarckian factors together, in contrast with the Darwinian. But even in the two Lamarckian factors there is a great difference in grade. Undoubtedly the lowest and first introduced was pressure of the _physical environment_. For even _use and disuse_ of organs implies some degree of volition and voluntary motion, and therefore already some advance in the scale of evolution.

With the introduction of sex another entirely different and higher factor was introduced, viz. _natural selection_, among a varying progeny, of the fittest individuals. We have already seen how sexual generation produces variation of offspring and how this furnishes material for natural selection. As soon, therefore, as this form of generation was evolved, this higher factor came into operation, and immediately, as it were, _assumed control_ of evolution, and the previous factors _became subordinate_ though still underlying, conditioning, modifying the higher. The result was an immediate increase in the speed and in the diversity of evolution. It is very worthy of note too, that it is in the higher animals, such as birds and mammals, where we find the highest form of sexual generation, where the diversity of funded characters and therefore the variation in the offspring is the greatest, and natural selection most active: it is precisely among these that the Lamarckian factors are most feeble, because during the most plastic portion of life the offspring is removed from the influence of the physical environment and from the effects of use and disuse, by their enclosure within the womb or within a large egg well supplied with nourishment. In these, development is already far advanced before Lamarckian factors can operate at all.

Next I suppose _Physiological selection_ or Romanes's factor came into operation. After the introduction of sex, it became necessary, that the individuals of some varieties should be in some way _isolated_, so as to prevent the swamping of varietal characters as fast as formed, in a common stock by cross breeding. In very low forms with slow locomotion, such isolation might easily take place accidentally. Even in higher forms, changes in physical geography or accidental dispersion by winds and currents, would often produce _geographical isolation_; and thus by preventing crossing with the parent stock, secure the formation of new species from such isolated varieties. But in order to insure in all cases the preservation of commencing species, _sexual isolation_ was introduced or evolved as I suppose later, and according to Romanes somewhat as follows:

All organs are subject to variation in offspring, but none are so sensitive in this regard as the reproductive organs; and these in no respect more than in relative fertility under different conditions. Suppose then the offspring of any parent to vary in many directions. By cross-breeding among themselves and with the parent stock, these are usually merged in a common type, their differences pooled, and the species remains fixed or else advances slowly by natural selection, along _one line_, as physical conditions change in geological time. But from time to time there arises a variation in the reproductive organs of some individuals, of such kind that these individuals are fertile among themselves, but sterile or less fertile with other varieties and with the parent stock. Such individuals are _sexually isolated_ from others, or _sexually segregated_ among themselves. Their varietal differences of all kinds are no longer swamped by cross-breeding, but go on to increase until they form a new species. It is evident then, as Romanes claims, that natural selection alone tends to _monotypal_ evolution. Isolation of some sort seems necessary to _polytypal_ evolution. The tree of evolution under the influence of natural selection alone grows palm-like from its terminal bud. Isolation was necessary to the starting of lateral buds, and thus for the _profuse ramification_ which is its most conspicuous character.

Next, I suppose, was introduced, _sexual selection_, or contest among the males by battle or by display, for the possession of the female, the success of the strongest or the most attractive, and the perpetuation and increase of these superior qualities of strength or beauty in the next generation. This I suppose was later, because connected with a higher development of the psychical nature. This is especially true when beauty of color or song determines the selection. As might be supposed therefore, this factor is operative only among the highest animals, especially birds and mammals, and perhaps some insects.

Next and last, and only with the appearance of man, another entirely different and far higher factor was introduced, viz. _conscious, voluntary co-operation in the work of evolution_—a conscious voluntary _effort to attain an Ideal_. As already said, we call this a factor, but it is much more than a factor. It is another nature working in another world—the spiritual—and like physical nature using all factors, but in a new way and on a higher plane. In early stages man developed much as other animals, unconscious and careless whither he tended and therefore with little or no voluntary effort to attain a higher stage. But this voluntary factor, this striving toward a goal or ideal, in the individual and in the race, increased more and more until in civilised communities of modern times it has become by far the dominant factor. Reason, instead of physical nature, takes control, though still using the same factors.

Now, in this whole process, we observe two striking stages. The one is the introduction of Sex, the other the introduction of Reason.[69] They might be compared to two equally striking stages in the evolution of the individual, viz. the moment of _fertilisation_ and the moment of _birth_. As the ontogenic evolution receives fresh impulse at the two moments of fertilisation and of birth; so the evolution of the organic kingdom at the two periods mentioned. With the appearance of _sex_, three new and higher factors are introduced, and these immediately assumed control and quickened the rate of evolution. With the appearance of reason in man another and far higher factor is introduced which in its turn assumes control, and not only again quickens the rate, but elevates the whole plane of evolution. This voluntary, rational factor not only assumes control itself, but transforms all other factors and uses them in a new way and for its own higher purposes.

[69] By Reason I mean the faculty of dealing with the
phenomena of the inner world of consciousness and ideas, or
_reflection_ on the facts of consciousness. Animals live in
_one_ world, the outer _world of sense_; man in _two_ worlds,
in the outer world like animals, but also in the inner and
higher _world of ideas_. All that is characteristic of man
comes of this capacity of dealing with this inner world. In
default of a better word I call it Reason. If any one can
suggest a better word I will gladly adopt it.

This last is by far the greatest change which has ever occurred in the history of evolution. In organic evolution nature operates by necessary law without the voluntary co-operation of the thing evolving. In human progress man voluntarily co-operates with nature in the work of evolution and even assumes to take the process mainly into his own hands. Organic evolution is by _necessary_ law, human progress by _free_, or at least by _freer_, law. Organic evolution is by a _pushing_ upward and onward from below and behind, human progress by an aspiration, an attraction toward an ideal—a _pulling_ upward and onward from above and in front.

This great change may well be likened to a _birth_.[70] Spirit or Reason or the Psyche—call it what you like—was in embryo in animals in increasing degrees of development through all geological times and came to birth and capacity of free activity, became free spirit investigating its own phenomena in man. In animals the evolution of Psyche was the unconscious result of organic evolution. In man the Psyche is _born_ into a new world of freer activity and undertakes to develop itself.

[70] See _Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought_,
Part iii. Chap. iv, where the writer's views are more fully
brought out.

It may be well to stop a moment and show briefly some of the striking differences between organic and human evolution, differences resulting wholly from the introduction of this new factor, or rather this evolution on a new and higher plane.

(1) In organic evolution the fittest are those most in _harmony with the environment_ and therefore they _survive_. In human evolution the fittest are those most _in harmony with the ideal_, and often, especially in the early stages of evolution, during the dominance of natural selection, they _do not survive_ because not in harmony with the social environment.

(2) In organic evolution the weak, the helpless, the unfit in any way, _perish_, and ought to perish, because this is the most efficient way of _strengthening the blood_, or _physical_ nature. In human evolution the weak, the helpless, the physically unfit, are _sustained_, and ought to be sustained, because sympathy, love, pity _strengthens the spirit or moral nature_. But the spirit or moral nature is also sustained by, and conditioned on, the physical nature. In all our attempts therefore to help the weak we must be careful that we avoid poisoning the blood and weakening the physical health of the race. This we believe can and will be done by _rational education_, physical, mental, and moral. We only allude to this. It is too wide a subject to follow up here.

(3) In organic evolution the _form must_ continually _change_ in order to keep in harmony with the changing environment. In other words evolution is by constant _change of species_, genera, etc.; there must be a continual evolution of _new forms_. In human evolution, and more and more as civilisation goes on, man modifies the environment so as to bring it in harmony with himself and his wants, and therefore there is _no necessity for_ change of form or _making of new species of man_. Human evolution is not by modification of _form_—new species, but by modification of spirit—new planes of activity.

(4) In organic evolution as a higher factor arises it assumes control, and previous factors sink into subordinate position. But in human evolution the rational factor not only assumes control but transforms all other factors, using them in a new way and for its own higher purposes. Thus the Lamarckian factor—_environment_—is modified and even changed so as to affect suitably the human organism. This is _Hygiene_ or _Sanitation_. Again, the various organs of the body and faculties of the mind are deliberately _used_ (another Lamarckian factor) in such wise as to produce their highest efficiency. This is _education_, or _training_, physical, mental, moral. So also the selective factors are similarly transformed, and natural selection becomes rational selection. This is freely applied to domestic animals and with limitations imposed by reason itself will be applied to man.

(5) The way of evolution toward the highest, i. e. from Protozoa to man and from lowest man to the ideal man, is a _very narrow way_, and few there be that find it. In the case of organic evolution it is _so_ narrow, that once get off the track and it is impossible to get on again. No living form of animal is now on the way to form man, can by any possibility develop manward. They are all gone out of the way. They are all off the trunk line. The golden opportunity is past. The tree of evolution is an _excurrent_ stem continuous to the terminal shoot—man. Once leave the main stem as a branch, it is easy to continue growing in the direction chosen, but impossible to get back again on the straight upward way to the highest. In human evolution whether individual or racial, the same law holds, but with a difference. If an individual or a race gets off from the straight and narrow way toward the highest, the Divine ideal, it is _hard_ to get back on the track; hard but not _impossible_. Man's own effort is the chief factor in his own evolution. By virtue of his self-activity, and through the use of reason, man alone is able to rectify an error of direction and return again to the deserted way.

REFLECTIONS ON THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO SOME QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

I.

Just now there is much controversy in regard to the factors of evolution. Both Darwin and Spencer, the two greatest expounders of the modern theory of evolution, acknowledge and insist upon at least four factors; viz. the two Lamarckian and the two distinctively Darwinian. The only difference between them is in the relative importance of the two sets; Spencer regarding the former and Darwin the latter as the more potent. But some late Darwinians have gone far beyond Darwin himself in their estimate of the power of the most distinctive Darwinian factor, viz. natural selection. Weismann and Wallace have each written a book, and Lankester many excellent articles to show that natural selection is the one sole and sufficient cause of evolution, that changes during the individual life whether by effect of the environment or by the use and disuse of organs _are not inherited at all_, that Lamarck was wholly wrong and that Darwin (in connection with Wallace) is the sole founder of the true theory of evolution, and finally that Darwin himself was wrong only in making any terms whatever with Lamarck.

The argument for this view has, perhaps, been most strongly put by Weismann and is based partly on experiments, but mainly on his ingenious and now celebrated theory of the _immortality of germ-plasm_. The animal body consists of two kinds of cells wholly different in function, somatic cells and germ-cells, including in this last the sexual elements both male and female. Somatic cells are modified and specialised for the various functions of the body; germ-cells are wholly unmodified. The somatic cells are for the conservation of the _individual_ life, germ-cells for the conservation of the _species_. Now according to Weismann, _inheritance is only through germ-cells_. Environment affects only the somatic cells and therefore changes produced by environment cannot be inherited. Sexual generation was introduced for the purpose of producing variability in progeny and thus furnishing material for natural selection, as this was the only means of evolutionary advance. Weismann made many experiments on animals, especially by mutilation, to show that somatic changes are not inherited.

We shall not argue this question but content ourselves with making three brief remarks.

1. If the views presented in this article be true, then the Lamarckian factors must be true factors, because _there was a time when there were no others_. They were necessary therefore to start the process of evolution, even if no longer necessary at present.

2. But if the Lamarckian factors were ever operative, _they must be so still_, though possibly in a subordinate degree. A lower factor is not abolished, but only becomes subordinate to a higher factor when the latter is introduced. Thus it may well be that Lamarckian factors are comparatively feeble at the present time and among present species, especially of the higher animals, and yet not absent altogether. In the earliest stages of evolution there was a complete _identification of germ-cells and somatic cells_—of the individual with the species. In such cases, of course, the effect of environment must be inherited and increased from generation to generation. But the differentiation of germ and somatic cells was not all at once; it was a _gradual process_, and therefore the effect of the environment _on the germ-cells through the somatic cells_ must have continued, though in decreasing degree, and still continues. The differentiation is now, in the higher animals, so complete that germ-cells are probably not at all affected by changes in somatic cells, unless these changes are _long continued in the same direction and are not antagonised by natural selection_.

3. It is a general principle of evolution that _the law of the whole is repeated with modifications, in the part_. This is a necessary consequence of the Unity of Nature. We ought to expect therefore and do find, that the order of the use of the factors of evolution is the same in the evolution of the _organic kingdom_, in the evolution of _each species_, and in the evolution of _each individual_. In all these the physical factors are first powerfully operative, then become subordinate to organic factors, and these in their turn to psychical and rational factors. Therefore, as the individual in its early stages, i. e. in embryo and infancy, is peculiarly plastic under the influence of the physical environment and afterwards becomes more and more independent of these: so a species when first formed is more plastic under the influence of the Lamarckian factors and afterwards becomes more rigid to the same. And so also the organic kingdom was doubtless at first more plastic under Lamarckian factors, and has become less so in the present species, especially of the higher animals. The principal reason for this, as we have already seen, is the increasing differentiation of germ and somatic cells, and the removal of the former to the interior where they are more and more protected from external influence.

II.

Some evolutionists—the materialistic—insist on making human evolution identical in all respects with organic evolution. This we have shown is not strictly true. The very least that can be said is that a new and far more potent factor is introduced with man, which modifies greatly the process. But we may claim much more, viz. that evolution is here on a wholly different and higher plane. The factors of organic evolution are indeed still present and condition the whole process; but they are not left to be used by nature alone. On the contrary, they are used in a new way and for higher purposes by Reason.

But by a revulsion from the materialistic extreme, some have gone to the opposite extreme. They would place human progress and organic evolution in violent antagonism, as if subject to entirely different and even opposite laws. But we have also shown, that although the distinctive human factor is indeed dominant, yet it is underlaid and conditioned by all the lower factors—that these lower factors are still necessary as the agents used by Reason.

III.

We have already alluded to Weismann's and Wallace's views, but there is one important aspect not yet touched.

If Weismann and Wallace are right, if natural selection be indeed the only factor used by nature in organic evolution and therefore available for use by Reason in human evolution, then alas for all our hopes of race-improvement, whether physical, mental, or moral! All enlightened schemes of _physical culture_ and of _hygiene_, although directed indeed primarily for the strength, health, and happiness of the _present generation_, yet are sustained and ennobled by the conviction that the physical improvement of the individual, by inheritance enters into a similar improvement of the race. All our schemes of _education_, intellectual and moral, although certainly intended mainly for the improvement of the individual, are glorified by the hope that the race is also thereby gradually elevated. It is true that these hopes are usually extravagant; it is true that the whole improvement of the individuals of one generation is not carried over by inheritance into the next; it is true therefore that we cannot by education raise a lower race up to the plane of a higher race _in a few generations_; but there must be a small residuum, be it ever so small, carried forward by inheritance and accumulated from age to age, which enters into the slow growth of the race. If it be true that reason must direct the course of human evolution, and if it be also true that selection of the fittest is the only method available for that purpose; then, if we are to have any race-improvement at all, the dreadful law of _destruction of the weak and helpless_ must with Spartan firmness be carried out voluntarily and deliberately. Against such a course all that is best in us revolts. The use of the Lamarckian factors, on the contrary, is not attended with any such revolting consequences. All that we call education, culture, training, is by the use of these. Our hopes of race-improvement therefore are strictly conditioned on the fact that the Lamarckian factors are still operative, that changes in the individual, if in useful direction, are to some extent inherited and accumulated in the race.

IV.

We have said that the new factor introduced with man is a voluntary co-operation in the process of evolution, a conscious upward striving toward a higher condition, a pressing forward toward an ideal. Man contrary to all else in nature is transformed, not in _shape_ by external environment, but in _character by his own ideals_. Now this capacity of forming ideals and the voluntary pursuit of such ideals, whence comes it? When analysed and reduced to its simplest terms, it is naught else than the consciousness in man of his relation to the infinite and the attempt to realise the divine ideal in human character.

JOSEPH LE CONTE.

ILLUSTRATIVE STUDIES IN CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY.

III.

THE PHYSIOGNOMY OF THE ANARCHISTS.

One of the most curious applications, and perhaps the most practical, of Criminal Anthropology, (of that new science which has associated itself with sociology, psychiatry, and history,) is that which flows from the study of the physiognomy of the political criminal. For not only does it appear to succeed in furnishing us with the juridical basis of political crime, which hitherto seemed to escape all our researches, so completely that until now all jurists had ended by saying that there was no political crime; but it seems also to supply us with a method for distinguishing true revolution, always fruitful and useful, from utopia, from rebellion, which is always sterile. It is for me a thoroughly established fact, and one of which I have given the proofs in my "Delitto Politico,"[71] that true revolutionists, that is to say, the initiators of great scientific and political revolutions, who excite and bring about a true progress in humanity, are almost always geniuses or saints, and have all a marvellously harmonious physiognomy; and to verify this it is sufficient simply to look at the plates in my "Delitto Politico." What noble physiognomies have Paoli, Fabrizi, Dandolo, Moro, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Bandiera, Pisacane, la Petrowskaia, la Cidowina, la Sassulich! Generally we see in them a very large forehead, a very bushy beard, and very large and soft eyes; sometimes we meet with the jaw much developed, but never hypertrophic; sometimes, finally, with paleness of the face (Mazzini, Brutus, Cassius); but these characteristics seldom accumulate in the same individual to the extent of constituting what I call the criminal type.

[71] 1890.

In a study that I have made with three hundred and twenty-one of our Italian revolutionists, (against Austria etc.,) nearly all males, (there were twenty-seven women to one hundred men,) the proportion of the criminal type was 0·57 per cent.; i. e. 2 per cent. less than in normal men. Out of thirty celebrated Nihilists, eighteen have a very fine physiognomy, twelve present some isolated anomalies, two only present the criminal type (Rogagiew and Oklasdky), that is to say 6·8 per cent. And if from these unfortunate men who represent to us, even psychologically, the Christian martyrs, we pass to the regicides, to the presidenticides, such as Fieschi, Guiteau, Nobiling, and to the monsters of the French Revolution of 1789, such as Carrier, Jourdan, and Marat, we there at once find in all, or in nearly all, the criminal type. And the type again frequently appears among the Communards and the Anarchists. Taking fifty photographs of Communards I have found the criminal type in 12 per cent.; and the insane type in 10 per cent. Out of forty-one Parisian Anarchists that I have studied with Bertillon at the office of the police of Paris, the proportion of the criminal type was 31 per cent.

In the rebellion of the 1st of May last I was able to study one hundred Turin Anarchists. I found the criminal type among these in the proportion of 34 per cent., while in two hundred and eighty ordinary criminals of the prison at Turin the type was 43 per cent.

TABLE OF PERCENTAGE OF CHARACTERISTICS.

================================+==========+=========
| TURIN | ORDINARY
CHARACTERISTICS. |ANARCHISTS|CRIMINALS
--------------------------------+----------+---------
Exaggerated plagiocephaly | 11 | 21
Facial asymmetry | 36 | 60
Other cranial anomalies | |
(ultra-brachycephaly etc.) | 15 | 44
Very large jaw | 19 | 29
Exaggerated zygomas | 16 | 23
Enormous frontal sinus | 17 | 19
Dental anomalies | 30 | 20
Anomalies of the ears | 64 | 75
Anomalies of the nose | 40 | 57
Anomalous coloration of skin | 30 | 8
Old wounds | 10 | 26
Tattooing | 4 | 10
Neuro-pathological anomalies | 8 | 26

Among the 100 individuals arrested on the 1st of May, 30 per cent. were recidivists for common crimes; among the others, 50 per cent. Of true prison _habitués_ there were 8 among the former and 20 among the latter.

Thanks to the assistance of Dr. Carus of _The Open Court Publishing Company_, who has sent me many curious data and also the work of Schaack, "Anarchy and Anarchists" (Chicago, 1889), which is very partial, although rich in facts, I have been able to study the photographs of 43 Chicago anarchists, and I have found among them almost the same proportion of the criminal type, that is 40 per cent. The ones that presented this type are the two Djeneks, Potoswki, Cloba, Seveski, Stimak, Sugar, Micolanda, Bodendick, Lieske, Lingg, Oppenheim, Engel and his wife, Fielden, G. Lehm, Thiele, and Most. Especially in Potowski, Sugar, and Micolanda I mark facial asymmetry, enormous jaws, developed frontal sinus, protruding ears; and the same (except the asymmetry) in Seveski and Novak. Fielden has a turned up nose and enormous jaws; Most has acrocephaly and facial asymmetry. On the contrary a very fine physiognomy has Marx, with his very full forehead, bushy hair and beard, and soft eyes; and likewise Lassalle, Hermann, Schwab, the two Spies, Neebe, Schnaubelt, Waller, and Seeger.

In studying the chief anarchists separately,—the martyrs of the Chicago anarchists, it might well be said,—there is found in them all an anomaly, very frequent in normal men as well; that is to say the ears are without lobes; the ears are also developed a little more than normally in all (except in Spies), they are protruding in Lingg, Fischer, and Engel; the jaw is much developed in Lingg, Spies, Fischer, and Engel; all have, however, except Spies,[72] the forehead fine and full, with great intelligence. In the plates of the journal _Der Vorbote_ we find a Mongolic cast of feature in Engel and Lingg, both of whom should have much of the degenerative characters, enormous jaw and zygoma, and Lingg oblique eyes. But these characters are much less apparent in the photographs that I received from _The Monist_ and in which the jaw of Fischer even decreases. Perhaps these photographs were taken some years before the crime, when they were very young. Certainly in both instances (in the _Vorbote_ and the photographs from _The Monist_) I find a very noble and truly genial physiognomy in Parsons and Neebe. The physiognomy of August Spies is morbid. He has a senile auricle, voluminous jaw bones and a strongly developed frontal sinus. And, it is necessary to remark, the physiognomy corresponds with his autobiography, written with a fierce fanaticism; whilst in the posthumous writings of Parsons and in the writings of Neebe we remark a calm and reflective enthusiasm.

[72] Thus according to the portrait in Schaack's book; but
according to information which I later received from General
Trumbull of Chicago, this portrait is not true to life. It
would seem, then, that the features upon which my opinion is
based do not exist.

Schwab has the physiognomy of a _savant_, of a student; he much resembles the nihilist Antonoff, beheaded in Russia. (See Plate IV in my "Delitto Politico.") Neebe is quite like an Italian economist well known in America, Luigi Luzzatti.

Fielden has a wild physiognomy, not without sensuality. Parsons resembles Bodio, the great Italian statistician, and in the upper part of the face, Stanley.

When I say that the anarchists of Turin and of Chicago are frequently of the criminal type, I do not mean that political criminals, even the most violent anarchists, are true criminals; but that they possess the degenerative characters common to criminals and to the insane, being anomalies and possessing these traits by heredity; as a fact, the father of Booth was called Junius Brutus, and gave to his son the name of a revolutionist, Wilkes. The fathers of Guiteau and of Nobiling, and the mother of Staps were religious lunatics; and Staps also, like Ravaillac, Clement, Brutus, had hallucinations. In the autobiographies of the _Vorbote_ I find that Parsons had a very religious Methodist mother and a father who had much to do with the movement of the Temperance League. Indeed, the Parsons since 1600 had as a family taken part in all revolutionary movements. A Tompkin, a relation of his mother, had taken part in the battles of Brandywine and of Monmouth; a General Parsons was an officer in the Revolution of 1776, and a captain Parsons engaged in the battle of Bunker Hill.

Spies was born in a chateau celebrated for feudal robberies—called on that account the "Raubschloss."

The father of Louis Lingg suffered through his labor as a workman a concussion of the brain—according to the _Vorbote_.

The father of Fielden, an orator of power notwithstanding his occupation as a workman, was one of the agitators of the question of agricultural lands for workingmen in England; he was one of the founders of the "Consumers' Co-operative Society" and a prime mover in the society of "Odd Fellows." For those who will object that in many of these relations they see only geniuses, I have only to cite my work "L'Homme de Génie," where I have proved how often genius is nervous epilepsy, and how almost all the sons of men of genius are lunatics, idiots, or criminals.

This hereditary influence is seen also in the great number of brothers charged together, the two Spies, the two Djeneks, the two Fieldens, and the two Lehms. According to their autobiographies also their fathers or their mothers died early; from which we may presume that they were old or diseased.

The morbid impressibility of Engel has been admitted by himself. "I cannot," he said to his wife, "hold within me what I feel. I must explode. The enthusiasm takes possession of me; it is a disease." Lingg could not remain quiet an instant; in his room he always had some dynamite in store. Bodendick was a thief and a mattoid; full of cunning, mischief and mad tricks, even according to the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_. He was always dreaming of new explosives. Though insane he was a genius as appears from his poetry, which is published by Schick and is in the style of the celebrated "Song of the Shirt." The suicide of Lingg with dynamite shows his moral insensibility, as do the words of Parsons addressed to the society of anarchists: "Strangle the spies and throw them out of the window." In Lingg we see a truly ungovernable epileptoid idea driving him to political action. "I cannot control myself;" he said, "it is stronger than I."

I repeat that among the anarchists there are no true criminals; even Schaack, the police historian, can name but two criminals, and certainly he would not have spared them if he could have stigmatised them.

Their heroic-like deaths, with their ideal on their lips, proves that they were not common criminals. Nevertheless the psychology of the leaders of the Commune shows in them a true moral insensibility, an innate cruelty, which found a pretext and a scope in politics; and which accords too well with their criminal physiognomies. Marat demands two hundred and ten thousand heads; Vallés speaks of his family with a true hatred; Carrier wrote, "We will make a cemetery of France"; Ferré smiled while by his orders they killed Veisset; and Rigault said in slang to his pistol, "Il faut peter sur le chipau." The last words of Spies before the court express a ferocious hatred towards the rich; and the project of the anarchists of Chicago (if it is true) to blow up a part of the city with bombs attests an absence of the moral sense. We know that many anarchists regard brigands and thieves, such as Pini, Kammerer, and Gasparoni, as their brothers in arms. Booth had for accomplice Payne, a true murderer by profession. See also the journal published at Geneva _L'Explosion_, and the Como journal _Le Poignard_.

But it is necessary to note that hereditary anomaly, if it provokes an anomaly in the moral sense, also suppresses misoneism, the horror of novelty which is almost the general rule of humanity; it thus makes of them innovators, apostles of progress, though the education is too rude: and the fight with relative misery of which all the anarchists of Chicago except Neebe have been the victims, not affording material for useful novelties made of them only failures and rebels, hindering them from comprehending that humanity as a part of nature, which it is, cannot progress at a gallop, _non facit saltus_. Spies on his last day discovered that humanity is misoneic, the slave of custom, and said, quoting the lines in German, "I now understand the poet's words,

'_Denn aus Gemeinem ist der Mensch gemacht,
Und die Gewohnheit nennt er seine Amme._'"

[Man has been shaped of what is common,
And habit is the nurse by whom he's reared.]

Evidently if he had understood it before he would not have been an anarchist. Whoever has observed in asylums the conduct of lunatics, will understand that one of their characteristics is originality, just as in men of genius; only the originality of the insane and of moral lunatics, or of born criminals, is very often absurd or unavailable.