Part 8 (2/2)

Darwin) ”remarks, 'It is unaccountable why half-castes are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case.'

An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, 'G.o.d made white men, and G.o.d made black men, but the devil made half-castes.'” A little further on Mr. Darwin says that we may ”perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes IS IN PART DUE TO REVERSION TO A PRIMITIVE AND SAVAGE CONDITION, INDUCED BY THE ACT OF CROSSING, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared.” Why the crossing should produce this particular tendency would seem to be intelligible enough, if the fas.h.i.+on and instincts of offspring are, in any case, nothing but the memories of its past existences; but it would hardly seem to be so upon any of the theories now generally accepted; as, indeed, is very readily admitted by Mr. Darwin himself, who even, as regards purely-bred animals and plants, remarks that ”we are quite unable to a.s.sign any proximate cause” for their tendency to at times rea.s.sume long lost characters.

If the reader will follow for himself the remaining phenomena of reversion, he will, I believe, find them all explicable on the theory that they are due to memory of past experiences fused, and modified-- at times specifically and definitely--by changed conditions. There is, however, one apparently very important phenomenon which I do not at this moment see how to connect with memory, namely, the tendency on the part of offspring to revert to an earlier impregnation. Mr.

Darwin's ”Provisional Theory of Pangenesis” seemed to afford a satisfactory explanation of this; but the connection with memory was not immediately apparent. I think it likely, however, that this difficulty will vanish on further consideration, so I will not do more than call attention to it here.

The instincts of certain neuter insects hardly bear upon reversion, but will be dealt with at some length in Chapter XII.

V. We should expect to find, as was insisted on in the preceding section in reference to the sterility of hybrids, that it required many, or at any rate several, generations of changed habits before a sufficiently deep impression could be made upon the living being (who must be regarded always as one person in his whole line of ascent or descent) for it to be unconsciously remembered by him, when making himself anew in any succeeding generation, and thus to make him modify his method of procedure during his next embryological development. Nevertheless, we should expect to find that sometimes a very deep single impression made upon a living organism, should be remembered by it, even when it is next in an embryonic condition.

That this is so, we find from Mr. Darwin, who writes (”Plants and Animals under Domestication,” vol. ii. p. 57, ed. 1875)--”There is ample evidence that the effect of mutilations and of accidents, especially, or perhaps exclusively, when followed by disease” (which would certainly intensify the impression made), ”are occasionally inherited. There can be no doubt that the evil effects of the long continued exposure of the parent to injurious conditions are sometimes transmitted to the offspring.” As regards impressions of a less striking character, it is so universally admitted that they are not observed to be repeated in what is called the offspring, until they have been confirmed in what is called the parent, for several generations, but that after several generations, more or fewer as the case may be, they often are transmitted--that it seems unnecessary to say more upon the matter. Perhaps, however, the following pa.s.sage from Mr. Darwin may be admitted as conclusive:-

”That they” (acquired actions) ”are inherited, we see with horses in certain transmitted paces, such as cantering and ambling, which are not natural to them--in the pointing of young pointers, and the setting of young setters--in the peculiar manner of flight of certain breeds of the pigeon, &c. We have a.n.a.logous cases with mankind in the inheritance of tricks or unusual gestures.” . . . (”Expression of the Emotions,” p. 29).

In another place Mr. Darwin writes:-

”How again can we explain THE INHERITED EFFECTS of the use or disuse of particular organs? The domesticated duck flies less and walks more than the wild duck, and its limb bones have become diminished and increased in a corresponding manner in comparison with those of the wild duck. A horse is trained to certain paces, and the colt inherits similar consensual movements. The domesticated rabbit becomes tame from close confinement; the dog intelligent from a.s.sociating with man; the retriever is taught to fetch and carry; and these mental endowments and bodily powers are all inherited” (”Plants and Animals,” &c., vol. ii. p. 367, ed. 1875).

”Nothing,” he continues, ”in the whole circuit of physiology is more wonderful. How can the use or disuse of a particular limb, or of the brain, affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells, seated in a distant part of the body in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the character of one or both parents? Even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory” (”Plants and Animals,” &c. vol. ii. p. 367, ed. 1875).

With such an imperfect answer will I attempt to satisfy the reader, as to say that there appears to be that kind of continuity of existence and sameness of personality, between parents and offspring, which would lead us to expect that the impressions made upon the parent should be epitomised in the offspring, when they have been or have become important enough, through repet.i.tion in the history of several so-called existences to have earned a place in that smaller edition, which is issued from generation to generation; or, in other words, when they have been made so deeply, either at one blow or through many, that the offspring can remember them. In practice we observe this to be the case--so that the answer lies in the a.s.sertion that offspring and parent, being in one sense but the same individual, there is no great wonder that, in one sense, the first should remember what had happened to the latter; and that too, much in the same way as the individual remembers the events in the earlier history of what he calls his own lifetime, but condensed, and pruned of detail, and remembered as by one who has had a host of other matters to attend to in the interim.

It is thus easy to understand why such a rite as circ.u.mcision, though practised during many ages, should have produced little, if any, modification tending to make circ.u.mcision unnecessary. On the view here supported such modification would be more surprising than not, for unless the impression made upon the parent was of a grave character--and probably unless also aggravated by subsequent confusion of memories in the cells surrounding the part originally impressed--the parent himself would not be sufficiently impressed to prevent him from reproducing himself, as he had already done upon an infinite number of past occasions. The child, therefore, in the womb would do what the father in the womb had done before him, nor should any trace of memory concerning circ.u.mcision be expected till the eighth day after birth, when, but for the fact that the impression in this case is forgotten almost as soon as made, some slight presentiment of coming discomfort might, after a large number of generations, perhaps be looked for as a general rule. It would not, however, be surprising, that the effect of circ.u.mcision should be occasionally inherited, and it would appear as though this was sometimes actually the case.

The question should turn upon whether the disuse of an organ has arisen:-

1. From an internal desire on the part of the creature disusing it, to be quit of an organ which it finds troublesome.

2. From changed conditions and habits which render the organ no longer necessary, or which lead the creature to lay greater stress on certain other organs or modifications.

3. From the wish of others outside itself; the effect produced in this case being perhaps neither very good nor very bad for the individual, and resulting in no grave impression upon the organism as a whole.

4. From a single deep impression on a parent, affecting both himself as a whole, and gravely confusing the memories of the cells to be reproduced, or his memories in respect of those cells--according as one adopts Pangenesis and supposes a memory to ”run” each gemmule, or as one supposes one memory to ”run” the whole impregnate ovum--a compromise between these two views being nevertheless perhaps possible, inasmuch as the combined memories of all the cells may possibly BE the memory which ”runs” the impregnate ovum, just as we ARE ourselves the combination of all our cells, each one of which is both autonomous, and also takes its share in the central government.

But within the limits of this volume it is absolutely impossible for me to go into this question.

In the first case--under which some instances which belong more strictly to the fourth would sometimes, but rarely, come--the organ should soon go, and sooner or later leave no rudiment, though still perhaps to be found crossing the life of the embryo, and then disappearing.

In the second it should go more slowly, and leave, it may be, a rudimentary structure.

In the third it should show little or no sign of natural decrease for a very long time.

In the fourth there may be absolute and total sterility, or sterility in regard to the particular organ, or a scar which shall show that the memory of the wound and of each step in the process of healing has been remembered; or there may be simply such disturbance in the reproduced organ as shall show a confused recollection of injury.

There may be infinite gradations between the first and last of these possibilities.

I think that the facts, as given by Mr. Darwin (”Plants and Animals,”

&c., vol i. pp. 466-472, ed. 1875), will bear out the above to the satisfaction of the reader. I can, however, only quote the following pa.s.sage:-

” . . . Brown Sequard has bred during thirty years many thousand guinea-pigs, . . . nor has he ever seen a guinea-pig born without toes which was not the offspring of parents WHICH HAD GNAWED OFF THEIR OWN TOES, owing to the sciatic nerve having been divided. Of this fact thirteen instances were carefully recorded, and a greater number were seen; yet Brown Sequard speaks of such cases as among the rarer forms of inheritance. It is a still more interesting fact-- 'that the sciatic nerve in the congenitally toeless animal has inherited the power of pa.s.sing through ALL THE DIFFERENT MORBID STATES which have occurred in one of its parents FROM THE TIME OF DIVISION till after its reunion with the peripheric end. It is not therefore the power of simply performing an action which is inherited, but the power of performing a whole series of actions in a certain order.'”

<script>