birth to the Anglo-American variety, and is not another springing up in Australia?

If we pass on to humanity considered in its social organism, we find numerous facts to sustain our law. Society in its origin, such as we find it among savage tribes, is a homogeneous aggregate of individuals having the same powers and the same functions; every man is a warrior, a hunter, a fisher, and a workman; the only differences are those which result from sex. The first differentiation is that which takes place between the governing and the governed; this increases, authority becomes hereditary, the king assumes an almost Divine character; for, at this epoch, religion and government are closely associated, and during centuries the religious and civil laws are hardly separate. Now, if we observe that among modern Europeans, not only are the State and the Church separating from each other more and more widely, but that the political organization is very complex, that it presupposes subdivisions in justice, finance, etc., we cannot doubt that in this instance progress is made from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.

In industry it is the same; the subdivision of labour is an evident truth.

The most rudimentary form of language is the exclamation. Did it alone originally constitute simply human language? This we cannot tell. Linguistics shows us that in all languages there are words which may be grouped in families and referred to a common root. The development of idioms then also supposes heterogeneity. Whether we hold, with Max Müller and Bunsen, that all languages are derived from a single stem, or with other linguists that there are two or more, the development of the European languages, derived from one and the same source, would in itself show us that the evolution of languages is also in conformity with the law of progress.

Writing (ideographical at its origin) connects itself with painting, and both, together with sculpture, were at first simple appendices of architecture, which was itself the historical or religious art the palaces and temples of Assyria, the monuments of Egypt or of India bear witness to this. These arts became separate in the lapse of centuries; writing was transformed into

printing. However dissimilar they may appear to us to-day, the bust which stands upon the console, the picture which hangs upon the wall, the copy of the Times which lies upon the table, are related to each other, not only by nature but by origin.' Poetry, music, and dancing also originally formed an inseparable group. The dances of savage tribes, accompanied by monotonous songs, the sacred dances of the Egyptians, and of David before the ark, of the Lupercalia and the Saturnalia of Rome, the triumphal ode of Moses, accompanied by dancing and the cymbals, these are only a few examples among thousands. These arts became separated by progress, and we may remark that in each instance that progress took place from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. In literature, primitive works comprise everything;— the Scriptures contain the theology, cosmogony, history, legislation, morals, etc., of the Hebrews; in the Iliad there are religious, military, epic, lyric, and dramatic elements, which, at a later period, form so many kinds.

It is the same with science, as we shall see hereafter. Let us then fearlessly conclude, from this rapid examination of facts, that the law of progress is the passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. And now, does not this uniform processus presuppose a fundamental necessity from whence it results? Does not this universal law imply a universal cause? There is no question of having an absolute knowledge of this cause: that is a mystery above the reach of human intelligence; we have simply to transform our empirical generalization into a rational generalization. Exactly as it has been possible to show the necessary consequences of the law of gravitation in the laws of Kepler, so it may be possible to show that the law of progress is the necessary consequence of some equally universal principle.

This law, which explains the universal transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is as follows: Every active force produces more than one change; every cause produces more than one effect.

One body strikes another; to our eyes the effect consists in a change in the position or the motion of one or both of the two bodies. But that is a very incomplete view, because more than one sound is produced; and the vibrations of the air are pro

duced, not only by the sound, but by the motion of the bodies; a derangement of the molecules at the point of collision has taken place; consequently condensation and disengagement of heat, sometimes even a spark, that is to say, the production of light. We have therefore at least five species of changes produced by a simple shock.

Some one lights a candle, that is a simple fact; but there results from it a production of light, a production of heat, an ascending column of hot gases, currents established in the surrounding air, a continuous formation of carbonic acid, water, etc. Besides, each of the changes thus produced gives rise in its turn to other changes. The disengaged carbonic acid will combine itself little by little with some basis, or, under the influence of the solar light, it will give out its carbon to the leaf of a plant. The water will modify the hygrometric condition of the surrounding air, etc.

A small quantity of virus from smallpox, introduced into the system, may cause, during the first period, stiffness, heat of the skin, acceleration of the pulse, loss of appetite, thirst, gastric disturbance, vomiting, headaches, etc.; during the second period, cutaneous eruption, cough, etc.; during the third period, oedematous inflammation, pneumonia, pleurisy, diarrhoea, etc. A living species, animal or vegetable, in proportion as it spreads itself out, and occupies a more extended area, finds itself exposed to very different conditions of climate, sun, light, and heat, and thus we see it give birth to numerous varieties. This happens even in the case of domestic animals.

We have now mentioned a sufficient number of the various examples which the author borrows from geology, linguistics, ethnology, chemistry, industry, and commerce, to elucidate his thought. He always calls upon us to observe that if there be in reality complex causes of which we have spoken as simple causes, it still remains true that these causes are much less complex than their results. 'Finally, the facts tend to show that each kind of progress is from the homogeneous to the heterogéneous, and that this is because each change is followed by several changes.' 1

,1

1 Perhaps it may be objected, that it is not in reality one single cause which produces several effects; that in the case of the shock, for example, there must

II.

In a long essay upon the hypothesis of the Nebulæ, the author attaches the hypothesis of Laplace to the doctrine of evolution, defending it against the objections to it raised by science. Lord Rosse's powerful telescope having enabled astronomers to solve the hitherto insoluble Nebulæ, it has been concluded that if we had sufficiently powerful instruments, we could resolve every nebulus into stars. Is this a sufficient reason for rejecting the hypothesis? By no means. A priori, it was very improbable, if not impossible, that nebular masses should still remain uncondensed when others have been condensed for millions of years.

In comparison with the doctrine of finality, or, as Mr. Herbert Spencer calls it, manufacture, the hypothesis of the nebulus has a great deal of probability and many facts in its favour. It explains much better the necessities of constitution and of the motions of the planets, the anomalies in the distribution and the motion of the satellites, the speed of the planetary rotation; and then in these later times, the spectrum analysis has arisen to corroborate the hypothesis of a community of origin between all the parts of our universe. Into this purely scientific domain, otherwise outside our limits, the conclusion draws us. It is this: 'It remains only to point out that while the genesis of the solar system, and of countless other systems like it, is thus rendered comprehensible, the ultimate mystery continues as great as ever. The problem of existence is not solved; it is simply removed further back. The Nebular Hypothesis throws no light on the origin of diffused matter, and diffused matter as much needs accounting for as concrete matter. The genesis of an atom is not easier to conceive than the genesis of a planet. Nay, indeed, so far from making the universe a less mystery than before,

exist, besides the shock, certain conditions of the bodies concerned which render the production of sound, heat, etc., possible. There would also be, besides the visible cause, virtual causes acting with it, and the passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous would be the actualization of these virtual causes. We think Mr. Spencer would reply that to put the question thus would be to transfer it to the ground of the noumena, which he does not wish to approach; and that if a simple statement of facts be adhered to, one shock is followed by several effects.

it makes it a greater mystery. Creation by manufacture is a much lower thing than creation by evolution. A man may put together a machine, but he cannot make a machine develop itself. . . . That our harmonious universe once existed potentially as formless diffused matter, and has slowly grown into its present organized state, is a far more astonishing fact than would have been its formation after the artificial method vulgarly supposed. Those who hold it legitimate to argue from phenomena to noumena, may rightly contend that the Nebular Hypothesis implies a First Cause as much transcending the mechanical God of Paley, as this does the fetish of the savage.' 1

III.

The result of the idea of evolution, applied to social and political phenomena, is to bring out the analogy between society and the organized body. It may be thought that the author's comparisons in his Essay upon Social Organization are far-fetched. At least it cannot be denied that his combinations are ingenious, in many respects sustainable, and, taken collectively, incontestable. Nothing being true except within certain limits, the danger for a correct idea is that of being pushed to extremes. We must, therefore, in observing the following combinations, confine ourselves to the consideration of them as an illustration, a throwing of light upon social phenomena by biological phenomena.

The social body, like the living body, is not a simple aggregate of parts, it supposes a consensus between them. Both are subject to the same law of evolution, to the same varieties of form; there are rudimentary societies, just like coarse organisms; there are learned and complex social organizations, just like the organisms whose mode of life is rich and complex. For ages this parallelism was felt by the philosophers. Thus Plato drew his ideal republic upon the model of the faculties of the human soul. Hobbes goes farther; his city is an immense body (Leviathan), whose sovereign is the soul, the magistrates are the articulations, the sanctions are the nerves, the wealth of the whole is the strength, their concord is the health, etc. But, in the absence of really comprehensive

1 Spencer's Essays, vol. i. p. 55-6, edition 1863.