but that he could claim priority in the perception of processes by which the effect is rendered possible. Does not every one know what a barrier to investigation of the unknown is previous conception of impossibility? Given that processes were shown by which it could be conceived that forms might be made capable of divergence, and then men were led to look into the evidence as to the degree of divergence, assuming for the first time that sequence and degree of divergence might have, conjointly, a history to tell. Whereas, if some plausible method had not been assigned by which men generally could conceive that successive modifications had taken place, they might have gone on till doomsday asserting that nature, whether living or fossil, had no mystery of life to tell that was worth the unraveling.

Darwin chiefly devoted himself to the establishment of the existence of an agency which he termed "natural selection." The consequence of the operation of this agency was described by the term which he afterward adopted from Herbert Spencer,— "the survival of the fittest." These statements of the action and result of the working of the alleged law of evolution constitute the points of departure for the lesser misinterpretation of Darwin's views to which reference has been made.

Proceeding now on this higher plane, still profoundly in error, it is first of all to be remarked that the popular notion as to Darwin's belief is that natural selection works principally through what scientific men call cataclysm,—that is, violent changes in exterior nature, instead of through slow processes

of change in exterior nature. That, to begin with, is not correct, as representing his views. He makes change in climate a factor in his supposed agencies, but not sudden change, even if we include in the change the coming on of the glacial period. The principal factors by which he accounts for divergence among animals are: Changes in continental and insular areas, produced

by the slow upheaval and subsidence of portions of the earth, with consequent changes in climate; pressure of animal life, through natural increase, upon the means of subsistence, leading in the struggle for existence to many consequences, such as extirpation of the less hardy and modification of the offspring in the remaining élite; migration to new regions, involving new external conditions and the indirect contest for subsistence with other species.

But Darwin, in accounting for change in species, did not rely solely upon the agencies especially designated by the term "natural selection," but included another agency coming within the sphere of natural selection, but distinguished from it by the term "sexual selection." The agencies, in sum, upon which he relied as competent to effect change in species are natural selection (by which comes change of structure through new external conditions), artificial selection (by which man modifies the lower animals), sexual selection (by which minor attributes are acquired), compensation of growth (by which vital growth, expending itself in one direction, is lessened or discontinued in another), reversion to primitive details of structure (through what is now called atavism), protective acquirement of similarity (called, for brevity's sake, mimicry), and food. So, it will be observed that Darwin summoned a number of agencies, agencies within the fullest idea of natural selection, to account for variability of species.

Continuing to rise to a still higher plane above the grossest of the errors regarding Darwin's belief, which are now corrected, we find that, among even educated people, the term "survival of the fittest" is often misconstrued. It does not, as largely interpreted, mean the survival of those forms which, in the estimation of any one or a number of persons, have an inherent right, morally or otherwise, to survive, to be worthy of continued existence; but simply the survival of those which, either from constitution or from plasticity in adapting themselves to new

conditions, are enabled, under those conditions, to survive. The expression, "survival of the fittest," in a word, relates simply to ability, in the general environment, of the individual to survive. If an arctic rigor were to cover an insular expanse from which the lower animals necessarily could not escape, and these animals had been habituated to a warm climate, they would undoubtedly be all destroyed by cold. If, on the other hand, the cold were less rigorous, some might survive. If, instead of the place being an island it were on the main land, many would die during migration, but very many also would survive. The same thing would apply to human life subjected to similar change, although in that case men, as organized by civilization, would not suffer as would insular savages, who would be utterly swept away. The loss of human life would be deplorable before any alleviation could occur, but large bodies of the inhabitants of a civilized country, whether insular or not, would successfully migrate to other regions. It is easy to see from this simple illustration how many unworthy, from some points of view, of living would continue to survive, while many, from the same points of view, most worthy of living would certainly perish. Nor does the law cease to be operative with the physical world. Daily events prove, to every one who reads and sees and knows the world, that, even in the social life of man, given certain deficiencies of character and training, and that the environment shall suddenly become seductive and full of snares and pit-falls for the ignorant and unwary of danger, and the majority of mankind go down and are swept out of existence as by a fiery besom of destruction.

Rising still one more step to consideration of the least flagrant of the errors as to the Darwinian theory, and, therefore, to the last to be noticed, it should be mentioned that evolution is not, as is often believed, intended to express necessarily an advance. Understanding that it may represent a retrogression

in particular cases is necessary to a full comprehension of the meaning of the expression, "the survival of the fittest." The expression implies, in the first place, that there has been a change, and, in the second place, that the change has imposed stress upon the forms of life subjected to it. This being so, how is the idea reconcilable with it, that evolution always means, in every case, progression to a higher type? The supposed change may, in a given area, even destroy everything except that which is representative of an inferior type. The change, on the other hand, may be simply unfavorable to one or more forms of life. Cope has lately shown, through comparison of the fossil remains of certain batrachians (frogs) with living species, that the ear of one species has, instead of improving, retrograded; in conformity, of course, with the later conditions under which the animal has lived.

Change, in fine, may be favorable or unfavorable, and therefore there may or may not be progress to higher types of organs or of beings. The meaning of the term "survival of the fittest" does not teach that there is always necessarily progress at all times and places. That which is otherwise taught is that, regarding the scheme of nature as a whole, the progress of rise in type is manifest and enormous. It teaches that, at times, there has been and is retrogression. It is believed, upon good evidence, that there are now savage tribes which represent people which were once not so savage. Some of the great peoples who once inhabited portions of the earth have left in those same regions degenerate descendants. If we are not to believe this, contemplate the alternatives. They either all migrated or they left no offspring. Which is the most likely of the three propositions?

Having now, as briefly as possible, corrected the various prevalent errors regarding Darwin's theory, first by statement of what it is not and then by definition of what it is, it naturally remains to add some of the evidence upon which Darwin

bases his conclusions. The merest fragmentary outline must suffice for this, seeing that he wrote whole books on the subject; that, as he was an able man, it is presumable he did not write more than was needful; and, finally, that, whether he did or not, we cannot take the benefit of his whole work. But, sketchy as the outline must necessarily be, it will be sufficient to afford the reader an idea of the cogency of the evidence by which he supports his theory, and of the entire relevancy of the topic to the questions of health and beauty. Health and beauty are both involved in the law, and the reader will perceive, as we proceed, that its agency is not overstated at the beginning of this chapter, where it was designated as the regulative law of life and growth. For, let it now be incidentally remarked that nothing which we see around us but has been gradually evolved, the inorganic as well as the organic world. Races, nations, societies, individuals, however rated and classed at any period, are but evolutionary products. Even man in his present most highly organized aspect is not the sole arbiter of his destiny, All present social conditions, including government itself, have risen from mere tribal affiliations, and are still subject to the fluctuation, to the rise or downfall, which the previous history of the world has shown. The destiny of every living creature is, at every instant of time, partly within and partly beyond its control.

Take, for instance, the moral world. The individual in a community is but a unit. If he, in any degree, molds to his wishes the community in which he lives, much more it has molded and continues to mold and control him. Could he, morally or intellectually, rise to sublime heights above the community, the fact would be beyond appreciation. Does he, either morally or intellectually, descend too far below the generally established plane, the conduct which his thought shapes makes society intolerant of him. Only upon the condition that he shall not rise too high above nor fall too far below the general sphere