erewhon-第38章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


reducing　the　prohibition　against　eating　animal　food　to　an
absurdity；　greater　even　than　an　Erewhonian　Puritan　would　be　able　to
stand。

Those　who　take　this　view　hold　that　he　knew　how　impossible　it　would
be　to　get　the　nation　to　accept　legislation　that　it　held　to　be
sinful；　he　knew　also　how　hopeless　it　would　be　to　convince　people
that　it　was　not　wicked　to　kill　a　sheep　and　eat　it；　unless　he　could
show　them　that　they　must　either　sin　to　a　certain　extent；　or　die。
He；　therefore；　it　is　believed；　made　the　monstrous　proposals　of
which　I　will　now　speak。

He　began　by　paying　a　tribute　of　profound　respect　to　the　old
prophet；　whose　advocacy　of　the　rights　of　animals；　he　admitted；　had
done　much　to　soften　the　national　character；　and　enlarge　its　views
about　the　sanctity　of　life　in　general。　　But　he　urged　that　times　had
now　changed；　the　lesson　of　which　the　country　had　stood　in　need　had
been　sufficiently　learnt；　while　as　regards　vegetables　much　had
become　known　that　was　not　even　suspected　formerly；　and　which；　if
the　nation　was　to　persevere　in　that　strict　adherence　to　the　highest
moral　principles　which　had　been　the　secret　of　its　prosperity
hitherto；　must　necessitate　a　radical　change　in　its　attitude　towards
them。

It　was　indeed　true　that　much　was　now　known　that　had　not　been
suspected　formerly；　for　the　people　had　had　no　foreign　enemies；　and；
being　both　quick…witted　and　inquisitive　into　the　mysteries　of
nature；　had　made　extraordinary　progress　in　all　the　many　branches　of
art　and　science。　　In　the　chief　Erewhonian　museum　I　was　shown　a
microscope　of　considerable　power；　that　was　ascribed　by　the
authorities　to　a　date　much　about　that　of　the　philosopher　of　whom　I
am　now　speaking；　and　was　even　supposed　by　some　to　have　been　the
instrument　with　which　he　had　actually　worked。

This　philosopher　was　Professor　of　botany　in　the　chief　seat　of
learning　then　in　Erewhon；　and　whether　with　the　help　of　the
microscope　still　preserved；　or　with　another；　had　arrived　at　a
conclusion　now　universally　accepted　among　ourselvesI　mean；　that
all；　both　animals　and　plants；　have　had　a　common　ancestry；　and　that
hence　the　second　should　be　deemed　as　much　alive　as　the　first。　　He
contended；　therefore；　that　animals　and　plants　were　cousins；　and
would　have　been　seen　to　be　so；　all　along；　if　people　had　not　made　an
arbitrary　and　unreasonable　division　between　what　they　chose　to　call
the　animal　and　vegetable　kingdoms。

He　declared；　and　demonstrated　to　the　satisfaction　of　all　those　who
were　able　to　form　an　opinion　upon　the　subject；　that　there　is　no
difference　appreciable　either　by　the　eye；　or　by　any　other　test；
between　a　germ　that　will　develop　into　an　oak；　a　vine；　a　rose；　and
one　that　（given　its　accustomed　surroundings）　will　become　a　mouse；
an　elephant；　or　a　man。

He　contended　that　the　course　of　any　germ's　development　was　dictated
by　the　habits　of　the　germs　from　which　it　was　descended　and　of　whose
identity　it　had　once　formed　part。　　If　a　germ　found　itself　placed　as
the　germs　in　the　line　of　its　ancestry　were　placed；　it　would　do　as
its　ancestors　had　done；　and　grow　up　into　the　same　kind　of　organism
as　theirs。　　If　it　found　the　circumstances　only　a　little　different；
it　would　make　shift　（successfully　or　unsuccessfully）　to　modify　its
development　accordingly；　if　the　circumstances　were　widely
different；　it　would　die；　probably　without　an　effort　at　self…
adaptation。　　This；　he　argued；　applied　equally　to　the　germs　of
plants　and　of　animals。

He　therefore　connected　all；　both　animal　and　vegetable　development；
with　intelligence；　either　spent　and　now　unconscious；　or　still
unspent　and　conscious；　and　in　support　of　his　view　as　regards
vegetable　life；　he　pointed　to　the　way　in　which　all　plants　have
adapted　themselves　to　their　habitual　environment。　　Granting　that
vegetable　intelligence　at　first　sight　appears　to　differ　materially
from　animal；　yet；　he　urged；　it　is　like　it　in　the　one　essential　fact
that　though　it　has　evidently　busied　itself　about　matters　that　are
vital　to　the　well…being　of　the　organism　that　possesses　it；　it　has
never　shown　the　slightest　tendency　to　occupy　itself　with　anything
else。　　This；　he　insisted；　is　as　great　a　proof　of　intelligence　as
any　living　being　can　give。

〃Plants；〃　said　he；　〃show　no　sign　of　interesting　themselves　in　human
affairs。　　We　shall　never　get　a　rose　to　understand　that　five　times
seven　are　thirty…five；　and　there　is　no　use　in　talking　to　an　oak
about　fluctuations　in　the　price　of　stocks。　　Hence　we　say　that　the
oak　and　the　rose　are　unintelligent；　and　on　finding　that　they　do　not
understand　our　business　conclude　that　they　do　not　understand　their
own。　　But　what　can　a　creature　who　talks　in　this　way　know　about
intelligence？　　Which　shows　greater　signs　of　intelligence？　　He；　or
the　rose　and　oak？

〃And　when　we　call　plants　stupid　for　not　understanding　our　business；
how　capable　do　we　show　ourselves　of　understanding　theirs？　　Can　we
form　even　the　faintest　conception　of　the　way　in　which　a　seed　from　a
rose…tree　turns　earth；　air；　warmth　and　water　into　a　rose　full…
blown？　　Where　does　it　get　its　colour　from？　　From　the　earth；　air；
&c。？　　Yesbut　how？　　Those　petals　of　such　ineffable　texturethat
hue　that　outvies　the　cheek　of　a　childthat　scent　again？　　Look　at
earth；　air；　and　waterthese　are　all　the　raw　material　that　the　rose
has　got　to　work　with；　does　it　show　any　sign　of　want　of　intelligence
in　the　alchemy　with　which　it　turns　mud　into　rose…leaves？　　What
chemist　can　do　anything　comparable？　　Why　does　no　one　try？　　Simply
because　every　one　knows　that　no　human　intelligence　is　equal　to　the
task。　　We　give　it　up。　　It　is　the　rose's　department；　let　the　rose
attend　to　itand　be　dubbed　unintelligent　because　it　baffles　us　by
the　miracles　it　works；　and　the　unconcerned　business…like　way　in
which　it　works　them。

〃See　what　pains；　again；　plants　take　to　protect　themselves　against
their　enemies。　　They　scratch；　cut；　sting；　make　bad　smells；　secrete
the　most　dreadful　poisons　（which　Heaven　only　knows　how　they
contrive　to　make）；　cover　their　precious　seeds　with　spines　like
those　of　a　hedgehog；　frighten　insects　with　delicate　nervous　systems
by　assuming　portentous　shapes；　hide　themselves；　grow　in
inaccessible　places；　and　tell　lies　so　plausibly　as　to　deceive　even
their　subtlest　foes。

〃They　lay　traps　smeared　with　bird…lime；　to　catch　insects；　and
persuade　them　to　drown　themselves　in　pitchers　which　they　have　made
of　their　leaves；　and　fill　with　water；　others　make　themselves；　as　it
were；　into　living　rat…traps；　which　close　with　a　spring　on　any
insect　that　settles　upon　them；　others　make　their　flowers　into　the
shape　of　a　certain　fly　that　is　a　great　pillager　of　honey；　so　that
when　the　real　fly　comes　it　thinks　that　the　flowers　are　bespoke；　and
goes　on　elsewhere。　　Some　are　so　clever　as　even　to　overreach
themselves；　like　the　horse…radish；　which　gets　pulled　up　and　eaten
for　the　sake　of　that　pungency　with　which　it　protects　itself　against
underground　enemies。　　If；　on　the　other　hand；　they　think　that　any
insect　can　be　of　service　to　them；　see　how　pretty　they　make
themselves。

〃What　is　to　be　intelligent　if　to　know　how　to　do　what　one　wants　to
do；　and　to　do　it　repeatedly；　is　not　to　be　intelligent？　　Some　say
that　the　rose…seed　does　not　want　to　grow　into　a　rose…bush。　　Why；
then；　in　the　name　of　all　that　is　reasonable；　does　it　grow？　　Likely
enough　it　is　unaware　of　the　want　that　is　spurring　it　on　to　action。
We　have　no　reason　to　suppose　that　a　human　embryo　knows　that　it
wants　to　grow　into　a　baby；　or　a　baby　into　a　man。　　Nothing　ever
shows　signs　of　knowing　what　it　is　either　wanting　or　doing；　when　its
convictions　both　as　to　what　it　wants；　and　how　to　get　it；　have　been
settled　beyond　further　power　of　question。　　The　less　signs　living
creatures　give　of　knowing　what　they　do；　provided　they　do　it；　and　do
it　repeatedly　and　well；　the　greater　proof　they　give　that　in　reality
they　know　how　to　do　it；　and　have　done　it　already　on　an　infinite
number　of　past　occasions。

〃Some　one　may　say；〃　he　continued；　〃'What　do　you　mean　by　talking
about　an　infinite　number　of　past　occasions？　　When　did　a　rose…seed
make　itself　into　a　rose…bush　on　any　past　occasion？'

〃I　answer　this　question　with　another。　　'Did　the　rose…seed　ever　form
part　of　the　identity　of　the　rose…bush　on　which　it　grew？'　　Who　can
say　that　it　did　not？　　Again　I　ask：　　'Was　this　rose…bush　ever　linked
by　all　those　links　that　we　commonly　consider　as　constituting
personal　identity；　with　the　seed　from　which　it　in　its　turn　grew？'
Who　can　say　that　it　was　not？

〃Then；　if　rose…seed　number　two　is　a　continuation　of　the　personality
of　its　parent　rose…bush；　and　if　that　rose…bush　is　a　continuation　of
the　personality　of　the　rose…seed　from　which　it　sprang；　rose…seed
number　two　must　also　be　a　continuation　of　the　personality　of　the
earlier　rose…seed。　　And　this　rose…seed　must　be　a　continuation　of
the　personality　of　the　preceding　rose…seedand　so　back　and　back　ad
infinitum。　　Hence　it　is　impossible　to　deny　continued　personality
between　any　existing　rose…seed　and　the　earliest　seed　that　can　be
called　a　rose…seed　at　all。

〃The　answer；　then；　to　our　objector　is　not　far　to　seek。　　The　rose…
seed　did　what　it　now　does　in　the　persons　of　its　ancestorsto　whom
it　has　been　so　linked　as　to　be　able　to　remember　what　those
ancestors　did　when　they　were　placed　as　the　rose…seed　now　is。　　Each
stage　of　development　brings　back　the　recollection　of　the　course
taken　in　the　preceding　stage；　and　the　development　has　been　so　often
repeated；　that　all　doubtand　with　all　doubt；　all　consciousness　of
actionis　suspended。

〃But　an　objector　may　still　say；　'Granted　that　the　linking　between
all　successive　generations　has　been　so　close　and　unbroken；　that
each　one　of　them　may　be　conceived　as　able　to　remember　what　it　did
in　the　persons　of　its　ancestorshow　do　you　show　that　it　actually
did　remember？'

〃The　answer　is：　　'By　the　action　which　each　generation　takesan
action　which　repeats　all　the　phenomena　that　we　commonly　associate
with　memorywhich　is　explicable　on　the　supposition　that　it　has
been　guided　by　memoryand　which　has　neither　been　explained；　nor
seems　ever　likely　to　be　explained　on　any　other　theory　than　the
supposition　that　there　is　an　abiding　memory　between　successive
generations。'

〃Will　any　one　bring　an　example　of　any　living　creature　whose　action
we　can　understand；　performing　an　ineffably　difficult　and　intricate
action；　time　after　time；　with　invariable　success；　and　yet　not
knowing　how　to　do　it；　and　never　having　done　it　before？　　Show　me　the
example　and　I　will　say　no　more；　but　until　it　is　shown　me；　I　shall
credit　action　where　I　cannot　watch　it；　with　being　controlled　by　the
same　laws　as　when　it　is　within　our　ken。　　It　will　become　unconscious
as　soon　as　the　skill　that　directs　it　has　become　perfected。　　Neither
rose…seed；　therefore；　nor　embryo　should　be　expected　to　show　signs
of　knowing　that　they　know　what　they　knowif　they　showed　such　signs
the　fact　of　their　knowing　what　they　want；　and　how　to　get　it；　might
more　reasonably　be　doubted。〃

Some　of　the　passages　already　given　in　Chapter　XXIII　were　obviously
inspired　by　the　one　just　quoted。　　As　I　read　it；　in　a　reprint　shown
me　by　a　Professor　who　had　edited　much　of　the　early　literature　on
the　subject；　I　could　not　but　remember　the　one　in　which　our　Lord
tells　His　disciples　to　consider　the　lilies　of　th