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！
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 whe