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 the field； who
neither toil nor spin； but whose raiment surpasses even that of
Solomon in all his glory。
〃They toil not； neither do they spin？〃 Is that so？ 〃Toil not？〃
Perhaps not； now that the method of procedure is so well known as
to admit of no further questionbut it is not likely that lilies
came to make themselves so beautifully without having ever taken
any pains about the matter。 〃Neither do they spin？〃 Not with a
spinning…wheel； but is there no textile fabric in a leaf？
What would the lilies of the field say if they heard one of us
declaring that they neither toil nor spin？ They would say； I take
it； much what we should if we were to hear of their preaching
humility on the text of Solomons； and saying； 〃Consider the
Solomons in all their glory； they toil not neither do they spin。〃
We should say that the lilies were talking about things that they
did not understand； and that though the Solomons do not toil nor
spin； yet there had been no lack of either toiling or spinning
before they came to be arrayed so gorgeously。
Let me now return to the Professor。 I have said enough to show the
general drift of the arguments on which he relied in order to show
that vegetables are only animals under another name； but have not
stated his case in anything like the fullness with which he laid it
before the public。 The conclusion he drew； or pretended to draw；
was that if it was sinful to kill and eat animals； it was not less
sinful to do the like by vegetables； or their seeds。 None such； he
said； should be eaten； save what had died a natural death； such as
fruit that was lying on the ground and about to rot； or cabbage…
leaves that had turned yellow in late autumn。 These and other like
garbage he declared to be the only food that might be eaten with a
clear conscience。 Even so the eater must plant the pips of any
apples or pears that he may have eaten； or any plum…stones； cherry…
stones； and the like； or he would come near to incurring the guilt
of infanticide。 T