reproduction. Yet it is now generally acknowledged that the carpels of the fertilized pistil, the stamina, the anthers even of the stamina, are mere modified leaves. As to the two latter, any one can convince himself of the fact by examining a double flower, where he will often find stamina with their anthers in course of transformation into petals. To come to the fruit,-a term that is not a little indefinite, since (as in the instance of the strawberry, whose so-called fruit is the lengthened receptacle that envelopes the real fruits) it often embraces some other part of the flower that becomes incorporated with the ripened pistil:-let us take an apricot as an instance. Its outer skin is the exocarp; its pulpy part, the mesocarp; and its stone, the endocarp, of the carpel. Within the last lies the seed. Thus it becomes quite clear that this fruit is a carpel; and a carpel is only a folded leaf, as any one can see in a pea-pod with its mid-rib and the seam where the two edges of the leaf have joined. Thus, then, on the one hand, there is no such difference between the leaf and fruit of a plant as to require that distinction of function which Suarez supposes; on the other hand, the striking unity of organism tells strongly in favour of the indivisibility of the plant-Form.

DECLARATION OF THE PROPOSITION.

There are certain facts connected with the reproduction of plants and of some inferior animals, which seem to militate against the doctrine touching bodily Forms that has been maintained in preceding Theses. The facts are these. Plants are propagated by slips; that is to say, a certain part is cut off from the parent plant and fixed in the earth, where it gradually developes into an independent plant animated by its own individual Form. Again: Flowers plucked from the stem may live in water for days. Once more: In the lower grades of animal life, corals, for instance, are reproduced by gemmation or by fission,-in simpler phrase, by buds which under the form of embryos separate off from the parent animal, or by the severance of a completely organized offspring from its parent,-in both cases, independently of the ordinary immediate generative process. Reference has been already made in the first Prolegomenon of the preceding Thesis to the peculiar method of reproduction observable in a certain Order of Annelids, called Naïdidae. Professor Mivart mentions a further curious fact in the instance of the Syllis, another of the Annelids, where a

new head is formed at intervals in certain segments of the body' without previous budding or spontaneous severance; evidently showing an innate tendency to the development at intervals of a complex whole.' He further tells us, that some other Annelids' exhibit the same tendency 1. In another place he adds, that this remarkable phenomenon is repeated again and again, the body of the worm thus multiplying serially into new individuals which successively detach themselves from the older portion 2.' The facts connected with the class of hydrozoa are still more interesting. The hydra, we are told, is capable of indefinite multiplication by simply dividing it into pieces. 'Into however many pieces a Hydra may be divided, each and all of these will be developed gradually into a new and perfect polypite,'-that is to say, into a separate animal. But further: A great number of hydrozoa produce by budding or simple severance two distinct sets of their own species, --the one set destined only for the nutrition of the colony, the other exclusively for reproduction; though each individual of each set has its own powers of nutrition and locomotion, and is physically independent of his neighbour 3.

These physical facts give birth to two questions; one of which regards the parent substance that has been severed, and the other embraces the severed part or parts that acquire an independent existence. Wherefore,

i. It may be asked: How can it be explained on metaphysical principles, that a living substance can preserve its original integrity

1 Genesis of Species, ch. viii, p. 169.

2 Ibid. ch. x, p. 211.

3 Nicholson's Manual of Zoology, part i, chapters vii, viii, pp. 80, 78. Dr. Nicholson denies that these animals are individuals in a zoological sense; because the term "individual" in its zoological sense must be restricted to "the entire result of the development of a single fertilized ovum,"—that is, egg. (p. 77). This arbitrary definition is not a little perplexing to the metaphysician; since it denies individuality to living entities that possess all the characteristic notes of individuation. This author observes that neither the trophosome nor the gonosome' (the two classes referred to in the text), however apparently independent, and though endowed with intrinsic powers of nutrition and locomotion, can be looked upon as an "individual" in the scientific use of this term.' Why not? Because they are not derived from an egg. Then, if we assume the truth of the creation of Adam and Eve, neither Adam nor Eve was a zoological individual. On the like grounds the botanist must deny that any plants derived from slips are individuals; since they do not spring from seed. It is to be hoped, then, that Dr. Nicholson will excuse the following alteration in his last sentence: The entity in question cannot be looked upon as an individual according to the vocabulary of modern zoology; though scientifically, i.e. metaphysically, it must be so regarded.'

after having endured a serious diminution of its original organized body; seeing that in the higher grades of life it would be impossible to incur a parallel loss without at least impairing the exercise of, and often without even destroying, its vital functions? The answer to this difficulty is as follows. It has, first of all, to be remarked that, looking at the Form exclusively as it is in its own. partial entity, any diminution of the body which such Form actuates can make no difference, as may be seen in inanimate bodies. For, since the Form is in itself simple and unextended, quantitative division of the matter that it informs cannot touch it. It is, indeed, affected presentially. But how? The limits of its presence in space are contracted,--that is all; but its entire unpartitioned presence is not weakened by smallness or extent of quantity. The difficulty only begins, when we consider the Form functionally; since it postulates organs and parts proportionate to the nature and number of its faculties. If a purely material Form, it ceases to be, should it be absolutely deprived of its natural operations. Why? Because it ceases to be a proportionate act of matter; and in these circumstances a disruption, so to say, is inevitable. In other words, such Form no longer corresponds with the dispositions of the matter, and is compelled to make way for another more convenient Form. Hence it follows, as a sort of corollary, that by how much the faculties of the Form are more numerous and complex and, in consequence, the bodily organs are also more numerous and differentiated and locally distinguished; by so much will any severance in the body imperil the due functioning of the Form, and thus indispose the matter for its retention. But, in those instances of plants and of lower animals, wherein the faculties are few and simple with a corresponding organism; the living Form can fully energize with the portion of the body left to it. Thus, for instance, the structure of a worm is so simple and its organs so few and diffused over the body, that the animal's natural functions would hardly be disturbed by the loss of some of its rings.

ii. The second question is: How according to the philosophy of the School can it be explained, that the part severed from the parent-substance can acquire a new and independent life? While in union with the parent-substance, it was evidently informed by the substantial Form of the latter; subsequently to its separation it as evidently possesses a Form of its own. This seems at first sight

to confirm the idea, that the Form after all is capable of division with the division of the quantified matter. St. Thomas, as we shall see, leaves the question more or less in doubt. Wherefore, the opinion may be safely expressed, that probably in most cases a new substantial Form is evolved out of the separated body; and that the parent-Form with its accompanying properties supplies the place of that active fertilization by which the matter is proximately disposed for its proportioned organism. But here arises a difficulty. For the above explanation seems to do away with the necessity of a generating agent in all cases of living bodies; since in the way mentioned each could propagate itself by parting with a portion of its body and proximately disposing the portion for the evolution of a cognate Form. The answer to the difficulty rests on the same foundation as the answer given to the former question, and is embodied in the Enunciation of the Thesis. The original generating agent in the production of the parent-substance can communicate such virtue to the Form of the generated substance, that this latter can generate without normal generation, when the specific functions are few, the organism simple and distributed, -or better, diffused. The reason is plain. The separated portion of matter shares in the diffused organism, and is thus in proximate preparation for the eduction of its Form. The Form will supply the little that is wanting simultaneously with its eduction. But with a complex and multifarious organism the case is very different. It takes but little to supply the acranial head and the tail of a worm; but it would require a far more elaborate process to develope eyes, ears, nose, a vertebrate structure, heart, lungs, etc., out of the hoof of an ox.

In the instance of plant-slips the case seems plain; for corruption takes place prior to the eduction of the Form and the concomitant evolution of the root. The same may be said of animal reproduction by budding. Nor is there anything in the facts connected with the multiplication of the Hydra, which stands in the way of such an explanation; though these facts, on the other hand, of themselves, tell nothing in its favour. But that which is wanting to them is supplied by the homologous phenomena presented by the naïs and syllis; for in their case new heads and new tails are developed either immediately before or after complete separation. The case of the plucked flowers presents the only real difficulty. But here, however the phenomena of apparent life are to be

explained, it would seem certain that there is no real plant-Form in them, for they exhibit neither of the characteristic, or essential, functions of a plant,-to wit, growth and capability of reproduction. Even, however, if it should be necessary to admit that in one or other of these instances the Form is multiplied by the division of the body, (which is by no means granted); such an opinion would not seem to postulate that the Form should be capable of quantitative totality. On the contrary, the new Form, though coming from the old, would not be a quantitative part of it; since its nature or entity is in no respect less than that of the old Form previous to the separation, and a quantitative part could never be equal to the whole. How, then, is the multiplication to be explained? Perhaps in this wise. The original Form was wholly in the body that it informed and in every part of that body; but presentially limited by the one continuous periphery of the body. When the body is divided, there are two peripheries instead of one; and the Form is multiplied simply by virtue of the perseverance of its presence in the two. The body was one, the act was one; the body becomes two, the act becomes two.

NOTE.

The budding and grafting, so well known to gardeners, present no real difficulty; for there is no substantial plant-Form in the bud or scion after separation from the parent-stock, but only those natural dispositions of the matter under the provisional Form, which, after the union of the bud or scion with the substantial Form of the new stock, cause those modifications in the natural operation of the latter, that produce the varieties required. A sign of this is, that beneath the inserted scion or bud the primitive action of the Form is undisturbed.

PROPOSITION CCXV.

The teaching of St. Thomas confirms the truth of the
preceding Theses.

DECLARATION OF THE PROPOSITION.

St. Thomas declares that 'It is the composite' in material substance which has diverse parts. Hence, diversity of parts does not belong to the matter or to the Form, but to the composite 1.'

Compositum autem dicitur quod habet diversas partes. Unde diversitas partium non est materiae, nec formae, sed compositi.' Opusc. XXII (aliter XXVIII), co 5, init.