and modified to meet special requirements. Not that this Archetypal Vertebra or Skeleton has an actual, objective existence in the world of matter: it is conceived to be the Primal, Ideal Form, from which every actual vertebra and skeleton is a figuration. And this Ideal Form or Archetype, as is evident from a glance at Owen's diagrams, is common to the skeleton of the Fish, the Reptile, the Bird, and the Mammal. Yet the modifications of the Archetypal Vertebra, to meet the distinct needs of different animals, are endlessly varied. How different, e. g., are the fins of fishes, the wings of birds, the forelimbs of quadrupeds, the arms of man! Nevertheless, they are homologues, i. e., the same structural organ under a variety of figures. According to Sir Charles Bell, "the bat's wing is a highly-organized hand." The horse has one finger, the ox two, the rhinoceros three, the hippopotamus four, the elephant five. And the Vertebral Idea is common to them all. And it is true of the entire skeleton of each. It is asserted that ninety per cent. of the bones of the human skeleton have their namesakes or homologues in the skeletons of all vertebrates. That is to say: the Archetypal Form is one; the figurations are practically countless. And it has been so from the beginning, when the first Ganoid darted in the Silurian Sea. The Archetypal Vertebra has been the ideal, initial, potential, invariable, common Form; the actual bone has been a modified, specialized, telic figuration.

From Man.

Our last illustration we take from the realm of Man.

The Ideas of Space and Time and Cause; the axioms. of Geometry and Mechanics and Psychology; the Ethical Intuitions; the unconscious, automatic Formulas of Life: what are these but Archetypal Ideas or Forms? All

thought and sentiment and purpose crystallize, or rather move, about a few axiomatic axes. Axioms are, so to speak, the Archetypal Vertebræ of all thinking and feeling and willing and acting. What simplicity of Plan! What infinitude of detail!

Profundity of Ancient Utterances.

I have thus endeavored to show, by specimen illustrations, that all creation is modeled after a few simple Plans. How significant, in light of this Doctrine, are some of the utterances of antiquity! E. g., of Bacon, when he said: "Forms are the True Objects of Knowledge." Of the Mediæval Realists, when they affirmed: "The Class exists. before the Individual." Of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he wrote: "Through faith we perceive that the world was framed by the Word of God; so that not from the things which appear was made that which is seen : that is to say, the visible world is modeled after an invisible. Of Aristotle, when he asserted: "Forms are as necessary to the Universe as Matter." Of Plato, when he declared: "God is the Maker of Forms." Of David, when he sang: "My form was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, was curiously wrought in the depths of the earth: Thine eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Thy book were all my members written; day by day were they fashioned, when there was none of them."

وو

Archetypes the Ba

sis of Classification.

And we may bless the Creator that He was pleased to construct the universe after a few, simple Plans. For it is the fact that there are Archetypal Forms which makes scientific classification possible. There are two methods of classification: the artificial, which groups according to incidentals; and the natural, which groups according to

essentials. It is the figure which is incidental; it is the Form which is essential. The Archetypal Form is common to an indefinite, practically infinite number of figures, and so is the characteristic of each. In fact, Type and Character, TÚTos and xарактýр, are synonymous, meaning impress, mark, sign, and so characteristic. Accordingly, it is the recognition of the Archetypal Form which is the basis of a natural, scientific, true classification. Precisely because Cuvier was dominated by the Idea of a Vertebra, he was able to group Fish and Reptile and Bird and Mammal into one class—the Vertebrate. Without Archetypal Forms, men might have known heterogeneous multa, but not homogeneous multum. With Archetypal Forms, men, not knowing multa, yet may know multum. For Archetypal Forms assort and label classes; and classes may comprise countless individuals. The Final Cause of Archetypes, then, so far as man is concerned, is to make possible for him classification, generalization, induction, science: a knowledge of generals, ever growing more and more inclusive. Archetypes, therefore, are themselves telic. They are for man's help, and so, through man's help, for God's glory.

Variations from Archetypes Telic.

In treating our Thesis, I have had repeated occasion to allude to the fact that departures from Archetypal Forms are telic that is to say, with view to special exigencies. In fact, the subject of this Lecture is Archetypal Forms and Telic Figurations. Let me, then, briefly discuss the doctrine of Telic Adjustments. In doing this, let me draw my first illustration from the Vegetable World. Let us start with a plant at its germination. The first thing which the embryo needs is nourishment. This is provided in the cotyledons or seed-leaves, which inclose the embryo,

and which usually form the chief bulk of the seed, as in the pea, almond, acorn, etc. The leaf-figure of these cotyledons is often very marked: e. g., the bean. In fact, we call them seed-leaves. Thus the cotyledon is the Archetypal Leaf modified for purposes of embryonic nourishment: it has become a nursing leaf. But now our plant is above-ground. Yet it still needs nourishment, though of a different kind and on a larger scale; it needs air, light, warmth, moisture, etc. And for these purposes the stem-leaves, or leaves in the common use of the term, are a perfect contrivance. Observe how their arrangement follows the law of the Spiral: an arrangement which allows the largest exposure of leaf-surface: e. g., the famous Washington Elm at Cambridge, averaging an annual production of 700,000,000 leaves, exposes, as a result of the Spiral arrangement, 200,000 square feet, or about five acres, of foliage. Thus aërial leaves are deviations from the Archetypal Leaf for purposes of nourishment by exposure to air, light, and wet. But our growing plant must not be selfish, living for itself alone: it must provide for successors-it must be parental. Observe how this is effected. Contract the distance between the leaves as spirally arranged along the stem, by shortening their common axis, and you bring these leaves together into substantially the same plane, so that they appear as a series of concentric rings or whorls: that is to say-a flower. And the flower is the reproductive apparatus. Yet its various parts are but modifications of the Archetypal Leaf. Even an unprofessional calls sepals and petals flower-leaves. Thus floral leaves are variations of the Archetypal Leaf for purposes of reproduction. And so every part of a plant, bark, bract, tendril, spine, pitcher, fly-trap, scale, etc., is a modification of the Archetypal Leaf for some specific end,

e. g., nourishment, protection, climbing, etc. Again: Let me illustrate from Vertebrate Anatomy. The Archetype, or Fundamental Form, is the Vertebra. This Fundamental Form may be modified for a thousand different and special ends, e. g., for purposes of swimming, creeping, burrowing, climbing, walking, flying, grasping, supporting, hearing, masticating, etc., etc. It was this fact of telic modification, or adjustment to specific ends, which furnished Cuvier with that master principle by which he was enabled to reconstruct in such large and wonderful measure the Pre-Adamite world. A fossil bone was brought before him; he observed its shape and processes; he asked what these things meant; the answer was the reconstructed animal. In brief: the doctrine of Final Causes was the key to his magnificent success. And here it was that he came into collision with St.-Hilaire. M. Soret, in his "Supplement to Eckermann's Conversations with Goethe," tells a story quite in point:

Monday, August 1, 1830.-The news of the Revolution of July reached Weimar to-day, and set every one in commotion. I went in the course of the afternoon to Goethe. 'Now,' exclaimed he, as I entered, 'what do you think of this great event? The volcano has come to an eruption: everything is in flames!' 'A frightful story,' I answered; ‘but what could be expected otherwise under such notoriously bad circumstances, and with such a ministry, than that the whole would end in the expulsion of the royal family?' 'We do not appear to understand each other, my good friend,' said Goethe: 'I am not speaking of those people, but of something quite different; I am speaking of the contest, so important for Science, between Cuvier and Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, which has come to an open rupture in the Academy.'

No wonder that Eckermann was astonished; yet he ought not to have been. The battle between St.-Hilaire

1 Lewes's "Life of Goethe," vol. ii., pp. 442, 443.