PART I.

Reproduction may be divided into two main classes, namely, sexual and asexual. The latter is effected in many ways--by gemmation, that is by the formation of buds of various kinds, and by fissiparous generation, that is by spontaneous or artificial division. It is notorious that some of the lower animals, when cut into many pieces, reproduce so many perfect individuals: Lyonnet cut a Nais or freshwater worm into nearly forty pieces, and these all reproduced perfect animals.[874] It is probable that segmentation could be carried much further in some of the protozoa, and with some of the lowest plants each cell will reproduce the parent-form. Johannes Müller thought that there was an important distinction between gemmation and fission; for in the latter case the divided portion, however small, is more perfectly organised; but most physiologists are now convinced that the two processes are essentially alike.[875] Prof. Huxley remarks, "fission is little more than a peculiar {359} mode of budding," and Prof. H. J. Clark, who has especially attended to this subject, shows in detail that there is sometimes "a compromise between self-division and budding." When a limb is amputated, or when the whole body is bisected, the cut extremities are said to bud forth; and as the papilla, which is first formed, consists of undeveloped cellular tissue like that forming an ordinary bud, the expression is apparently correct. We see the connection of the two processes in another way; for Trembley observed that with the hydra the reproduction of the head after amputation was checked as soon as the animal began to bud.[876]

Between the production, by fissiparous generation, of two or more complete individuals, and the repair of even a very slight injury, we have, as remarked in a former chapter, so perfect and insensible a gradation, that it is impossible to doubt that they are connected processes. Between the power which repairs a trifling injury in any part, and the power which previously "was occupied in its maintenance by the continued mutation of its particles," there cannot be any great difference; and we may follow Mr. Paget in believing them to be the selfsame power. As at each stage of growth an amputated part is replaced by one in the same state of development, we must likewise follow Mr. Paget in admitting "that the powers of development from the embryo are identical with those exercised for the restoration from injuries: in other words, that the powers are the same by which perfection is first achieved, and by which, when lost, it is recovered."[877] Finally, we may conclude that the several forms of gemmation, and of fissiparous generation, the repair of injuries, the maintenance of each part in its proper state, and the growth or progressive development of the whole structure of the embryo, are all essentially the results of one and the same great power.

_Sexual Generation._--The union of the two sexual elements seems to make a broad distinction between sexual and asexual reproduction. But the well-ascertained cases of Parthenogenesis prove that the distinction is not really so great as it at first appears; for ovules occasionally, and even in some cases {360} frequently, become developed into perfect beings, without the concourse of the male element. J. Müller and others admit that ovules and buds have the same essential nature. Certain bodies, which during their early development cannot be distinguished by any external character from true ovules, nevertheless must be classed as buds, for though formed within the ovarium they are incapable of fertilisation. This is the case with the germ-balls of the Cecidomyide larvæ, as described by Leuckart.[878] Ovules and the male element, before they become united, have, like buds, an independent existence.[879] Both have the power of transmitting every single character possessed by the parent-form. We see this clearly when hybrids are paired _inter se_, for the characters of either grandparent often reappear, either perfectly or by segments, in the progeny. It is an error to suppose that the male transmits certain characters and the female other characters; though no doubt, from unknown causes, one sex sometimes has a stronger power of transmission than the other.

It has been maintained by some authors that a bud differs essentially from a fertilised germ, by always reproducing the perfect character of the parent-stock; whilst fertilised germs become developed into beings which differ, in a greater or less degree, from each other and from their parents. But there is no such broad distinction as this. In the eleventh chapter, numerous cases were given showing that buds occasionally grow into plants having new and strongly marked characters; and varieties thus produced can be propagated for a length of time by buds, and occasionally by seed. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that beings produced sexually are much more liable to vary than those produced asexually; and of this fact a partial explanation will hereafter be attempted. The variability in both cases is determined by the same general causes, and is governed by the same laws. Hence new varieties arising from buds cannot be distinguished from those arising from seed. Although bud-varieties usually retain their character during {361} successive bud-generations, yet they occasionally revert, even after a long series of bud-generations, to their former character. This tendency to reversion in buds is one of the most remarkable of the several points of agreement between the offspring from bud and seminal reproduction.

There is, however, one difference between beings produced sexually and asexually, which is very general. The former usually pass in the course of their development from a lower to a higher grade, as we see in the metamorphoses of insects and in the concealed metamorphoses of the vertebrata; but this passage from a lower to a higher grade cannot be considered as a necessary accompaniment of sexual reproduction, for hardly anything of the kind occurs in the development of Aphis amongst insects, or with certain crustaceans, cephalopods, or with any of the higher vascular plants. Animals propagated asexually by buds or fission are on the other hand never known to undergo a retrogressive metamorphosis; that is, they do not first sink to a lower, before passing on to their higher and final stage of development. But during the act of asexual production or subsequently to it, they often advance in organisation, as we see in the many cases of "alternate generation." In thus speaking of alternate generation, I follow those naturalists who look at the process as essentially one of internal budding or of fissiparous generation. Some of the lower plants, however, such as mosses and certain algæ, according to Dr. L. Radlkofer,[880] when propagated asexually, do undergo a retrogressive metamorphosis. We can to a certain extent understand, as far as the final cause is concerned, why beings propagated by buds should so rarely retrogress during development; for with each organism the structure acquired at each stage of development must be adapted to its peculiar habits. Now, with beings produced by gemmation,--and this, differently from sexual reproduction, may occur at any period of growth,--if there were places for the support of many individuals at some one stage of development, the simplest plan would be that they should be multiplied by gemmation at that stage, and not that they should first retrograde in their development to an earlier or simpler structure, which might not be fitted for the surrounding conditions.

{362}

From the several foregoing considerations we may conclude that the difference between sexual and asexual generation is not nearly so great as it at first appears; and we have already seen that there is the closest agreement between gemmation, fissiparous generation, the repair of injuries, and ordinary growth or development. The capacity of fertilisation by the male element seems to be the chief distinction between an ovule and a bud; and this capacity is not invariably brought into action, as in the cases of parthenogenetic reproduction. We are here naturally led to inquire what the final cause can be of the necessity in ordinary generation for the concourse of the two sexual elements.

Seeds and ova are often highly serviceable as the means of disseminating plants and animals, and of preserving them during one or more seasons in a dormant state; but unimpregnated seeds or ova, and detached buds, would be equally serviceable for both purposes. We can, however, indicate two important advantages gained by the concourse of the two sexes, or rather of two individuals belonging to opposite sexes; for, as I have shown in a former chapter, the structure of every organism appears to be especially adapted for the concurrence, at least occasionally, of two individuals. In nearly the same manner as it is admitted by naturalists that hybridism, from inducing sterility, is of service in keeping the forms of life distinct and fitted for their proper places; so, when species are rendered highly variable by changed conditions of life, the free intercrossing of the varying individuals will tend to keep each form fitted for its proper place in nature; and crossing can be effected only by sexual generation, but whether the end thus gained is of sufficient importance to account for the first origin of sexual intercourse is very doubtful. Secondly, I have shown, from the consideration of a large body of facts, that, as a slight change in the conditions of life is beneficial to each creature, so, in an analogous manner, is the change effected in the germ by sexual union with a distinct individual; and I have been led, from observing the many widely-extended provisions throughout nature for this purpose, and from the greater vigour of crossed organisms of all kinds, as proved by direct experiments, as well as from the evil effects of close interbreeding when long {363} continued, to believe that the advantage thus gained is very great. Besides these two important ends, there may, of course, be others, as yet unknown to us, gained by the concourse of the two sexes.

Why the germ, which before impregnation undergoes a certain amount of development, ceases to progress and perishes, unless it be acted on by the male element; and why conversely the male element, which is enabled to keep alive for even four or five years within the spermatheca of a female insect, likewise perishes, unless it acts on or unites with the germ, are questions which cannot be answered with any certainty. It is, however, possible that both sexual elements perish, unless brought into union, simply from including too little formative matter for independent existence and development; for certainly they do not in ordinary cases differ in their power of giving character to the embryo. This view of the importance of the quantity of formative matter seems probable from the following considerations. There is no reason to suspect that the spermatozoa or pollen-grains of the same individual animal or plant differ from each other; yet Quatrefages has shown in the case of the Teredo,[881] as did formerly Prevost and Dumas with other animals, that more than one spermatozoon is requisite to fertilise an ovule. This has likewise been clearly proved by Newport,[882] who adds the important fact, established by numerous experiments, that, when a very small number of spermatozoa are applied to the ova of Batrachians, they are only partially impregnated and the embryo is never fully developed: the first step, however, towards development, namely, the partial segmentation of the yelk, does occur to a greater or less extent, but is never completed up to granulation. The rate of the segmentation is likewise determined by the number of the spermatozoa. With respect to plants, nearly the same results were obtained by Kölreuter and Gärtner. This last careful observer found,[883] after making successive trials on a Malva with more and more pollen-grains, that even thirty grains did not fertilise a single seed; but when forty grains were applied to the {364} stigma, a few seeds of small size were formed. The pollen-grains of Mirabilis are extraordinarily large, and the ovarium contains only a single ovule; and these circumstances led Naudin[884] to make the following interesting experiments: a flower was fertilised by three grains and succeeded perfectly; twelve flowers were fertilised by two grains, and seventeen flowers by a single grain, and of these one flower alone in each lot perfected its seed; and it deserves especial notice that the plants produced by these two seeds never attained their proper dimensions, and bore flowers of remarkably small size. From these facts we clearly see that the quantity of the peculiar formative matter which is contained within the spermatozoa and pollen-grains is an all-important element in the act of fertilisation, not only in the full development of the seed, but in the vigour of the plant produced from such seed. We see something of the same kind in certain cases of parthenogenesis, that is, when the male element is wholly excluded; for M. Jourdan[885] found that, out of about 58,000 eggs laid by unimpregnated silk-moths, many passed through their early embryonic stages, showing that they were capable of self-development, but only twenty-nine out of the whole number produced caterpillars. Therefore it is not an improbable view that deficient bulk or quantity in the formative matter, contained within the sexual elements, is the main cause of their not having the capacity of prolonged separate existence and development. The belief that it is the function of the spermatozoa to communicate life to the ovule seems a strange one, seeing that the unimpregnated ovule is already alive and continues for a considerable time alive. We shall hereafter see that it is probable that the sexual elements, or possibly only the female element, include certain primordial cells, that is, such as have undergone no differentiation, and which are not present in an active state in buds.

_Graft-hybrids._--When discussing in the eleventh chapter the curious case of the _Cytisus adami_, facts were given which render it to a certain degree probable, in accordance with the belief of some distinguished botanists, that, when the tissues of two plants {365} belonging to distinct species or varieties are intimately united, buds are afterwards occasionally produced which, like hybrids, combine the characters of the two united forms. It is certain that when trees with variegated leaves are grafted or budded on a common stock, the latter sometimes produces buds bearing variegated leaves; but this may perhaps be looked at as a case of inoculated disease. Should it ever be proved that hybridised buds can be formed by the union of two distinct vegetative tissues, the essential identity of sexual and asexual reproduction would be shown in the most interesting manner; for the power of combining in the offspring the characters of both parents, is the most striking of all the functions of sexual generation.

_Direct Action of the Male Element on the Female._--In the chapter just referred to, I have given abundant proofs that foreign pollen occasionally affects the mother-plant in a direct manner. Thus, when Gallesio fertilised an orange-flower with pollen from the lemon, the fruit bore stripes of perfectly characterised lemon-peel: with peas, several observers have seen the colour of the seed-coats and even of the pod directly affected by the pollen of a distinct variety; so it has been with the fruit of the apple, which consists of the modified calyx and upper part of the flower-stalk. These parts in ordinary cases are wholly formed by the mother-plant. We here see the male element affecting and hybridising not that part which it is properly adapted to affect, namely the ovule, but the partially developed tissues of a distinct individual. We are thus brought half-way towards a graft-hybrid, in which the cellular tissue of one form, instead of its pollen, is believed to hybridise the tissues of a distinct form. I formerly assigned reasons for rejecting the belief that the mother-plant is affected through the intervention of the hybridised embryo; but even if this view were admitted, the case would become one of graft-hybridism, for the fertilised embryo and the mother-plant must be looked at as distinct individuals.

With animals which do not breed until nearly mature, and of which all the parts are then fully developed, it is hardly possible that the male element should directly affect the female. But we have the analogous and perfectly well-ascertained case of the male element of a distinct form, as with the {366} quagga and Lord Morton's mare, affecting the ovarium of the female, so that the ovules and offspring subsequently produced by her when impregnated by other males are plainly affected and hybridised by the first male.

_Development._--The fertilised germ reaches maturity by a vast number of changes: these are either slight and slowly effected, as when the child grows into the man, or are great and sudden, as with the metamorphoses of most insects. Between these extremes we have, even within the same class, every gradation: thus, as Sir J. Lubbock has shown,[886] there is an Ephemerous insect which moults above twenty times, undergoing each time a slight but decided change of structure; and these changes, as he further remarks, probably reveal to us the normal stages of development which are concealed and hurried through, or suppressed, in most other insects. In ordinary metamorphoses, the parts and organs appear to become changed into the corresponding parts in the next stage of development; but there is another form of development, which has been called by Professor Owen metagenesis. In this case "the new parts are not moulded upon the inner surface of the old ones. The plastic force has changed its course of operation. The outer case, and all that gave form and character to the precedent individual, perish and are cast off; they are not changed into the corresponding parts of the new individual. These are due to a new and distinct developmental process," &c.[887] Metamorphosis, however, graduates so insensibly into metagenesis, that the two processes cannot be distinctly separated. For instance, in the last change which Cirripedes undergo, the alimentary canal and some other organs are moulded on pre-existing parts; but the eyes of the old and the young animal are developed in entirely different parts of the body; the tips of the mature limbs are formed within the larval limbs, and may be said to be metamorphosed from them; but their basal portions and the whole thorax are developed in a plane actually at right angles to the limbs and thorax of the larva; and this {367} may be called metagenesis. The metagenetic process is carried to an extreme degree in the development of some Echinoderms, for the animal in the second stage of development is formed almost like a bud within the animal of the first stage, the latter being then cast off like an old vestment, yet sometimes still maintaining for a short period an independent vitality.[888]

If, instead of a single individual, several were to be thus developed metagenetically within a pre-existing form, the process would be called one of alternate generation. The young thus developed may either closely resemble the encasing parent-form, as with the larvæ of Cecidomyia, or may differ to an astonishing degree, as with many parasitic worms and with jelly-fishes; but this does not make any essential difference in the process, any more than the greatness or abruptness of the change in the metamorphoses of insects.

The whole question of development is of great importance for our present subject. When an organ, the eye for instance, is metagenetically formed in a part of the body where during the previous stage of development no eye existed, we must look at it as a new and independent growth. The absolute independence of new and old structures, which correspond in structure and function, is still more obvious when several individuals are formed within a previous encasing form, as in the cases of alternate generation. The same important principle probably comes largely into play even in the case of continuous growth, as we shall see when we consider the inheritance of modifications at corresponding ages.

We are led to the same conclusion, namely, the independence of parts successively developed, by another and quite distinct group of facts. It is well known that many animals belonging to the same class, and therefore not differing widely from each other, pass through an extremely different course of development. Thus certain beetles, not in any way remarkably different from others of the same order, undergo what has been called a hyper-metamorphosis--that is, they pass through an early stage wholly different from the ordinary grub-like larva. In the same sub-order of crabs, namely, the Macroura, as Fritz {368} Müller remarks, the river cray-fish is hatched under the same form which it ever afterwards retains; the young lobster has divided legs, like a Mysis; the Palæmon appears under the form of a Zoea, and Peneus under the Nauplius-form; and how wonderfully these larval forms differ from each other, is known to every naturalist.[889] Some other crustaceans, as the same author observes, start from the same point and arrive at nearly the same end, but in the middle of their development are widely different from each other. Still more striking cases could be given with respect to the Echinodermata. With the Medusæ or jelly-fishes Professor Allman observes, "the classification of the Hydroida would be a comparatively simple task if, as has been erroneously asserted, generically-identical medusoids always arose from generically-identical polypoids; and on the other hand, that generically-identical polypoids always gave origin to generically-identical medusoids." So, again, Dr. Strethill Wright remarks, "in the life-history of the Hydroidæ any phase, planuloid, polypoid, or medusoid, may be absent."[890]

According to the belief now generally accepted by our best naturalists, all the members of the same order or class, the Macrourous crustaceans for instance, are descended from a common progenitor. During their descent they have diverged much in structure, but have retained much in common; and this divergence and retention of character has been effected, though they have passed and still pass through marvellously different metamorphoses. This fact well illustrates how independent each structure must be from that which precedes and follows it in the course of development.

_The Functional Independence of the Elements or Units of the Body._--Physiologists agree that the whole organism consists of a multitude of elemental parts, which are to a great extent independent of each other. Each organ, says Claude Bernard,[891] {369} has its proper life, its autonomy; it can develop and reproduce itself independently of the adjoining tissues. The great German authority, Virchow,[892] asserts still more emphatically that each system, as the nervous or osseous system, or the blood, consists of an "enormous mass of minute centres of action.... Every element has its own special action, and even though it derive its stimulus to activity from other parts, yet alone effects the actual performance of its duties.... Every single epithelial and muscular fibre-cell leads a sort of parasitical existence in relation to the rest of the body.... Every single bone-corpuscle really possesses conditions of nutrition peculiar to itself." Each element, as Mr. Paget remarks, lives its appointed time, and then dies, and, after being cast off or absorbed, is replaced.[893] I presume that no physiologist doubts that, for instance, each bone-corpuscle of the finger differs from the corresponding corpuscle in the corresponding joint of the toe; and there can hardly be a doubt that even those on the corresponding sides of the body differ, though almost identical in nature. This near approach to identity is curiously shown in many diseases in which the same exact points on the right and left sides of the body are similarly affected; thus Mr. Paget[894] gives a drawing of a diseased pelvis, in which the bone has grown into a most complicated pattern, but "there is not one spot or line on one side which is not represented, as exactly as it would be in a mirror, on the other."

Many facts support this view of the independent life of each minute element of the body. Virchow insists that a single bone-corpuscle or a single cell in the skin may become diseased. The spur of a cock, after being inserted into the eye of an ox, lived for eight years, and acquired a weight of 306 grammes, or nearly fourteen ounces.[895] The tail of a pig has been grafted into the middle of its back, and reacquired sensibility. Dr. Ollier[896] inserted a piece of periosteum from the bone of a young dog under the skin of a rabbit, and true bone was developed. A multitude of similar facts could be given. The {370} frequent presence of hairs and of perfectly developed teeth, even teeth of the second dentition, in ovarian tumours,[897] are facts leading to the same conclusion.

Whether each of the innumerable autonomous elements of the body is a cell or the modified product of a cell, is a more doubtful question, even if so wide a definition be given to the term, as to include cell-like bodies without walls and without nuclei.[898] Professor Lionel Beale uses the term "germinal matter" for the contents of cells, taken in this wide acceptation, and he draws a broad distinction between germinal matter and "formed material" or the various products of cells.[899] But the doctrine of _omnis cellula e cellulâ_ is admitted for plants, and is a widely prevalent belief with respect to animals.[900] Thus Virchow, the great supporter of the cellular theory, whilst allowing that difficulties exist, maintains that every atom of tissue is derived from cells, and these from pre-existing cells, and these primarily from the egg, which he regards as a great cell. That cells, still retaining the same nature, increase by self-division or proliferation, is admitted by almost every one. But when an organism undergoes a great change of structure during development, the cells, which at each stage are supposed to be directly derived from previously-existing cells, must likewise be greatly changed in nature; this change is apparently attributed by the supporters of the cellular doctrine to some inherent power which the cells possess, and not to any external agency.

Another school maintains that cells and tissues of all kinds may be formed, independently of pre-existing cells, from plastic lymph or blastema; and this it is thought is well exhibited in the repair of wounds. As I have not especially attended to histology, it would be presumptuous in me to express an opinion on the two opposed doctrines. But every one appears to admit that the body consists of a multitude of "organic units,"[901] {371} each of which possesses its own proper attributes, and is to a certain extent independent of all others. Hence it will be convenient to use indifferently the terms cells or organic units or simply units.

_Variability and Inheritance._--We have seen in the twenty-second chapter that variability is not a principle co-ordinate with life or reproduction, but results from special causes, generally from changed conditions acting during successive generations. Part of the fluctuating variability thus induced is apparently due to the sexual system being easily affected by changed conditions, so that it is often rendered impotent; and when not so seriously affected, it often fails in its proper function of transmitting truly the characters of the parents to the offspring. But variability is not necessarily connected with the sexual system, as we see from the cases of bud-variation; and although we may not be able to trace the nature of the connexion, it is probable that many deviations of structure which appear in sexual offspring result from changed conditions acting directly on the organisation, independently of the reproductive organs. In some instances we may feel sure of this, when all, or nearly all the individuals which have been similarly exposed are similarly and definitely affected--as in the dwarfed and otherwise changed maize brought from hot countries when cultivated in Germany; in the change of the fleece in sheep within the tropics; to a certain extent in the increased size and early maturity of our highly-improved domesticated animals; in inherited gout from intemperance; and in many other such cases. Now, as such changed conditions do not especially affect the reproductive organs, it seems mysterious on any ordinary view why their product, the new organic being, should be similarly affected.

How, again, can we explain to ourselves the inherited effects of the use or disuse of particular organs? The domesticated duck flies less and walks more than the wild duck, and its limb-bones have become in a corresponding manner diminished and increased in comparison with those of the wild duck. A horse is trained to certain paces, and the colt inherits similar consensual movements. The domesticated rabbit becomes tame from close confinement; the dog intelligent from associating with man; the retriever is taught to fetch and carry: and these {372} mental endowments and bodily powers are all inherited. Nothing in the whole circuit of physiology is more wonderful. How can the use or disuse of a particular limb or of the brain affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells, seated in a distant part of the body, in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the characters of either one or both parents? Even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory.

Sexual reproduction does not essentially differ, as we have seen, from budding or self-division, and these processes graduate through the repair of injuries into ordinary development and growth; it might therefore be expected that every character would be as regularly transmitted by all the methods of reproduction as by continued growth. In the chapters devoted to inheritance it was shown that a multitude of newly-acquired characters, whether injurious or beneficial, whether of the lowest or highest vital importance, are often faithfully transmitted--frequently even when one parent alone possesses some new peculiarity. It deserves especial attention that characters appearing at any age tend to reappear at a corresponding age. We may on the whole conclude that in all cases inheritance is the rule, and non-inheritance the anomaly. In some instances a character is not inherited, from the conditions of life being directly opposed to its development; in many instances, from the conditions incessantly inducing fresh variability, as with grafted fruit-trees and highly cultivated flowers. In the remaining cases the failure may be attributed to reversion, by which the child resembles its grandparents or more remote progenitors, instead of its parents.

This principle of Reversion is the most wonderful of all the attributes of Inheritance. It proves to us that the transmission of a character and its development, which ordinarily go together and thus escape discrimination, are distinct powers; and these powers in some cases are even antagonistic, for each acts alternately in successive generations. Reversion is not a rare event, depending on some unusual or favourable combination of circumstances, but occurs so regularly with crossed animals and plants, and so frequently with uncrossed breeds, that it is evidently an essential part of the principle of inheritance. We know that {373} changed conditions have the power of evoking long-lost characters, as in the case of some feral animals. The act of crossing in itself possesses this power in a high degree. What can be more wonderful than that characters, which have disappeared during scores, or hundreds, or even thousands of generations, should suddenly reappear perfectly developed, as in the case of pigeons and fowls when purely bred, and especially when crossed; or as with the zebrine stripes on dun-coloured horses, and other such cases? Many monstrosities come under this same head, as when rudimentary organs are redeveloped, or when an organ which we must believe was possessed by an early progenitor, but of which not even a rudiment is left, suddenly reappears, as with the fifth stamen in some Scrophulariaceæ. We have already seen that reversion acts in bud-reproduction; and we know that it occasionally acts during the growth of the same individual animal, especially, but not exclusively, when of crossed parentage,--as in the rare cases described of individual fowls, pigeons, cattle, and rabbits, which have reverted as they advanced in years to the colours of one of their parents or ancestors.

We are led to believe, as formerly explained, that every character which occasionally reappears is present in a latent form in each generation, in nearly the same manner as in male and female animals secondary characters of the opposite sex lie latent, ready to be evolved when the reproductive organs are injured. This comparison of the secondary sexual characters which are latent in both sexes, with other latent characters, is the more appropriate from the case recorded of the Hen, which assumed some of the masculine characters, not of her own race, but of an early progenitor; she thus exhibited at the same time the redevelopment of latent characters of both kinds and connected both classes. In every living creature we may feel assured that a host of lost characters lie ready to be evolved under proper conditions. How can we make intelligible, and connect with other facts, this wonderful and common capacity of reversion,--this power of calling back to life long-lost characters? {374}