The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution 1st

Edition J. Arvid Ågren

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-genes-eye-view-of-evolution-1st-edition-j-arvid-ag
ren/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Toward a Cosmopolitan Ethics of Mobility: The

Migrant's-Eye View of the World 1st Edition Alex Sager
(Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/toward-a-cosmopolitan-ethics-of-
mobility-the-migrants-eye-view-of-the-world-1st-edition-alex-
sager-auth/

The evolution and history of gene editing technologies

Shubhchintan Randhawa & Shatakshi Sengar

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-evolution-and-history-of-gene-
editing-technologies-shubhchintan-randhawa-shatakshi-sengar/

The Final Rewrite. How to View Your Screenplay with a

Film Editor’s Eye John Rosenberg

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-final-rewrite-how-to-view-your-
screenplay-with-a-film-editors-eye-john-rosenberg/

The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary Illustrated

Manual of Ophthalmology 5th Edition Neil J. Friedman

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-massachusetts-eye-and-ear-
infirmary-illustrated-manual-of-ophthalmology-5th-edition-neil-j-
friedman/
Critics Of Enlightenment Rationalism 1st Edition
Edition Gene Callahan

https://ebookmass.com/product/critics-of-enlightenment-
rationalism-1st-edition-edition-gene-callahan/

Molecular Biology of the Gene (7th Edition ) 7th

Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/molecular-biology-of-the-gene-7th-
edition-7th-edition/

Parsons' Diseases of the Eye 23rd Edition Radhika

Tandon

https://ebookmass.com/product/parsons-diseases-of-the-eye-23rd-
edition-radhika-tandon/

Molecular Biology of the Gene 7th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/molecular-biology-of-the-gene-7th-
edition-ebook-pdf/

Biogeography: An Integrative Approach of the Evolution

of Living Eric Guilbert

https://ebookmass.com/product/biogeography-an-integrative-
approach-of-the-evolution-of-living-eric-guilbert/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

TH E GEN E’S -­E Y E VI EW

OF EVOLUTION
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

Praise for The Gene’s-Eye View of Evolution:

‘Arvid Ågren has undertaken the most meticulously thorough
reading of the relevant literature that I have ever encountered. And he
deploys an intelligent understanding to pull it into a coherent story.
As if that wasn’t enough, he gets it right.’ -Richard Dawkins
‘The idea of the selfish gene revolutionised evolutionary thinking
and led to many new insights. But from the outset, it received strong
criticism, not all of it baseless. In the first dedicated book on the topic,
Arvid Ågren expertly sets out the power and nuances of the selfish
gene concept. At times taking sides, at others leaving history to decide,
he is always perceptive, scholarly, balanced, and good natured.
Interwoven with asides on the principal players, this fine book suc-
ceeds in being both enlightening and engaging.’ -Andrew Bourke,
Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of East Anglia, UK
‘Since its inception in the 1970s, the “gene’s eye view of evolution”
has been a controversial idea in evolutionary biology. In this lucid and
scholarly book, Arvid Ågren provides a masterful treatment of the
intricate and often confusing debates over the value and limitations of
the gene’s eye view. I highly recommend his book to anyone seeking
a deeper understanding of this important issue.’ -Samir Okasha,
Professor of Philosophy of Science, University of Bristol, UK
‘This book’s conversational style, clear presentation and well-
planted surprises make it ideal for both general readers and students
in a broad range of fields. The selfish gene is alive and well and con-
tinues to inspire and irritate, which is why we see gene level argu-
ments of fans and critics alike in past and present debates. Best of all,
as we follow the gene’s eye view around in Agren’s book, we find
ourselves educated about current views in exciting subfields-from
evolutionary systems theory to Major Transitions and Selfish Genetic
Elements- and rewarded with a treasure trove of references.’ -Ullica
Segerstrale, Professor of Sociology, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, USA
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

‘Science needs ingenious points-­of-­view that help us understand

the world. Few perspectives are more famous—or notorious—than
that of the selfish gene. Merging biology and history of science, Ågren
unravels its origins, explains why it is useful, and when its utility has
been overstretched. Whether you’re a fan or a critic, this is an essential
guide to the gene’s eye view.’ -Tobias Uller, Professor of Evolutionary
Biology, Department of Biology, Lund University, Sweden
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

TH E
GENE’S -­E Y E
V I EW OF
EVOLUTION

by
J. A RV I D ÅGR E N
Wenner-Gren Fellow
Department of Organismic and
Evolutionary Biology
Harvard University

1
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 04/06/21, SPi

1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© J. Arvid Ågren 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021931952
ISBN 978–0–19–886226–0
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198862260.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

For
my father, the biologist
and
my mother, the cultural historian
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

Preface

One of my biggest embarrassments in life is that I am such a poor

naturalist. My botanical skills are distinctly average and my ornitho-
logical knowledge is downright appalling. Rather than a love of natural
history, what attracted me to biology was a fascination with the logic
of the theory of evolution by natural selection. No other theory
explains so much with so little. It is truly deserving of the title of ‘the
single best idea anyone has ever had’, as Daniel Dennett once put it.
And in contrast with other great theories of science, like general rela-
tivity or quantum mechanics, it can be (mis-)understood by anyone.
I have always been drawn to the conceptual issues of evolutionary
biology, questions that my hard-­nosed empirical colleagues would
dismiss as too theoretical, too abstract, and, if they wanted to be really
mean, too philosophical.
This is a book about one of those issues, the gene’s-­eye view of
evolution.The book came about thanks to Francis Crick’s Gossip Test.
According to Crick, your true interests are revealed by what you gos-
sip about. For me, that has long been the gene’s-­eye view, and the
vituperative debate that has surrounded selfish genes for the past half-­
century. As this book will make clear, the story of the gene’s-­eye view
deals with many abstract questions, but it also has innumerable empir-
ical implications. It strikes right at the heart of the question of what
evolution is, and how we go about studying it.
I have been thinking about the disagreements over the gene’s-­eye
view for the past decade, ever since I moved to Toronto, Canada, to
begin my graduate research. Arriving in Toronto after growing up in
Sweden and receiving my undergraduate training in Scotland meant
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

x Pr e face

that I for the first time came in close contact with students from
North America. One thing that struck me about my new colleagues
was that they often had a very different perspective on theoretical
issues in evolutionary biology than I did. To exaggerate and overgen-
eralize a bit: if when I was a teenager and expressed an interest in the
big questions of evolutionary biology I was handed a book authored
by Richard Dawkins, they had been given one of Stephen Jay Gould’s.
I learned a tremendous amount discussing these issues in the lecture
halls, seminar rooms, and, especially, in the Graduate Student Union
pub located right next to the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology of the University of Toronto. The genesis of this book owes
a lot to those intellectual sparring sessions.
More concretely, several people were instrumental in making this
book a reality. In particular, David Haig, and his Fundamental
Interconnectedness of All Things discussion group, provided an environ-
ment that encouraged tackling the foundational questions of our field.
Few have thought more about the gene’s-­eye view than David and he
has been reliable source of advice and support throughout this project.
I am grateful a large number of colleagues who took the time to read
and provide comments on my writing. For help with individual chap-
ters, I thank Alan Grafen, Alister McGrath, Andrew Bourke, Anthony
Edwards, Cédric Paternotte, Charles Goodnight, Dan Dennett, Dan
Hartl, Denis Noble, Ellen Clarke, Erik Svensson, Jack Werren, Jim
Mallett, John Durant, Jonathan Birch, Kevin Foster, Lutz Fromhage,
Megan Frederickson, Michael Bentley, Michael Rodgers, Stephen
Wright, Stu West, and Tim Lewens. Others, including David Barash,
Brian and Deborah Charlesworth, Andy Clark, James Marshall, and
Martin Nowak, answered questions and pointed me to resources that
have been tremendously helpful. For reading the entire manuscript, at
one point or another, I am indebted to Chinmay Sonawane, Cody
McCoy, David Haig, Jon Ågren, Manus Patten, Richard Dawkins, Samir
Okasha, Steve Stearns, and Tobias Uller.
Their comments greatly improved the text, clarified my thinking,
and offered much needed encouragement. On occasion, they also saved
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

Pr e face xi

me from some embarrassing misunderstandings. They did not always

agree with my argument; sometimes they were just kind enough to
explain why I was wrong. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, mine.
Several people helped me understand how the gene’s-­eye view has
been received around the world. I am grateful for the insight from
Adrian Stencel, Amitabh Joshi, Ehud Lamm, Ian Caldas, Israt Jahan,
Jae Choe, Jun Otsuka, Kazuki Tsuji, Leonardo Campagna, Philippe
Huneman, Snait Gissis, Sakura Osamu, and Victor Luque. Only a small
portion of this topic made it into the book in the end, but I hope to
return to it in the future.
It has been said that being published by Oxford University Press is
like ‘being married to a duchess: the honour is greater than the pleas-
ure’.That has not been my experience. Ian Sherman and Charles Bath
have been extremely supportive and helpful since the first day of this
project. I am grateful to Spencer Barrett for introducing me to Ian,
and to Spencer and Locke Rowe for helping me draft the proposal.
Two chapters are partly based on material from my previously pub-
lished papers and I thank the publishers for letting me reuse some of
the text. Chapter 4 draws on Ågren JA. 2018. The Hamiltonian view
of social evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and
Biomedical Sciences. 68–69: 88–93. Chapter 5 incorporates material
from Ågren JA. 2016. Selfish genetic elements and the gene’s-­eye view
of evolution. Current Zoology. 62: 659–665 and Ågren JA and AG Clark.
2018. Selfish genetic elements. PLoS Genetics. 14: e1007700.
Throughout the time of writing I was financially supported by the
Wenner-­Gren Foundations, whose generous support I am very thank-
ful for. I also indebted to the staff at the Ernst Mayr Library at the
Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard for their help and
assistance, especially for their ingenuity during the extraordinary cir-
cumstances of a global pandemic.
Finally, I am forever grateful to my wife, Utako, for her never-
ending love and support. And for insisting that I write this book.
J. Arvid Ågren
March 2021
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

Contents

Introduction: A New Way to Read Nature 1

1 Historical Origins 11
1.1 Introduction 11
1.2 Adaptationism and the legacy of natural theology 13
1.3 Population genetics 25
1.4 Levels of selection 35
1.5 Summary 45
2 Defining and Refining Selfish Genes 46
2.1 Introduction 46
2.2 What is a selfish gene? 49
2.3 Replicators and vehicles 57
2.4 Memes 64
2.5 General formulations of evolution by natural selection 68
2.6 Summary 78
3 Difficulties of The Theory 80
3.1 Introduction 80
3.2 Anthropomorphizing 82
3.3 Epistasis, heterozygote advantage, and the averaging fallacy 89
3.4 The bookkeeping objection 97
3.5 Genetic determinism 103
3.6 Human nature and human affairs 108
3.7 Summary 115
4 Inclusive Fitness and Hamilton’s Rule 116
4.1 Introduction 116
4.2 The origin and diversity of Hamilton’s Rule 120
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

xiv Con t e n ts

4.3 The gene’s-­eye view and inclusive fitness: equivalence

or historical accident? 129
4.4 Maximization of inclusive fitness and the Formal
Darwinism Project 137
4.5 Recent reconciliations between the gene’s-­eye view
and inclusive fitness 143
4.6 Summary 149
5 Empirical Implications 151
5.1 Introduction 151
5.2 Extended phenotypes 153
5.3 Greenbeards 159
5.4 Selfish genetic elements 164
5.5 Summary 178
Conclusion: The Gene’s-Eye View Today 180
Why should biologists study the history of ideas? 181
Metaphors and mathematics 185
Die, selfish gene, die? 188
The gene’s-­eye view worldwide 190
Final thoughts 193

References 195
Index235
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 04/06/21, SPi

Introduction: A New Way

to Read Nature

T here really is something special about biology. The French bio-

chemist and Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod described its
position among the sciences as simultaneously marginal and central
(Monod 1970, p. xi). It is marginal, because its object of study—living
organisms—are but a special case of chemistry and physics, contribut-
ing to only a minuscule part of the universe. Biology will never be the
source of natural laws in the way physics is. At the same time, if, as
Monod believed, the whole point of science is to understand human-
ity’s place in the world, then biology is the most central of them all.
No other field of study deals so directly with the question of who we
are and how we got here in the first place.
The location of biology among the sciences means that its theories
can never be just theories. They will always touch us in a deeper way
than those in other subjects. This is especially true for the theory
of evolution. On one level, it is simply a theory of how different rates
in sex and death lead to different configurations of carbon molecules.
On another, it is our story of creation. How we think about the the-
ory of evolution therefore matters more than the way we think about
other scientific theories.
The gene’s-­eye view is one way to think about evolution. In its
original formulation, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural
selection was a theory about individual organisms. Individuals vary in

The Gene’s-Eye View of Evolution. J. Arvid Ågren, Oxford University Press. © J. Arvid Ågren 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198862260.003.0001
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

2 T h e Ge n e’s-Ey e V i ew of Evolut ion

heritable traits, and if any of them make the individual more likely to
survive and reproduce, these traits will become more common in the
population as the generations go by. The gene’s-­eye view represents a
subtle but radical shift in perspective. Building on the insight from
population genetics that evolutionary change can be described as the
increase or decrease of certain genetic variants, it argues that evolu-
tion is best thought of from the perspective of genes. By this reason-
ing, organisms are nothing but temporary occurrences—present in
one generation, gone in the next. And, as a consequence, organisms
cannot be the ultimate beneficiary in evolutionary explanations.
Instead, this role is filled by the gene. Genes are considered immor-
tal and they pass on their intact structure from generation to gen­er­
ation. This way of thinking is also called selfish gene thinking, because
natural selection is conceptualized as a struggle between genes, usually
through the effects they have on organisms, for replication and trans-
mission to the next generation. Here, ‘genes’ is used in a somewhat lax
way. The evolutionary struggle is not between different genes within
the same organism (though, as will become clear, the gene’s-­eye view
offers a powerful way to think about such genetic conflicts) but
between different alleles of the same gene within a population.
The origin of the gene’s-­eye view involved many people, but two
stand above the rest: the American George C. Williams (1926–2010)
and the Brit Richard Dawkins (1941–). The idea was first explicitly
laid out by Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection (Williams 1966),
and then 10 years later more forcefully by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene
(Dawkins 1976). Few phrases in science have caught the imagination
of laypeople and professionals alike the way that ‘selfish gene’ has
done, and it changed how both groups thought about evolution and
natural selection. Among both groups, the gene’s-­eye view, has subse-
quently amassed both strong supporters and fierce critics.
The debate over the value of the gene’s-­eye view has raged for over
half a century. It has pitted 20th century Darwinian aristocrats such as
John Maynard Smith and W.D. Hamilton against Richard Lewontin
and Stephen Jay Gould in the pages of Nature as well as those of The
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

I n t roduct ion: A n ew way to r e a d natu r e 3

New York Review of Books. Even today, commentators cannot agree. For
example, in 2015 when the science historian Nathaniel Comfort
reviewed the second volume of Dawkins’s autobiography for Nature he
referred to the gene’s-­eye view as ‘looking increasingly like a twentieth-­
century construct’ (Comfort 2015). In contrast, writing for the same
journal only a few months later, the biologist turned journalist and
businessman Matt Ridley concluded that ‘no other ex­plan­ation [for
evolution] makes sense’ (Ridley 2016). Professional biologists remain
equally divided. Simon Conway Morris dismissed it as ‘an exploded
concept that was almost past its sell-­by date as soon as it was popular-
ized’ (Conway Morris 2008, p. ix). Similarly, a senior colleague of mine
who I showed an early draft of this manuscript wondered if he really
would be a suitable person to provide feedback as he disagreed with
‘virtually every aspect of the field’ and as a result he has ‘trouble separat-
ing their bad science from good faith attempts to describe it’. Yet,
Andy Gardner called The Selfish Gene ‘unequivocally the most
important popular book on evolutionary biology of the 20th century’
(Gardner 2016), a view shared by the Royal Society who in July 2017
announced that, after a public poll, The Selfish Gene had been voted
‘the most inspiring science book of all time’.
Much of the discomfort over the gene’s-­eye view comes from its sur-
rounding vocabulary. Genes are ‘selfish’, organisms mere ‘survival
machines’, and bodies nothing but ‘lumbering robots’. The philosopher
Roger Scruton complained that these ideas made ‘cynicism respectable
and degeneracy chic’ (Scruton 2017, p. 49). Along these lines, a com-
monly told story (meaning it is seemingly impossible to track down
the original source) is that The Selfish Gene was the f­avourite book of
the disgraced Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, and that he used the book
to justify the exploitative cutthroat culture of the company.
But the debate over the gene’s-­eye view is about so much more.
It overthrows our conception of familiar biological terms like gene,
fitness, and organism. It brings to the forefront evolutionary biologists’
peculiar habit of speaking of biological entities as having intentions,
deploying strategies, and pursuing goals. It drills to the core of what
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

4 T h e Ge n e’s-Ey e V i ew of Evolut ion

we mean by causality in evolutionary explanations. The gene’s-­eye

view has featured in many major debates in evolutionary biology over
the past half century, including in technical disagreements over epista-
sis, heterozygote advantage, and inclusive fitness, and in public discus-
sions over what it means to be human. This book is about all of that.

How to think like a selfish gene

The gene’s-­eye view occupies a peculiar position within theoretical

biology. In his review of The Selfish Gene, W.D. Hamilton called it a
‘new way to read nature’ (Hamilton 1977). What does that mean?
The gene’s-­eye view is not a concrete empirical hypothesis (though it
certainly helps us come up with such) and it is not an all-­encompassing
mathematical framework (though general models can be constructed).
Instead, it is a way to make sense of the biological world. Dawkins
once described it as: ‘a particular way of looking at animals and plants,
and a particular way of wondering why they do the things they do’
(Dawkins 1982a, p. 1). Put like that, one can easily see why it would
be difficult to come up with experiments that would reject it. This
could be viewed as a strength or as a weakness. Take for example, one
of the most quoted passages from The Selfish Gene:
Now they [genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lum-
bering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it
by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are
in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation
is the ultimate rationale for our existence.   (Dawkins 1976, p. 25)

Dawkins’s statement contains the essence of the gene’s-­eye view:

while Earth is inhabited by organisms, what ultimately matters for
evolution is the propagation of genes, a process that genes play an
active part in. The gene’s-­eye view prompts us to look at biological
phenomena and ask cui bono? Who benefits? (Dennett 1995, p. 325).
The perspective treats adaptations as the central problem of evolu-
tionary biology and argues that it is only by understanding that genes,
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/05/21, SPi

I n t roduct ion: A n ew way to r e a d natu r e 5

not organisms or groups, are the ultimate beneficiaries of nat­ural

selection that they can be understood.
As Denis Noble has pointed out, however, this notion is unfalsifia-
ble. The only empirical content of the above statement is that genes
are located inside organisms (Noble 2006, pp. 12–13). Noble rewrites
the statement, removing what he considers to be unsubstantiated
speculation:
Now they [genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly
intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with
it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, func-
tion emerges. They are in you and me; we are the system that allows
their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on
the joy we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate
rational for their existence.   (Noble 2006, pp. 12–13).

In Noble’s version the organism is in control; genes are passive prison-

ers. There is no clear cut empirical data or ingenious mathematical
model that can distinguish Noble’s version from Dawkins’s.
To make sense of disagreements like this, Ullica Segerstrale has sug-
gested that the right way to approach the gene’s-­eye view is with a logical
rather than a literal mind (Segerstrale 2000, p. 261). By a logical mind, she
meant that the gene’s-­eye view grew out of an intellectual environment
where it was common to design, often quite elaborate, thought experi-
ments to explore how evolution works. In the preface of The Selfish Gene,
Dawkins makes this point explicitly when he describes the book as being
‘designed to appeal to the imagination’ (Dawkins 1976, p. xi). Segerstrale
contrasts such a logical environment with the literal intellectual milieu
that tends to characterize experimental and molecular biologists. Here,
the focus is less on exploring possible theoretical scenarios and more on
carefully describing the features of the biological system at hand. Someone
trained in the lo­gic­al tradition will have no problem asking themselves ‘if
I was a gene, what would I do in this situation?’, whereas a biologist from
a literal background will find the question absurd.
The emphasis on the logic of evolution and natural selection shares
many features with how philosophers do their work. Segerstrale
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
occasionally heard portions of the history of that brave and
interesting people; and from some cause which he could not quite
account for himself, he felt deeply concerned in all that related to
them. The Emperor of Russia and the renowned King of Sweden,
Charles XII., had long been contending for power over the Poles;
and the principal question relating to that unhappy country seemed
to be, which of the two should be their master.
At one time the Czar gained the ascendancy for the King of
Poland, Frederick Augustus, who was also Elector of Saxony, was
his friend and ally. Again Charles XII. became the superior in power,
and Frederick Augustus was then obliged to abdicate the throne of
Poland and retire to Saxony, and Stanislaus Leczinski was chosen in
his room—a measure which gave no satisfaction to the declining
nation.
Gerald awaited the arrival of Madame Koski with intense anxiety.
At length the door of the apartment was slowly opened, and a lady
dressed in the Polish fashion appeared, leaning on the arm of a
female domestic. She glanced hurriedly at Gerald, who immediately
rose and bowed. She then motioned with her hand for the attendant
to withdraw, and entered the room alone.
Madame Koski was still in the meridian of life; but ill-health and
deep grief had whitened her hair and left such marks upon her
countenance that she had the appearance of being rather advanced
in years. She entered the room with a trembling step, and sunk into
the seat which Gerald politely offered her.
‘Your name,’ she said with great effort, looking very earnestly in his
face.
‘My name, Madame, is Gerald,’ he replied; ‘but I am called Gerald
Kopt, from one Michael Kopt, who has been to me as a father.’
As the youth spoke, the lady became still more agitated. ‘It must
be so—I cannot be deceived,’ she murmured; ‘that brow—those
eyes—the voice—so like my own, own Gerald—you are—you must
be my child.’ Here she threw her arms round the boy’s neck, and
burst into a flood of tears.
 ‘Did I hear aright? Did you say you are my mother?’ exclaimed
Gerald, disengaging himself a little from her embrace, that he might
look up in her countenance to read her answer even before her
tongue could speak it.
‘I am,’ she answered in a calmer tone; ‘I lost an infant on the coast
of Russia at the very time stated in your document; and my heart
tells me you must be he.’
‘This is happiness beyond anything I could have expected,’ cried
Gerald, warmly returning her embrace. ‘I never hoped to find a
mother living.’
‘And I never hoped to find my long-lost child,’ replied the lady; ‘but
God is good, and his ways are wonderful.’
‘God has indeed been good to me, my mother,’ Gerald responded,
now twining his arm fondly round her neck; ‘he provided me with
friends who have been as parents to me, and he has by a wonderful
providence, brought me here. But tell me dear lady—dear mother,’
he added, his countenance lighting up with great animation—‘tell me;
is it true that I am by birth a Pole?’
‘You are,’ Madame Koski replied; ‘your father was a Pole of noble
birth.’
‘I have learned to call those great and noble who perform great
and noble actions, dear lady,’ cried Gerald. ‘But I do rejoice in
hearing that I belong to that brave and patriotic land.’
‘Ours is a fallen country,’ said the lady despondingly. ‘As for
myself,’ she added, ‘I am obliged to live on the bounty of the man
who is desirous of holding my country in a state of thraldom; but the
circumstances which led to it are these:—Your father and the Czar
met in early youth; and your father had then an opportunity of
rendering the Emperor an essential service, which was repaid by an
act of equal generosity. Thus they were bound together by ties of
gratitude.’
‘Ah! and the ties of gratitude are strong,’ Gerald warmly
interposed.
 ‘They are, my son,’ said the lady. ‘Many years after, when Peter of
Russia and Charles of Sweden first contended for mastery over our
fallen country, your father and the Czar met once more. Your father
was then a prisoner in Peter’s camp, and I and my three children
were without a home. Under these circumstances, the Czar
contrived to get our children on board one of his ships, which was
then about to sail up the Baltic. I purposed joining them; but an
accident preventing, the ship set sail without me; and the children
were only under the care of a female slave who was their nurse. The
next tidings I heard was, that the vessel had been wrecked, and that
every one on board had perished.’
Madame Koski wept as she related these particulars; nor could
Gerald listen to them without shedding tears also. ‘Then what
became of my father?’ he asked, with breathless interest.
‘The Czar generously gave him his liberty. Your father,’ she
continued, ‘was one of those patriots who did not take part with
either the Swedes or the Russians; but who nobly stood out for
Polish independence and the right of electing a king for ourselves.
This being the case, he fared ill when Charles of Sweden got the
mastery; and he would have done the same when Peter of Russia
had the supreme power, but for the private friendship which I told
you existed between him and the Czar. He fell at last, however,’ and
as she ceased, the lady buried her face in her hands and wept
afresh.
‘He fell in the defence of his country,’ asked Gerald.
‘He did, dear boy.’
‘I have told the Czar that I am desirous of pursuing a studious life,
and he has offered to place me in the University he has recently
founded in this city. But your tale, dear mother,’ added Gerald, ‘has
stirred feelings within me, which I scarcely knew that I possessed.
Surely it would be ignoble for me to live at ease in an enemy’s land,
when my own requires my services.’
‘I should have thought as you do, at one time, my son,’ replied the
lady; ‘but now I view the matter otherwise. Though there are many
gallant spirits still in Poland, the power of our conquerors is too great
for us. Nothing can be done for our unhappy country now, her
freedom is entirely lost.’
 CHAPTER XI.
CONCLUSION.

Madame Koski now proceeded to question Gerald regarding his

humble friends, the fisherman and his wife, and nothing loth was he
to talk of them, and of their kindness to him. She listened with great
interest to his account of Michael’s being carried off to the public
works, and of his interview with the Czar, to plead for the exchange.
She had heard nothing of these particulars—she had only been told
that a youth who had been shipwrecked when an infant, near the
mouth of the Neva, was then, at the Emperor’s palace, and on her
arrival, the paper which Gerald had written out had been put into her
hand. Peter, on first seeing him, had himself been struck with the
resemblance he bore to his early friend, and when Gerald proceeded
to give the account of the wreck, he immediately surmised that the
son of the Polish noble stood before him.
Though Peter was a man of fierce passions, and had little feeling,
he was known to attach himself firmly to a few individuals. Madame
Koski and her son, therefore felt some confidence in the continuance
of his friendship and protection.
Gerald at last came to a determination to enter the University,
though his own inclination would now have led him to go to his native
land, and make a stand with the few brave men who would have
joined him in another struggle for independence. Indeed, he did not
wholly relinquish the idea, though he resolved at present on making
the most of the advantages offered him for education.
Previous, to his entering, however, he and his mother took a
journey to the village in which Michael and his wife were residing.
Madame Koski was anxious to see the worthy couple who had acted
so kindly to her son, that she might have an opportunity of
expressing her deep gratitude, and she and Gerald were both
desirous of ascertaining whether they could do anything to make the
family more comfortable.

The meeting was affecting, and it gave mutual pleasure. Madame

Koski was much pleased with the fisherman’s family, especially with
Margaret, towards whom she thought she could never show
sufficient kindness in return for the motherly part she had acted
towards her friendless infant. The good woman brought forward the
clothes in which Gerald was dressed when he was first cast upon
their protecting care. And if any further proof of his identity had been
needful, the sight of them would have quite satisfied Madame Koski
that he was indeed her child. The view of the clothes, however,
called forth many painful recollections, for though Gerald was
restored to her, her two other children, who had been equally dear
were lost. She was affected too when told of the careful manner in
which the babe’s little ark had been enclosed, in order to shelter him
from the waters. ‘Poor Jaqueline,’ she said, with tears in her eyes,
‘you were faithful to your charge to the very last. Oh!’ she added,
turning to her son, ‘what a wonderful providence has followed thee,
my child, from the moment I parted from thee, thou has never
wanted a mother’s tender care.’
Madame Koski was a christian woman. She had been taught in
the rough school of adversity, and she had learned, not only to
submit with patience to the ills of life, but to see God’s gracious and
merciful hand in all.
Madame Koski’s income was not very large, still she insisted on
sharing it with Michael and his wife, who really stood in need of aid,
though they were unwilling to receive it from her. The good couple
had done all without any hope or prospect of reward, but they both
repeatedly declared that Gerald had already more than repaid them
for the services they had rendered him by the generous sacrifice he
had made, which had, they said, been the means of saving Michael’s
life.
Gerald returned with his mother to Moscow, and then commenced
his studies with a cheerful spirit. He lived to be a comfort to his
widowed parent, and an ornament to society; but he never had an
opportunity of serving his country beyond what he could do as a
private individual.
Within two or three years of the time when the above related
events took place, Peter the Great once more gained ascendancy
over the Poles, by a victory he won over his rival Charles the Twelfth.
In consequence of this victory, Stanislaus was deposed and
Frederick Augustus was restored to the throne.
Most of our young readers are no doubt aware that Poland is no
longer a kingdom, but a Russian province. Subsequently to the
period of which we have been speaking, the fall of the Polish nation
was rapid, and their final overthrow took place about twenty years
ago, under Nicholas, the present Emperor of Russia.
It now remains for us, young readers, to inquire what moral may
be learned from the little history before us. Every book we read
should do something more than amuse the fancy and interest the
feelings. It should inform our minds and teach us some valuable
lesson for practice. We have seen that our hero’s generous action
was made in the Providence of God to lead to its own reward. Had
he not sought an interview with the Czar he would not have
discovered his mother. Again we may observe, that circumstances
do not affect the conduct of individuals so as to prevent the
possibility of their performing noble deeds. The fisherman and his
wife practised generosity and kindness of the highest order, lowly
and poor though they were; and the seemingly disadvantageous
situation of the boy who was cast upon their bounty did not prevent
his achieving a truly heroic action. Think not, therefore, that your
circumstances, whatever they may be, shut you out from the
exercise of exalted virtues, for there are no circumstances, however
unfavourable, which exclude the performance of generous and self-
denying deeds.
 LONDON:
RICHARD BARRETT, PRINTER, MARK LANE.
 Transcriber’s Notes
A few minor errors in punctuation were fixed.
The spelling of Mentzikoff was standardized.
Page 9: “wont you?” changed to “won’t you?”
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
FOUNDLING OF THE WRECK ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no