RELATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS. 



much they may differ in degree, and in the manner in 

 which they are expressed. The gradations of the moral 

 faculties among the higher animals and man are more- 



O O 



over so imperceptible, that, to deny to the first a certain 

 sense of responsibility and consciousness, would certainly 

 be an exaggeration of the differences which distinguish 

 animals and man. There exists, besides, as much indivi- 

 duality, within their respective capabilities, among ani- 

 mals, as among men, as every sportsman, every keeper of 

 menageries, and every farmer or shepherd can testify, or 

 any one who has had large experience with wild, tamed or 

 domesticated animals. 1 



This argues strongly in favour of the existence in every 

 animal of an immaterial principle similar to that which, 

 by its excellence and superior endowments, places man so 

 much above animals. 2 Yet the principle unquestionably 



1 See J. E. RIDIXGER'S various 

 works illustrative of Game Animals, 

 which have appeared under different 

 titles iu Augsburg, from 1729 to 

 1778. GEOFFROY ST. HILAIRE et 

 CUVIER (FR.), Histoire naturelle des 

 Manimiferes ; Paris, 1820-35, 3 vols. 

 fol. LENZ (H. 0.), Gemeinnutzige 

 Naturgeschichte ; Gotha, 1835, 4 

 vols. 8vo. BINGLEY (W.), Animal 

 Biography; London, 1803, 3 vols. 

 8vo. 



2 It might easily be shown that 

 the exaggerated views generally en- 

 tertained of the difference existing 

 between man and monkeys are trace- 

 able to the ignorance of the ancients, 

 and especially the Greeks (to whom 

 we owe chiefly our intellectual cul- 

 ture) of the existence of the Orang- 

 Outang and the Chimpanzee. The 

 animals most closely allied to man, 

 known to them, were the Red Mon- 

 key, /nj/3os, the Baboon, Kuvoi=(pa.\os, 

 and the Barbary Ape, Trie-nitos. A 

 modern translation of Aristotle, it is 

 true, makes him say that monkeys 



form the transition between man and 

 quadrupeds (ARISTOTELES, Naturge- 

 schichte der Thiere, von DR. F. 

 STRACK, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1816, 

 p. 65); but the original says no such 

 thing. In the History of Animals, 

 Book 2, Chap. V, we read only, evia. 



6e TWV (a(av eira/j.<poreplfei T^v tpvfftv ry 

 re avBpwirw KO.I rols TtTpdiTOtni'. There 

 is a wide difference between " par- 

 taking of the nature of both man 

 and quadrupeds," and " forming a 

 transition between man and qua- 

 drupeds." The whole chapter goes on 

 enumerating the structural simila- 

 rity of the three monkeys above 

 named with man ; but the idea of a 

 close affinity is not even expressed, 

 and still less that of a transition be- 

 tween man and quadrupeds. The 

 writer, on the contrary, dwells very 

 fully upon the marked differences 

 they exhibit, and knows, as well as 

 any modern anatomist has ever 

 known, that monkeys have four hands. 



i'5/ovs 5e rovs 



fieri yap olov 

 H 



