186 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT 



strained for the attainment of a definite end. 

 The terrier must have drawn the conclusion that 

 his enemy, if detected in theft, would probably 

 suffer severe punishment — perhaps even death — 

 and he therefore laid an information against her, 

 calculating thus to get rid of her without com- 

 promising himself. This incident plainly proves 

 that brutes are capable of self-control — that they 

 do not always blindly and necessarily follow their 

 physical appetites, but can, like man, forego a 

 present indulgence for what appears to them a 

 greater good in prospect. It is as clear a case of 

 self-determination — of appetite and passion gov- 

 erned by the will — as any which human biogra- 

 phy can show. 



It will possibly be objected that we give no 

 instance of self-control except in species which 

 have been brought under human influence. The 

 reply is obvious : if a free-will or a power of self- 

 determination has been created in such animals 

 by man's intervention, its presence or absence is 

 obviously a matter of small moment and quite in- 

 adequate to establish a "great gulf" between 

 man and " brute." But if the will has not been 

 thus created, it is probable, or rather certain, 

 that were man better acquainted with the habits 

 of wild animals he would find in their conduct 

 also cases of self-control. 



It will further be objected that in the vast 

 majority of eases animals merely act in accord- 

 ance with the dictates of their ruling propen- 

 sities. We grant this, and we ask whether this 

 does ndt hold good to an almost equal extent 

 with man? Analyze the actions of N'Kyg- 

 ntzgm, the blue-nosed baboon, and you will ad- 

 mittedly find little save the manifestations of 

 ruling propensity. Sift in like manner the con- 

 duct of John Nokes, collier, of Hanley, and you 

 will come to the same result. Surely, then, we 

 can regard it as proved that in the matter of self- 

 determination, in the supremacy of will over pro- 

 pensity, there is no difference of kind between 

 man and brute. 



Were animals really what vulgar human opin- 

 ion supposes — did they simply and in all cases 

 follow their propensities in the machine-like man- 

 ner so commonly attributed to them — it is difficult 

 to see how any individuality of character could 

 exist. All the members of one species would 

 have the same mental abilities and the same dis- 

 positions. But this is precisely what is not the 

 case. Among a dozen animals of the same spe- 

 cies and even of the same breed differences of 

 character are found as decided as occur among a 

 similar number of men. Any breeder or trainer 



of horses, cattle, dogs, or poultry, would greet 

 with laughter — loud, if not Olympian — the theo- 

 rist who should assert that these animals display 

 anything like identity of disposition. There are 

 the obstinate and the docile, the timid and bold, 

 the open and the treacherous, the placable and 

 the revengeful. In fact, to find two horses or 

 two dogs precisely alike in every point of charac- 

 ter that man can distinguish would be as difficult 

 as to find two human beings similarly identical. 

 How much greater, then, would be the range of 

 character visible if we could see them with the 

 eyes of their own species ! 



Perhaps the usual evasion may be attempted 

 that such various development of temper and 

 disposition is to be found among tame animals 

 alone. The objection is baseless. Capture a 

 number of wild elephants, hawks, ravens, parrots, 

 and try to tame them. You will find still the 

 same variety as you would among animals born 

 in a state of tameness. The differences are found 

 by man, not created. 



We will next endeavor to show — what, indeed, 

 follows as a corollary from the foregoing consid- 

 erations — that animals are capable of vice, hop- 

 ing' that this circumstance may lead man to rec- 

 ognize them as brothers. 



To eat more than hunger demands merely for 

 the sake of the sensuous enjoyment thus obtain- 

 able, has been always, in man, branded as a 

 serious vice, and has indeed been classed among 

 the " seven deadly sins " of mediaeval tradition. 1 

 This transgression has been found to impair hu- 

 man health, and to blunt mental action. How is 

 it in this respect with brutes ? Do they never 

 eat more than they can digest and assimilate ? 

 Do they never suffer consequently in their health ? 

 Most assuredly. Cows have been known to gorge 

 themselves with clover till they have died 'from 

 repletion. Ducks often suffer from their own 

 greediness. Similar cases of gluttony are, of 

 course, more rare among wild animals, who 

 neither find food in such abundance nor are so 

 undisturbed in its enjoyment. Yet even they, in 

 homely phrase, at times eat more than does them 

 good. Here, then, we see that brutes have a 

 certain liberty of action. They can be either tem- 

 perate or gluttonous. In the former case they 



i It is a remarkable fact that the discharge of any 

 voluntary physical function to which no pleasure is at- 

 tached was never pronounced a vice, even if exercised 

 in excess. But those whose importance the Creator 

 has indicated by rendering them pleasant were brand- 

 ed as sinful not merely when discharged in excess, 

 bnt even when kept within the bounds of moderation 

 —and this in the exact ratio of their pleasurableness. 



