754 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



existence, without prying cnrionsly into its constituents. Tlie 

 power to dwell on the varying phases of the inner life, to analyze 

 them, and to base the outlines of a system of intellectual and 

 moral philosophy upon them, is the result of a high degree of 

 culture and a habit of observing the operations and power of the 

 mind. 



It thus seems that what Dr. Hopkins demands as perquisites 

 of personality, viz., consciousness, reason, and a moral sense, are 

 all to be found, in some degree, entering into the constitution of the 

 lower animals. If man is a person, with the accompanying rights 

 growing out of his jjersonality, so is an elephant a person, in his 

 degree, and has his rights accordingly ; so is a dog, or a fox, etc., 

 each in his degree. In this manner the immense chasm which 

 Dr. Hopkins has invented as existing between man and the lower 

 animals disappears, and the whole realm of animated nature is 

 restored to unity, as the product of the divine mind. This view, 

 as Dr. Hopkins acknowledges (p. 100), is entirely in accordance 

 with the opinions of the great majority of naturalists now living. 



A few words, in conclusion, as to Dr. Hopkins's idea of man 

 being formed for dominion over the whole lower world of sen- 

 tient being. While we admit that his higher powers give him a 

 certain amount of control over some of the lower and humbler 

 creatures, it is to be borne in mind that innumerable millions of 

 animals lived and roamed over the earth, through many geologic 

 ages, before man appeared on the scene. Were they waiting all 

 this time for their ruler ? Man is a very recent animal, and does 

 not go back, probably, further than the Tertiary period at the 

 utmost. But, even since man appeared, his rule over the lower 

 creation has been extremely limited. He has not exercised control 

 over one in a million of the other orders of animals. Beyond a 

 few animals he has been able to domesticate, his rule and king- 

 ship have been practically null. Dr. Hopkins feels this diflficulty 

 as to his theory when he says (p. 105), " In this sphere his domin- 

 ion is evidently most limited and imperfect compared with what 

 it would have been if he had not lost dominion over himself." If 

 this is correct, it may be said in reply, that, since man has lost 

 his dominion, it is needless to build up a theory upon the basis of 

 his still retaining it. 



Peof. Tekrien de Laoouperie believes that he can trace a direct derivation of 

 the oldest characters used by the Chinese from the Chaldean cuneiform writing. 

 This system, which had already become old and corrupted, came from Babylonia 

 through Elam. Tseng-hieh, to whom Chinese tradition ascribes the invention of 

 writing— Dung-kih, or Dunkih, in the oldest form of the name— was probably the 

 celebrated Chaldean king Dimgi, known for his numerous inscriptions, who is 

 supposed to have lived about 2500 b. c. 



