Chap. I. 



RELATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS. 



65 



principle similar to that which, hy its excellence and superior endowments, places 

 man so much above animals.^ Yet the princii^le exists unquestionably, and whether 



' It might easily be shown tlmt ttie exaggerated 

 views generally entertained of the difference exist- 

 ing between man and monkeys, arc traeeable to the 

 ignorance of the ancients, and especially the Greeks, 

 to whom we owe chiefly onr intellectual culture, of 

 the existence of the Orang-Oulang and the Chim- 

 panzee. The animals most closely allied to man 

 known to them were the Red Monkey, xij^Oi, the 

 Baboon, xvvoxi'cfnXog, and the B:eii)ary Ape, niCftjxoi. 

 A modern translation of Aristotle, it is true, makes 

 him say that monkeys form the transition between 

 man and ([uadrupeds ; (Aristotelks, 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, 

 Ciiap. v., we read only, tria c^'f twj' Lfiicar tnaficfo- 

 leQi^ti rtjv qivaiv xco rt ihitQiojlot xui roi^ xnnannan: 

 There is a wide difference between " partaking of 

 the nature of both man and the quadrupeds," and 

 "forming a transition between man and tlie (piadru- 

 peds." The whole chapter goes on enumerating the 

 structural similarity of the three monkeys named 

 above with man, but the idea of a close affinity is 

 not even expressed, and still less that of a transi- 

 tion between man and the (piadrui)eds. 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. ri^Pi Si wu ^Q>v/_iora';, Wi'TteQ ur(t(>(07toi, 

 . . . . iS'iov^ Ss Toiv 7Ti')8u^ . ii(jl 3'«p oior x.f iC'^s" 

 fieyc'dni. Kai oi SiixTi').oi (o^neQ o'l rwv Xf'C'wi', o fit'yu^' 



fWAQOTUTO^ • y.lli TO XiItM TO(i TToSbg %«/()( ofioioi; nVi^v 

 tTli zh (iTiXO^ TO T/^i ;jf/(io,' tm ra la^arn reiiov xaflu- 

 niQ Oiraij. Tovto Si In uxqov nxhinorenoi; xrtxco," 

 xrtt (CfivSQcai fiijiov floor nzt'oty. 



It is strange that these clear and precise dis- 

 tinctions should have been so entirely forgotten in 

 the days of Linnanis that the great reformer in 

 Natural History had to confess, in the year 1746, 

 that he knew no character by which to distinguish 

 man from the monkeys. Fauna Suecica, Pra'fat. ]>. 2. 

 " Nullum charactercm adhuc eruere potui, unde 



homo a simia internoscatur." But it is not upon 

 structural simihu-ity or difference alone that the re- 

 lations between imm and animals have to be con- 

 sidered. The p<«ychological history of animals shows 

 that as man is related to animals by the plan of his 

 structure, so are these related to him by the char- 

 acter of those very faculties which are so tran- 

 scendent in man as to point at first to the necessity 

 of disclaiming for him completely any relationship 

 with the animal kingdom. Yet the natural history 

 of animals is by no means completed after the so- 

 matic side of their nature has Ijcen thoroughly in- 

 vestigated ; they, too, have a psychological individ- 

 uality, which, though less fully studied, is neverthe- 

 less the connecting link between them and man. I 

 Ciinnot, therefore, agree with tliose authors who would 

 disconnect mankinil from the animal kingdom, and 

 establish a distinct kingdom for man alone, as 

 Ehrenberg (Das Naturreieh des Menschen, Berlin, 

 183.5, fol.) and lately I. Geoffrey St. Hilaire, (Hist, 

 rnit. generale, Paris, 18.56, Tome 1, Part 2, p. 167,) 

 have done. Compare, also. Chap. II., where it is 

 shown for every kind of groups of the animal kingdom 

 that the amount of their difference one from the 

 other never affords a sufficient ground for removing 

 any of them into another category. A close studj- 

 of the dog might satisfy every one of the similarity 

 of his impulses with those of man, and those im- 

 pulses are regulated in a maniier which discloses 

 psychical faculties in every respect of the same kind 

 as those of man; moo-eover, he expresses by his 

 voice his emotions iuid jiis feelings, with a precision 

 which may be !is intelligible to man as the articu- 

 lated speech of his fellow men. His memory is so 

 retentive that it frequently baffles that of man. And 

 though all these faculties do not make a philosopher 

 of hin\, they certainly place him in that respect 

 upon a level with a consideral)le proi>ortion of poor 

 humanity. The intelligibility of the voice of ani- 

 mals to one another, and all tiieir actions connected 

 with such calls arc also a strong argument of their 

 perceptive power, and of their ability to act spon- 



