3yO THE STORY OF THE EAETH AND MAN. 



the animals, or at least destroys one of tlie frail 

 bridges of the evolutionists. Lubbock and others 

 affect to believe that the lowest savages of the modem 

 world must be nearest to the type of primeval man. 

 I have already attempted to show the fallacy of this. 

 I may add here that in so holding they overlook a 

 fundamental distinction, well pointed out by the Duke 

 of Argyll, between the capacity of acquiring know- 

 ledge and knowledge actually acquired, and between 

 the possession of a higher rational nature and the 

 exercise of that nature in the pursuit of mechanical 

 arts. In other words, primeval man must not be held 

 to have been '^ utterly barbarous '' because he was 

 ignorant of mining or navigation, or of sculpture and 

 paintkig. He had in him the power to attain to these 

 things, but so long as he was not under necessity to 

 exercise it, his mind may have expended its powers in 

 other and happier channels. As well might it be 

 affirmed that a delicately nurtured lady is an " utter 

 barbarian ^' because she cannot build her own house, 

 or make her own shoes. No doubt in such work she 

 would be far more helpless than the wife of the rudest 

 savage, yet she is not on that account to be held as an 

 inferior being, or nearer to the animals. Our con- 

 ception of an angelic nature implies the absence of 

 all our social institutions and mechanical arts ; but 

 does this necessitate our regarding an angel as an 

 " utter barbarian " ? In short, the whole notion of 

 civilisation held by Lubbock and those who think 

 ^ith him, is not only low and degrading, but utterly 



