CHAP. V.] DUTY AND PLEASURE. 101 



of nny transitional stage ? But the difference between moral 

 and non-moral existence is a difference of kind, and there 

 fore &quot; transitions &quot; are here no more possible than between 

 articulate sound-giving animals which have not reason and 

 articulate sound-giving animals who have it. 



It may be replied, however, that Sir John Lubbock and 

 Mr. Tylor at least believe in the natural and gra- Mr. Tyior 

 dual development of man from the non-moral to Lubb S ock J hn 

 the moral mode of existence, and that therefore the facts 

 cited cannot have the force here attributed to them. To 

 this it must be answered that the faculty of accumulating 

 many facts, or that of arranging and presenting them in a 

 perspicuous and persuasive manner, by no means necessarily 

 carries with it a faculty of understanding what those facts 

 really teach. That such an assertion of intellectual defici 

 ency may not repose upon the mere ipse dixit of the present 

 writer, it may be well to quote the judgment of one who is 

 himself a master in those archaaological subjects in which 

 Sir John Lubbock is such a proficient, while he is also a 

 most distinguished biologist and a man of universal culture. 

 Professor Rolleston upon this subject remarks* as follows : 



&quot; It is strange, indeed, that Sir John Lubbock does not see how his 

 method of accounting for the genesis of the notions of right and wrong 

 like that of all other utilitarians, actually presupposes their existence 

 How could the old men praise or condemn except by reference 

 to some pre-existing standard of right and wrong ? How could the 

 parties injured by the violation of a compact naturally condemn it 

 except by a tacit or articulate reference to some naturally implanted 

 or, at all events, to some already existing, standard of virtue and vice? 

 Language, which in matters of this kind faithfully reproduces the 

 existence of feelings, and even to some extent the history of our race 

 will not lend itself to the support of their theories, and gives the 

 Dialectician for once a real victory over the Natural Historian 

 We must also express our surprise that Sir John Lubbock should not 

 have drawn attention to the difficulty which in early stages of our 

 history must have beset the collection of those experiences of 

 utility/ of which Mr. Herbert Spencer speaks as the foundation 

 of our so-called moral intuitions; and, secondly, to the exceeding 



* The italics are not Professor Kollestou s. 



