INTRODUCTORY. 33 



creatures in all minute degrees and shades of physical 

 distinction between an anthropoid ape and man, might 

 have existed for untold ages, such creatures approxi- 

 mating more and more by the increasing complexity of 

 their actions, and perhaps by their articulate cries, to 

 man who was yet " to be." He is, further, perfectly free 

 to hold that when at last the time came for the 

 advent of the human anirpal, that animal, possessing an 

 essentially rational nature, might nevertheless have long 

 existed before the circumstances of his environment 

 rendered it possible for him to display in act his potential 

 rationality as set before us in Adam. His progeny, 

 again, the men of long prehistoric times, may be deemed* 

 to have dwelt in lands entirely uncultivated, with no 

 weapons but sticks and unchipped stones, as unable to 

 hunt as to till, and destitute of every kind of art. He 

 also not only may, but should, further hold that speech 

 was the spontaneous product of a being of the kind — 

 that he evolved a language insignificant as to the 

 number of its terms, it may be at the lowest grade 

 possible for a creature who could think at all. 



What more " freedom of thought " in this direction 

 can science possibly require ? 



But although, in the interests of truth and fairness, 

 we have thus drawn out what such a believer may 

 consistently hold, we desire distinctly to state that we 

 ourselves do not hold it. We attribute to early man 



* That the reader may see this is no exaggeration, he is referred 

 to a paper (first published in Le Museon) by the Rev. Mon- 

 seigneur de Harlez (Professor of Sanscrit at the University of 

 Louvain), entitled, "La Civilisation de I'humanitd Primitive" 

 (Charles Peeters, Louvain, 1886). 



D 



