LECTURE Yl. 133 



tific principles, induce us to separate the human type from the 

 ape type, not merely as a genus, but as a Family and Order, 

 or, at least, sub-Order, we may advance a step towards the 

 knowledge of our own nature, and acquire a basis for further 

 researches. We shall preferentially keep to those differences 

 which, rightly or wrongly, have been set up, leaving the fea- 

 tures of resemblance, which certainly predominate, in abeyance 

 for the present. We shall give weight to the anatomical 

 characters above everything else. At philosophical and re- 

 ligious arguments, by which even naturaHsts sometimes en- 

 deavour to support their systems, we shall only cast occasional 

 glances. It will not concern us much that Schopenhauer 

 places the difference between man and ape in the Will, whilst 

 Bischoff, of Munich, places it in self-consciousness. 



Let us first examine the human structure in general. Every 

 animal, we are told, has some weapon of defence or offence ; 

 man alone has none. "The intelligent observer," so it is 

 asserted, " cannot fail to perceive that it is in reference to this 

 point that the Creator has implanted in the human organism 

 the germ of, and necessity for, the development of the faculties 

 with which it is endowed." 



It is true, man has no horns ; his canine teeth are neither 

 large nor formidable, neither are his nails claws. But^ on 

 the other hand, is the axiom generally true, that all animals 

 .are armed ? In what respect are the weapons of the chim- 

 panzee superior to those of man? Its canine teeth are 

 scarcely longer, and certainly not intended for attack ; its nails 

 are just as flat; its forehead just as devoid of horns. When 

 attacked, the animal acts like an unarmed man ; it scratches 

 bites, strikes, throws stones or branches of trees, and finally 

 runs away if it cannot save itself in any other way. Hundreds 

 of other species of apes are in the same condition as the chim- 

 panzee. Has this defencelessness of the chimpanzee caused 

 him to become one of the lords of the creation ? Are the 

 faculties of the hornless sheep or the doe more developed be- 

 cause of their defenceless state ? or shall we say that the sheep 

 has a weapon, because it butts with its hard skull ? and if this 

 were so, does not the Negro use his skull, of ivory-like hard- 



