n 
1893.] Recent Literature. 655 
ence from that of any of the lower animals to permit us to believe in 
its origin by a similar process. He regards mind properly so-called, 
as restricted to man, asserting that animals possess ** sensible discrimi- 
nation " only, while man possesses “ rational discrimination.” He thus 
defines the latter power: “ Negatively, intelligence is non-sensible 
discrimination, a distinguishing of difference to which sensibility is 
unequal. Positively, intelligence is discrimination of the meaning of 
sensible impressions.” This kind of intelligence Dr. Calderwood 
. denies to the animals below man. Few or no naturalists familiar with 
animals will concur in restricting Dr. Calderwood’s intelligence as 
here defined, to man. It is certain that a great many, if not the 
majority, of animal species “discriminate” to varying degrees, “the 
meaning of sensible impressions. Had the author desired a more cer- 
tain criterion of difference between the animal and the human mind, it 
seems to us that he would have found it more surely in the capacity 
of the production of the concept, though it does not seem certain that 
this grade of mental action is entirely restricted to man. 
The grade of mental activity displayed by animals can not, however, 
be excluded from the realm of mind. Indeed, when reduced to its 
lowest terms, mind appears as sense impressions, and it ceases only 
with the disappearance of consciousness. Such at least is the compre- 
hensive definition which may be set off in contrast with no mind, or 
the realm of pure physical energy. Of course such a definition is not 
acceptable to the advocates of the non-continuity of mental evolution. 
n accordance with the latter view, Dr. Calderwood does not admit 
that intelligence is related to physical structure (p. 178), although 
many convincing proofs to the contrary can be found in the annals of 
brain pathology. He regards passion and not intelligence as the 
active guide in animal evolution. He regards instinct (pp. 179-187) 
as not intelligence in any form. He closes with an eloquent defense of 
Christianity, as though the doctrine of the continuous evolution of intel- 
ligence conflicted with it. 
It seems to us that in making comparisons between the minds of men 
and animals, we learn most by using the lowest types of man. Com- 
parisons between the latter and the highest types of men are also very 
instructive. If the continuity of mental evolution has been interrupted, 
some interruptions during human evolution might be found as well as 
prior to it. 
Dr. Calderwood’s book is interesting as showing what can be said on 
the non-evolutionary side of psychology. There is much of interest in 
it, but we do not find his reasoning conclusive.—C. 
*P. 151. 
