4^6 
[Not. 30, igoi. 
the parties; that is to say, each animal is always repre- 
sented as talking just as that particular animal might 
reasonably be supposed to talk if, being still an animal, 
it had acquired in some way a knowledge of language 
and the gift of speech. The mistake is never made of 
representing an animal as talking just as a man would 
talk. We can usually recognize some animal trait in 
animal speech as reported, even though in some cases 
some men may possess and express the same or a like 
trait. Neither does one animal habitually talk just like 
another animal of a different species. The individual 
traits of the particular animal crop out in its speech. 
Nor yet again, are there any incongruities in respect of 
age or sex. A wolf never talks like a horse, nor is a 
young fox represented as possessing the matured wis- 
dom of its ancestor; while a mother wolf which, like 
"the modern woman," should strive to ape masculine 
ways, would be a strange anomaly indeed. 
It is true, hbwever, that while animals in such con- 
versations are represented ordinarily as possessing many 
traits which are common to them and to men, such as 
cunning, craftiness, deceit, etc., at the same time still 
other traits, peculiar to humanitif, and rarely if ever 
found in animal life, are also attributed to them, such as 
honesty, good faith, a sense of justice toward others, 
etc. These latter not infrequently enter largely into 
the narratives. But what is a more singular fact (of 
which more will be said presently), the animals not in- 
frequently exhibit, according to the stories told of them, 
the possession and exercise of still higher traits, such 
as border closely on the superhuman — sometimes using 
their superior wisdom solely for their own benefit, and 
sometimes for the benefit of their friends in human 
shape, or for the punishment of their enemies. 
I do not think that I need to stop to illustrate and 
prove what I have thus said. Our literature is full of 
both illustrations and proofs — the books of Folk Lore, 
./Esop's Fables, Uncle Remus, Little Red Riding Hood, 
or any one of the dozen other equally familiar books. 
In fact, the Bible is an excellent authority on some of 
the points suggested, as we will shortly see. 
Now, how and when in the growth of civilization, did 
this idea arise and become a part of the common belief 
of men — that animals could talk — when everybody knows, 
and always did know, that they cannot? It is an old say- 
ing that: 
"The impossible cannot be done, 
I' And very seldom comes to pass," 
But in respect of this matter, "the impossible," if it 
did not actually "come to pass," was believed in as im- 
plicitly as if it had; and men who understood the impos- 
sibihty, still thought, beUeved and acted as if it were net 
Only possible but also !rue. 
Beliefs, whether true or false, do not exist in the ab- 
sence of a sufficient cause by which to account for their 
origin. We may not always know the cause, but we may 
be sure that there once was one. 
It almost goes without saying that this belief in the 
talkability of animals, as a portion of or one element in 
a human cultus, belongs necessarily to an exceedingly 
early period of human development. There is no place 
for it in the life and thought of a civilized or even of a- 
serai-civilized people, except as a relic of an earlier age. 
It is not based, however, on the first or earliest impres- 
.sions which men in a state of savagery would O'" could 
acquire from their observations of the habits and 
capabilities of wild animals. Such early observations 
would indicate the existence of a feeling of hostility 
rather than of friendship; while, as a general _ rule, the 
conversations as reported clearly imply the existence of 
a friendly relation between the . parties, either real or 
assumed. Conversation on a friendly basis necessarily 
implies friendship, and friendship is not the growth of a 
day, especially as between a wild beast and an equally 
wild man. 
Hence it cannot be assumed that the first Nimrod was 
the first inventor of animal talk. Time must first be 
allowed, and probably many centuries of time, for the 
creation and growth of friendly relations between men 
and animals. We may reasonably conjecture that the 
taming and domestication of the first progenitors of 
I our domestic animals, marked thei inception of such 
friendly relations. This work itself must have required 
several centuries — ^we cannot even guess how many — 
for while even yet individual members of a wild family 
of i-iiir-''^'^ ere sometimes easily tamed, man had not 
wilUir period, covering several thousand , 
lyears. ;i; i.iv;i..i..ated ai ' ""imal so as to 
him- 
Hriv,^ bcCTi 
' with 
n.eing 
esinblish in" s progeny a weh 
(S^f- aji an ir.stmst or trait Lro 
)l<mw of no- record of that kmd 
'.Tn?df within fh^ pa^t ■ 
the zebra, the bi?nii, 
birds, but without success. All ou 
were tamed and brought into friendly reiauoiio w:th tlie 
lords of creation long prior to the existence of siiy 
known records of human history — and some {of these' 
records are very old. 
We must therefore premise the existence of somewhat 
intimate friendly relations between men and animals be- 
fore the idea of friendly conversations between them 
could possibly arise; and such friendly relations could 
only follow complete domestication, not necessarily of 
all, but at least of some. And when the gift of speech 
became, in common thought, a trait of domestic animals, 
at was but a step to the further idea that non-domestic 
or wild animals could also talk, as in Little Red Riding 
Hood, and in the Biblical story of the temptation of our 
Grandmother Eve. 
After men b^ecame sociably intimate and on terms of 
good-fellowship with a domestic animal, say with his 
dog, it is not at all surprising that he should wish to 
talk with it, especially if cut off from other company, as 
in long-continued hunting or herding; or, on the other 
hand, that he should imagine that it wished to talk with 
him. And if a man really wanted to talk with his favor- 
ite and faithful dog, he would have no difhculty in get- 
ting up an imaginary conversation, which, if sufficiently 
interesting to others, might easily become, in time, a 
part of the folk-lore of his people. 
Nothing is more common in childhood, even now, 
than for a little girl to extemporize an imaginary con-- 
versation with her -doll; and the subject which we are 
discussing necessarily takes us back to the childhood of 
our race. 
Now, I do not pretend to say that this is the way in 
which was originated the opening chapter in our 
voluminous records of animal folk-lore. As to this, we 
have no positive knowledge whatever — nothing but 
theory, and theory is but another means for guess-work. 
But I feel safe in saying that it is a possible way, that 
it is the best I can think of, and is much more probable 
than any other yet suggested, so far as my reading has 
gone. 
It is possible that our primitive ancestors at some time 
formed the conception (to a certain extent true) that 
animal vocalization, though unintelligible to human ears, 
really constituted a means of conversation as between 
themselves; that is, as between one animal and another. 
With this conception, well formed, the next step — im- 
aginary conversations between animals and men — might 
naturally follow. That is, after relations of friendliness 
or good fellowship had been established, but not before. 
In support of this as a possible theory, Holy Writ in- 
forms us of a belief, once existing, that the trees could 
talk with each other— in fact could consult with reference 
to the furtherance of their common interests, aud decide 
and act. (Judges 9; 8-14,) If trees could talk, why not 
animals? 
As we are now in the field of pure speculation, anoilu r 
possible conjecture will do no hurt. 
In the early conceptions of barbarous nations, it was 
generally believed that every, existing object or thing 
had a life or spirit of its own. Every growing tree not 
only Avas alive, but it had, in popular thought, a life 
separate and distinct from its physical structure. In 
Hebrew thought, this belief continued to exist even 
down to the time of our Saviour, as appears from the 
account of His cursing the barren fig-tree (Mark ri; 
12-14, 20-21). 
Life of this kind in a tree, as well as anywhere else, 
would imply, or naturally lead in course of time to a 
belief in an accompanying intelligence; and a belief in 
intelligence having thus arisen, the idea or conception that 
such intelligence must find expression in some form, 
in a highly imaginative age, naturally follows as a 
necessary inference. And when barbaric thought had 
reached that point — which, however, may have taken 
many centuries — imaginary conversations for the expres- 
sion of such intelligence would be a natural sequence; 
and the frequent repetition of such conversations would 
produce a resultant belief in their genuineness among 
the non-skeptical people. I have heard even civilized 
persons repeat impossible stories of exploits and ad- 
ventures until they seemed to believe them themselves. 
Next, what about Totemism? 
Thi? subject is one which possesses peculiar difHculties. 
How the idea of allying one's self by blood or by descent 
with a wild animal, and of making such alliance the basic 
fact of both religious and social organization, ever 
entered the mind of man, savage or civilized, is a ques- 
tion which h.ns puzzled our best sociologists and anti- 
quarians — and, so far as I know, it has not been satisfac- 
torily answered. Starting, however, from totemism, the 
theory is somewhat generally held that all our animal 
cultus — animals as talkers, animals in religion, animals 
in art, animals in heraldry and animals as national 
emblems — are but relics of an exceedingly old totemism 
which prevailed among the ancient Arj^an and Semetic 
tribes while still in a state of barbarism, but which, ex- 
cept as to the features thus preserved, com.pletely died 
out and was forgotten prior to the discovery of writing 
as a means of preserving knowledge in the earth. 
If we could account for the origin and existence of 
totemism, and could show that it was prior in point of 
time ti; all ether developments of animal folk-lore, the 
theory above referred to might perhaps be accepted, as 
at least highly probable; but it is of no use to say, as was 
said in an old cosmogony, that the world rests on an 
elephant, and the elephant stands on a tortoise, so long 
as we have nothing for t-he tortoise to stand on. We 
gain nothing by attributing animal folk-lore to totem- 
ism, so long as we can neither account for totemism, 
nor prove even the probability of its prior existence. 
But there is one thing which I think that we are safe 
in saying — that totemism could not have arisen during 
the primitive period when men and animals were univer- 
sally hostile. In totemism the relations of men and 
totems, usually, if not always, are relations of friendship 
at least. The idea of any normal or continuing hostility 
between a man and his own totem is utterly foreign to 
the system. In fact, they are more than friendly: an 
intimate relationship by blood or descent is believed 
to exist.- The very idea of a totem carries with it a 
belief in the beneficence of the totem; and the believer 
in the lotern responds to this feeling of beneficence by 
»hr %\ay in which he treats and regards all animals of his 
(o(em dttss. He carefully refrains from doing them any 
liariv.. and protects them from injury so far as he can; 
nor dof • 'he use them for food unless driven thereto by 
extreme hunger, and then only with manifestations of 
great sorrow. 
If I am right thus far, I think we may safely conclude, 
at least as something highly probable, that out of the 
original hostility of man and animals there was evolved: 
First, domestication; second, friendly relations; third, 
talkability; and that totemism comes in somewhere 
later in the evolutionary process. 
To find a place where it might have come in, let us go 
back a little. 
In discussing the conversational powers which have 
been associated with animal life, I referred to the very 
singular fact that some animals, at least, were believed 
to possess a wisdom or intelligence that were super- 
human — that is to say, that certain animals, and more 
particularly the serpent and the raven, possess a much 
larger knowledge than man in respect of those things 
which ordinarily are thought to lie outside of or beyond 
human cogitation and control. From all we can gather 
on the subject, this idea lies at the basis of serpent- 
worship, as formerly practiced by many nations, and as 
even yet resorted to not infrequently among the Hindoo 
peasantry. By such the serpent is thought to have an 
intelligence and knowledge which is in some way super- 
human, and consequetly its favor is to be purchased or 
its hostility placated by the usual acts of worship. The 
account given us in the Bible of the temptation of Eve, 
presupposes or assumes that on the subject then under 
consideration the serpent knew more than Eve did. No 
matter that the serpent lied and knew he was lying. 
Eve, as is represented, believed that his knowledge was 
superior to her own, and trusted him accordingly. Liars 
never deceive except on the assumption of possessing 
stiperior knowledge. 
By the time writing was invented, the idea that animals 
could then talk had for the most part dropped out of 
human thought, though it was still believed that in eariier" 
times they could, and hence the earlier traditions of their' 
doing so were preserved. The case of Balaam's ass-, 
however, (Num. 22) is an exception. The art of writing 
had at that time been long in existence, but a relic of the 
old belief that animals could talk still lingered, and was 
there used, partly, at least, to state and illustrate the 
other fact (which was still believed) that animals in 
point of knowledge and discernment, were superior to 
men. For the ass, even though it was liothing but an 
ass, is represented to have had better powers of obser- 
vation and to have known more than its master— and 
this, too, notwithstanding the fact that its master was a 
genuine prophet of high rank and international reputa- 
tion, 
VVe are so accustomed to looking to the Bible for our 
religion that we frequently overlook the fine irony 
sometimes incidentally concealed in its pages. 
Holy Writ also gives us another case in point, some 
five or six hundred years later. By this time, the raven 
had lost, in popular apprehension, its supposed ability to 
talk, but when in the reign of Ahab of Israel, the 
Prophet Elijah had made things rather hot for his own 
safety at court, and consequently had been compelled 
to fly and hide, though his friends could not find him, 
nor the King, either, the ravens looked him up and fed 
him— "bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and 
flesh in the evening." i Kings: 17; 1-7. 
In selecting incidents from Bibhcal history for the 
purposes of illustration, I do so for the reason that a 
Bible is supposed to be easily accessible to every man, 
while booKs specially devoted to animal lore are some- 
times less so. There is a good deal to be learned from 
the Bible besides religion. 
How, now, did the idea that animals exceeded men in 
knowledge and wisdom, get into human thought? I 
do not know, and I can only suggest one or two possi- 
bilities. 
The idea already alluded to, that everything which 
lives, moves or grows, had some sort of personal life 
of its own, independent of its physical organization, was 
very old, and also, in an ignorant, credulous and highly 
imaginative period of human existence, would be very 
natural. The blooming of a flower, the formation of a 
leaf, or even the springing of a shoot from the ground, 
would involve a mystery which to the primitive man 
would be explicable only on the theory that some super- 
human agency— some spirit— caused it, and he would 
naturally locate the spirit in the flower, leaf or shoot. 
So, also, as to a spring or fountain bubbling up from the 
soil. It, too, must have a spirit. Naturally all nature 
would come to be pervaded with spirits, and as they were 
invisible, they were believed to be in concealment — ^in. 
the depths of the waters, in thick forests and mountain, 
glens and caves. But these places were the ordinary 
and natural dwelling places of the animal creation.. 
What more natural than that the animals should learn 
from the spirits of the forests and of the waters and of' 
the mountains, things which to human apprehension 
were unknown? The birds, too, were in apparent fel- 
lowship with the spirits of the sky, of the sun, the wind, 
and tlie tornado. They, too, should know more than 
men. 
_ It is also true that animals have a wonderful, though 
silent, power of expression. A common dog, standing- 
by my side at table, and looking up wishfully for food, 
appeals to me more strongly by his eye, attitude and tail, 
than the neediest and most persistent human beggar, 
\vith the possible aid of a pathetic voice. Was the primi- 
tive man less susceptible to such silent appeals than I 
am? Might he not naturally conclude that the silent 
dog knew more than the vociferous beggar? 
A number of like citations could be made; but as I 
am not seeking to prove a rule, but only to illustrate a 
probable theory, the above will suffice. 
Now, while suggesting this as possibly, if not probably 
a correct theory to account for the fact, I do not mean 
to intimate that the primitive man ever followed any 
such line of thought, step by step, from premise to con- 
clusion. _ Nor was it necessary that he should. Untu- 
tored minds, in the presence of facts, commonly reach 
results without apparent or consciously thinking at all, 
and apparently by some process which closely resembles 
what we call instinct. 
Now if, as I believe, we are justified in concluding that 
in the evolution of animal folk-lore a belief in the 
superior wisdom of animals generally, or' even of some 
animals, preceded the rise of totemism, then the latter 
systern can be easily accounted for, as also that feature 
of religious and sacrificial systems under which some 
animals were held to be sacred and others not. It then 
became simply a question of rank and classification. If 
the animal ranked high in wisdom, he might easily be- 
come a favorite tribal emblem and grow in time to the 
position now held by the totem. In the degeneracy of 
totemism, undesirable animals would naturally be picked 
up and appropriated, until the whole system would be- 
come a degrading superstition, as is now the case among 
the aboriginal tribes of Africa^ and Australia. Or de- 
veloping in another direction, in the cultus of nations 
where sacrifices became early a part of religion, the ani- 
mals especially esteemed or valued might naturally come 
to be regarded as the proper objects of sacrifice, as in 
ancient Judaism or even of worship as in ancient Egypt. 
But all these things go back to an exceedingly remote 
period in the world's history. Take, for example, the 
account of the temptation of Eve. Regarding it, as I 
do, as allegorical — as much so as the parable of the 
prodigal son, and for pretty much the same reasons— 
I do not feel bound to date it, as does Bishop Ussher, 
