REVIEWS. 
403 
against its application to the nature of man, in the sense in which the 
author applies it ; namely, that the advantage which he has over the lower 
animals in being able to speak, “ constitutes and makes him what he is 
and we believe that in so doing we should have the approval of our 
readers; and perhaps, after mature consideration, that of our author. 
In another place,* we thus endeavoured, in a familiar manner, to 
point out the characteristic which distinguishes man from the lower 
animals : — 
“ The advocates of such theories as that of Darwin, and those who refuse 
to acknowledge some trifling attribute of man’s bodily nature as a sufficient 
evidence to justify his severance from the lower animals, are even in this 
enlightened age branded as heretics and infidels, and the more charitably 
disposed speak of their doctrines in a fearful whisper. But is it not far 
more ‘orthodox’ to discard such trifling considerations, and seek the 
true characteristics of our race in those mental attributes by virtue of 
which man towers so high above his inferior companions on earth ? Is 
not the power to write the name of his Maker a more obvious distinction 
than the ‘ opposable thumb ’ with which he holds his pen to perform the 
act? Are not the mental qualities that enable him to appreciate the 
beneficence of that Maker far more important attributes of his nature 
than any trifling peculiarity in the temporary and perishable organ by 
which his mind operates ? ” 
In the same place, too, we referred with satisfaction to the opinions of 
one who claims a higher title to be heard on such matters than we do ; 
and the particular expression which seemed to call for our approval was 
this : — 
“ For whether, as some think, man is by his origin distinct from all 
other living beings, or whether, as others suppose, he is the result of the 
modification of some other mammal, his duties and his aspirations must, I 
apprehend, remain the same. The proof of his claim to independent 
parentage will not change the brutishness of man’s lower nature ; nor, 
except to those valet souls who cannot see greatness in their fellow because 
his father was a cobbler, will the demonstration of a pithecoid pedigreef 
one whit diminish man’s divine right of kingship over nature, nor lower 
the princely dignity of perfect manhood, which is an order of nobility, not 
inherited, but to be won by each of us, as he consciously seeks good and 
avoids evil, and puts the faculties with which he is endowed to their 
fittest use.” 
In this definition of the nature of man, as compared with the lower 
animals, no reference is made to his organ of speech ; but his characteristic 
attributes are found in the mind , and in his conscious power of discri- 
minating between right and wrong. His prerogative is not any unim- 
portant structural feature, nor yet his function of speech — it is his moral 
nature , and we accepted this definition from its author, Professor Huxley, J 
as an earnest of something nobler that was concealed in the background. 
* The Times, April 3, 1361. “Natural History,” by John Hunter : a 
Review. 
t i.e., descent from the ape. 
+ “Natural History Review,” No. I., 1861, p. 67. 
