6o8 
fOdlober, 
Analyses of Books . 
Zodiac with deep significance, either religious, philosophical, or 
scientific,” and in so doing he has our hearty sympathies. 
In his first section, treating on the importance of ascertaining 
the mental standpoint of archaic man, Mr. Brown makes a very 
suggestive remark. He considers that “ the gap between past 
and present ” — and the consequent difficulty we men of the nine- 
teenth century experience in putting ourselves in the place of our 
remotest forefathers — “ is not so much occasioned by the multi- 
tude of wonderful discoveries and inventions ; it arises rather 
from our familiarity with the ordinary adjuncts of human exist- 
ence, and the general appearance of the universe in its customary 
succession of changes ; a familiarity which has produced not 
indeed contempt, but certainly indifference, a state of mind well 
summed up in the didtum that ‘ no servant-girl is surprised at 
the sun ’ ” — an adage evidently of non-British origin. But was 
man ever surprised at the sun ? If so, he must have been in all 
probability suddenly placed upon the earth, and not gradually 
evolved from lower organic forms, and must furthermore have 
been, if not a being of high culture, still not a savage of the 
lowest type. 
The reader thus finds himself led up to one of the burning 
questions of the day which the author does not indeed discuss, 
but it appears somewhat plainly what view he embraces. 
He writes : — “ We have thus the three universal concepts of 
Space, Time, and Number; common to all men, necessities of 
thought, and hence primary truths.” From the working out of 
the time-concept Mr. Brown considers that man was led to 
recognise the reign of law and the harmony of the world. Fur- 
ther, this recognition of law and order enables man to express 
fully his innate ideas of right, justice, law, and the like, but does 
not furnish him with these ideas.” 
But the great question is, Are the concepts of time, space, and 
number, and the idea of justice, not merely common to all men, 
but peculiar to man as compared with the lower animals ? The 
author’s reply may be plainly gathered from the concluding sen- 
tence of his treatise: — “So as man became conscious of the 
splendour and harmony of the external world, did this enable 
him to express and assist him in comprehending and defining 
those great ideas and noble feelings which sever him from every 
other animal.” We naturalists who patiently observe the adtions 
of animals come to a very different conclusion. We find among 
social species, such as rooks and ants, distindt traces of positive 
law which presuppose the idea of justice. Even among non- 
social species we recognise the sentiment of property, and we 
note that, when going beyond their rights, conscience makes 
cowards of them as it does of men. We likewise see that they 
recognise a law of cosmic order, an “ order of Nature,” and on 
witnessing any apparent departure therefrom they display a super- 
stitious dread akin to that shown by savages at some supposed 
