183 
most important considerations affecting anthropology. If this 
were disputed, indeed, I might appeal to other quarters, which 
might possibly have greater weight with some, outside this 
Society, who do not with us accept Holy Scripture as “ the 
key of knowledge.” 
For instance, in M. Boudin’s Etudes Anthrojpologiques, pub- 
lished in Paris in 1864, he begins by citing Cicero as one 
of the most eminent philosophers of antiquity who has defined 
man as a religious animal. “ There is not, in fact, any other 
animal,” says Cicero, “ who has knowledge of God. And 
there, is no nation so barbarous or so savage, that even if 
it is ignorant what deity it ought to have, does not at least 
know that it ought to have a deity of some kind.” .{Be Leg., 
lib. II. cap. 8.) Boudin then goes on to quote Plutarch, as 
saying, “ You may find peoples in cities deprived of walls, of 
houses, of gymnasia, of laws, of monies, of literature ; but a 
people without God, without prayers, without oaths, without 
religious rites, without sacrifices, is what nobody has ever 
seen.” . (Adv. Colleton.) In citing Cicero’s definition of man 
as a religious animal, Boudin refers, in a foot-note, to a curious 
exception, or rather attempt to make an exception to this, 
which I quote as having 1 a peculiar value in the present 
day. He says, ee Buddhism alone has the credit of attempting 
to teach religion to beasts. The author of a Tibetian work, 
translated into the Mongol tongue, and from Mongol rendered 
into French by Klaproth, who treats of the origin of the pro- 
gress of the religion of Buddha in India and in other Asiatic 
countries, recounts the following : f When the veritable religion 
of Chackiamouni ( Qaltya-Muni ) had been spread inHindostan 
and among the most distant barbarians, the high priest and chief 
of the Buddhist faith, not seeing any others of mankind to 
convert, resolved to civilize the large species of monkey called 
jaktcha or raktcha ; to introduce among them the religion of 
Buddha, and to accustom them to the practice of duties, as 
well as the exact observance of sacred rites. This enterprise 
was entrusted to a mission under the direction of a priest 
regarded as an incarnation of the saint Khomchim-Botitaso. 
This priest succeeded perfectly, and converted a prodigious 
number of apes to the Indian faith.-’ ” — You smile at this 
story, as so recounted, even although you may before have 
heard of the sacred monkeys kept in the Buddhist temples. 
It is doubtful whether the story would be accepted in the 
Ethnological or Anthropological societies. But, if you reject 
it here, and laugh at it ; if the notion of monkeys being 
taught religious duties and observances by men is truly ridi- 
culous; how much more ridiculous and absurd must be the 
