296 
83 The number of intersections of independent forces* 
directed by nothing but blind laws* which this system is com- 
pelled to postulate* is alone sufficient to destroy its claim to be 
received as a philosophy. We know* as a matter of fact* that 
the occurrence of one lucky chance is a reason for expecting 
that it will not occur again ; but this system is compelled o 
postulate them in endless succession. What right has it to 
make unlimited drafts on the infinite past* or the infinite 
future? What can positive science have to say to either ot 
them ? To affirm that blind forces can effect all things* it they 
have only sufficient time in which to operate* is not to pro- 
pound a philosophy* but its negation. Our author however 
is not insensible to the difficulties with which he has to 
struggle “ It was doubtless/' he says* “ no small achievement* 
when, in yon ape-like horde* which we must consider as the 
cradle of the human race* the thoroughly erect posture became 
the fashion* instead of the waddle or partially developed gait ot 
the higher apes; but step by step it went on improving* and 
time at least was no consideration More astonishing 
still does this progress appear* from the harsh scream ot the 
ape to articulate human speech." , . 
84. Yes* doubtless* vast is the gulf which separates the two* 
for it involves the entire interval which separates the rational 
from the irrational* the self-conscious from the non-seli- 
conscious* the capacity of moral obligation from the absence ot it, 
Strauss is well aware that without language as an instrument* 
all real thought is impossible. He therefore summons to his 
aid a race or races of intermediate beings* of whose existence 
the evidence is nil , and supposes that they have existed. He 
also observes that monkeys have a kind of language* althoug 
he candidly admits that* whatever else they are capable of being 
taught (and they can be taught many things) they have never 
learned to speak* even when they have been brought into the 
closest contact with man. Nor has our constant companion* 
the do*-* with his half-rationality and his apparent desire to give 
utterance to his feelings, made the smallest approach to the use 
of articulate speech* although he has been the friend of man for 
thousands of years. If a pantheistic or an atheistic philosopher 
could educate either the dog or monkey to use rationally even 
the lowest elements of human language* he would do more to 
prove his theory than by millions of conjectures. 
85. But, adds our author* “Ere that prehuman branch little 
by little elaborated something of a language, periods ot im- 
measurable duration may have elapsed; but after he had once 
hit upon speech, in however imperfect a condition* the speed ot 
his progress was vastly accelerated," &c. 
