diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/61363-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/61363-0.txt | 8603 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 8603 deletions
diff --git a/old/61363-0.txt b/old/61363-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 64fd3e6..0000000 --- a/old/61363-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,8603 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Universal Kinship, by J. Howard Moore - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Universal Kinship - -Author: J. Howard Moore - -Release Date: February 10, 2020 [EBook #61363] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP *** - - - - -Produced by L. Reeves from scans generously made available -by the Internet Archive. - - - - - -THE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP - -BY - -J. HOWARD MOORE - -INSTRUCTOR IN ZOOLOGY, CRANE MANUAL TRAINING HIGH SCHOOL, CHICAGO - - - ‘A Sacred Kinship I would not forego - Binds me to all that breathes.’ - - — Boyesen. - - -CHICAGO - -CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY - -56 FIFTH AVENUE - -1906 - - -TO - -MY DEAR MOTHER AND FATHER - -WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR ME IN THE LONG YEARS - -THAT ARE PAST AND GONE - - -PREFACE - -_The Universal Kinship_ means the kinship of all the inhabitants of -the planet Earth. Whether they came into existence among the waters -or among desert sands, in a hole in the earth, in the hollow of a -tree, or in a palace; whether they build nests or empires; whether -they swim, fly, crawl, or ambulate; and whether they realise it or -not, they are all related, physically, mentally, morally—this is -the thesis of this book. But since man is the most gifted and -influential of animals, and since his relationship with other -animals is more important and more reluctantly recognised than any -other, the chief purpose of these pages is to prove and interpret -the kinship, of the human species with the other species of animals. - -The thesis of this book comes pretty squarely in conflict with -widely-practised and highly-prized sins. It will therefore be -generally criticised where it is not passed by in silence. Men as a -rule do not care to improve. Although they have but one life to -live, they are satisfied to live the thing out as they have started -on it. - -Enthusiasm, which in an enlightened or ideal race would be devoted -to self-improvement, is used by men in weaving excuses for their own -inertia or in singing of the infirmities of others. - -_But there is a Future_. And the creeds and ideals, men bow down to -to-day will in time to come pass away, and new creeds and ideals -will claim their allegiance. Shrines change as the generations come -and go, and out of the decomposition of the old comes the new. The -time will come when the sentiments of these pages will not be hailed -by two or three, and ridiculed or ignored by the rest; _they will -represent Public Opinion and Law_. - -M. -Chicago, 1905 - - -CONTENTS - -THE PHYSICAL KINSHIP - - I. Man an Animal - II. Man a Vertebrate - III. Man a Mammal - IV. Man a Primate - V. Recapitulation - VI. The Meaning of Homology - VII. The Earth an Evolution - VIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution - IX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution - X. The Genealogy of Animals - XI. Conclusion - -THE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP - - I. The Conflict of Science and Tradition - II. Evidences of Psychical Evolution - III. The Common-sense View - IV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared - V. Conclusion - -THE ETHICAL KINSHIP - - I. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle - II. Egoism and Altruism - III. The Ethics of the Savage - IV. The Ethics of the Ancient - V. Modern Ethics - VI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings - VII. The Origin of Provincialism - VIII. Universal Ethics - IX. The Psychology of Altruism - X. Anthropocentric Ethics - XI. Ethical Implications of Evolution - XII. Conclusion - - -THE PHYSICAL KINSHIP - - I. Man an Animal - II. Man a Vertebrate - III. Man a Mammal - IV. Man a Primate - V. Recapitulation - VI. The Meaning of Homology - VII. The Earth an Evolution - VIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution - IX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution - X. The Genealogy of Animals - XI. Conclusion - - - ‘Like the Roman emperors, who, intoxicated by their power, at - length regarded themselves as demigods, so the ruler of the earth - believes that the animals subjected to his will have nothing in - common with his own nature. Man is not content to be the king of - animals. He insists on having it that an impassable gulf separates - him from his subjects. The affinity of the ape disturbs and humbles - him. And, turning his back upon the earth, he flies, with his - threatened majesty, into the cloudy sphere of a special “human - kingdom.” But Anatomy, like those slaves who followed the - conqueror’s car crying, “Thou art a man,” disturbs him in his - self-admiration, and reminds him of those plain and tangible - realities which unite him with the animal world.’ - - — Broca. - - -THE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP - -The PHYSICAL KINSHIP - -I. Man an Animal. - -It was in the zoology class at college. We had made all the long -journey from amoeba to coral, from coral to worm, from worm to -mollusk, from mollusk to fish, from fish to reptile, and from -reptile to mammal—and there, in the closing pages of faithful old -Packard, we found it. ‘A mammal of the order of primates,’ the -book said, with that unconcern characteristic of the deliverances of -science. I was almost saddened. It was the first intimation I had -ever received of that trite but neglected truth that _man is an -animal_. - -But the intimation was so weak, and I was at that time so -unconscious, that it was not till years later that I began, through -reflection, actually to realise the truth here first caught sight -of. During these years I knew that man was not a mineral nor a -plant—that, indeed, he belonged to the animal kingdom. But, like -most men still, I continued to think of him as being altogether -different from other animals. I thought of man _and the animals_, -_not_ of man and the _other_ animals. Man was somehow _sui generis_. -He had had, I believed, a unique and miraculous origin; for I had -not yet learned of organic evolution. The pre-Darwinian belief that -I had come down from the skies, and that non-human creatures of all -kinds had been brought into existence as adjuncts of the -distinguished species to which I belonged, occupied prominent place -in my thinking. Non-human races, so I had been taught, had in -themselves no reason for existence. They were accessories. A chasm, -too wide for any bridge ever to span, yawned between the human and -all other species. Man was celestial, a blue-blood barely escaping -divinity. All other beings were little higher than clods. So -faithfully and mechanically did I reflect the bias in which I had -grown up. - -But man _is_ an _animal_. It was away out there on the prairies, -among the green corn rows, one beautiful June morning—a long time -ago it seems to me now—that this revelation really came to me. And -I repeat it here, as it has grown to seem to me, for the sake of a -world which is so wise in many things, but so darkened and wayward -regarding this one thing. However averse to accepting it we may be -on account of favourite traditions, man is an animal in the most -literal and materialistic meaning of the word. Man has not a spark -of so-called ‘divinity’ about him. In important respects he is -the most highly evolved of animals; but in origin, disposition, and -form he is no more ‘divine’ than the dog who laps his sores, the -terrapin who waddles over the earth in a carapace, or the -unfastidious worm who dines on the dust of his feet. Man is not the -pedestalled individual pictured by his imagination—a being -glittering with prerogatives, and towering apart from and above all -other beings. He is a pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking, -death-dreading organism, differing in particulars, but not in kind, -from the pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking, death-dreading organisms -below and around him. Man is neither a rock, a vegetable, nor a -deity. He belongs to the same class of existences, and has been -brought into existence by the same evolutional processes, as the -horse, the toad that hops in his garden, the firefly that lights its -twilight torch, and the bivalve that reluctantly feeds him. - -Man’s body is composed fundamentally of the same materials as the -bodies of all other animals. The bodies of all animals are composed -of clay. They are formed of the same elements as those that murmur -in the waters, gallop in the winds, and constitute the substance of -the insensate rocks and soils. More than two-thirds of the weight of -the human body is made up of oxygen alone, a gas which forms -one-fifth of the weight of the air, more than eight-ninths of that -of the sea, and forty-seven per cent, of the superficial solids of -the earth. - -Man’s body is composed of cells. So are the bodies of all other -animals. And the cells in the body of a human being are not -essentially different in composition or structure from the cells in -the body of the sponge. All cells are composed primarily of -protoplasm, a compound of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. -Like all other animals, man is incapable of producing a particle of -the essential substance of which his body is made. No animal can -produce protoplasm. This is a power of the plant, and the plant -only. All that any animal can do is to burn the compounds formed in -the sun-lit laboratories of the vegetable world. The human skeleton, -like the skeletons of nearly all other animals, is composed chiefly -of lime—lime being, in the sea, where life spent so many of its -earlier centuries, the most available material for parts whose -purpose it is to furnish shape and durability to the organism. Man -grows from an egg. So do all creatures of clay. Every animal -commences at the same place—in a single, lowly, almost homogeneous -cell. A dog, a frog, a philosopher, and a worm cannot for a long -time after their embryonic commencement be distinguished from each -other. Like the oyster, the ox, the insect, and the fish, like all -that live, move, and breathe, man is mortal. He increases in size -and complexity through an allotted period of time; then, like all -his kindred, wilts back into the indistinguishable flux from which -he came. Man inhales oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. So does -every animal that breathes, whether it breathe by lungs, gills, -skin, or ectosarc, and whether it breathe the sunless ooze of the -sea floor or the ethereal blue of the sky. Animals inhale oxygen -because they eat carbon and hydrogen. The energy of all animals is -produced mainly by the union of oxygen with the elements of carbon -and hydrogen in the tissues of animal bodies, the plentiful and -ardent oxygen being the most available supporter of the combustion -of these two elements. - -Man is, then, an animal, more highly evolved than the most of his -fellow-beings, but positively of the same clay, and of the same -fundamental make-up, with the same eagerness to exceed and the same -destiny, as his less pompous kindred who float and frolic and pass -away in the seas and atmospheres, and creep over the land-patches of -a common clod. - -II. Man a Vertebrate. - -Man is a _vertebrate_ animal.[1] He has (anatomically at least) a -backbone. He belongs to that substantial class of organisms -possessing an articulating internal skeleton—the family of the -fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most animals have -some sort of skeleton, some sort of calcareous contrivance, whose -business it is to give form and protection to the softer parts of -the organism. Some animals, as the starfishes, have plates of lime -scattered throughout the surface parts of the body; others, as the -corals and sponges secrete plant-like frames, upon and among the -branches of which the organisms reside; and still others, as the -clams, crustaceans, and insects, have skeletons consisting of a -shell or sheath on the outside of, and more or less surrounding, the -softer substances of the body. The limbs of insects are tiny tubes -on the inside of which are the miniature muscles with which they -perform their marvels of locomotion. The skeleton of vertebrates, -consisting of levers, beams, columns, and arches, all skilfully -joined together and sunk deep within the muscular tissue, forms a -conspicuous contrast to the rudimentary frames of other animals. The -vertebrate skeleton consists of a hollow axis, divided into segments -and extending along the dorsal region of the body, from the ventral -side of which articulate, by means of awkwardly-constructed girdles, -an anterior and a posterior pair of limbs. This dorsal axis ends in -front in a peculiar bulbous arrangement called the head, which -contains, among other valuables, the brain and buccal cavern. The -thoracic segments of the backbone send off pairs of flat bones, -which, arching ventrally, form the chest for the protection of the -heart and other vitals. The limbs (except in fishes) consist each of -a single long bone, succeeded by two long bones, followed by two -transverse rows of short, irregular wrist or ankle bones, ending -normally in five branching series of bones called digits. This is -essentially the skeleton of all fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, -and mammals. In short, it is the universal vertebrate type of frame. -There are minor modifications to suit the various kinds of -environment, adaptations to the necessities of aquatic, terrestrial, -and aerial locomotion and life, some parts being specialised, others -atrophied, and still others omitted, but there is never anywhere, -from fishes to philosophers, any fundamental departure from the -established vertebrate type of skeleton.[2] The pectoral fins of -fishes correspond to the fore-limbs of frogs and reptiles, the wings -of birds, and the arms of men. The pelvic fins of fishes are -homologous with the hind-limbs of frogs, reptiles, and quadrupeds, -and the legs of birds, apes, and men. The foot of the dog and -crocodile, the hand of the orang, and the flipper of the dolphin and -seal, all have the same general structure as the hand of man; and -the wings of the bat and bird, the forelimbs of the lizard and -elephant, and the comical shovels of the mole and ornithorhynchus, -notwithstanding the great differences in their external appearance -and use, contain essentially the same bones and the same arrangement -of the bones as do the arms of men and women. The human body has two -primary cavities in it. So have the bodies of all vertebrates: a -neural cavity containing the brain and spinal cord, and a visceral -cavity containing the heart, liver, lungs, and alimentary canal. -Invertebrates have only one body cavity—the one corresponding to -the visceral cavity of vertebrates—and the main nerve trunk, -instead of extending along the back, as among vertebrates, is in -invertebrates located ventrally. Vertebrates are the only animals on -the earth that have a highly developed circulatory system, a system -entirely shut off from the other systems, and containing a heart, -arteries, veins, and capillaries. In all invertebrates the digestive -and circulatory systems remain to a greater or less extent -connected, the blood and food mingling more or less in the general -cavity of the body. Worms and insects have pulsating tubes instead -of heart and arteries. Crustaceans have hearts with one chamber, and -mollusks have two or three chambered hearts, but the blood, instead -of returning to the heart after its journey through the arteries, -passes into the body cavity. In man and other vertebrates the -circulating current is confined strictly to the bloodvessels, no -particle of it ever escaping into the general body cavity. The heart -of vertebrates is distinguished from that of invertebrates by being -located ventrally. The heart of invertebrates is in the back. The -blood of vertebrates differs from that of invertebrates in -containing both red and white corpuscles. Invertebrates have white -corpuscles only. Worms have yellow, red, or bright green blood. The -blood of crustaceans is bluish, that of mollusks is white, and that -of insects dusky or brown. The blood of all vertebrates, excepting -amphioxus, is red. All backboned beings, whether they dwell in seas -or cities, and whether they build nests or empires, have two eyes, -two ears, nose and mouth, all located in the head, and always -occupying the same relative position to each other. Invertebrates -may have their brains in their abdomen, as do the mites; hear with -their legs or antennae, as many insects do; see with their tunics, -like the scallops; and breathe with their skin, as do the worms. The -crayfish hears with its ‘feelers,’ the cricket and katydid with -their fore-legs, the grasshopper with its abdomen, the clam with its -‘foot,’ and mysis and other low crustaceans have their auditory -organs on their tails. - -Man is, then, like the fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, and -quadrupeds, a vertebrate animal. Excepting in his infancy, when he -is a quadruped going on all fours, he uses his posterior limbs only -for locomotion, and his anterior for prehension and the like. His -spinal axis is erect instead of horizontal, and his tail is -atrophied. But he possesses all of the unmistakable qualities of the -vertebrate type of structure—a two-chambered body cavity, a highly -developed and dorsally located nerve trunk, vertebrate vitals, a -closed circulatory system, a ventral heart, red blood, a head -containing sense organs and brain, and a well-ordered internal -skeleton, consisting of a vertebral column with skull and ribs and -two pairs of limbs, the limbs consisting each of one long bone, two -long bones, two transverse rows of irregular bones, and five -branches at the end. - -1. See ‘Classes of Animals,’ at the end of the chapter. -2. Snakes are limbless, and hind-limbs are lacking in whales and -other degenerates; but rudimentary limbs are found in the embryonic -stages of these animals. Frogs, it may be said also, have no ribs. - -III. Man a Mammal. - -Man is a _mammal_. He belongs to the most brilliant and influential -of the five classes of vertebrates—the class to which belong so -many of his associates and victims, the class to which belong the -horse, the dog, the deer, the ox, the sheep, the swine, the -squirrel, the camel, the unattenuated elephant, and the -timid-hearted hare. To this class belong also the lion, the tiger, -the kangaroo, the beaver, the bear, the bat, the monkey, the mole, -the wolf, the ornithorhynchus, and the whale—in short, _all -animals that have hair_. Fishes and reptiles have scales; birds have -feathers; all mammals are covered to a greater or less extent with -hair. The aquatic habits of whales render hair of no use to them. -Hence, while the unborn of these animals still cling to the -structural traditions of their ancestors and are covered with hair, -the adults are almost hairless. The sartorial habits of human beings -and the selective influences of the sexes have had a similar effect -on the hairy covering of the human body. Hair exists all over the -human body surface, excepting on the soles of the hands and feet, -but in a greatly dwarfed condition. It is only on the scalp and on -the faces of males, where it is scientifically assisted for purposes -of display, that it grows luxuriantly. It is by no means certain -that even the hair on the masculine scalp will last forever. For if -the hermetical derby and other deadly devices worn by men continue -their devastations as they have in the past, we may expect to have, -in the course of generations, men with foreheads reaching regularly -to the occiput. Most animals lay eggs. Man does not. Like the dog, -the horse, the squirrel, and the bat, man is viviparous, the eggs -hatching within the parental body. Human young are born helpless, -and are sustained during the period of their infancy by the -secretions of the milk glands. So are all the sons and daughters of -mammals. Whether they come into the world among the waters or among -the desert sands, in the hollow of a tree, in a hole in the earth, -or in a palace, the children of mammals are frail and pitiful, and -they survive to grow and multiply only because they are the object -of the loving and incessant sacrifices of a mother. - -Mammals are distinguished from all other animals by the possession -of two kinds of skin glands—the sweat glands and the oil -glands—and by the development of certain of these glands in the -female into organs for the nourishing of the young. Among reptiles -and birds the lower jaw is suspended from the skull by a bone called -the quadrate bone. Among men and other mammals the lower jaw is -joined directly to the skull, the quadrate bone becoming, in the -vicissitudes of evolution, the hammer (malleus) of the mammalian -ear. Man has a four-chambered heart—two reservoirs which receive, -and two pumps which propel, the scarlet waters of the body. Fishes -have two-chambered hearts; frogs and most reptiles have -three-chambered hearts; all mammals and birds have four-chambered -hearts. The red corpuscles in the blood of fishes, frogs, reptiles, -and birds, are discs, double-convex, nucleated, and in shape oval or -triangular. In man and in all other mammals (except the archaic -camel) the red corpuscles are double-concave, non-nucleated, and -circular. ‘Man has a diaphragm dividing the body cavity into chest -and abdomen, and a shining white bridge of interlacing fibres, -called _corpus callosum_, uniting his cerebral hemispheres. And man -is a mammal because, like other mammals, he has, in addition to the -qualities already mentioned, these valuable and distinct -characteristics. - -IV. Man a Primate. - -Man is a _primate_. There are four divisions in the order of -primates—lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men. But the most interesting -and important of these, according to man, is man. Man is a primate -because, like other primates, he has arms and hands instead of -fore-legs. And these are important characteristics. It was a -splendid moment when the tendencies of evolution, pondering the -possibilities of structural improvement, decided to rear the -vertebrate upon its hind-limbs, and convert its anterior appendages -into instruments of manipulation. So long as living creatures were -able simply to move through the airs and waters of the earth and -over the surface of the solids, they were powerless to modify the -universe about them very much. But the moment beings were developed -with parts of their bodies fitted to take hold of and move and -fashion and compel the universe around them, that moment the life -process was endowed with the power of miracles. With the invention -of hands and arms commenced seriously that long campaign against the -tendencies of inanimate nature which finds its most marvellous -achievements in the sustained and triumphant operations of human -industry. None of the primates excepting man use their hind-limbs as -a sole means of changing their place in the universe, but in all of -them the fore-limbs are regularly used as organs of manipulation. -Man is a primate because his fingers and toes, like those of other -primates (except the tiny marmosets of Brazil), end in nails. Man -has neither claws to burrow into the earth, talons with which to -hold and rend his victims, nor hoofs to put thunder into his -movements. The human stomach, like that of all the other primates, -is a bagpipe. The stomach of the carnivora is usually a simple sack, -while rodents have, as a rule, two stomachs, and ruminants four. Man -is a primate because his milk glands are located on the breast and -are two in number. The mammary glands vary in number in the -different orders of mammals, from two in the horse and whale to -twenty-two in some insectivora. Most ruminating animals have four, -swine ten, and carnivora generally six or eight. These glands may be -located in the region of the groin, as in the horse and whale; -between the forelimbs, as in the elephant and bat; or arranged in -pairs extending from the fore to the hind limbs, as in the carnivora -and swine. In man and all other primates (except lemurs) the mammary -glands are pectoral and two in number. All primates, including man, -have also a disc-shaped placenta. The placenta is the organ of -nutrition in mammalian embryos. It is found in all young-bearing -animals above the marsupials, and consists of a mass of glands -between the embryo and the parental body. In some animals it -entirely surrounds and encloses the embryo; in others it assumes the -form of a girdle; and in still others it is bell-shaped. The -primates are the only animals in which this peculiar organ is in the -shape of a simple disc.[1] - -The nearest relatives by blood man has in this world are the -exceedingly man-like apes—the tailless anthropoids—the gorillas -and chimpanzees of Africa, and the orangs and gibbons of southern -and insular Asia. The fact that man is an actual relative and -descendant of the ape is one of the most disagreeable of the many -distasteful truths which the human mind in its evolution has come -upon. To a vanity puffed, as is that of human beings, to the -splitting, the consanguinity of gorilla and gentleman seems -horrible. Man prefers to have arrived on the earth by way of a -ladder let down by his imagination from the celestial concave. -Within his own memory man has been guilty of many foolish and -disgraceful things. But this attempt by him to repudiate his -ancestors by surreptitiously fabricating for himself an origin -different from, and more glorious than the rest is one of the most -absurd and scandalous in the whole list. It is a shallow logic—the -logic of those who, without worth of their own, try to shine with a -false and stolen lustre. No more masterly rebuke was ever -administered to those in the habit of sneering at the truth in this -matter than the caustic reply of Huxley to the taunt of the -fat-witted Bishop—that he would rather be the descendant of a -respectable ape than the descendant of one who not only closed his -eyes to the facts around him, but used his official position to -persuade others to do likewise. Man’s reluctance to take his -anatomical place beside his simian kinspeople has been exceeded only -by his selfish and high-handed determination to exclude all other -terrestrial beings from his heaven. - -Man is a talkative and religious ape. He is an ape, but with a much -greater amount of enterprise and with a greater likelihood of being -found in every variety of climate. Like the anthropoid, man has a -bald face and an obsolete tail. But he is distinguished from his -arboreal relative by his arrogant bearing, his skilled larynx, and -especially by the satisfaction he experiences in the contemplation -of the image which appears when he looks in a mirror. - -The man-like apes are from three to six feet tall, and are all of -them very strong, the gorilla, who sometimes weighs over three -hundred pounds, being about the bravest and most formidable unarmed -animal on the planet. They are erect or semi-erect, have loud -voices, plantigrade feet, and irritable dispositions—in all of -these particulars being strikingly like men. The gorilla, -chimpanzee, and gibbon are highlanders, preferring the uplands and -mountains. The orang is a lowlander, living phlegmatically among the -sylvan swamps of Sumatra and Borneo. The gorilla and chimpanzee are -terrestrial, seldom going among the trees except to get food or to -sleep. The orang and gibbon are arboreal, seldom coming to the -ground except to drink or bathe. They all walk on their hind-limbs, -generally in a stooping posture, with their knuckles or fingers -touching the ground. But they sometimes walk with their arms hanging -down by their sides, and sometimes with their hands clasped back of -their heads to give them balance. None of them ever place their -palms on the ground when they walk—that is, none of them walk on -four feet. The anthropoid races, in the shape of their heads and -faces and in the general form and structure of their bodies, and -even in their habits of life, resemble in a remarkable manner the -lowest races of human beings. This resemblance is recognised by the -negro races, who call the gorilla and chimpanzee ‘hairy men,’ -and believe them to be descendants of outcast members of their own -species. - -There are differences in structure between man and the apes, just as -there are differences in structure between the Caucasian and the -Caffre, or even between individual Caucasians or individual Caffres. -There are differences in structure and topography, often very -noticeable differences, even among members of the same family. But -in all of its essential characters, and extending often to -astonishing particulars, the structure of man is identical with that -of the anthropoid.[2] - -In external appearances the man-like races differ from men in having -a luxuriant covering of natural hair. But anthropoids differ very -much among themselves in this particular. The orang, usually covered -with long hair, is sometimes almost hairless. There are, too, races -of human beings whose bodies are covered with a considerable growth -of hair. The Todas (Australians) and Ainus (aborigines of Japan) are -noted for the hairiness of their bodies, certain individuals among -them being covered with a real fur, especially on the lower limbs.[3] - -Individuals also often appear in every race with a remarkable -development of the hair. Adrian and his son Fedor, exhibited years -ago over Europe as ‘dog-men,’ are examples. The father was -completely covered with a thick growth of fine dirty-yellow hair two -or three inches long. Long tufts grew out of his nostrils and ears, -giving him a striking resemblance to a Skye terrier. Fedor, and also -his sister, were covered with hair like the father, but another son -was like ordinary men. The man-like races have also longer arms in -proportion to the height of the body than man generally has. But -this is also true of human infants and negroes. The gibbon has -relatively much longer arms than the other anthropoids. It differs -from the chimpanzee in this respect more than the chimpanzee differs -from man. When standing upright and reaching down with the middle -finger, the gibbon can touch its foot, while the chimpanzee can -reach only to the knee. Man ordinarily reaches part way down the -thigh, but negroes have been known to have arms reaching to the -knee-pan.[4] - -The skeleton of the African races contains many characters -recognised by osteologists as ‘pithecoid,’ or ape-like. It is -massive, the flat bones are thick, and the pelvis narrow. In the -manlike apes the large toe is opposable to the other four, and is -used by them much as the thumb is used. But this difference between -the two races of beings is just what might be expected from the -differences in their modes of life. Man has little need of this -opposability on account of his exclusively terrestrial life, while -to the ape it is indispensable on account of his arboreal -environment and life. ‘But there are,’ says Haeckel, ‘wild -tribes of men who can oppose the large toe to the other four just as -if it were a thumb, and even new-born infants of the most -highly-developed races of men can grasp as easily with their -hind-hands as with their forehands. Chinese boatmen row with their -feet, and Bengal workmen weave with them. The negro, in whom the big -toe is freely movable, seizes hold of the branches of trees with it -when climbing, just like the four-handed apes’.[5] - -Many men have lost their arms by accident and have learned to use -their feet as hands with wonderful skill. Not many years ago there -died in Europe an armless violinist who had during his lifetime -played to cultured audiences in most of the capitals of the world. -Some of the most accomplished of penmen hold their pen between their -toes. The man-like apes live to about the same age as man, and all -of them, like man, have beards. The anthropoid beard, too, like the -human, appears at the age of sexual maturity. The human beard often -differs in colour from the hair of the scalp, and whenever it does -it has been observed to be invariably lighter—never darker—than -the hair on the scalp. This is true among all races of men. The same -rule and the same uniformity exists among anthropoids. The races of -mankind are divided into two primary groups depending upon the shape -of the head and the character of the hair: the short-headed races -(Brachycephali), such as the Malays, Mongols, and Aryans, with round -or oval faces, straight hair, and vertical profiles; and the -long-headed races (Dolichocephali), with woolly hair and prognathous -faces, such as the Papuans and Africa races. The skin of the -short-headed races is orange or white, while the skin and hair of -the long-headed races are glossy black. - -It is, at least, interesting that the orang and gibbon, who live in -Asia and its islands, where the brachycephalic races of men -supposedly arose, are themselves brachycephalic; and that the -gorilla and chimpanzee, who live in Africa, where the -dolichocephalic races chiefly live, are dolichocephalic. The gorilla -and chimpanzee also have, like the men and women of Africa, black -skin and hair; while the hair of the orang is a reddish-brown, and -its skin sometimes yellowish-white. The dentition of the anthropoids -and men is in all essentials identical. They all have two sets of -teeth: a set of milk-teeth, twenty in number, and thirty-two -permanent teeth, the permanents consisting of two incisors, one -canine, two premolars, and three molars, in each half-jaw. Man has -ordinarily twelve pairs of ribs and thirty-two vertebrae. So has the -orang. The other anthropoids have thirteen pairs of ribs. But the -number of ribs in both human and anthropoid beings is not uniform, -man occasionally having thirteen pairs, and the gorilla fourteen. -Man has also the same number of caudal vertebrae in his rudimentary -tail as the anthropoid has. The hands and feet of anthropoids, bone -for bone and muscle for muscle, correspond with those of men, no -greater structural differences existing than among different species -of men. The human foot has three muscles not found in the human -hand—a short flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long -muscle extending from the fibula to the foot. All of these muscles -are found in the anthropoid foot just as in the foot of man. There -are also the same differences between the arrangement of the bones -of the anthropoid wrist and ankle as between the wrist and ankle -bones of man. Whatever set of anatomical particulars may be -selected, whether it be hands, arms, feet, muscles, skull, viscera, -ribs, or dentition, it is found that the anthropoid races and men -are in all essentials the same. The differences are such as have -arisen as a result of different modes of life, and such as exist -between different tribes of either group of animals. - -‘The structural differences which separate man from the gorilla -and chimpanzee,’ says Huxley, in summing up the conclusion of his -brilliant inquiry into ‘Man’s Place in Nature,’ ‘are not so -great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes.’ - -‘The body of man and that of the anthropoid are not only -peculiarly similar,’ says Haeckel, ‘but they are practically one -and the same in every important respect. The same two hundred bones, -in the same order and structure, make up our inner skeleton; the -same three hundred muscles effect our movements; the same hair -clothes our skin; the same four-chambered heart is the central -pulsometer in our circulation; the same thirty-two teeth are set in -the same order in our jaws; the same salivary, hepatic, and gastric -glands compass our digestion; the same reproductive organs insure -the maintenance of our race’.[6] - -‘Not being able,’ says Owen in his paper on ‘The Characters of -Mammalia,’ ‘to appreciate or conceive of the distinction between -the psychical phenomena of a chimpanzee and of a Boschisman or of an -Aztec with arrested brain-growth, as being of a nature so essential -as to preclude a comparison between them, or as being other than a -difference in degree, I cannot shut my eyes to the significance of -that all-pervading similitude of structure—every tooth, every -bone, strictly homologous—which makes the determination of the -difference between _Homo_ and _Pithecus_ the anatomist’s -difficulty.’ - -‘If before the appearance of man on the earth,’ says Ward in his -‘Dynamic Sociology,’ ‘an imaginary painter had visited it, and -drawn a portrait embodying the thorax of the gibbon, the hands and -feet of the gorilla, the form and skull of the chimpanzee, the brain -development of the orang, and the countenance of _Semnopithecus_, -giving to the whole the average stature of all of these apes, the -result would have been a being not far removed from our conception -of the primitive man, and not widely different from the actual -condition of certain low tribes of savages. The brain development -would perhaps be too low for the average of any existing tribe, and -would correspond better with that of certain microcephalous idiots -and cretins, of which the human race furnishes many examples.’ - -And it is not true, as is commonly supposed, that, after all other -resemblances between the human and anthropoid structures have been -made out, there still exists somewhere some undistinguishable -difference in the organic structure of their brains. All differences -in structure from time to time suspected or asserted to exist -between the brain of man and that of the man-like apes have been one -after another completely swept away. And it is now known to all -neurologists that the human and anthropoid brains differ -structurally in no particulars whatever, both of them containing the -same lobes, the same ventricles and cornua, and the same -convolutional outline. Even the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu, -and the hippocampus minor, so long triumphantly asserted to be -characteristic features of the human brain, have been pitilessly -identified in all anthropoids by the profound and terrible Huxley. -There is not an important fold or fissure in the brain of man that -is not found in the brain of the anthropoid. ‘The surface of the -brain of a monkey,’ says Huxley, ‘exhibits a sort of skeleton -map of man’s, and in the man-like apes the details become more and -more filled in, until it is only in minor characters that the -chimpanzee’s or the orang’s brain can be structurally -distinguished from man’s’.[7] - -The great difference physically between man and the anthropoids, -aside from man’s talented larynx and erect posture, lies in -man’s abnormal cranial capacity. The normal human cranium never -contains less than 55 cubic inches of space, while the largest -gorilla cranium contains only 34½ cubic inches. This is a -difference of 20½ cubic inches. And 20½ cubic inches of thinking -matter is an alarming amount to be lacking in a single individual. -But this cranial gap between gorilla and man is deprived of some of -its significance by the fact that human crania sometimes measure 114 -cubic inches, making a difference between the smallest and largest -human brains of 59 cubic inches. The difference between the gorilla -and the savage in cranial capacity is, therefore, _only about -one-third as great as the cranial chasm between the savage and the -sage_. - -1. The bat and a few other animals have a disc-like placenta, but it -develops into the disc shape by a different route from what it does -in the primates. -2. Hartmann: _Anthropoid Apes_; New York, 1901. -3. Quatrefages: _The Human Species_; New York, 1898. -4. Tyler: _Anthropology_; New York; 1899. -5. Haeckel: _History of Creation_, 2 vols.; New York, 1896. -6. Haeckel: _The Riddle of the Universe_; New York, 1901. -7. Huxley: _Man’s Place in Nature_; New York, 1883. - -V. Recapitulation. - -The anatomical gulf between men and apes does not exist. There are, -in fact, no gulfs anywhere, only gradations. All chasms are -completely covered by unmistakable affinities, in spite of the fact -that the remains of so many millions of deceased races lie hidden -beneath seas or everlastingly locked in the limy bosoms of the -continents. There are closer kinships and remoter kinships, but -there are kinships everywhere. The more intimate kinships are -indicated by more definite and detailed similarities, and the more -general relationships by more fundamental resemblances. All -creatures are bound to all other creatures by the ties of a varying -but undeniable consanguinity. - -Man stands unquestionably in the primate order of animals, because -he has certain qualities of structure which all primates have, and -which all other animals have not: hands and arms and nails, a -bagpipe stomach, great subordination of the cerebellum, a disc-like -placenta, teeth differentiated into incisors, canines, and molars, -and pectoral milk glands. - -Man is more closely akin to the anthropoid apes than to the other -primates on account of his immense brain, his ape-like face, his -vertical spine, and in being a true two-handed biped. The manlike -apes and men have the same number and kinds of teeth, the same limb -bones and muscles, like ribs and vertebrae, an atrophied tail, the -same brain structure, and a suspicious similarity in looks and -disposition. Men and anthropoids live about the same number of -years, both being toothless and wrinkled in old age. The beard, too, -in both classes of animals appears at the same period of life and -obeys the same law of variation in colour. Even the hairs on -different parts of the bodies of men and anthropoids, as on the -arms, incline at a like angle to the body surface. The hair on the -upper arm and that on the forearm, in both anthropoids and men, -point in opposite directions—toward the elbow. This peculiarity is -found nowhere in the animal kingdom excepting in a few American -monkeys. - -Man’s mammalian affinities are shown in his diaphragm, his hair, -his four-chambered heart, his _corpus callosum_, his non-nucleated -blood-corpuscles, and his awkward incubation. - -The fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, and non-human mammals are human -in having two body cavities, segmented internal skeletons, two pairs -of limbs, skulls and spinal columns, red blood, brains, and dorsal -cords; and in possessing two eyes, two ears, nostrils, and mouth -opening out of the head. And finally all animals, including man, are -related to all other animal forms by the great underlying facts of -their origin, structure, composition, and destiny. All creatures, -whether they live in the sea, in the heavens, or in subterranean -glooms; whether they swim, fly, crawl, or walk; whether their world -is a planet or a water-drop; and whether they realise it or not, -commence existence in the same way, are composed of the same -substances, are nourished by the same matters, follow fundamentally -the same occupations, all do under the circumstances the best they -can, and all arrive ultimately at the same pitiful end. - -VI. The Meaning of Homology. - -The similarities and homologies of structure existing between man -and other animals, and between other animals and still others, are -not accidental and causeless. They are not resemblances scattered -arbitrarily among the multitudinous forms of life by the capricious -levities of chance. That all animals commence existence as an egg -and are all made up of cells composed of the same protoplasmic -substance, and all inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and are -all seeking pleasure and seeking to avoid pain, are more than -ordinary facts. They are filled with inferences. That vertebrate -animals, differing in externals as widely as herring and Englishmen, -are all built according to the same fundamental plan, with -marrow-filled backbones and exactly two pairs of limbs branching in -the same way, is an astonishing coincidence. That the wing of the -bird, the foreleg of the dog, the flipper of the whale, and the -fore-limb of the toad and crocodile, have essentially the same bones -as the human arm has is a fact which may be without significance to -blind men, but to no one else. The metamorphosis of the frog from a -fish, of the insect from a worm, and of a poet from a senseless -cell, are transformations simply marvellous in meaning. And it is -not easy, since Darwin, to understand how such lessons could remain -long unintelligible, even to stones and simpletons. Not many -generations have passed, however, since these revelations, now so -distinct and wonderful, fell on the listless minds of men as -ineffectually as the glories of the flower fall on the sightless -sockets of the blind. - -It is hardly two generations since the highest intelligences on the -earth conceived that not only the different varieties of men—the -black, the white, and the orange—but all the orders and genera of -the animal world, and not only animals, but plants, had all been -somehow simultaneously and arbitrarily brought into existence in -some indistinct antiquity, and that they had from the beginning all -existed with practically the same features and in approximately the -same conditions as those with which and in which they are found -to-day. The universe was conceived to be a fixed and stupid -something, born as we see it, incapable of growth, and indulging in -nothing but repetitions. There were no necessary coherencies and -consanguinities, no cosmical tendencies operating eternally and -universally. All was whimsical and arbitrary. It was not known that -anything had grown or evolved. All things were believed to have been -given beginning and assigned to their respective places in the -universe by a potential and all-clever creator. The serpent was -limbless because it had officiously allowed Eve to include in her -dietary that which had been expressly forbidden. The quadruped -walked with its face towards the earth as a structural reminder of -its subjection to the biped, who was supposed to be especially -skilled in keeping his eyes rolled heavenward. The flowers flung out -their colours, not for the benefit of the bugs and bees, and the -stars paraded, not because they were moved to do so by their own -eternal urgings, but because man had eyes capable of being affected -by them. Man was an erect and featherless vertebrate because his -hypothetical maker was erect and featherless. (I wonder whether, if -a clam should conceive a creator, it would have the magnanimity to -make him an insect or a vertebrate, or anything other than a great -big clam.) - -VII. The Earth an Evolution. - -The world now knows—at least, the scientific part of it -knows—that these things are not true, that they are but the solemn -fancies of honest but simple-minded ancients who did the best they -could in that twilight age to explain to their inquiring instincts -the wilderness of phenomena in which they found themselves. The -universe is a process. It is not petrified, but flowing. It is going -somewhere. Everything is changing and evolving, and will always -continue to do so. The forms of life, of continents and oceans, and -of streams and systems, which we perceive as we open our senses upon -the world to-day, are not the forms that have always existed, and -they are not the forms of the eternal future. There was a time, away -in the inconceivable, when there was no life upon the earth, no -solids, and no seas. The world was an incandescent lump, lifeless -and alone, in the cold solitudes of the spaces. There was a -time—there must have been a time—when life appeared for the -first time upon the earth, simple cellules without bones or blood, -and without a suspicion of their immense and quarrelsome posterity. -There was a time when North America was an island, and the Alleghany -Mountains were the only mountains of the continent. The time -was—in the coal-forming age—when the Mississippi Valley, from -the Colorado Islands to the Alleghanies, was a vast marsh or sea, -choked with forests of equisetum and fern, and swarming with -gigantic reptiles now extinct. There was a time when palms grew in -Dakota, and magnolias waved in the semi-tropical climate of -Greenland and Spitzbergen. There was a time when there were no Rocky -Mountains in existence, no Andes, no Alps, no Pyrenees, and no -Himalayas. And that time, compared with the vast stretches of -geological duration, was not so very long ago, for these mountains -are all young mountains. The time was when Jurassic saurians—those -repulsive ruffians of that rude old time—represented the highest -intelligence and civilisation of the known universe. There were no -men and women in the world, not even savages, when our ape-like -forefathers wandered and wondered through the awesome silences of -primeval wilds; there were no railroads, steamboats, telegraphs, -telephones, typewriters, harvesters, electric lights, nor sewing -machines; no billionaires nor bicycles, no socialists nor -steam-heat, no ‘watered stock’ nor ‘government by -injunction,’ no women’s clubs, captains of industry, labour -unions, nor ‘yellow perils’—there was none of these things on -the earth a hundred years ago. All things have evolved to be what -they are—the continents, oceans, and atmospheres, and the plants -and populations that live in and upon them. - -There will come a time, too, looking forward into the future, when -what we see now will be seen no more. As we go backward into the -past, the earth in all of its aspects rapidly changes; the -continents dwindle, the mountains melt, and existing races and -species disappear one after another. The farther we penetrate into -the past, the stranger and the more different from the present does -everything become, until finally we come to a world of molten rocks -and vapourised seas without a creeping thing upon it. As it has been -in the past so will it be in time to come. The present is not -everlasting. The minds that perceive upon this planet a thousand -centuries in the future will perceive a very different world from -that which the minds of this day perceive—different arts, animals, -events, ideals, geographies, sciences, and civilisations. The earth -seems fixed and changeless because we are so fleeting. We see it but -a moment, and are gone. The tossing forest in the wrath of the storm -is motionless when looked at by a flash of lightning. The same -tendencies that have worked past changes are at work to-day as -tirelessly as in the past. By invisible chisels the mountains are -being sculptured, ocean floors are lifting, and continents are -sinking into the seas. Species, systems, and civilisations are -changing, some crumbling and passing away, others rising out of the -ruins of the departed. Mighty astronomical tendencies are secretly -but relentlessly at work, and immense vicissitudes are in store for -this clod of our nativity. The earth is doomed to be frozen to -death. In a few million years, according to astronomers, the sun -will have shrunken to a fraction of his present size, and will have -become correspondingly reduced in heat-giving powers. It is -estimated that in twelve or fifteen million years the sun, upon -whose mighty dispensations all life and activity on the earth are -absolutely dependent, will become so enfeebled that no form of life -on the earth will be possible. The partially-cooled earth itself is -giving up its internal warmth, and will continue to give it up until -it is the same temperature as the surrounding abysms, which is the -frightful negative of something like 270 centigrade degrees. These -are not very cheerful facts for those who inhabit the earth to -contemplate. But they that seek the things that cheer must seek -another sphere. No power can stay the emaciation of suns or the -thievery of enveloping immensities. Old age is inevitable. It is far -off, but it is as certain as human decay, and as mournful. In that -dreadful but inevitable time no living being will be left in this -world; there will be no cities nor states nor vanities nor creeping -things, no flowers, no twilights, no love, only a frozen sphere. The -oceans that now rave against the rocky flanks of the continents will -be locked in eternal immobility; the atmospheres, which to-day drive -their fleecy flocks over the azure meads of heaven and float sweet -sounds and feathered forms, will be, in that terrible time, turned -to stone; the radiant woods and fields, the home of the myriads and -the green play-places of the shadows, will, like all that live, -move, and breathe, have rotted into the everlasting lumber of the -elements. There will be no Europe then, no pompous philosophies, no -hellish rich, and no gods. All will have suffered indescribable -refrigeration. The earth will be a fluidless, lifeless, sunless -cinder, unimaginably dead and desolate, a decrepit and pitiful old -ruin falling endlessly among heartless immensities, the universal -tomb of the activities. - -The universe is an evolution. Change is as extensive as time and -space. The present has come out of that which has been, and will -enter into and determine that which is to be. Everything has a -biography. Everything has evolved—_everything_—from the murmur -on the lips of the speechless babe to the soul of the poet, and from -the molecule to Jehovah. - -VIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution. - -The animal kingdom represents one of the two grand branches of the -organic universe. It has been evolved—evolved in a manner as -simple and straightforward as it is revolting. It has all been -brought about by _partiality_ or _selection_. Generations of beings -have come into existence. The individual members of each generation -have differed from each other—differed in size, strength, speed, -colour, shape, sagacity, luck, and likelihood of life. No two -beings, not even those born from the same womb, are in all respects -identical. Hardships have come. They have come from the inanimate -universe in the form of floods, fires, frosts, accidents, diseases, -droughts, storms, and the like; from other species, who were -competitors or enemies; and from unbrotherly members of the same -species. Some have survived, but the great majority have perished. -Only a fraction, and generally an appallingly small fraction, of -each generation of a species have lived to maturity. The lobster -lays 10,000 eggs in a season, yet the mortality is such that the -number of lobsters do not increase from one year to another. The -elephant is the slowest breeder of all animals, yet, if they should -all live, the offspring of a single pair in 750 years would, -according to Darwin, number nearly 19,000,000. It has been shown -that at the normal rate of increase of English sparrows, if none -were to die save of old age, it would take but twenty years for a -single pair to give one sparrow to every square inch in the State of -Indiana.[1] A single cyclops (one of the humbler crustaceans) may -have 5,000,000 descendants in a season. One aphis will produce 100 -young, and these young will reproduce in like manner for ten -generations in a season, when, if they should all live, there would -be a quintillion of young. A female white ant, when adult, does -nothing but lie in a cell and lay eggs. She lays 80,000 eggs a day -regularly for several months. An oyster lays 2,000,000 eggs in a -season, and if all these eggs came to maturity a few dozen oysters -might supply the markets of the world. The tapeworm is said to -produce the incredible number of 1,000,000,000 ova, and some of the -humbler plants three times this number of spores. If each egg of the -codfish should produce an adult, a single pair in twenty-five years -would produce a mass of fish larger than the earth. Lower forms of -life are even more prolific than the higher. Maupas said that -certain microscopic infusorians which he studied multiplied so -rapidly that, if they should continue to multiply for thirty-eight -days, and all of them should live, any one of them would produce a -mass of protoplasm as big as the sun. - -Those of each generation that have died have been inferior, or -unfitted to the environment in which they found themselves. Those -that have survived have been superior, superior in -something—bigness, cunning, courage, virtue, vitality, strength, -speed, littleness, or ferocity—something that has related them -advantageously to surrounding conditions. The surviving remnant of -each generation have become the progenitors of the next generation, -and have transmitted, or tended to transmit, to their offspring the -qualities of their superiority. This winnowing has gone on in each -generation of living beings during many millions of years—almost -ever since life commenced to be on the earth. Some have continued -themselves, and others have died childless. The environment of each -species has been an immense sieve, and only the superior have gone -through it. Different environments have emphasised different -qualities of structure and disposition, and have thus given rise to -permanent varieties in survival. These varieties, through the -accumulated effects of many generations of selection, have diverged -into species; species, after a still longer series of selections, -have evolved into genera; genera have evolved into families; -families into orders; and so on. In this simple, terrible manner -have all the branches of organic beings (thanks to the horrors of a -million ages) been brought into existence. - -_Variation_, therefore, which furnishes variety in offspring; -_Heredity_, which tends to perpetuate peculiarities by causing -offspring to resemble more or less the characters of their parents; -and _Environment_, which determines the character of the selections, -are the three factors, and the only three factors, in organic -evolution. - -1. Jordan: _Footnotes of Evolution_; New York, 1898. - -IX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution. - -That the forms of life to-day found on the earth have come into -existence by the evolution of the more complex forms from the -simpler, and of these simpler forms from still simpler, through the -ever-operating law of Selection, is a necessary conclusion from the -following facts: - -1. The existence in the animal world of all grades of structures, -from the humblest possible protozoan, whose body consists of a -single simple speck, to the most powerful and complex of mammals. -There are estimated to be something like a million species of -animals living on the earth to-day. There may be several times this -number. These species are linked together by millions of varieties, -and are so related to each other that they may be all gathered -together into various genera; these genera may be grouped into -families, the families into orders, and the orders into seven or -eight great primary phyla. By taking existing species and adding to -them the extinct species of the rocks, and placing them all -according to their structural affinities, it is possible to arrange -them in the form of a tree with the various phyla, orders, families, -genera, and species, branching and rebranching from the main trunk. -The existence of structures, so graduated as to render such an -arrangement possible, is in itself suggestive of a common -relationship and origin. - -2. Evolution is suggested by the similarities and homologies of -structure found throughout the animal kingdom. Some of these -similarities and homologies have already been mentioned. They are -everywhere—remoter and more fundamental, some of them, others -closer and more detailed. To the untrained mind, which sees surfaces -only, and not even surfaces well, the animal world is an -interminable miscellany of forms. But to the biologist, who looks -deeper and with immense acumen over the whole field of animal life, -there are only seven or eight different types of structure in the -entire animal world. These seven or eight types correspond with the -primary classes, or phyla, into which animals are divided, viz., -protozoa, sponges, celenterates, echinoderms, worms, mollusks, -arthropods, and vertebrates. However widely the members of each of -these great groups may differ among themselves in colour, size, -habits of life, and the like, the members of each group all resemble -each other fundamentally. Moles differ from monkeys, bats from men, -and birds from crocodiles and toads. They differ enormously. But -they are all vertebrates with red blood, double body cavities, -backbones, two pairs of limbs, and five fingers on each limb. When -they are looked at superficially, there is not much similarity -between a water-strider and a butterfly or between a stag-beetle and -a gnat. But they are all, in reality, built according to the same -plan. Like all other insects, they have six legs, a sheath-like -skeleton, and bodies characteristically divided into head, thorax, -and abdomen. It is the same with all other great classes of beings. -All worms resemble each other; and so do all mollusks, although they -may differ in particulars as widely as nautiluses and clams. -Echinoderms have a radiate structure, celenterates and sponges are -vase-like in shape, and protozoa are one-celled. The differences in -structure among the members of a group consist in different -modifications of a fundamental type. Among the vertebrates the -fore-limb may be an arm, a leg, a wing, a shovel, a flipper, or a -fin. But in all cases it is the same organ—that is, the same -implement modified to serve different ends. Take the mouth-parts of -insects. In the grasshopper and cricket these parts are fitted for -grinding; in the moths and butterflies they are fashioned into long -tubes for sucking the sweets of flowers; in the mosquito they form -an elaborate apparatus for drilling and drinking; and in the mayfly -the mouth-parts, though present, are not used at all. In all of -these animals these parts are essentially the same, although -differing so much in their forms and purposes that the unscientific -can scarcely be made to believe they are fundamentally alike. There -is no fact more familiar to the biologist or more frequently met -with in the fields of animal morphology than the fact that the same -general type may be hammered into dozens, or hundreds, or even -thousands, of different patterns by the incessant industry of its -surroundings, and that the same organic part may be moulded into -various implements serving totally different ends by the -environmental vicissitudes of time and space. On the hypothesis that -the members of each group of animals possessing common -characteristics, whether the group be large or small, have sprung -from a common ancestry, and that the differences in structure have -arisen as a result of differences in environment, the similarities -and homologies of structure existing among animals are perfectly -intelligible. But on any other supposition they are inexplicable. - -3. Evolution is suggested by the remarkable series of phenomena -presented by embryology. There are at least four facts in the -developmental history of every creature which can hardly be -accounted for on any other supposition than that of organic -evolution. - -_First_, the fact that every animal, above the lowest, individually -passes through an evolution between the beginning of its existence -and its maturity. Terrestrial beings are not born, like Minerva, -full-grown. They grow. They evolve. They commence close down to the -very atoms. And from this lowly genesis they rise, through a series -of marvellous changes, to that high state of perfection and -greatness from which they descend to dissolution. - -If we knew by actual observation as little concerning the evolution -of individuals as we do of the evolution of species—if we had -always been used to seeing animals, including ourselves, in full -bloom—had never watched the tadpole, the pupa, and the babe pass -through their wonderful metamorphoses on their way to maturity, it -would probably be just as hard for many minds to believe that -animals evolve individually to be what they are as it is for them to -believe that species have grown to be what they are. In the case of -individuals, however, the evolution takes place right before our -eyes largely, while the evolution of species goes on so slowly and -stretches back so far into the past that it can only be inferred. - -_Second_, the fact that animals, no matter how much they may differ -from each other at maturity, all begin existence at the same place. -Every animal commences its organic existence as an egg—as a -one-celled animal—as an organism identical in structure with the -simplest protozoan. The ova of whales ‘are no larger than fern -seeds.’ The eggs of the coral, the crab, the ape, and the man are -so precisely alike that the highest powers of the microscope cannot -distinguish between them. - -_Third_, the fact that the members of the same great group of -animals in their individual development pass through similar stages -of evolution. The ‘worm’ stage in the development of most -insects and the ‘fish’ stage of frogs are well known. - -There are no more remarkable instances of individual evolution in -the whole range of animal life. The fish, the reptile, the bird, the -dog, and the human being—all vertebrates, in short—cannot for -some time after their embryonic commencement be distinguished from -each other. ‘The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet -of birds, and the hands and feet of men,’ says the illustrious Von -Baer, as quoted by Darwin, ‘all arise from the same fundamental -form’.[1] - -‘It is quite in the later stages of development,’ says Huxley, -‘that the human being presents marked differences from the ape, -while the latter departs as much from the dog in its development as -the man does’.[2] - -Not only frogs, but reptiles, birds, and mammals, including man, all -have gills at a certain stage in their embryonic development. Nearly -all the lower invertebrate animals are hermaphroditic—that is, in -the body of each animal is found the two kinds of sex organs which -in the higher animals exist in distinct animals. And frogs, birds, -and other higher animals, which as adults are unisexual, have, as an -inheritance from these primitive forms, hermaphroditic embryos.[3] - -_Fourth_, the fact that the structural stages through which animals -in embryo pass correspond in a wonderful manner with the permanent -structures of those lower forms which extend serially back to the -beginnings of life. It is the proudest boast of the embryologist -that he is able to know the route through which any species has come -to be what it is by a simple study of the individual evolution of -its members. Each animal repeats in its individual evolution the -evolution of its species. This recapitulation is not always -complete—is, in fact, frequently vague, sometimes circuitous, and -often broken or abbreviated. Processes requiring originally -centuries or thousands of years to accomplish are here telescoped -into a few months, or even days. It is not strange that the process -is imperfect. But so firmly is the belief in the correspondence of -ontogeny and phylogeny fixed in the minds of modern biologists that, -in determining the classification and affinities of any particular -animal, more reliance is placed on the facts of embryology than on -those of adult structure. - -The first thing that an animal becomes after it is an egg—unless -it is a one-celled animal, in which case it remains always an -egg—is two cells; these two cells become four; these four become -eight; and so on, until the embryo becomes a many-celled ball, -consisting of a single layer of cells surrounding a fluid interior. -A dimple forms in the cell layer on one side of this ball, and, by -deepening to a hollow, changes the ball into a double-walled sac. -This is the gastrula—the permanent structure of the sponges and -celenterates, and an (almost) invariable stage in the larval -development of all animals above the sponges and celenterates. The -gastrula becomes a worm (or an insect or a fish through the worm) by -elongation and enlargement, and by the development of the endoderm, -which is the inner layer of the cell wall, into organs of nutrition -and reproduction, and by the development of the ectoderm, which is -the outer cell layer, into organs of motion and sensation. - -The embryonic development of a human being is not different in kind -from the embryonic development of any other animal. Every human -being at the beginning of his organic existence is a protozoan, -about 1/125 inch in diameter; at another stage of development he is -a tiny sac-shaped mass of cells without blood or nerves, the -gastrula; at another stage he is a worm, with a pulsating tube -instead of a heart, and without head, neck, spinal column, or limbs; -at another stage he has, as a backbone, a rod of cartilage extending -along the back, and a faint nerve cord, as in amphioxus, the lowest -of the vertebrates; at another stage he is a fish with a -two-chambered heart, mesonephric kidneys, and gill-slits with gill -arteries leading to them, just as in fishes; at another stage he is -a reptile with a three-chambered heart, and voiding his excreta -through a cloaca like other reptiles; and finally, when he enters -upon post-natal sins and actualities, he is a sprawling, squalling, -unreasoning quadruped. The human larva from the fifth to the seventh -month of development is covered with a thick growth of hair and has -a true caudal appendage, like the monkey. At this stage the embryo -has in all thirty-eight vertebrae, nine of which are caudal, and the -great toe extends at right angles to the other toes, and is not -longer than the other toes, but shorter, as in the ape. - -These facts are unmistakable. There is a reason for everything, and -there is a reason for these transformations through which each -generation of living beings journeys. The individual passes through -them because the species to which he belongs has passed through -them. They represent ancestral wanderings. As if to emphasise the -kinship of all of life’s forms and to render incontrovertible the -fact of universal evolution, Nature compels every individual to -commence existence at the same place, and to recapitulate in his -individual evolution the phylogenetic journeyings of his species. - -4. That existing forms of life have been evolved from other forms, -and that these ancestral forms have been different from those -derived from them, is shown by the occasional appearance of -antecedent and abandoned types of structure among the offspring of -existing species. Occasionally a human child is born strangely -unlike its parents, but bearing an unmistakable resemblance in looks -and disposition to his great-grandfather or some other remote -ancestor. This is _atavism_, that tendency to revert to ancestral -types which is prevalent among all animals. We may think of it -figuratively as a flash of indecision when Nature hesitates for a -moment whether to adopt a new form of structure or cling to the old -and tried. Horses and mules are sometimes born with three toes on -each foot, and zebra-like stripes on their legs and shoulders; and -domestic pigeons, such as are naturally black, red, or mottled, -occasionally produce offspring with blue plumage and two black -wing-bars, like the wild rock-dove, from which all domestic breeds -have sprung. In man the cheekbone and the frontal bone of the -forehead consist normally each of a single bone. But in children and -human embryos these bones are always double, as is normally the case -in adults among some of the anthropoids and other mammals. Gills -appear regularly in the embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals, and -human young are sometimes born with gill-slits on the neck. There -are times when, owing to inaccurate or incomplete embryological -development, these fish-like characteristics are so perfect at birth -as to allow liquids, on being swallowed, to pass out through them -and trickle down on the outside of the neck. Many muscles are -occasionally developed in man which are normal in the apes and other -mammals. As many as seven different muscular variations have been -found in a single human being, every one of which were muscles found -normally in the structure of the apes.[1] - -5. Closely akin to atavism, which is the occasional persistence of -ancestral types of character, is the regular occurrence of vestigial -organs or structures, organs which in ancestral forms have definite -functions, but which in existing species, owing to changed -conditions, are rudimentary and useless. On the back of each ankle -of the horse are two splints, the atrophied remains of the second -and fourth toes. Similar vestiges of two obsolete toes are also -found just back of the wrists and ankles on all the two-toed -ungulates, such as the cow and sheep. In the body of the whale where -hind-limbs would naturally be, there are found the anatomical ruins -of these organs in the form of a few diminutive bones. The same -thing is true in the sirenians. In the Greenland whale there are -remnants of both femur and tibia in the region of the atrophied -hind-limbs. The snakes are limbless, but the pythons and boas have -internal remnants of hind-limbs and sometimes even clawed structures -representing toes. The so-called ‘glass-snake’ or -‘joint-snake’ (which is really a limbless lizard) has four -complete internal limbs. Young turtles, parrots, and whalebone -whales have teeth, but the adults of these animals are toothless. -Cows, sheep, deer, and other ruminants, never have as adults any -upper incisors, but these teeth are found in the foetal stages of -these animals just under the gums. The female frog has rudimentary -male reproductive organs, and the male has corresponding vestiges of -female organs. Similar remnants of the reproductive structures exist -in many other animals. They represent stages in the transition from -the hermaphroditism of primitive animals to the unisexuality of the -higher forms, the separation of the sex organs into those of male -and female having come about through the decay of one set of -structures in each individual. - -For reasons which it is not necessary to mention here, biologists -believe that insects all originated from a common parental form, -with two pairs of wings and six legs. Insects all retain their -original allowance of legs, but in many species one or the other -pair of wings has become more or less degenerated. In the whole -order of flies the back pair of wings is represented by a couple of -insignificant knobs. In the Strepsiptera, a sub-order of beetles, -the front-wings are similarly reduced, being mere twisted filaments. -Many parasites, such as fleas and ticks, whose mode of life renders -organs of aerial locomotion unnecessary, are entirely wingless. The -insects of small isolated islands are also largely without wings, -the proportion of wingless species being much larger than among -insects inhabiting continents. This is due to their greater -liability on small land masses of being carried out to sea and -drowned, owing to the feebleness and uncertainty of insect flight. -On the island of Madeira, out of the 550 species found there, 220 -species no longer have the power of flight. - -Air-breathing animals—amphibians, reptiles, birds, and -mammals—have normally a pair of lungs—a right one and a left -one. But in snakes and snake-like lizards, where the body is very -slender and elongated, only one lung, sometimes the right one, and -sometimes the left, is fully developed. The right ovary is likewise -aborted in all birds, the left one yielding all the eggs. The swifts -and frigate birds live almost their whole lives long on the wing, -and the legs of these birds have grown so short and weak and -rudimentary, as a result of their constant life in the air, that -they can scarcely walk. The chimney swift is said never to alight -anywhere except on the sooty inner walls of the chimney where its -nest is. Its food consists of insects which it gathers in the air, -and the few dead twigs used in making its nest are nipped from the -tree while the bird continues its flight. The ostriches, -cassowaries, and many other birds, have, on the other hand, -developed their legs at the expense of their wings. The ostrich is -said to be able to outrun the horse, but it has no power of flight, -although it has wings and wing muscles, and even the skin-folds -covering the wings corresponding to those of birds that fly. But its -whole flying apparatus is in ruins. The rudimentary hind-toe of -birds is a vestigial organ, and so are the claws which appear on the -thumb and first finger of all young birds. So also are the rudiments -of eyes in cave crickets, fishes, and other inhabitants of total -darkness. The flounder and other so-called flat fishes swim straight -up, as ordinary fishes do, when young. But as they grow they incline -more and more to one side, and finally swim entirely on their side, -the eye on the lower side migrating around, and joining the other on -the upper side of the head. - -About the first thing a human infant does on coming into the world -is to prove its arboreal origin by grasping and spitefully clinging -to everything that stimulates its palms. A little peeperless babe an -hour old can perform feats of strength with its hands and arms that -many men and women cannot equal. It can support the entire weight of -its body for several seconds hanging by its hands. Dr. Robinson, an -English physician, found as a result of sixty experiments on as many -infants, more than half of whom were less than an hour old, that -with two exceptions every babe was able to hang to the finger or to -a small stick, and sustain the whole weight of the body for at least -ten seconds. Twelve of those just born held on for nearly a minute. -At the age of two or three weeks, when this power is greatest, -several succeeded in sustaining themselves for over a minute and a -half, two for over two minutes, and one for two minutes and -thirty-five seconds. The young ape for some weeks after birth clings -tenaciously to its mother’s neck and hair, and the instinct of the -child to cling to objects is probably a survival of the instinct of -the young ape. I believe it is Wallace who relates somewhere an -incident which illustrates the instinct of the young simian to cling -to something. Wallace had captured a young ape, and was carrying it -to camp, when the little fellow happened to get its hands on the -naturalist’s whiskers, which it mistook, evidently, for the -hirsute property of its mother, and, driven by the powerful instinct -of self-preservation, it hung on to them so desperately it could -scarcely be pulled loose. Many mammals are provided with a -well-developed muscular apparatus for the manipulation of their -ears. But in man there does not exist the same necessity for -auricular detection of enemies, and while these muscles still exist, -and are capable of being used to a slight extent by occasional -individuals, they are generally so emaciated as to be useless. - -Another vestigial organ in the body of man, and one of significance -from the standpoint of morphology, is the tail. The tail is an -exceedingly unpopular part of the human anatomy, most men and women -being unwilling to admit that they have such an appendage. But many -a person who has hitherto dozed in ignorance on this matter has -learned with considerable dismay, when he has for the first time -looked upon the undraped lineaments of the human skeleton, that man -actually has a tail. It consists of three or four (sometimes five) -small vertebrae, more or less fused, at the posterior end of the -spinal column. That this is really a rudimentary tail is proved -beyond a doubt by the fact that in the embryo it is highly -developed, being longer than the limbs, and is provided with a -regular muscular apparatus for wagging it. These caudal muscles are -generally represented in grown-up people by bands of fibrous tissue, -but cases are known where the actual muscles have persisted through -life.[4] - -The nictitating membrane, which in birds and many reptiles consists -of a half-transparent curtain acting as a lid to sweep the eye, is -in the human eye dwindled to a small membranous remnant, draped at -the inner corner. The growth of hair over the human body surface may -be regarded, in view of the sartorial habits of man, as a vestigial -inheritance from hairy ancestors. One of the most notorious of the -vestigial organs of man is the vermiform appendix, a small slender -sac opening from the large intestine near where the large intestine -is joined by the small intestine. In some animals this organ is -large and performs an important part in the process of digestion. -But in man it is a mere rudiment, not only of no possible aid in -digestion, but the source of frequent disease, and even of death. - -There are in all, according to Darwin, about eighty vestigial organs -in the human body. But these organs occur everywhere throughout the -animal kingdom. There is not an order of animals, nor of plants -either, without them. They are necessary facts growing out of -evolution. Organic structures are the result of adjustment to -surrounding conditions. The continual changes in environment to -which all organisms are exposed necessitate corresponding changes in -structure. And the vestiges found in the bodies of all animals -represent parts which in the previous existence were useful and -necessary to a complete adjustment of the organism, but which, owing -to a change of emphasis in surroundings, have become useless, and -consequently shrunken. They are the obsolete or obsolescent parts of -animal structure—parts which have been outgrown and -superseded—the ‘silent letters’ of morphology. They sustain -the same relation to the individual organism as dead or dwindling -species sustain to a fauna. They furnish indisputable proof of the -kinship and unity of the animal world. - -6. It is only on the supposition that the life of the earth has -evolved step by step with the evolution of the land masses, and that -the forms of life from which existing forms were evolved were -dispersed over the earth at a time when physiographic conditions -were very different from what they are now, that it is possible to -account for the peculiar manner in which animals are distributed -over the earth. The cassowary is a flightless bird of the ostrich -order inhabiting Australia and the islands to the north of it. This -bird is found nowhere else in the world, and each area has its own -particular species. The same things are also true of the kangaroo. -It is found over a similar region, with a different species -occupying each land mass. Now, on the hypothesis of special creation -there is no thinkable reason why these animals should be divided, as -they are, into distinct species, and restricted to this particular -region. But on the hypothesis of evolution it is perfectly plain. -All of these regions at one time were united with one another, and -were subsequently submerged in part, forming islands. Each group of -animals, being isolated from every other group and subjected to -somewhat different conditions, developed a style of departure from -the original type of structure different from that of every other -group in response to the peculiar conditions operating upon it. This -has led, in the course of centuries of selection, to the formation -of distinct species such as exist to-day. - -Lombock Strait, a narrow neck of water between Bali and Lombock -Island, and Macassar Strait, separating Celebes from Borneo, are -parts of a continuous passage of water which in remote times -separated two continents—an Indo-Malayan continent to which -belonged Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and the Malay Peninsula; and an -Austro-Malayan continent, now represented by Australia, Celebes, the -Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomon’s Islands, etc. Wallace first -announced this ancient boundary, and it has been called -‘Wallace’s line.’ He was led to infer its existence by the -fact which he observed as he travelled about from island to island, -that, while the faunas of these two regions are as wholes very -different from each other, the faunas of the various land patches in -each area have a wonderful similarity. Australia is a veritable -museum of old and obsolete forms of both plants and animals. Its -fauna and flora are made up prevailingly of forms such as have on -the other continents long been superseded by more specialised -species. No true mammals, excepting men and a few rats, lived in -Australia when Englishmen first went there. The most powerful -animals were the comparatively helpless marsupials. The explanation -of these remarkable facts is probably this: The Australian -continent, which formerly included New Guinea and other islands to -the north, has not been connected with the other land masses for a -very long period of time. The development upon the other continents -of the more powerful mammals, especially of the ungulates and the -carnivora, resulted in the extermination of the more helpless forms -from most of the earth’s surface. But Australia, protected by its -isolation, has retained to this day its old-fashioned forms of life, -neither land animals nor plants having been able to navigate the -intervening straits. This supposition is strengthened by the fact -that fossil remains of marsupials are to-day found scattered all -over the world, while, with the exception of the American opossums, -living marsupials are found only in Australia and its islands. There -is to-day not a single survivor of these once-numerous races in -either Europe, Asia, or Africa. Similar facts of distribution are -furnished by the lemurs—those small, monkey-like animals with fox -faces, which are sometimes called ‘half-apes,’ since they are -supposed to be the link connecting the true apes with lower forms. -Fossil lemurs are found in both America and Europe, but lemurs are -now extinct in both continents. Those of America were probably -exterminated by the carnivora, who are known to be very fond of -monkey meat of all kinds. The European lemurs seem to have migrated -southward into eastern Africa at a time when Madagascar formed a -part of the mainland. ‘There they have been isolated, and have -developed in a fashion comparable to that which has occurred in the -case of the Australian marsupials. Of fifty living species, thirty -are confined to Madagascar, and the lemurs are there exceedingly -numerous in individuals. Outside of Madagascar they only maintain a -precarious footing in forests or on islands, and are usually few in -number’.[3] - -If the earth were peopled by migrations from Ararat, it would -require a good deal of intellectual legerdemain to show why the -sloths are confined to South America and the monotremes to Australia -and its islands. The reindeer of northern Europe and Asia, and the -elk and caribou of Arctic America, are so much alike they must have -descended from a common ancestry, and been developed into distinct -species since the separation of North America and Eurasia. The same -thing is probably also true of the puma and jaguar, who inhabit the -middle latitudes of the New World, and the lion, tiger, and leopard, -occupying like latitudes of the Old World. They all belong to the -cat family, and represent divergences from a common feline type of -structure. The camel does not exist normally outside of northern -Africa and central and western Asia. And when the camel-like llama -of South America first became known to zoologists, it was a problem -how this creature could have become separated so far from the -apparent origin of the camel family. But since then fossil camels -have been found all over both North and South America. And it has -even been suspected that perhaps America was the original home of -the camel, and that, like the horse, the camel migrated to the -eastern hemisphere at a time when the eastern and western land -masses were connected. The foxes, hares, and other mammals of the -upper Alps, also many Alpine plants, are like those of the Arctic -regions. The most probable explanation of these resemblances is that -these Alpine species climbed up into these inhospitable altitudes, -and were left stranded here on this island of cold, when their -relatives, on the return of warmth at the close of the glacial -period, retreated back to the ice-bound fastnesses around the pole. -It is for a similar reason, probably, that the flora of the upper -White Mountains resembles that of Labrador. - -7. One of the strongest pieces of evidence bearing on evolution that -is furnished by any department of knowledge is that furnished by -geology. It is the evidence of the rocks. Geology is, among other -things, a history of the earth. This history has been written by the -earth itself on laminae of stone. It is from these records that we -learn incontestably the order in which the forms of life have made -their appearance on the earth. - -Three-fourths of the surface of the earth is sea. Over the surface -of the remaining fourth, excepting in mountainous places, is a layer -of soil, varying from a few feet to a few hundred feet in depth. -Beneath this coverlet of soil, extending as far as man has -penetrated into the earth, is rock. Excepting in regions overflowed -by lava poured out from beneath, or along the backbones of -continents where the surface rocks have been upheaved into folds and -carried away by denudation, the rocks immediately beneath the soil, -to a thickness often of thousands of feet, are in the form of -layers, or sheets, arranged one above another. These rocks are -called sedimentary rocks, as distinguished from the unlaminated -rocks of the interior. They have been formed at the bottom of the -sea, and have, hence, all been formed since the condensation of the -oceans. They have been formed out of the detritus of continents -brought down by the rivers and the accumulated remains of animal and -vegetal forms which have slowly settled down through the waters. -They are the successive cemeteries of the dead past. Such rocks are -now forming over the floors of all oceans—forming just as they -have formed throughout the long eons of geological history. Along -the axes of ancient mountains and in deep-cut canyons the rock -layers are exposed to a thickness of thousands of feet, in some -cases thirty or forty thousand feet. Here they lie, piled up, one on -top of another, the great, broad pages upon which are written the -long, dark story of our planet. It is the mightiest and most -everlasting of all annals—the autobiography of a world. It is -possible, by studying these rock records, to know not only the kind -of life that lived in each age, but a good deal regarding the -conditions in which that life lived and passed away. Just as the -naturalist is able, from a single bone of an unknown animal, to -reconstruct the entire animal and to infer something of its -surroundings and habits of life, and as the archeologist, by going -back to the graves of deceased races and digging up the dust upon -which these races wrought, is able to tell much of their history and -characteristics, so the geologist, by studying the bones of those -more distant civilisations, the civilisations sandwiched among the -fossiliferous rocks, is able to know, not only just the kind of life -that lived in each age, but, by comparing the species of successive -strata, can construct with astonishing fulness the genealogical -outline of the entire life process. The succession of life forms as -they appear in the rocks, with a sketch of their probable genealogy, -is traced elsewhere in this chapter. It is only necessary to say -here that the order in which the forms of life appear in the -sedimentary strata is that of a gradually increasing complexity. The -invertebrates appear first; then the fishes, the lowest of the -vertebrates; after these come the amphibians; following these the -reptiles; and finally the birds and mammals. - -8. There is another reason for a belief in evolution furnished by -geology, but of a somewhat different kind from that just stated. It -consists in the fact that there are found in the rocks series or -grades of structures, which fit with amazing accuracy on to the -structures of existing species. Now, this is precisely what, -according to the evolutional hypothesis, is to be expected. For, if -evolution is true, existing species represent the tops of things. -They are the existing and visible parts of processes which extend -indefinitely back into the past, and whose deceased stages may -reasonably be expected to be found fossil in the earth. Considering -the youth and inexperience of paleontology and the torn and -incoherent character of the record, it is surprising that anatomists -have been able to accomplish what they have accomplished. In many -cases—notably, those of man, the snail, the crocodile, and the -horse—antecedent forms of structure have been found in almost -unbroken gradations leading back to types differing immensely from -their existing representatives. Bones and fossils of men have been -found buried beneath the alluvium of rivers, under old lava-beds, -and in caves, crusted over by the deposits of percolating waters. -Many such fossils are found in quaternary rocks, along with the -bones of animals still living and some extinct. Some of these -remains indicate unmistakable affinities with the ape. The most -celebrated of these discoveries is the fossil of an erect ape-man -(_Pithecanthropus erectus_), found by a Dutch Governor on the island -of Java in 1894. This fossil, in the shape and size of the head and -in its general structure, strikes about as near as could be the -middle between man and ape. That it is the fossil of an ambiguous -form is indicated by the fact that, when it was examined by a -company of twelve specialists at Berlin soon after its discovery, -three of them declared it to be the remains of an individual -belonging to a low variety of man; three others thought it was a -large anthropoid; while the other six held that it was neither man -nor anthropoid, but a genuine connecting link between them. It is -discussed at length by Haeckel in ‘The Last Link,’ a paper read -before the International Congress of Zoology, at Cambridge, in 1898. -‘It is,’ says the veteran biologist, ‘the much-sought -“missing link” supposed to be wanting in the chain of primates -which stretches unbroken from the lowest catarhine to the most -highly developed man.’ Associated with this fossil ape-man were -the fossils of the elephant, hyena, and hippopotamus, none of which -any longer exist in that part of the world, also the fossil remains -of two orders of animals now extinct. The genealogy of the crocodile -has been traced by Huxley, through all intermediate stages, back to -the giant reptiles of the early Tertiary.[5]And the pedigree of the -horse has been even more completely worked out by the indefatigable -Marsh. In the museum of Yale University may be seen the fossil -history of this splendid ungulate, from the time it was a clumsy -little quadruped only 14 inches high, and with four or five toes on -each foot, down to existing horses. The earliest known ancestor of -the horse, the eohippus, lived at the beginning of the Eocene epoch. -It had five toes, almost equal, on each front foot (four toes -behind), and was about the size of a fox. The orohippus, which lived -a little later, had four toes on each front-foot, and three behind. -The mesohippus, found in the Miocene, had three toes and one -rudimentary toe on each front-foot, and three toes behind. It was -about the size of a sheep. The miohippus, which is found later, had -three toes on each of its four feet, with the middle toe on each -foot larger than the other two. The pliohippus, living in the -Pliocene epoch, had one principal toe on each foot, and two -secondary toes, the two secondary toes not reaching to the ground. -It was about the size of a donkey. Existing horses have one toe on -each foot—the digit corresponding to the big middle finger—and -the ruins of two others in the form of splints on the back of each -ankle. In the embryo of the horse these splints are segmented, each -of them, into three phalanges. Fossil remains representing all -stages in the development of the horse have been found in the -regions about the upper waters of the Missouri River. - -It is an important fact that the types of structure forming any -series grow more and more generalised as the distance from the -present increases, and that different lines of development, when -traced back into the past, often converge in types which combine the -main characters of various existing groups. The horses, -rhinoceroses, and tapirs, great as are the differences among them -now, can be traced back step by step through fossil forms, their -differences gradually becoming less marked, until ‘the lines -ultimately blend together, if not in one common ancestor, at all -events into forms so closely alike in all essentials that no -reasonable doubt can be held as to their common origin.’ ‘The -four chief orders of the higher mammals—the primates, ungulates, -carnivora, and rodents—seem to be separated by profound gulfs, -when we confine our attention to the representatives of to-day. But -these gulfs are completely closed, and the sharp distinctions of the -four orders are entirely lost, when we go back and compare their -extinct predecessors of the Cenozoic period, who lived at least -three million years ago. There we find the great sub-class of the -placentals, which to-day comprises more than two thousand five -hundred species, represented by only a small number of insignificant -pro-placentals, in which the characters of the four divergent orders -are so intermingled and toned down that we cannot in reason do other -than consider them as the precursors of those features. The oldest -primates, the oldest ungulates, the oldest carnivora, and the oldest -rodents, all have the same skeletal structure and the same typical -dentition (forty-four teeth) as these pro-placentals; all are -characterised by the small and imperfect structure of the brain, -especially of the cortex, its chief part, and all have short legs -and five-toed, flat-soled (plantigrade) feet. In many cases among -these oldest placentals it was at first very difficult to say -whether they should be classed with the primates, ungulates, -carnivora, or rodents, so very closely and confusedly do these four -groups, which diverge so widely afterwards, approach each other at -that time. Their common origin from a single ancestral group follows -incontestably’.[6] - -9. Man is the most powerful and influential of animals. He rules the -world—rules it with a sovereignty more despotic and extensive than -that hitherto exercised by any other animal. Many races of beings -are, and have been for centuries, completely dominated by him. These -races, during their long subjection, have been changed and -transformed by man in a wonderful manner through his control of -their power to breed. All domestic animals have come from wild -animals; they have been derived by a process of selective evolution -conducted by man himself. By continually choosing as the progenitors -of each generation those with qualities best suited to his whims and -purposes, man has evolved races as different from each other in -appearance and structure, and as different from the original -species, as many groups which, in the wild state, constitute -distinct species; indeed, man has in some cases created entirely new -species, both of plants and animals—species that breed true and -are what biologists call ‘good’—by his own selections. - -There are something over 150 different varieties of the domestic -pigeon. Some of these varieties—as many as a dozen, Mr. Darwin -thinks—differ from each other sufficiently to be reckoned, if they -are considered solely with reference to their structures, as -entirely distinct species. The carrier, for instance, the giant of -the pigeons, measures 17 inches from bill-tip to the end of its -tail, and has a beak 1 3/4 inches long. Around each eye is a large -dahlia-like wattle, and another large wattle is on the beak, giving -the beak the appearance of having been thrust through the kernel of -a walnut. The tumbler is small, squatty, and almost beakless. It has -the preposterous habit of rising high in the air and then tumbling -heels over head. The roller, one of the many varieties of the -tumbler, descends to the ground in a series of back somersaults, -executed so rapidly that it looks like a falling ball. The runt is -large, weighing sometimes as much as the carrier. The fantail has -thirty or forty feathers in its tail, while all other varieties have -only twelve or fourteen, the normal number for birds. The trumpeter, -so named on account of its peculiar coo, has an umbrella-like hood -of feathers covering its head and face, and its feet are so heavily -feathered that they look like little wings. In the correct specimens -of this variety the feathers have to be clipped from the face before -the birds can see to feed themselves. The pouter has the absurd -habit of inflating its gullet to a prodigious size, and the Jacobin -wears a gigantic ruff. The homing pigeon has such a strong -attachment for its cote that it will travel hundreds of miles, -sometimes as many as 1,400 miles, in order to reach the home from -which it has been separated. But it is not simply in their colour, -size, habits, and plumage, that pigeons vary. There are -corresponding differences in their structures, in the number of -their ribs and vertebrae, in the shape and size of the skull, in the -bones of the face, in the development of the breast-bone, and in the -length of the neck, legs, and bill. Pigeons also differ in the shape -and size of their eggs, and in their dispositions and voice. -‘There is,’ says Huxley in summing up his discussion of the -great variety in these birds, ‘hardly a particular of either -internal economy or external shape which has not by selective -breeding been perpetuated and become the foundation of a new -race’.[7] - -All of the 150 different varieties of domestic pigeons have been -evolved by human selection during the past three or four thousand -years from the blue rock-doves which to-day inhabit the seacoast -countries of Europe. - -What is true of pigeons is also true largely of most of the other -races associated with man—of cats, cattle, horses, sheep, swine, -goats, fowls, and the like. All varieties of the domestic -chicken—the clumsy Cochin with its feather-duster legs, the tall -and stately Spanish, the great-crested Minorca, the Dorking with its -matchless; comb and wattle, the almost combless Polish, the blue -Andalusian, the gigantic Brahma, the tiny Bantam, the Wyandottes in -all colours (black, white, buff, silver, and golden), the -magnificent Plymouth Rocks, and the exceedingly pugnacious -Game-cock—these and dozens of other varieties, all flightless, -have come from the jungle-bird whose morning clarion still greets -Aurora from the wilds of distant India. The dog is a civilised wolf, -and the wild-boar is the progenitor of the oleaginous swine. The -Merino and South Down breeds of sheep have come from the same stock -in the last century and a half. In 1790 a lamb was born on the farm -of Seth Wright in Massachusetts. It had a long body and short, bowed -legs. It was noticed that this lamb could not follow the others over -the fences. The owner thought it would be a good thing if all his -sheep were like it. So he selected it to breed from. Some of its -offspring were like it, and some were like the ordinary sheep. By -continual selection of those with long bodies and short legs the -ancon breed of sheep was finally produced. In 1770 in a herd of -Paraguay cattle a hornless male calf appeared, and from this -individual in a similar way came the stock of Muleys. The occasional -appearance of horned calves and lambs among the offspring of -hornless breeds of cattle and sheep are examples of atavism -indicating the presence of a vestigial tendency to breed true to -their horned ancestors. The Hereford cattle originated as a distinct -variety about 1769 through the careful selections of a certain -Englishman by the name of Tompkins. All domesticated quadrupeds, -except the elephant, have come from wild species with erect ears, -the ears acting as funnels to harvest the sound-waves. But there are -few of them in which there is not one or more varieties with -drooping ears—cats in China, horses in parts of Russia, sheep in -Italy, cattle in India, and pigs, dogs, and rabbits in all -long-civilised lands. We are so accustomed to seeing dogs and pigs -with pendent ears that we are surprised to know there are varieties -with erect ears. The goldfish is a carp, and in its native haunts in -the waters of China it has the colour of the carp. The golden hue -seen in the occupants of our aquaria has been given to this fish by -the Chinese through the continual selection of certain kinds. The -goldfish, almost as much as the pigeon, has been the sport of -fanciers, and the strangest varieties have resulted. Some have -outlandishly long fins, while others have no dorsal fin at all. Some -are streaked and splotched with gold and scarlet; others are pure -albinos. One of the most monstrous varieties has a three-lobed -tail-fin, and its eyeballs, without sockets, are on the outside of -its head. All of our common barnyard fowls—turkeys, ducks, geese, -and chickens—are flightless, but the varieties from which the -domesticated forms have come all have functional wings, two of these -varieties crossing continents in their annual migrations. - -Not only animals, but plants also, many of them, have been greatly -changed by man in his efforts to adapt them to his uses as food, -ornamentation, and the like. On the seaside cliffs of Chili and Peru -may still be found growing the wild-potato—the small, tough, -bitter ancestor of the mammoth Burbank, Peerless, Early Rose, and -the nearly two hundred other varieties of this matchless tuber found -in the gardens of civilised man. The cabbage, kale, cauliflower, and -kohlrabi are all modifications of the same wild species (_Brassica -oleracea_), the cauliflower being the developed flower, kohlrabi the -stalk, and kale and cabbage the leaves. The peach and the almond, -Darwin thinks, have also come from a common ancestral drupe, the -peach being the developed fruit, and the almond the seed. There are -nearly 900 different varieties of apples, varying in the most -wonderful manner in size, colour, flavour, texture, and shape, but -all of them probably derived from the little, sour, inedible Asiatic -crab. The many times ‘double’ roses of our gardens have come -from the five-petalled wild-rose of the prairies. The cultivated -varieties of viburnum and hydrangea have showy corymbs of infertile -flowers only, but the wild forms from which the domestic varieties -have been derived have only a single marginal row of showy infertile -flowers surrounding a mass of inconspicuous fertile flowers. It has -been due to their efforts to please men that bananas, pineapples, -and oranges have got into the habit of neglecting to produce seeds. -There are certain species of grapes that are seedless, also seedless -sugar-cane, and a seedless apple has just been announced by -horticulturists. The development of domesticated plants is only in -its infancy, and it is probably impossible even for the most agile -imagination to dream of the miracles the horticulturist is destined -to work in the ages to come. There is every reason to believe that -seedless varieties of all our common fruits will ultimately be -produced, and that in size, flavour, nutrient constituents, and -appearance, they will be developed into forms utterly different from -existing varieties. Just within the last few years the U.S. -Department of Agriculture has developed a cotton-plant immune to the -bacterial diseases of the soil, which had completely driven the -cotton-raising industry out of large districts of the South. The -cultivation of many of the cereals has gone on so long, and has -proceeded so far, that their origin is lost in antiquity. - -Whether or not it is possible for new varieties and species to be -evolved is a question, therefore, which does not need to depend for -reply wholly upon theory. It is known to have taken place; and the -process by which the different varieties of domestic animals and -plants have been evolved—domestic selection—is not different in -principle from the process of natural selection, the chief operation -by which life in general, both plant and animal, is assumed to have -been evolved. - -10. There are other reasons for a belief in organic evolution, but -the last one I shall mention is the fact that the theory of organic -evolution harmonises with the known tendencies of the universe as a -whole. The organic kingdoms of the earth—animals and plants—are -as truly parts of the terrestrial globe as the inorganic kingdom is; -and as such they share in, and are actuated by, the same great -tendency or instinct as that which actuates the whole. Nine-tenths -of the substance of all animals and plants is oxygen, hydrogen, -carbon, and nitrogen—the very elements which make up the entire -ocean and air, and enter largely into the composition of the -continents. The human body, which has essentially the same chemical -composition as the bodies of animals in general, is made up of four -solids, five gases, and seven metals—in all, sixteen elements of -the something like seventy which constitute the entire planet. ‘In -the past, man appeared to be a creature foreign to the earth, and -placed upon it as a transitory inhabitant by some incomprehensible -power. The more perfect insight of the present day sees man as a -being whose development has taken place in accordance with the same -laws as those that have governed the development of the earth and -its entire organisation—a being not put upon the earth -accidentally by an arbitrary act, but produced in harmony with the -earth’s nature, and belonging to it as do the flowers and the -fruits to the tree which bears them.’ Animals are not outside of, -nor distinct from, the universe, as one might suspect who has -listened much to the recital of tradition so long accepted as -science. They are more or less detached portions of the planet earth -which move over its surfaces and through its fluids and multiply, -but which in their phenomena obey the same laws of chemistry and -physics as those in accordance with which the rest of the universe -acts. Animals are moulds through which digressing matters from the -soil, sea, and sky pass on rounds of eternal itineracy. - -Now, the earth as a planet is in process of evolution. Not many -things are more certain than this. The earth has come out of fire. -It has _grown_ to be what it is. Its mountains, valleys, plains, -seas, shores, islands, lakes, rivers, and continents—these were -not always here. They have been evolved. Not only the earth, but the -entire family of spheres of which the earth is a member—the solar -system—are all evolving. Mr. Spencer never did anything more -profound than when he demonstrated in his ‘Law and Cause of -Progress’ the universal migration of things from a condition of -homogeneity toward a condition of greater and greater heterogeneity. -The whole universe, or as much of it as can be examined by -terrestrial instruments, has probably evolved out of the same -primordial matters. The organic part of the earth has evolved, -therefore, and is destined to continue to evolve, because it is a -part of a whole whose habit or ambition it is to evolve. - -The evidence is overwhelming. The theory of organic evolution is -sustained by a mass of facts not less authoritative and convincing -than that which supports the Copernican theory of the worlds. -Evolution is, in fact, a doctrine so apparent that it only needs to -be honestly and intelligently looked into to be accepted -unreservedly. It is, indeed, _more_ than a _doctrine_. It is a -_known_ fact. It is a _necessary effect_ of the _conditions known to -exist_ among the animals and plants of the earth. If beings _vary_ -among themselves generation after generation, if only the _fittest_ -of each generation _survive_ and if the survivors tend to _transmit_ -to their offspring the qualities of their superiority (and the -animals and plants of the earth are known to do continually all of -these things), then it follows _with mathematical certainty_ that -evolution is going on, and that it will continue to go on as long as -these conditions continue. It is inevitable. It could not be -otherwise. We would _know_ that evolution were going on among -organisms where these conditions existed, even though we had never -observed it. - -The boldest and most enthusiastic opponents of evolution have always -been those with the least information about it. But the evidence is -accumulating so rapidly, and is being drawn up in such unanswerable -array, that, if it is not already the case, it will not be many -years before it will be an intellectual reproach for anyone to -discredit, or to be known to have discredited, this splendid and -inspiring revelation. - -1. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874. -2. Huxley: _Man’s Place in Nature_; New York, 1883. -3. Thompson: _Outlines of Zoology_, 3rd edit.; Edinburgh, 1899. -4. Drummond: _Ascent of Man_; New York, 1894. -5. See table of geological ages, at the end of the chapter. -6. Haeckel: _The Riddle of the Universe_; New York, 1901. -7. Huxley: _On the Origin of Species_, lecture iv. - -X. The Genealogy of Animals. - -Life originated in the sea, and for an immense period of time after -it commenced it was confined to the place of its origin. The -civilisations of the earth were for many millions of years -exclusively aquatic. It has, indeed, been estimated that the time -required by the life process in getting out of the water—that is, -that the time consumed in elaborating the first species of land -animals—was much longer than the time which has elapsed since -then. I presume that during a large part of this early period it -would have seemed to one living at that time extremely doubtful -whether there would ever be on the earth any other kinds of life -than the aquatic. And if those who to-day weave the fashionable -fabrics of human philosophy, and who know nothing about anything -outside the thin edge of the present, had been back there, they -would no doubt have declared confidently, as they looked upon the -naked continents and the uninhabited air and the sea teeming with -its peculiar faunas, that life upon solids or in gases, life -anywhere, in fact, except in the sea, where it had always existed, -and to which alone it was adapted, was absolutely, and would be -forever, impossible; and that feathered fishes and fishes with the -power to run and skip, and especially ‘sharks’ competent to walk -on one end and jabber with the other, were unthinkable nonsense. -Life originated in the sea for the same reason that the first of the -series of so-called ‘civilisations’ which have appeared in human -history sprang from the alluvium of the Euphrates and the Nile, -because the conditions for bringing life into existence were here -the most favourable. The atmosphere was incompetent to perform such -a task as the inventing of _protoplasm_ and there was no land above -the oceans. - -The first forms of life were one-celled—simple, jelly-like dots of -almost homogeneous plasm—the _protozoa_. These primitive organisms -were the common grandparents of all beings. From them evolved, -through infinite travail and suffering, all of the orders, families, -species, and varieties of animals that to-day live on the earth, and -all those that have in the past lived and passed away. By the -multiplication and specialisation of cells, and the formation of -cell aggregates, the sponges, celenterates, and flat worms were -developed from the protozoa.[1] The connecting links between the -one-celled and the many-celled animals consist of a series of -colonial forms of increasing size and complexity, some of which may -be found in every roadside ditch and pool, while others are extinct. -The development of these many-celled organisms (metazoa) from -one-celled organisms was a perfectly natural process, a process -which takes place in the initial evolutions of every embryo. There -is no more mystery about it than there is about any other act of -association. All association is simply a matter of ‘business.’ -Many-celled organisms are colonies, or societies, of more or less -closely co-operating one-celled organisms, and they have come into -existence in obedience to the same laws of economy and advantage as -have those more modern societies of metazoa known as nations, -communities, and states, the organised bodies of men, ants, and -millionaires. - -The sponges are the lowest of the many-celled animals. They consist -of irregular masses of loosely associated cells, hopelessly anchored -to the sea-floor. They represent the social instinct in embryo. The -cells are but slightly specialised, and each cell leads a more or -less independent existence. The sponge stands at about that stage of -social integration and intelligence represented by those stupendous -porifera which cover continents and constitute the ‘social -organisms’ of the civilised world. The nutritive system of sponges -consists of countless pores opening from the surface into a common -canal within, through which ever-waving cilia urge the alimental -waters. In the celenterates the cells arrange themselves in the form -of a cup with one large opening into and from the vase-like stomach. -The unsegmented worms are flat and sac-like, with bilateral symmetry -and the power to move about, but not tubular, as are the true worms. -They are bloodless, like the celenterates and sponges. - -From the flat worms developed the annelid worms, animals perforated -by a food canal and possessing a body cavity filled with blood -surrounding this canal. The body cavity is the space between the -walls of the body and the alimentary canal, the cavity which in the -higher animals contains the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, etc. The -worms and all animals above them have this cavity. The worms and all -animals above them also have, as an inheritance from the flat worms, -bodies with bilateral symmetry—that is, bodies with two halves -similar. This peculiarity was probably acquired by the flat worms, -and so fastened upon all subsequently evolved species, as a result -of pure carelessness. It probably arose out of the habit of using -continually, or over and over again, the same parts of the body as -fore and aft. It has been facetiously said that if it had not been -for this habit, so inadvertently acquired by these humble beings so -long, long ago, we would not to-day be able to tell our right hand -from our left. In the worm is found the beginning of that wonderful -organ of co-ordination, the brain. The brain is a modification of -the skin. It may weaken our regard for this imperial organ to know -that it is, in its morphology, akin to nails and corns. But it will -certainly add to our admiration for the infinite labours of -evolution to remember that the magnificent thinking apparatus of -modern philosophers was originally a small sensitive plate developed -down in the sea a hundred million years ago on the dorsal wall of -the mouths of primeval worms. - -From the worms developed all of the highest four phyla of the animal -kingdom—the echinoderms, the mollusks, the arthropods, and the -chordate animals, the last of which were the progenitors of the -illustrious vertebrates. The lowest of the mollusks are the snails, -and from these humble tenants of our ponds and shores sprang the -headless bivalves and the giant jawed cuttles. The mollusks were for -a long time after their development the mailed monarchs of the sea, -and shared with the worms the dominion of the primordial waters. But -after the development of the more active arthropods, especially the -crustaceans, the less agile worms and mollusks rapidly declined. -Existing worms and mollusks are remnants of once powerful and -populous races. - -From the worms also developed the arthropods, the water-breathing -crustaceans and the air-breathing spiders and insects. The -crustaceans came early, away back in the gray of the Silurian -period, just about the time North America was born. North America -lay, a naked, V-shaped infant, in the regions of Labrador and -Canada. The crustaceans rapidly superseded the mollusks as rulers of -the sea, attaining, in extreme species, a length of four or five -feet. The spiders and Insects came into existence toward the latter -part of the Silurian period,[1] probably contemporaneous, or nearly -so, with the appearance of land vegetation. The spiders and insects -were the aborigines of the land and air. They are the only races of -living beings, except the original inhabitants of the sea, who ever -invaded and settled an unoccupied world. The earliest land fossils -so far found are the fossils of scorpions. But the existence of a -sting among the structural possessions of these animals indicates -that there were already others who contended with them for supremacy -in the new world. The first insects were the masticating insects, -insects such as cockroaches, crickets, grasshoppers, dragon-flies, -and beetles. They are found abundantly in the Devonian and -Carboniferous rocks. The licking insects (bees) and the pricking -insects (flies and bugs) appeared first in the Mesozoic Era, and the -sipping insects (butterflies) in the Cenozoic. The flower-loving -insects (the bees and butterflies) came into the world at the same -time as did the flowers. The wings of insects may be modifications -of the gills used by insect young in respiration during their -aquatic existence. They are, hence, very different in origin from -the wings of birds, which are the modified fore-legs of reptiles. - -The most important class of animals arising out of the worms, on -account of their distinguished offspring, were the hypothetical cord -animals. The only existing species allied to these animals is the -amphioxus, a strange, unpromising-looking creature, half worm and -half fish, found in the beach sands of many seas. It has white blood -and a tubular heart. It is without either head or limbs, and looks -very much like a long semitransparent leaf, tapering at both ends. -But it has two unmistakable prophecies of the vertebrate anatomy: a -cartilaginous rod, pointed at both ends, extending along the back, -and above this, and parallel to it, a cord of nerve matter. These -are the same positions occupied by the spinal column and spinal cord -in all true vertebrates. That the amphioxus is a genuine relative of -the ancestor of the vertebrates is also shown by the fact that these -simple forms of column and cord possessed by amphioxus are precisely -the forms assumed by the spinal column and spinal cord in the -embryos of all vertebrates, including man. - -From these quasi-vertebrates developed the fishes—first (after the -scaleless, limbless lampreys) the sharks with spiny scales and -cartilaginous skeleton, and after these the lung fishes and the bony -fishes, with flat, horny scales and skeletons of bone. From the -beginning of the Devonian age, when fishes first came into -prominence, till the rise of the great reptiles in the Triassic -time, fishes were the dominant life of the sea. In the fishes first -appeared jaws, a sympathetic nervous system, red blood, backbone, -and the characteristic two pairs of limbs of vertebrates. - -The lung fishes (Dipneusta), a small order of strange -salamander-like creatures which live ingeniously on the borderland -between the liquid and the land, may be looked upon as -physiological, if not morphological, links between the fishes and -the frogs. They combine the characters of both fishes and frogs, and -zoologists have been tempted to make a separate class of them, and -place them between the two classes to which they are related. They -are like fishes in having scales, fins, permanent gills, and a -fish-like shape and skeleton. They resemble frogs in having lungs, -nostrils, an incipiently three-chambered heart, a pulmonary -circulation, and frog-like skin glands. There are three genera with -several species. One genus (Neoceratodus) is found in two or three -small rivers of Queensland, Australia; another (Protopterus) lives -in the Gambia and other rivers of Africa; and the third -(Lepidosiren) inhabits the swamps of the Amazon region. They all -breathe ordinarily by means of gills, like true fishes, but have the -habit of coming frequently to the surface and inhaling air. The -air-bladder acts as an incipient lung in supplementing respiration -by gills. They all live in regions where a dry season regularly -converts the watercourses into beds of sand and mud. During the -season of drought these strange animals build for themselves a -cocoon or nest of mud and leaves. This cocoon is lined with mucus, -and provided with a lid through which air is admitted. Here they lie -in this capsule throughout the hot southern summer, from August to -December, breathing air by means of their lungs and living upon the -stored-up fat of their tails, until the return of the wet season, -when they again live in the rivers and breathe water in true -piscatorial fashion. These capsules have often been carried to -Europe, and opened 3,000 miles from their place of construction -without harming the life within. - -Here, in these eccentric denizens of the southern world, we find the -beginnings of a grand transformation—a transformation in both -structure and function, a transformation made necessary by the -transition from life in the water to life in the air, a -transformation which reaches its maturity in the higher -air-breathing vertebrates, where the simple air-sac of the fish -becomes a pair of lobed and elaborately sacculated lungs, performing -almost exclusively the function of respiration, and the gills change -into parts of the ears and lower jaw. - -The air-bladder of ordinary fishes, which is used chiefly as a -hydrostatic organ to enable the fish to rise and fall in the water, -is probably the degenerated lung of the lung fishes. - -From the lung fishes or allied forms developed the amphibians, the -well-known fish quadrupeds of our bogs and brooks. The amphibians -are genuine connectives—living links between the life of the sea -and the life of the land. In early life they are fishes, with gills -and two-chambered hearts. In later life they are air-breathing -quadrupeds, with legs and lungs and three-chambered hearts. Here is -evolution, plenty of it, and of the most tangible character. And it -takes place right before the eyes. The transformation from the fish -to the frog is, however, no more wonderful than the embryonic -transformations of other vertebrates. It is simply more apparent, -because it can be seen. The lungs of amphibians and the lower -reptiles are simple sacks opening by a very short passage into the -mouth. Some amphibians, as the axolotl of Mexican lakes, ordinarily -retain their gills through life, but may be induced to develop lungs -and adapt themselves to terrestrial life by being kept out of the -water. Others, as the newts, which ordinarily develop lungs, may be -compelled to retain their gills through life by being forced to -remain uninterruptedly in the water. The black salamander, -inhabiting droughty regions of the Alps, brings forth its young -bearing lungs, and only a pair at a time. But if the young are -prematurely removed from the body of the mother and placed in the -water, they develop gills in the ordinary way. These are remarkable -instances of elasticity in the presence of a varying environment. - -In the amphibians the characteristic five-toed or five-fingered -foot, which normally forms the extremities of the limbs of all -vertebrates except fishes, is first met with. It was this -pentadactyl peculiarity of the frog, inherited by men and women -through the reptiles and mammals, that gave rise to the decimal -system of numbers and other unhandy facts in human life. The decimal -system arose out of the practice of early men performing their -calculations on their fingers. This method of calculating is still -used by primitive peoples all over the world. The sum of the digits -of the two hands came, in the course of arithmetical evolution, to -be used as a unit, and from this simple beginning grew up the -complicated system of tens found among civilised peoples. It has all -come about as a result of amphibian initiative. Our very arithmetics -have been predetermined by the anatomical peculiarities of the -frog’s foot. If these unthinking foreordainers of human affairs -had had four or six toes on each foot instead of five, man would no -doubt have inherited them just as cheerfully as the number he did -inherit, and the civilised world would in this case be to-day using -in all of its mathematical activities a system of eights or twelves -instead of a system of tens. A system of eights or twelves would be -much superior in flexibility to the existing system; for eight is a -cube, and its half and double are squares; and twelve can be divided -by two, three, four, and six, while ten is divisible by two and five -only. - -How helpless human beings are—in fact, how helpless all beings -are! How hopelessly dependent we are upon the past, and how -impossible it is to be really original! What the future will be -depends upon what the present is, for the future will grow out of, -and inherit, the present. What the present is depends upon what the -past was, for the present has grown out of, and inherited, the past. -And what the past was depends upon a remoter past from which it -evolved, and so on. There is no end anywhere of dependence, either -forward or backward. Every fact, from an idea to a sun, is a -_contingent link in an eternal chain_. - -From the amphibians (probably from extinct forms, not from living) -there arose the highest three classes of vertebrates—the true -reptiles, the birds, and the mammals—all of whom have lungs and -breathe air from the beginning to the end of their days. Gills, as -organs of breathing, disappear forever, being changed, as has been -said, into parts of the organs of mastication and hearing. In the -reptiles first appear those organs which in the highest races -overflow on occasions of tenderness and grief, the tear glands. -These organs are, however, in our cold-blooded antecedents, organs -of ocular lubrication rather than of weeping. There are but four -small orders of existing reptiles—snakes, turtles, lizards, and -crocodilians. These are the pygmean descendants of a mighty line, -the last of a dynasty which during the greater part of the Mesozoic -ages was represented by the most immense and powerful monsters that -have ever lived upon the earth. Mesozoic civilisation was -pre-eminently saurian. Reptiles were supreme everywhere—on sea and -land and in the air. Their rulership of the world was not so bloody -and masterful as man’s, but quite as remorseless. Imagine an -aristocracy made up of pterosaurs (flying reptiles), with teeth, and -measuring 20 feet between wing-tips; great plesiosaurs (serpent -reptiles) and ichthyosaurs (fish reptiles), enormous bandits of the -seas; and dinosaurs and atlantosaurs, giant land lizards, 30 feet -high and from 50 to 100 feet in length. A government of demagogs is -bad enough, as king-ridden mankind well know, but dragons would be -worse, if possible. The atlantosaurs were the largest animals that -have ever walked upon the earth. They were huge plant-eaters -inhabiting North America. It has been surmised that one of these -behemoths ‘may have consumed a whole tree for breakfast.’ It was -the mighty saurians of the Mesozoic time who brought into -everlasting subordination the piscatorial civilisation of the -Devonian and carboniferous ages. - -Toward the latter part of the Reptilian Age, and somewhere along -about the time of the appearance of hard-wood forests, came the -birds, those beautiful and emotional beings who, in spite of human -destructiveness, continue to fill our groves and gardens with the -miracles of beauty and song. The bird is a ‘glorified reptile.’ -How the ‘slow, cold-blooded, scaly saurian ever became transformed -into the quick, hot-blooded, feathered bird, the joy of creation,’ -is a considerable mystery, yet we know no reason for believing that -the transformation did not take place. Although in their external -appearance and mode of life birds and reptiles differ so widely from -each other, yet, in their internal structure and embryology, they -are so much alike that one of the brightest anatomists that has ever -lived (Huxley) united them both into a single class under the name -Sauropsida. It might naturally be supposed that the birds are -descendants of the flying reptiles, the pterosaurs. But this may not -be true. The pterosaurs were structurally much further removed from -the birds than were certain extinct terrestrial reptiles. The fact -that birds and pterosaurs both had wings has really nothing to do -with the case. For the wings of reptiles, we almost know, were not -homologous with the wings of birds. The bird’s wing is a feathered -fore-leg; the wing of the reptile was an expanded skin stretching -from the much-elongated last finger backwards to the hind-leg and -tail. Wings, it may be remarked in passing, have had at least four -different and distinct beginnings in the animal kingdom, represented -by the bats, the birds, the reptiles, and the insects. This does not -include the parachutes of the so-called flying squirrels, lemurs, -lizards, phalangers, and fishes. - -The first birds had teeth and vertebrated tails. The archeopteryx, -which is the earliest toothed bird whose remains have yet been -found, was about the size of a crow. It had thirty-two teeth and -twenty caudal vertebrae. Two specimens of it have been found in the -Jurassic slates of Bavaria. One of these fossils is in the British -Museum, and the other in the Museum of Berlin. Other toothed birds -have been found fossil by Dr. Mudge in the cretaceous chalk of North -America. These last had short, fan tails like existing birds. - -From the toothed birds developed the beaked birds—the -keel-breasted birds (the group to which most existing birds belong) -and the birds with unkeeled breasts, _i.e._, the ostrich-like birds. -The ostrich-like birds are runners. They have rudimentary wings, and -the keel of the breast-bone, which in the keel-breasted birds acts -as a stay for the attachment of the wing muscles, is lacking. The -ostrich-like birds are probably degenerate flyers, the flying -apparatus having become obsolete through disuse. The feathers of -birds are generally supposed to be the modified scales of reptiles. - -The most brilliant offspring of the reptiles were the mammals, -animals capable of a wider distribution over the face of the earth -than the cold-blooded reptiles, on account of their hair and their -warm blood. Cold-blooded animals of great size are able to inhabit -but a small zone of the existing earth’s surface—the torrid -belt. They cannot house themselves during the seasons of cold, as -men can; nor escape to the tropics on the wings of the wind, as do -the birds; nor bury themselves in subaqueous mud, as do the frogs, -snakes, and crustaceans. During the Mesozoic period, when -cold-blooded reptiles of gigantic size flourished over a wide area -of the earth’s surface, the planet was far warmer than now. -Animals, therefore, like the mammals (or birds), capable of -maintaining a fixed temperature regardless of the thermal -fluctuations of the surrounding media, are the only animals of large -size and power capable of uninterrupted existence over the greater -part of the surface of the existing earth. The pre-eminent life of -the Cenozoic time was mammalian. But the decline and fall of the -saurian power was not wholly due to the rise of the more dynamic -mammals. It was in part due, no doubt, to adverse conditions of -climate, and also to the fact that mammals and birds guard their -eggs, and saurians do not. - -The lowest of the mammals are the monotremes, animals which blend in -a marvellous manner the characteristics of birds, reptiles, and -mammals. Only two families of these old-fashioned creatures are -left, the echidna and the duck-bill (ornithorhynchus), both of them -found on or near that museum of biological antiquities, Australia. -They are covered with hair and suckle their young like other -mammals, but they have only the rudiments of milk glands, and they -lay eggs with large yolks from a cloaca, like the reptiles and -birds. The duck-bill hides its eggs in the ground, but the echidna -hatches its eggs in a small external brooding pouch, periodically -developed for this purpose. The young of the monotremes feed on the -oily perspiration which exudes from the body of the mother. The -monotremes first appear in the fossiliferous rocks of the Triassic -Age. - -From the monotreme-like mammals developed the marsupial mammals, -animals possessing a purse-like pouch on the after part of the -abdomen, in which they carry their young. The young of marsupials -are born in an extremely immature state, and are carried in this -pouch in order to complete their development. The young of the -kangaroo, an animal as large as a man, are only about an inch in -length when they are born. They are carried for nine months after -their birth in the marsupium of the mother, firmly attached to the -maternal nipple. The marsupials came into existence during the -Jurassic Age, and during the next age, the Cretaceous, they arose to -considerable power. During this latter age they were found on every -continent. But they have been almost exterminated by their more -powerful descendants. - -From the marsupials developed the placental mammals, animals so -called because their young are developed within the parental body in -association with a peculiar nourishing organ called the placenta. -From the herbivorous marsupials developed the almost toothless -edentates, the rodents, or gnawing animals, the sirenians, the -cetaceans, and the hoofed animals, or ungulates. The sirenians are -fish-like animals with two flippers, and are often called sea-cows. -They resemble whales in many respects, and are sometimes classed -with them. They are plant-eaters exclusively, and are found grazing -along the bottoms of tropical estuaries and rivers. They have tiny -eyes, teeth fitted for grinding (not spike-like as in the whales), -and a strong affection for their young, the mother, when pursued, -often carrying her little one under her flippers. An immense -sirenian, known as Steller’s manatee, was discovered on the -Behring Islands, along the Kamschatka coast, in 1741. Twenty-seven -years afterwards not one of them was left, all having been murdered -by the Russian sailors. The sirenians are probably degenerate forms -of land quadrupeds, having lost their hind-limbs and developed the -fish-like shape in adapting themselves to aquatic conditions. They -appear first in the Eocene Age. - -Among the most interesting derivatives of the herbivorous -marsupials, because the most aberrant, are the whales. They are true -mammals—have warm blood, breathe the air with lungs, and suckle -their young like other mammals. But, like the sirenians, they live -in the surface of the waters, and have flippers and a fish-like tail -and form. They differ from the sirenians, however, in being -carnivorous, in having inguinal instead of pectoral milk glands, and -in being structurally less like quadrupeds. They probably -degenerated from land quadrupeds during the Jurassic period, and, -owing to their longer residence in the waters, have become further -removed from the quadrupedal type than the sirenians. Whales have -two limbs, the hind-limbs having disappeared as a result of the -pre-eminent development of the tail. The tails of whales and -sirenians are flattened horizontally, not vertically, as in fishes. - -Out of generalised forms of hoofed animals now extinct developed the -odd-toed and even-toed races of existing ungulates. The original -ungulates had five hoofs on each foot, and were highly generalised -in their structure. From these original five-toed forms have arisen -the variously hoofed and variously structured tribes of existing -ungulates: the five-toed elephant, the four-toed tapir and -hippopotamus, the three-toed rhinoceros, the two-toed camel, sheep, -swine, deer, antelope, giraffe, and ox, and the one-toed horse and -zebra. - -The carnivorous branch of the placental animals came from the -carnivorous branch of the marsupials. From early forms of -carnivorous placentals developed the ape-like lemurs and those -generalised forms of rapacious animals from which arose the -insect-eaters, the bats, and the true carnivora. The seals represent -a by-development from the main line of the carnivora, a third -defection, and a comparatively recent one, from land faunas. Seals -live at the meeting of the land and the waters rather than in or on -the waters, as do the cetaceans and sirenians. They have retained -their fur and their four limbs, but have almost lost their power of -land locomotion by the conversion of their feet into flippers. The -two front-limbs of seals are the only ones used as ordinary limbs -are used. The hind-limbs in most seals stretch permanently out -behind, the webbed digits spreading out fan-shaped on either side of -the stumpy tail, and constituting a rowing apparatus functionally -homologous with the tail of fishes and whales. According to Jordan, -the fur seals and the hair seals are descended from different -families of land carnivora, the former probably from the bears, and -the latter from the cats. - -The lemurs are of especial interest to human beings, because in them -are found the first startling approximation in looks and structure -to the ‘human form divine.’ The lemurs are monkey-like creatures -living in trees, but differ enough from true monkeys to be often -placed in an order by themselves. Their milk glands are abdominal -instead of pectoral, as in the monkeys, and the second digit of each -hand and foot ends in a claw. The most of them live in Madagascar. -They are generally nocturnal in their habits, although some species -are diurnal. They appear first in the Eocene rocks, and Haeckel -thinks they may have developed from opossum-like marsupials in the -late Cretaceous or early Eocene Age. - -From lemurs or from some other similar sort of semi-apes developed -the true apes—the flat-nosed (platyrhine) apes of the New World -and the narrow-nosed (catarhine) apes of the Old World. There is -considerable difference between the New World apes and those of the -Old World. The differences between the two classes is, in fact, so -striking that they are thought by some to have developed -independently of each other from distinct species of semi-apes. The -apes of the New World have flat noses, and the nostrils are far -apart and open in front of the nose, never below. The Old World apes -have narrow noses, the nostrils being close together and opening -downwards as in man. The tail of (nearly) all New World apes is -prehensile, being used regularly as a fifth limb, while among Old -World apes the tail is never so used. The Old World apes all have -the same number and kinds of teeth as man has, while the New World -apes (excepting the Brazilian marmosets) have an additional premolar -in each half-jaw, making thirty-six in all. The catarhine apes are, -therefore, structurally much nearer to man than their platyrhine -cousins. All tailed apes probably sprang originally from a single -stirp of semi-apes, and spread over the earth at a time when the -eastern and western land masses of the southern hemisphere were -connected with each other. The earliest remains of apes appear in -the Miocene Age. - -From the Old World tailed apes were developed the tailless, -man-like, or anthropoid apes—the gorillas and chimpanzees of -Africa, and the orangs and gibbons of Asia and the East Indies. The -anthropoids arose from the tailed apes by the loss of the tail, the -thinning of the hairy covering, the enlargement of the fore-brain, -and by structural adaptations to a more nearly vertical position. No -remains of anthropoids are found earlier than the Pliocene Age. - -The man-like apes are the nearest living relatives of the human -races. It is not probable that man has been derived directly from -any of the existing races of man-like apes. For no one of them in -all particulars of its structure stands closer to him than the rest. -The orang approaches closest to man in the formation of the brain, -the chimpanzee in the shape of the spine and in certain -characteristics of the skull, the gorilla in the development of the -feet and in size, and the gibbon in the formation of the throat and -teeth. The earliest human races probably sprang from man-like races -of apes now extinct, who lived in southern Asia or in Africa during -the Pliocene Age (possibly as early as the Miocene), and who -combined in their structures the various man-like characters -possessed by existing anthropoids. - -The earliest races of men were speechless—the ape-like -‘Alali’—beings, living wholly upon the ground and walking upon -their hind-limbs, but without more than the mere rudiments of -language. The vertical position led to a much greater development of -the posterior parts, especially of the muscles of the back and the -calves of the leg. The great toe, which in the ape is opposable, -lost its opposability, or all except traces of it, after the -abandonment of arboreal life. It must have been a sight fit to stir -the soul of the most leathern, these children of the night, with low -brows, stooping gait, and ape-like faces, armed with rude clubs, -clothed in natural hair, and wandering about in droves without law, -fire, or understanding, hiding in thickets and in the holes of the -earth, feeding on roots and fruits, and contending doubtfully with -the species around them for food and existence. - -From the ‘Alali’—the speechless ape-men—we may imagine the -true men to have evolved—talking men, men with erect posture and -mature brain and larynx, the woolly-haired ulotrichi and the -straight-haired lissotrichi. There are four existing species of -woolly-haired men: the Papuans of New Guinea and Melanesia, and the -Hottentots, Caffres, and Negroes of southern, equatorial, and north -central Africa respectively. They all have long heads, slanting -teeth, very dark skin, and black, bushy hair, each individual hair -in cross-section being flat or oval in shape. In the straight-haired -races the skin is much fairer than in the woolly-haired races, being -seldom darker than brown, and each individual hair in cross-section -is round like the cross-section of a cylinder. The principal species -of straight-haired men are the sea-roving Malays of the East Indies -and the Pacific, the round-faced Mongols of eastern and northern -Asia, the aboriginal Americans of the western hemisphere, and the -incomparable Aryans, including the ancient Greeks and Romans and the -modern peoples of India, Persia, and Europe. - -Man is to-day the pre-eminent animal of the planet. The successive -ascendancies of the Worm, the Mollusk, the Crustacean, the Fish, the -Reptile, and the Mammal, are followed triumphantly by the ascendancy -of the Children of the Ape. - -A large part of the life of the earth has remained steadfastly where -it was cradled, beneath the waves. But more restless portions have -left the sea and crept forth upon the land, or swarmed into the air. -One migration, the most numerous, is represented by the insects. -Another, the most enterprising, was the amphibian. After ages of -evolution the amphibian branch divided. One branch acquired wings -and sailed off into the air. The other divided and subdivided. One -of these subdivisions entered the forests, climbed and clambered -among the trees, acquired perpendicularity and hands, descended and -walked upon the soil, invented agriculture, built cities and states, -and imagined itself immortal. Human society is but the van—the -hither terminus—of an evolutional process which had its beginning -away back in the protoplasm of primeval waters. There is not a form -that creeps beneath the sea but can claim kinship with the eagle. -The philosopher is the remote posterity of the meek and lowly amoeba. - -1. See ‘Genealogy of Animals,’ at the end of the chapter. -2. See table of geological ages, at the end of the previous chapter. - -XI. Conclusion. - -The resemblances, homologies, and metamorphoses existing everywhere -among animal forms are, therefore, evidence of the most logical -consanguinities. It is all so perfectly plain. The structures of -organic beings have come about as a result of the action and -reaction of environment upon these structures. Every being—and not -only every being, but every species, the whole organic world—has -come to be what it is as a result of the incessant hammerings of its -surroundings, the hammerings not only of the present, but of the -long-stretching past. By surroundings is meant, of course, the rest -of the universe. Those animals belonging to the same stock resemble -each other because they have been subjected to the same experiences, -the same series of selections. They have lain on the same great -anvil, and felt the down-comings of the same sledge. The -similarities among animal forms in general indicate relationships, -just as the similarities among the races of men indicate racial -consanguinities. All men belong to the human species because they -are all fundamentally alike. But there are differences in the -character of the hair, in the colour of the skin, in the -conformation of the skull, and in the structure of the language, -among the different varieties of the species, indicating striking -variety in relationship and origin. An eminent biologist has said -that if Negroes and Caucasians were snails they would be classed as -entirely distinct species of animals. Whether, as is thought by -some, the woolly-haired races are the descendants of the African -anthropoids, and the straight-haired varieties are the posterity of -the orangs and gibbons, we may never know positively. But we do know -that these two great branches of mankind must have different -genealogies, extending to a remote antiquity, and that the varieties -belonging to each great group sustain to each other the relations of -a common kinship. Englishmen look like each other, act like each -other, and speak the same language. So do Frenchmen and Swedes and -Chinese. Every people is peculiar. This is not the result of -accident or agreement, but the result of law. Mongolians do not all -have short heads, yellow faces, slanting eyes, and prominent malars -because they have agreed to have them, but as a result of a common -pedigree. Similarity of structure implies commonalty of origin, and -commonalty of origin means consanguinity. - -And this is true whether you contemplate the featural resemblances -of brothers and sisters of the same human parent, or those more -fundamental characteristics which distinguish species, orders, and -sub-kingdoms. All animals are composed of protoplasm, which is a -compound of clay, because all animals are descended from the same -first parents, protoplasmic organisms evolved out of the elemental -ooze. All vertebrates have nerve-filled backbones with two pairs of -ventrally branching limbs, because the original ancestors of the -vertebrates had nerve-filled backbones with two pairs of ventrally -branching limbs. Insects individually evolve from worms because -worms are their phylogenetic fathers and mothers. Man has hands and -a vertical spine, and walks on his hind-limbs, not because he was -fashioned in the image of a god, but because his ancestors lived -among the trees. The habit of using the posterior limbs for -locomotion, and the anterior for prehension, and the resulting -perpendicular, are peculiarities developed by our simian ancestors -wholly on account of the incentives to such structure and posture -afforded by aboreal life. These peculiarities would not likely have -been acquired by quadrupeds living upon and taking their food from a -perfectly level and treeless plain. If there had been no forests on -the earth, therefore, there would have been no incentive to the -perpendicular, and the ‘human form divine’ would have been -inconceivably different from what it is to-day. And if fishes had -had three serial pairs of limbs instead of two, and their posterity -had inherited them, as they certainly would have had the foresight -to do if they had had the opportunity, the highest animals on the -earth to-day, the ‘paragons of creation,’ would probably be -two-handed quadrupeds (centaurs) instead of two-handed bipeds. And -much more efficient and ideal individuals they would have been in -every way than the rickety, peculiar, unsubstantial plantigrades -who, by their talent to talk, have become the masters of the -universe, and, by their imaginations, ‘divine.’ - -Kinship is universal. The orders, families, species, and races of -the animal kingdom are the branches of a gigantic arbour. Every -individual is a cell, every species is a tissue, and every order is -an organ in the great surging, suffering, palpitating process. Man -is simply one portion of the immense enterprise. He is as veritably -an animal as the insect that drinks its little fill from his veins, -the ox he goads, or the wild-fox that flees before his bellowings. -Man is not a god, nor in any imminent danger of becoming one. He is -not a celestial star-babe dropped down among mundane matters for a -time and endowed with wing possibilities and the anatomy of a deity. -He is a mammal of the order of primates, not so lamentable when we -think of the hyena and the serpent, but an exceedingly discouraging -vertebrate compared with what he ought to be. He has come up from -the worm and the quadruped. His relatives dwell on the prairies and -in the fields, forests, and waves. He shares the honours and -partakes of the infirmities of all his kindred. He walks on his -hind-limbs like the ape; he eats herbage and suckles his young like -the ox; he slays his fellows and fills himself with their blood like -the crocodile and the tiger; he grows old and dies, and turns to -banqueting worms, like all that come from the elemental loins. He -cannot exceed the winds like the hound, nor dissolve his image in -the mid-day blue like the eagle. He has not the courage of the -gorilla, the magnificence of the steed, nor the plaintive innocence -of the ring-dove. Poor, pitiful, glory-hunting hideful! Born into a -universe which he creates when he comes into it, and clinging, like -all his kindred, to a clod that knows him not, he drives on in the -preposterous storm of the atoms, as helpless to fashion his fate as -the sleet that pelts him, and lost absolutely in the somnambulism of -his own being. - - -THE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP - - I. The Conflict of Science and Tradition - II. Evidences of Psychical Evolution - III. The Common-sense View - IV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared - V. Conclusion - - - ‘I saw, deep in the eyes of the animals, the human soul look out - upon me.’ - ‘I saw where it was born down deep under feathers and fur, or - condemned for awhile to roam four-footed among the brambles. I - caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner, and swore that I - would be faithful.’ - ‘Thee, my brother and sister, I see and mistake not. Do not be - afraid. Dwelling thus and thus for awhile, fulfilling thy appointed - time—thou too shalt come to thyself at last.’ - ‘Thy half-warm horns and long tongue lapping round my wrist do not - conceal thy humanity any more than the learned talk of the pedant - conceals his—for all thou art dumb we have words and plenty - between us.’ - - — Edward Carpenter. - - -THE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP - -I. The Conflict of Science and Tradition. - -The doctrine that on mankind’s account all other beings came into -existence, and that non-human beings are mere hunks of matter devoid -of all psychic qualities found in man, is a doctrine about as -sagacious as the old geocentric theory of the universe. Conceit is a -distinctly human emotion. No other animal has it. But it has been -lavished upon man with a generosity sufficient to compensate for its -total absence from the rest of the universe. Man has always -overestimated himself. In whatever age or province of the world you -look down on the human imagination, you find it industriously -digging disparities and establishing gulfs. Man, according to -himself, has had great difficulty many times in the history of the -world in escaping the divine. According to the facts, he has only in -recent biological times and after great labour and uncertainty -abandoned his tail and his all-fours. According to himself, man was -made ‘in the image of his maker,’ and has been endowed with -powers and properties peculiarly his own. According to the facts, he -has come into the world in a manner identical with that of all other -animals, and has been endowed with like nature and destiny. Man has -never manifested a warmer or more indelicate enthusiasm than the -enthusiasm with which he has appreciated himself. And with the same -ardour with which he has praised himself he has maligned and -misrepresented others. Man has set himself up as the supreme judge -and executive of the world, and he has not hesitated to award to -himself the lion’s share of everything. He has ransacked his fancy -for adjectives with which to praise himself, and driven his -inventive faculties to the verge of distraction in search of -justification for his crimes upon those around him. Every individual -bent on deeds of darkness first seeks in his own mind justification -for his purposed sins. And it is a caustic comment on the character -of human conviction that no enthusiastic criminal—from the -marauder of continents to the kitchen pilferer—ever yet sought -unsuccessfully at the court of his conscience for a sinful permit. -It was an easy matter, therefore, for man—aided as he was by such -an experienced imagination—to convince himself that all other -animals were made for him, that they were made without feeling or -intelligence, and that hence he was justified in using in any way he -chose the conveniences so generously provided by an eccentric -providence. But Darwin has lived. Beings have come into the world, -we now know, through the operation of natural law. Man is not -different from the rest. The story of Eden is a fabrication, -bequeathed to us by our well-meaning but dimly-lighted ancestors. -There has been no more miracle in the origin of the human species -than in the origin of any other species. And there is no more -miracle in the origin of a species than there is in the birth of a -molecule or in the breaking of a tired wave on the beach. Man was -not made in the image of the hypothetical creator of heaven and -earth, but in the image of the ape. Man is not a fallen god, but a -promoted reptile. The beings around him are not conveniences, but -cousins. Instead of stretching away to the stars, man’s pedigree -slinks down into the sea. Horrible revelation! Frightful antithesis! -Instead of celestial genesis and a ‘fall’—long and doleful -promotion. Instead of elysian gardens and romance—the slime. -Instead of a god with royal nostrils miraculously animating an -immortal duplicate—a little lounging cellule, too small to be seen -and too senseless to distinguish between midnight and noon. But the -situation is not half so horrible as it looks to be to those who see -only the skin of things. Is it not better, after all, to be the -honourable outcome of a straightforward evolution than the offspring -of flunky-loving celestials? Are the illustrious children of the ape -less glorious than the sycophants of irrational theological systems? -Darwin dealt in his quiet way some malicious blows to human conceit, -but he also bequeathed to a misguided world the elements of its -ultimate redemption. - -The supposed psychical gulf between human and non-human beings has -no more existence, outside the flamboyant imagination of man, than -has the once-supposed physical gulf. It is pure fiction. The -supposition is a relic of the rapidly dwindling vanity of -anthropocentricism, and is perpetuated from age to age by human -selfishness and conceit. It has no foundation either in science or -in common-sense. Man strives to lessen his guilt by the laudation of -himself and the disparagement and degradation of his victims. Like -the ostrich, who, pursued by death, improvises an imaginary escape -by plunging its head into the desert, so man, pursued by the -vengeful correctives of his own conscience, fabricates a fictitious -innocence by the calumniation of those upon whom he battens. But -such excuses cannot much longer hold out against the rising -consciousness of kinship. Psychology, like all other sciences, is -rapidly ceasing to attend exclusively to human phenomena. It is -lifting up its eyes and looking about; it is preparing to become -comparative. It has come to realise that the mind of man is but a -single shoot of a something which ramifies the entire animal world, -and that in order to understand its subject it is necessary for it -to familiarise itself with the whole field of phenomenon. The soul -of man did not commence to be in the savage. It commenced to be in -the worm, whose life man grinds out with his heel, and in the -bivalve that flounders in his broth. The roots of consciousness are -in the sea. Side by side with physical evolution has gone on -psychical evolution; side by side with the evolution of organs and -tissues has gone on the evolution of intellect, sensibility, and -will. Human nature and human mind are no more _sui generis_ than are -human anatomy and physiology. The same considerations that prove -that man’s material organism is the cumulative result of long -evolution proclaim that human mind, the immaterial concomitant of -the material organism, is also the cumulative result of long -evolution. - -We might just as well recognise facts first as last, for they will -have to be recognised some time. Truths are not put down by -inhospitality—they are simply put off. The universe has a policy, -a program. We may close our eyes to the facts around us, hoping in -this way to compel them to pass away or be forgotten. But they do -not pass away, nor will they be forgotten. They simply become -invisible. They will live on and present themselves to other minds -or ages or climes more hospitable or honest than our own. The only -proper attitude of mind to assume toward the various doctrines -existing among men is the attitude of perfect willingness to believe -_anything_—anything that appeals to us as being reasonable and -right. The great majority of men, however, are intellectual -solids—unable to move and unwilling to think. They have certain -beliefs _to which they are determined to hold on_, and everything -that does not fit in with these beliefs is rejected as a matter of -course. - -II. Evidences of Psychical Evolution. - -That mind has evolved, and that there is a psychical kinship, an -actual consanguinity of feelings and ideas, among all the forms of -animal life is proved incontestably by the following facts: - -1. The evolution of mind is implied by the fact of the evolution of -structures. ‘I hold,’ says Romanes, in the introduction to his -great work on ‘Mental Evolution,’ ‘that, if the doctrine of -organic evolution is accepted, it carries with it, as a necessary -corollary, the doctrine of mental evolution.’ It makes no -difference what theory we adopt regarding the essential natures of -the physical and the psychical—whether we agree with the -materialist that mind is an attribute of matter, with the idealist -that matter is a creation of mind, with the monist that mind and -body are only different aspects of the same central entity, or with -the dualist that body and soul are two distinct but temporarily -dependent existences—we must in any case recognise the fact, which -is perceived by all, that there is an ever-faithful parallel between -the neural and psychical phenomena of every organism. And if the -elements which enter into and make up the physical structure of man -have been derived from, and determined by, preceding forms of life, -the elements which enter into and make up the psychical counterpart -of the physical have also, without any doubt, been inherited from, -and determined by, ancestral life forms. - -2. Closely allied to the foregoing reason for a belief in the -evolution of mind is that derived from a comparative survey of the -nervous system in man and other animals. In man, mind is closely -associated with a certain tissue or system of tissues—_nerve -tissue or the nervous system_. That mind is correlated with nerve -structure, and that mental anatomy may be learned from a study of -the anatomy of the nervous system, especially of the brain, is the -basic postulate of the science of physiological psychology. Now, -nerve cells exist in all animals above the sponge, and a -comparatively well-developed nervous system is found even among many -of the invertebrates, as the higher worms, crustaceans, insects, and -mollusks. The nervous system of invertebrates, though composed of -the same kind of tissue, is constructed according to a somewhat -different plan of architecture from that of the vertebrates. But in -all of the great family of backboned animals the nervous system is -built on the same general plan as in man, with a cerebro-spinal -trunk extending from the head along the back and motory and sensory -nerves ramifying to all parts of the body. There is also a -sympathetic nervous system in all animals down as far as the -insects. The brain, which is the most important part of the nervous -system, and which has been called the ‘organ of consciousness,’ -presents throughout the animal kingdom, from its beginning in the -worms to man, a graduated series of increasing complication -proceeding out of the same fundamental type. This is especially true -of the vertebrates. Fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and -mammals, all have in their brains the same primary parts, the same -five fundamental divisions, as are found in the brain of man. Hence, -whatever may be thought about the mental states of invertebrates, we -have the right, in the case of the vertebrate orders of life, to -infer, from the general similarity of their nervous system to our -own, that they have a corresponding similarity to ourselves in -mental constitution and experience. - -3. The evolution of mind is suggested by the existence in the animal -world of all grades of intelligence, from almost mindless forms to -forms even exceeding in some respects the mental attainments of men. -The jelly-fish and the philosopher are not mental aliens. They are -linked to each other by a continuous gradation of intermediate -intelligences. The existence of these grades of mental development -suggest psychical evolution and kinship, just as the existence of -like grades of structural development suggest physical evolution. - -4. In the mental life of animals the same factors of evolution exist -as those by means of which organic structures have been brought into -existence, and it is reasonable to suppose that the operation of -these factors have produced in the mental world results analogous to -those produced by the operation of the same factors among organic -structures. - -Men and other animals _vary_ in their natures and mental faculties -quite as much as they do in colour, size, and shape. It is commonly -supposed that the mental and temperamental variety existing among -individual men does not exist among individual birds, quadrupeds, -insects, etc. But a little observation or reflection ought to be -enough to convince anyone that such a supposition belongs to that -batch of pre-Darwinian mistakes presented to us by an over-generous -past. We are _not acquainted_ with the inhabitants of our fields and -barn-yards. We are almost as ignorant of the mental life and -personality of these door-yard neighbours and friends of ours as we -would be if they were the inhabitants of another continent. That is -why our obtuse minds lump them together so indiscriminately—we do -not know anything about them. We never take the trouble, or think it -worth while, to get acquainted with them, much less to study and -know them. We have grown up in the falsehood that they are -altogether different from what we are, and that it is really not -worth while to bother our gigantic heads about them, except to use -them when it comes handy, or kick them to one side, or execute them, -when they get in the way. Everybody else looks at the matter in -about the same way, so we just let it go at that. - -There is a sameness about foreigners and other classes of _human_ -beings with whom we are but slightly, or not at all, acquainted, -until we come to know them and can discriminate one from another. I -remember once asking my sister, if her baby, which looked to me like -all other babies I had ever seen, were mixed up with a lot of other -babies of about the same age, whether she could pick hers out from -all the rest, and she gave me an unmistakable affirmative by -answering, ‘What a foolish question!’ - -There is less variety among the individuals of non-human races than -among individual men, just as there is less variety among individual -savages than among the members of a civilised community. But there -is mental diversity among all beings, and we only need to whittle -our observation a little to recognise the fact. You never hear the -keeper of a menagerie or any intelligent associate of dogs, horses, -birds, or insects say there is no individuality among these animals. -Brehm, the great German naturalist, assures us that each individual -monkey of all those he kept tame in Africa had its own peculiar -temper and disposition. And this is no more than what everyone who -knows anything about it knows to be true of dogs, horses, cats, -cattle, birds, and even fishes and insects. Any intelligent -dog-fancier or pigeon-fancier can tell you the personal -peculiarities of every one of the fifty or a hundred dogs or pigeons -in his charge. He has watched and studied them since they came into -existence, and through this continuous association he has come to -_know_ them. He simply makes discriminations that are not made by -the casual or superficial observer. The Laplander knows and names -each reindeer in his herd, though to a stranger they are all as much -alike as the multitudes on an ant-hill. The Peckhams of Milwaukee, -those indefatigable investigators of spiders and insects, are -constantly telling us of the wonderful individuality possessed by -these lowly lessees of our fields and gardens. In their work on -‘The Habits and Instincts of the Solitary Wasps,’ speaking of -the ammophiles, these authors say: ‘In this species, as in every -one that we have studied, we have found a most interesting variation -among the different individuals, not only in methods, but in -character and intellect. While one was beguiled from her hunting by -every sorrel blossom she passed, another stuck to her work with -indefatigable perseverance. While one stung her caterpillars so -carelessly and made her nest in so shiftless a way that her young -could survive only through some lucky chance, another devoted -herself to these duties not only with conscientious earnestness, but -with an apparent craving after artistic perfection that was touching -to see.’ The variation in the mental phenomena of animals, -including man, is partly innate, and partly the result of -environment or education. - -Animals not only vary in their mental qualities, but they also -_inherit_ these variations, just as they do physical properties and -peculiarities. Evidence of this is furnished by every new being that -comes into the world. Insanity runs in families, and so does genius -and criminality. Even the most trifling idiosyncrasies are often -transmitted, not only by men, but also by dogs, horses, and other -animals. Such qualities of mind as courage, fidelity, good and bad -temper, intelligence, timidity, special tastes and aptitudes, are -certainly transmitted in all the higher orders of animal life. - -Animals are also _selected_, are enabled to survive in the struggle -for life quite as much through the possession by them of certain -mental qualities as on account of their physical characters. Whether -the selections are made by nature or by man, they are not determined -by the physical facts of size, strength, speed, and the like, more -than by cunning, courage, sagacity, skill, industry, devotion, -ferocity, tractability, and other mental properties. The fittest -survive, and the fittest may be the most timid or analytic as well -as the most powerful. No better illustration of this truth can be -found than that furnished by man himself. Man is by nature a -comparatively feeble animal. He is neither large nor powerful. Yet -he has been selected to prosper over all other animals because of -his ingenuity, sympathy, and art. The great feeling and civilisation -of higher men have been built up by slow accretion due to the -operation of the law of survival extending over vast measures of -time. Creeds and instincts, governments and impulses, forms of -thought and forms of expression, have struggled and survived just as -have cells and species. A struggle for existence is constantly going -on, as Max Müller has pointed out, even among the words and -grammatical forms of every language. The better, shorter, easier -forms are constantly gaining the ascendancy, and the longer and more -cumbrous expressions grow obsolete. - -If, therefore, the higher types of mind have not come into existence -as have the higher types of structure, through evolution from -simpler and more generalised forms, it has not been due to the -absence of the factors necessary for bringing about this evolution. - -5. The presumption created by the existence of the factors of -psychic evolution is strengthened by the facts of artificial -selection. We _know_ mind _can_ evolve, _for it has done so in many -cases_. The races of domesticated animals, the races whom man has -exploited and preyed upon during the past several thousand years, -have, many of them, been completely changed in character and -intelligence through human selection. Old instincts have been wiped -out and new ones implanted. In many instances the psychology has -been not only revolutionised, but remade. - -Take, for instance, the dog. The dog is a reformed bandit. It is a -revised wolf or jackal. It has been completely transformed by human -selection; indeed, it may be said that the dog in the last ten or -fifteen thousand years has made greater advances in sagacity and -civilisation than any other animal, scarcely even excepting man. Man -has made wonderful strides along purely intellectual lines, but in -the improvement of his emotions he has not been so successful. The -rapid development of the dog in feeling and intelligence has no -doubt been due to the fact that his utility to man has always -depended largely on his good sense and fidelity, and man has -persistently emphasised these qualities in his selection. Fierceness -and distrust—two of the most prominent traits in the psychology of -the primitive dog—have been entirely eradicated in the higher -races of dogs. There is not anywhere on the face of the earth a more -trustful, affectionate, and docile being than this one-time -cut-throat. Whether the dog has been derived from the wolf or from -some wild canine race now extinct, or from several distinct -ancestors, he must have had originally a fierce, distrustful, and -barbaric nature, for all of the undomesticated members of the dog -family wolves, foxes, jackals, etc.—have natures of this sort. - -There are about 175 different races of domestic dogs. They represent -almost as great a range of development as do the races of men. Some -of them are exceedingly primitive, while others are highly -intelligent and civilised. The Eskimo dogs are really nothing but -wolves that have been trained to the service of man. They look like -wolves, and have the wolf psychology. They are not able to bark, -like ordinary dogs; they howl like wolves, and their ears stand up -straight, like the ears of all wild Canidae. Some of the more -advanced of the canine races—like the sheep-dogs, pointers, and -St. Bernards—are animals of great sympathy and sensibility. When -educated, these dogs are almost human in their impulses and in their -powers of discernment. In patience, vigilance, and devotion to duty, -they are superior to many men. At a word, or even a look, from its -master, the loyal collie will gather the sheep scattered for miles -around to the place designated, and do it with such tact and -expedition as to command admiration. It has been said that if it -were not for this faithful and competent canine the highlands of -Scotland would be almost useless for sheep-raising purposes, because -of the greater expense that would be entailed if men were employed. -One collie will do the work of several men, and will do it better, -and the generous-hearted creature pours out its services like water. -It requires no compensation except table refuse and a straw bed. In -South America sheep-dogs are trained to act as shepherds and assume -the whole responsibility of tending the flock. ‘It is a common -thing,’ says Darwin, ‘to meet a large flock of sheep guarded by -one or two dogs, at a distance of some miles from any house or -man.’ When the dogs get hungry, they come home for food, but -immediately return to the flock on being fed. ‘It is amusing,’ -remarks this writer, ‘to observe, when approaching a flock, how -the dog immediately advances barking, while the sheep all close in -his rear as around the oldest ram.’ Romanes relates an incident -which well illustrates the high character and intelligence of the -dog and its wonderful devotion to a trust. ‘It was a Scotch -collie. Her master was in the habit of consigning sheep to her -charge without supervision. On this particular occasion he remained -behind or proceeded by another road. On arriving at home late in the -evening, he was astonished to learn that his faithful animal had not -made her appearance with the drove. He immediately set out in search -of her. But on going out into the streets, there she was coming with -the drove, not one missing, and, marvellous to relate, she was -carrying a young puppy in her mouth. She had been taken in travail -on the hills, and how the poor creature had contrived to manage her -drove in her condition is beyond human calculation, for her road lay -through sheep all the way. Her master’s heart smote him when he -saw what she had suffered and effected. But she was nothing daunted, -and after depositing her young one in a place of safety she again -set out full speed for the hills, and brought another and another, -till she brought the whole litter, one by one; but the last one was -dead’.[1] - -What a wonderful transformation in canine character! The very beings -whose blood the dog once drank with ravenous thirst it now protects -with courage and fidelity. And this transformation in character is -not due to education simply. It is innate. Young dogs brought from -Tierra del Fuego or Australia, where the natives do not keep such -domestic animals as sheep, pigs, and poultry, invariably have an -incurable propensity for attacking these animals. - -The feeling of ownership possessed by so many dogs is an entirely -new element in canine character, a trait implanted wholly by human -selection. Bold and confident on his own premises, the dog -immediately becomes weak and apologetic when placed in circumstances -in which he feels he has no rights. - -The pointers and setters have been developed as distinct breeds by -human selection during the past 150 or 200 years. - -What is true of the dog is true also, to a large extent, of the cat, -cow, horse, sheep, goat, fowl, and other domestic animals. Serene -and peaceful puss is the tranquillised descendant of the wild cat of -Egypt, one of the most untamable of all animals. The migratory -instinct, so strong in wild water-fowl, is almost absent from our -geese and ducks, as is the fighting propensity (prominent in the -Indian jungle-bird) from most varieties of the domesticated chicken. -There are now as many as a hundred different kinds of domesticated -animals, and there is scarcely one of these animals that has not -been profoundly changed in character during the period of its -domestication. There are much greater changes in some races than in -others. Some races have been much longer in captivity than others. -And then, too, there is great difference in the degree of plasticity -in different races, the races of ancient origin being much more -fixed in their psychology than those of more recent beginnings. In -some races, too—as in the sheep—the selections made by man have -been made primarily with reference to certain physical qualities, -and in these cases the mental qualities have been only incidentally -affected. In Polynesia, where it is selected for its flavour instead -of for its fleetness or intelligence, the dog is said to be a very -stupid animal. But in most cases of domestication the changes -wrought by selection in the mental make-up of the race have been -fully as great as the changes in body, and in some instances much -greater. And the process by which these great changes in psychology -have been effected is in principle identically the same as that by -which mental evolution in general is assumed to have been brought -about. - -History everywhere has come out of the night, out of the deep gloom -of the unrecorded. But it has not leaped forth like lightning out of -the darkness. It has dawned, night being succeeded by the amorphous -shadows of legend and tradition, and these in turn by the attested -events of true history. Almost every civilised people can trace back -its genealogy to a time when it was represented on the earth by one -or more tribes of savage or half-savage ancestors. The Anglo-Saxons -go back to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, three semi-savage tribes -who came to England from the borderlands of the Baltic fourteen or -fifteen centuries ago. The French are the descendants of the Gauls, -who formed the scattered population of warring and superstitious -tribes referred to by Julius Caesar in the opening lines of his -‘Commentaries.’ The blue-eyed Germans came from the Cimbri, the -Goths, and the Vandals, those bold, wild hordes who charged out of -the north to battle with the power of Rome. And all of the Aryan -races—English, German, Italian, Scandinavian, Russian, Roman, -Greek, and Persian—trace their ancestry back, by means of common -languages and legends, to a time when they were wandering tribes of -nomads tenting somewhere on the plains of transcaspian Asia. - -6. The evolution of mind in the animal world in general is suggested -by the fact that mind in man has evolved. The rich, luminous -intellect of civilised man, with its art, science, law, literature, -government, and morality, has been evolved from the rude, raw, -demon-haunted mind of the savage. Evidence of this evolution is -furnished by the recorded facts of human history, by the antiquarian -collections of our museums, and by a study of existing savages. - -In all our museums there are collections of the relics of -prehistoric peoples. These collections consist of objects upon which -men in distant ages of the world have wrought—their weapons, -ornaments, utensils, implements, and playthings—which have been -saved from the teeth of Time by their durability. The character of -the minds which operated on these objects, which produced and used -them, may be inferred from the character of the objects, just as the -life and surroundings of an ancient animal or plant may be inferred -from its fossil. These relics are of stone, bone, bronze, and iron. -They are found in almost every region of the earth—all over Europe -and its islands, in western and central Asia, in China and Japan, in -Malay, Australia, and New Zealand, in the islands of the Pacific, -and throughout the length and breadth of America. They antedate -human history by thousands of years. They are the ruins of the Stone -Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age of mankind. In all of these -remains there is evidence of a slow but gradual improvement as we -approach the present. There are places on the earth where the -evolution of human implements, from the rudest chipped stones to the -comparatively finished products of historic peoples, is epitomised -in the deposits of a few feet in depth. One of these occurs at -Chelles, a suburb of Paris, and was made the subject of a paper by -Professor Packard in the _Popular Science Monthly_ for May, 1902. -Here three distinct layers, containing human remains entirely -different in character from each other, appear within a depth of 30 -feet from the surface. The lowest bed, a layer of pebbles and sand, -and probably preglacial in origin, contains the famous Chellean -‘axes,’ rude almond-shaped implements of chipped flint, and used -by these ancient inhabitants by being held in the hand. In this bed -are also found the bones of the straight-tusked elephant, cave-bear, -big-nosed rhinoceros, and other species now extinct. The next bed is -the interglacial, and contains implements entirely different from -the one below it, among which are skin-scrapers and lance-points. -The animal remains of this bed are also different from those found -in the bed below, and include animals like the musk-ox and the -reindeer, which were probably driven to this southern clime from -more northern regions by the excessive cold of the time. The third -bed, which lies just below the surface soils, contains polished -stone axes and other remains of human industry cotemporaneous with -the Swiss lake-dwellers. From the swamps and loams are sometimes dug -up the remains of Gallo-Roman civilisations—Gallic coins, -serpentine axes, and bronzes of the time of the Antonines. - -No one can fully realise the vast advance that has been made by the -human mind until he has looked upon a savage—has seen the savage -in his native haunts attacking the problems of his daily life, and -has tasted of his philosophy and disposition. The savage is the -ancestor of all higher men. When we look upon the savage, we look -upon the infancy of the human world. All of the laws, languages, -sciences, governments, religions, and philosophies of civilised man, -or nearly all of them at any rate, are the exfoliated laws, -languages, sciences, governments, religions, and philosophies of -savages. It is impossible to understand the laws of civilised -societies without a knowledge of the laws of savage societies. The -same thing is true of government, religion, and philosophy—and of -human nature itself. Human nature as exhibited by civilised men and -women—I mean men and women with a veneering of civility, not -really civilised folks, for there are none of them on the earth—is -a perpetual enigma unless it is illumined by retrospection, by a -comparative study of human nature, by a study of human nature as -seen in more and more primitive men and women. The mind of the -savage, as compared with that of civilised man, is exceedingly -primitive. The picture drawn by Gilbraith of the North American -Sioux is a typical picture of savage life and character. Gilbraith -lived among these tribes for several years, and was thoroughly -acquainted with them. He says: - -‘They are bigoted, barbarous, and exceedingly superstitious. They -regard most of the vices as virtues. Theft, arson, rape, and murder -are regarded by them as the means of distinction. The young Indian -is taught from childhood to regard killing as the highest of -virtues. In their dances and at their feasts, the warriors recite -their deeds of theft, pillage, and slaughter as precious things; and -the highest, indeed the only, ambition of the young brave is to -secure “the feather,” which is but the record of his having -murdered, or participated in the murder of, some human -being—whether man, woman, or child, it is immaterial’.[2] - -‘Conscience,’ says Burton, ‘does not exist in East Africa, and -“repentance” simply expresses regret for missed opportunities -for crime. Robbery makes an honorable man; and murder, the more -atrocious the crime the better, makes the hero’.‘Conscience,’ -says Burton, ‘does not exist in East Africa, and “repentance” -simply expresses regret for missed opportunities for crime. Robbery -makes an honorable man; and murder, the more atrocious the crime the -better, makes the hero’.[3] - -Many things appear natural and self-evident to the savage which seem -to us actually revolting. When the Fuegians are hard pressed by -want, they kill their old women for food rather than their dogs, -saying: ‘Old women no use; dogs kill otters.’ ‘What I’ said -a negro to Burton, ‘am I to starve while my sister has children -whom she can sell?’ - -Lubbock, in his great work on ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ -cites hundreds of instances of savage rudeness and simplicity which -seem almost incredible to one accustomed all his life to types of -human character such as are found in Europe and America. For -instance, ‘when the natives of the Lower Murray first saw -pack-oxen, some of them were frightened and took them for demons -with spears on their heads, while others thought they were the wives -of the settlers, because they carried the baggage.’ Speaking of -the wild men in the interior of Borneo, this writer says: ‘They -live absolutely in a state of nature, neither cultivating the ground -nor living in huts. They eat neither rice nor salt, and do not -associate with each other, but rove about the woods like wild -beasts. The sexes meet in the jungle. When the children are old -enough to shift for themselves, they usually separate, neither one -afterwards thinking of the other. At night they sleep under some -large tree whose branches hang low. They fasten the children to the -branches in a kind of swing, and build a fire around the tree to -protect them from snakes and wild beasts. The poor creatures are -looked on and treated by the other Dyaks as wild beasts.’ Lubbock -sums up his conclusions on the morality of savages in the following -pathetic acknowledgment: ‘I do not remember a single instance in -which a savage is recorded as having shown any symptoms of remorse; -and almost the only case I can call to mind in which a man belonging -to one of the lower races has accounted for an act by saying -explicitly that it was right, was when Mr. Hunt asked a young Figian -why he had killed his mother’.[4] - -A few pages further on, the same author adds, regarding the -deplorable state of morality among savages: ‘That there should be -races of men so deficient in moral feeling was altogether opposed to -the preconceived ideas with which I commenced the study of savage -life, and I have arrived at the conviction by slow degrees, and even -with reluctance. I have, however, been forced to this conclusion, -not only by the direct statements of travellers, but also by the -general tenor of their remarks, and especially by the remarkable -absence of repentance and remorse among the lowest races of men.’ -Among ourselves the words used to distinguish right and wrong are -metaphors. Right originally meant ‘straight,’ and wrong meant -‘twisted.’ Language existed, therefore, before morality; for if -moral ideas had preceded language, there would have been original -words to stand for them. Religion, according to Lubbock, has no -moral aspect or influence except among the more advanced races of -men. ‘The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may be -forced into compliance with the wishes of man; they generally -delight in bloody, and often require human, sacrifices; they are -mortal, not immortal; they are to be approached by dances rather -than by prayers; and often approve what we call vice rather than -what we esteem as virtue. In fact, the so-called religion of the -lower races of mankind bears somewhat the same relation to religion -in its higher forms as astrology does to astronomy or alchemy to -chemistry’.[4] - -Savages have few general ideas of any kind, as is evidenced by the -almost total absence among them of words denoting general ideas. -Many savage races cannot comprehend numbers greater than five or -six, and are unable to make the simplest mathematical computations -without using the fingers. The languages of savages are extremely -rude, words being freely pieced out with pantomime. Savages talk -with difficulty in the dark, because of their great reliance on -gesture in conversation. The rich vocabularies of the languages of -Europe and America have grown up step by step with the evolution of -European and American mind. Every language is an evolution. The -languages of many primitive peoples lack the verb to be entirely, -and all nouns are proper nouns. Words are often little more than -grunts or clucks, and are without the euphony and articulation found -in the languages of the civilised. Darwin says that the language of -the Fuegians sounds like a man clearing his throat. Not only every -language, but every word, both in its form and meaning, is in -process of evolution. _Spirit_, for instance, originally meant -‘blowing,’ _understanding_ meant ‘getting beneath,’ and -_development_ the physical act of ‘unfolding.’ Words are -continually drifting from their original meanings under the stress -of incessant use, as ships drag their anchors in a gale. Those words -that are exposed to common use undergo the most rapid changes, while -words sheltered from the rush of human affairs, like harboured -ships, hold to their moorings forever. _Let_, for instance, once -meant ‘hinder’; now it means ‘allow.’ _Bisect_, on the other -hand, a word of rare and technical use, has remained unaltered in -significance for twenty centuries. - -Even our alphabet has been evolved. The twenty-six symbols composing -it have been eroded into the peculiar forms in which they appear at -present by the various peoples through whose hands they have come to -us. The originals were pictographs such as are still found on the -aged monuments of earth’s earliest civilisations. The English got -their alphabet from the Romans, who obtained it, along with almost -everything else they had, from the Greeks. The Greeks received it -from the Phenicians, and the Phenicians from the papyrus writers of -Egypt, who in turn procured it from those hieroglyph chiselers who -carved their curious literature on the granite tombs of the Nile in -the remotest dawn of human history. _A_, the first letter of our -alphabet, is a figure which has been evolved, as the result of long -wear and tear, from the picture of an eagle; _B_ was originally the -picture of a crane; _C_ represents a throne; _D_ a hand; _F_ an asp; -_H_ a sieve; _K_ a bowl; _L_ a lioness; _M_ an owl; _N_ a -water-line; _R_ a mouth; _S_ a garden; _T_ a lasso; _X_ a chairback; -and _Z_ a duck. - -The psychology of civilised man, though derived from that of the -savage, and hence resembling it fundamentally, is, nevertheless, -very different from it, both in character and in what it contains. -The mind of the savage is rude, unresourceful, vicious, and -childlike, while that of the civilised man or woman may be -overflowing with wisdom and benignity. This gulf has not been -covered by a stride, but by the slow operation of the same laws of -Inheritance, Variation, and Selection by which all progress has been -brought about. - -7. Degeneration is a necessary part of the process of organic -evolution. All progress, whether anatomical, intellectual, or -social, takes place through selection, and selection means the -pining and ultimate passing away of that which is left. In -individual evolution it is organs, ideas, and traits of character -that are eliminated, and in social evolution it is customs and -institutions. One of the reasons given in the preceding chapter for -the belief in the evolution of structures is the existence in man -and other animals of _vestigial organs_, organs which in lower forms -of life are useful, but which in higher forms are represented by -useless or even injurious remnants. Similar remnants are found in -the _psychology_ of man and other animals. These vestiges of mind -are not so easily recognised as the vestiges of structure, but they -are everywhere. We find them in the antiquated instincts of man and -the domestic animals, in the silent letters and worn-out words of -languages, and in the emaciated remains of abandoned beliefs and -institutions. - -The hunting and fishing instinct of civilised man is a vestigial -instinct, normal in the savage, but without either sense or decency -among men devoted to industrial pursuits. The savage hunts and -fishes because he is hungry, never for pastime; civilised men and -women do so because they are too mechanical to assort their -impulses. Civilised man is a mongrel, a cross between a barbarian -and a god. His psychology is a compound of the jungle and the sky. -In their loftier moments, many men are able to obscure the cruder -facts of their origin and to put into temporary operation those more -splendid processes of mind which characterise their ideals. But even -the most civilised are forever haunted by the returning ghosts of -departed propensities—propensities which grew up in ages of hate, -which are now out-of-date, but which in the trying tedium of daily -life come back and usurp the high places in human nature. Revenge, -hate, cruelty, pugnacity, selfishness, vanity, and the like, are all -more or less vestigial among men who have entered seriously on the -life of altruism. Like the vermiform appendix and the human tail, -these old obsolete parts of the human mind are destined, in the -ripening of the ages, to waste away and disappear through disuse. - -The practice of the dog of turning round two or three times before -lying down is in response to an instinct which was no doubt -beneficial to it in its wild life, when it was wont to make its bed -in the grasses, but which is now a pure waste of time. Darwin -records it as a fact, that he has himself seen a simple-minded dog -turn round twenty times before lying down. The sheep-killing mania, -which sometimes comes over dogs when three or four of them get -together and become actuated by the ‘mob’ spirit, is a vestige -of the old instinct of the carnivore which centuries of -domestication have not yet quite erased. Goodness, if too prolonged, -becomes irksome to dogs for the same reason that it does to men. -Dogs have come from savages just as men have, and, while the -civilised nature of the dog is more constitutional than that of -civilised man, the old deposed instincts mount to the throne once in -awhile, and the faithful collie is for the time being a wolf again. -The instinct of domestic sheep to imitate their leader in leaping -over obstacles is another probable survival of wild life. If a bar -or other obstacle be placed where the leader of a flock of sheep is -compelled to leap over it, and the obstacle is then removed, the -entire band of followers will leap at the same place regardless of -the fact that the obstruction is no longer there. No other animals -do this. The instinct is probably a survival of wild life, when -these animals, pursued by their enemies over chasms and precipices, -were compelled to imitate in the flight those in front of them in -order to live. Darwin thinks the donkey shows its aboriginal desert -nature in its aversion for crossing the smallest stream, and its -relish for rolling in the dust. The same aversion for everything -aquatic exists also in the camel. Quails kept in captivity, I am -told, persist in scratching at the pan when they are feeding, just -as they would need to do, and were accustomed to do, among the -leaves and grasses of the groves. The restlessness of cage-birds and -domestic fowls at migrating time, the mimic dipping and sporting of -ducks when confined to a terrestrial habitat, the grave marshalling -of geese by the chief gander of the band, the ferocity of cows, -ewes, and the females of other domestic animals during the first few -days of motherhood, the hunting instinct of dogs kept as shepherds -and pets, the squatting of young pigs when suddenly alarmed—all of -these are vestigial instincts, functional in the wild state, but now -useless and absurd. - -The silent letters and superannuated words and phrases found -everywhere in literature are the vestigial parts of language. Every -silent letter was originally sounded, and every obsolete word was at -one time used. In the French word, _temps_, for instance, which -means ‘time,’ neither the _p_ nor the _s_ is sounded. But in the -Latin word _tempus_, from which the French word is derived, all of -the letters are sounded. - -Man has been defined as a creature of habit. As he has done a thing -once, or as his ancestors have done a thing, so he does it again. By -precept and example he transmits to each new generation the customs, -beliefs, and points of view which he has invented. Social changes -take place with extreme moderation. The drowsy ages take plenty of -time to get anywhere. Civilisation is lazy, deliberate, -unimpassioned. It loafs and hesitates. It holds on to the past. -Living civilisations always drag behind them a trail of traditions -from dead civilisations. Religions and philosophies change, and -creeds and governments flow into strange and undreamed-of forms; but -their personalities survive, their souls live on, their remnants, -transmitted as traditions from generation to generation, defy the -meddlings of innovators. Hence in every society there are forms and -ceremonies, laws and customs, games and symbols, etc., which have -been completely diverted from their original purposes, or which have -become so reduced in importance as to be of no use. Spencer has -shown that the forms of salutation in vogue among civilised -societies are the vestiges of primitive ceremonial used to denote -submission. The May Day festivals with which the opening spring is -usually hailed are the much-modified survivals of pagan festivals in -honour of plant and animal fecundity. Superstition and folklore are -vestigial opinions. The gorgeous Easter egg is a survival of a dawn -myth older than the Pyramids, and our Christmas dinner is a -reminiscence of a cannibal carnival celebrating the turning back of -the sun at the winter solstice (Brinton). In the English government, -where democracy has in recent centuries made such inroads on the -monarchy, there are numerous examples of vestigial -institutions—institutions which continue to exist purely because -they have existed in the past, but which were functional a few -centuries ago. The supreme office itself is one of these. The King -represents the petered-out tail-end of a privilege which in the time -of the early Stuarts was almost unlimited. Similar vestiges exist in -the United States, where the national spirit during the last century -and a half has so completely wiped out colonialism. Such are the -Town Meetings of Boston and of New Haven. The earliest form of human -marriage was marriage by capture. The man stole the woman and -carried her away by force. This form of marriage was in the course -of evolution succeeded by marriage through purchase. A man anxious -to become a husband could do so by paying to the father a stipulated -amount of cash or cattle for his daughter. This second form of -marriage finally evolved into marriage arranged by direct and -peaceful negotiation between the prospective husband and wife. This -is the form most commonly employed at the present time among the -more advanced societies of men. But in the ceremonies which surround -the nuptial event among civilised peoples survive vestiges of many -of the facts associated with aboriginal marriages. A marriage in -high life is a sort of epitome of the evolution of the institution. -The coyness and hesitancy of the woman in accepting the offers of -her proposed spouse are the lineal descendants of the original -reluctance of her savage sisters. The wedding-ring is the old token -accepted by the woman when she gave her pledge of bondage. The -coming of the groom with his aids to the marriage is a figurative -marauding expedition. The honeymoon is the abduction. And the -charivari and missile-throwing indulged in by friends and relatives -on the departure of the wedded twain is a good-humoured counterfeit -of the armed protest made by relatives of old when a bride-snatcher -came among them.[5] - -The vestiges found everywhere in the mental and social phenomena of -man and other animals have arisen as necessary facts in the process -of mental evolution. _They are the vermiform appendices of the mind_. - -8. One of the strongest reasons for a belief in the physical -evolution of animal species is that furnished by individual -evolution. Each individual animal recapitulates in a wonderful -manner the phylogenesis of its species. Now, it is extremely -significant that a similar parallel exists in the case of mental -evolution. Each individual mind ascends through a series of mental -faculties which epitomises in a remarkable manner the psychogenesis -of the animal kingdom. - -The human child is not born with a full-grown mind any more than -with a full-grown body. It grows. It exfoliates. It ripens with the -years. It begins in infancy at the zero-point, and in manhood or -womanhood may blaze with genius and philanthropy. - -But the mind of the child not only unfolds: it unfolds in a certain -order, the more complex parts and the more civilised emotions -invariably appearing last. The initial powers of the newborn babe -are those of sensation and perception. The babe cannot think. It has -no feeling of fear, no affection, no sympathy, and no shame. It can -see, and hear, and taste, and feel pain and satisfaction—and these -are about all. Even these are vague and confused. In a week the -perceptions are more sharp and vivid, more distinct and orderly. -Memory arises. Memory is the power of reproducing past impressions. -At three weeks the emotions begin to sprout. The first to make their -appearance are fear and surprise. When the babe is seven weeks old -the social affections show themselves, and the simplest acts of -association are performed. At the age of twelve weeks jealousy and -anger may be expected, together with simple exhibitions of -association by similarity. At fourteen weeks affection and reason -dawn. Sympathy germinates at about the age of five months; pride and -resentment germinate at eight months; grief, hate, and benevolence -at ten months; and shame and remorse at fifteen months. - -Now, the remarkable thing about this is that this is the order, or -very much like the order, in which mind in the animal kingdom as a -whole has apparently evolved. The lower orders of animal life have -none of the higher emotions and none of the more complicated -processes of mind. There is no shame in the reptile, no -dissimulation in the fish, no sympathy in the mollusk, and no memory -in the sponge. Memory dawns in the echinoderms, or somewhere near -the radiate stage of development, and fear and surprise in the -worms. Pugnacity makes its appearance in the insects, imagination in -the spiders, and jealousy in the fishes. Pride, emulation, and -resentment originate in the birds: grief and hate in the carnivora; -shame and remorse among dogs and monkeys; and superstition in the -savage.[1] - -It is also an important fact bearing on the general problem of -evolution, that the civilised child, from about the age of one on, -is a sort of synopsis, rude but unmistakable, of the historic -evolution of the human race. The child is a savage. It has the -emotions of the savage, the savage’s conceptions of the world, and -the desires, pastimes, and ambitions of the savage. It hates work, -and takes delight in hunting, fishing, fighting, and loafing, like -other savages. The hero of the child is the bully, just as the -demigod of primitive man is a blood-letting Caesar or Achilles. The -children of the civilised are savages—some more so than -others—and if they ever become civilised—some do, and some do -not—they do so through a process of rectification and selection -similar to that through which the Aryan races have passed during the -ages of human history. - -There is a similar evolution in the young of other animals, -especially of the higher animals. Each individual begins in a -perfectly mindless form, and grows mentally as it develops -physically. The young puppy has a very different thinking and -feeling apparatus from the grown-up mastiff. It is controlled almost -exclusively by sense and instinct. It is devoid of common-sense, and -divides its time impartially between play and sleep. It is easily -frightened, and cries at every little thing. It has the rollicking, -awkward, irresponsible personality of a boy of six. About the same -thing is true of kittens, colts, calves, bear cubs, the whelps of -wolves, and other young quadrupeds. A kitten will chase shadows, try -to catch flies crawling on the other side of a windowpane, sit and -watch in wonder the moving objects about it, and do many other -things which it never thinks of doing when it has grown to be a wise -and sophisticated puss trained in the ways of the world about it. -Doghood, cathood, and horsehood, like manhood and womanhood, are the -ripened products of long processes of growth and exfoliation. - -The parallel is, of course, imperfect. There are many abbreviations, -many breaks and ambiguities, in the summary presented by the -individual mind of the evolution of the race. And, in the present -state of psychogeny, only the barest outline can be traced. _But -enough is known to render the fact unquestionable_. - -9. If human mind has been evolved, it is logical to expect to find -in other animals, especially in those more closely resembling -ourselves in structure, mind elements similar to those we find in -ourselves.[6] And this is precisely what we do find. The same great -trunk impulses that animate men animate also those more rudimentary -but not less real individuals below and around men. The great -primary facts of sex, of self-preservation, of pleasure and pain, of -life and death, of egoism and altruism, of motherhood, of -alimentation, etc.—all of these are found everywhere, down almost -to the very threshold of organic life. And they are the antecedents -of the same great tendencies as those that control the lives of men. -It is often supposed by the superficial that the facts of sex and -alimentation, which are so prominent in other animals, have been -relegated to a very subordinate place in the nature of man. But -nothing could be much farther from the truth. It has been said that -there are only two things that will induce the typical African or -Australian to undergo prolonged labour—hunger and the sex -appetite. It is probable that men—not only primitive men, but the -most evolved races, including even poets and philosophers—will do -more desperate and idiotic things and undergo more trying -experiences when actuated by the sex impulse than from the effects -of any other impulse in human nature. This impulse is especially -overmastering in races like the Italian and Spanish, and has been -mentioned by ethnologists as a probable factor in the deterioration -of these races. The sentiments of love, marital affection, and -family life control mankind more completely than any other motives. -And next to these comes hunger. Let anyone who imagines that only -the non-human creatures are carnal observe with what uniformity -almost every function in both savage and civilised life gravitates -toward eating and drinking. If it is a picnic, a convention, a -national holiday, a Christmas celebration, a meeting of a fraternal -society, a thanksgiving ceremony, or what not, eating is one of the -main things, and the one exercise into which four-fifths of those -present probably enter with the greatest enthusiasm. - -The human soul is the blossom, not the beginning, of psychic -evolution. Mother-love compassionated infancy long before a babe -came from the stricken loins of woman. The inhabitants of the earth -had been seeking pleasure and seeking to avoid pain, and seeking -ever with the same sad futility, long before man with his retinue of -puny philosophies strutted upon the scene. Hate poisoned the -cisterns of the sea and dropped its pollutions through the steaming -spaces ages before there was malice among men. Altruism is older -than the mountains, and selfishness hardened the living heart before -the continents were lifted. There was wonder in the woods and in the -wild heart of the fastnesses before there were waitings in -synagogues and genuflections about altar piles. The frogs, crickets, -and birds had been singing love a thousand generations and more when -the first amoroso knelt in dulcet descant to a beribboned Venus. -Human nature is not an article of divine manufacture, any more than -is the human form. It came out of the breast of the bird, out of the -soul of the quadruped. The human heart does not draw back from the -mysterious dissolutions of death more earnestly than does the hare -that flees before resounding packs or the wild-fowl that reddens the -reeds with its flounderings. Bowerbirds build their nest-side -resorts, decorate them with gay feathers, and surround them with -grounds ornamented with bright stones and shells, for identically -the same reason as human beings design drawing-rooms, hang them with -tapestries, and surround them with ornamented lawns. The scarlet -waistcoat of the robin and the flaming dresses of tanagers and -humming-birds, which seem, as they flash through the forest aisles, -like shafts of cardinal-fire, serve the same vanities and minister -to the same instincts as the plumage of the dandy and the tints and -gewgaws of gorgeous dames. Art is largely a manifestation of sex, -and it is about as old and about as persistent as this venerable -impulse. How did Darwin’s dog know his master on his master’s -return from a five-years’ trip around the world? Just as the boy -remembers where the strawberries grow and the philosopher recalls -his facts—by that power of the brain to retain and to reproduce -past impressions. Why does the thinker search his soul for new -theories and the spaces for new stars? For the same reason that the -child asks questions and the monkey picks to pieces its toys. What -is reason? A habit of wise men—an expedient of ants—a mania the -fools of all ages are free from. All of the activities of men, -however imposing or peculiar, are but elaborations in one way or -another of the humble doings of the animalcule, whose home is a -water-drop and whose existence can be discovered by human senses -only by the aid of instruments. - -10. Mind has evolved because the universe has evolved. Whether mind -is a part of the universe, or all of it, or only an attribute of it, -it is, in any case, inextricably mixed up with it. And, since the -universe as a whole has evolved, it is improbable that any part of -it or anything pertaining to it has remained impassive to the -general tendency. There are no solids. Nothing stands. The whole -universe is in a state of fluidity. Even the ‘eternal hills,’ -the ‘unchanging continents,’ and the ‘everlasting stars,’ -are flowing, flowing ever, slowly but ceaselessly, from form to -form. So is mind. Indeed, if there is anywhere in the folds of -creation a being such as the one whom man has long accused of having -brought the universe into existence, we may rest assured that even -he is not sitting passively apart from the enormous enterprise which -he has himself inaugurated. - -The evidence is conclusive. The evolution of mind is supported by a -series of facts not less incontrovertible and convincing than that -by which physical evolution is established. The data of mental -evolution are not quite so definite and plentiful as those of -physical evolution. But this is due to the greater intangibility of -mental phenomena and to the backward condition of the psychological -sciences, especially of comparative psychology. Mental phenomena are -always more difficult to deal with than material phenomena, and -hence are always more tardily attended to in the application of any -theory. But taking everything into account, including the close -connection between physical and psychical phenomena, it may be -asserted that it is not more certain that the physical structure of -man has been derived from sub-human forms of life than it is that -the human mind has also been similarly derived. - -Man is the adult of long evolution. The human soul has ancestors and -consanguinities just as the body has. It is just as reasonable to -suppose that the human physiology, with its definitely elaborated -tissues, organs, and systems, is unrelated to the physiology of -vertebrates in general, and through vertebrate physiology to the -physiology of invertebrates, as to suppose that the states and -impulses constituting human nature and consciousness began to exist -in the anthropic type of anatomy and are unrelated to the states and -impulses of vertebrate consciousness in general, and through -vertebrate consciousness to those remoter types of sentiency lying -away at the threshold of organic life. Human psychology is a part of -universal psychology. It has been evolved. It has been evolved -according to the same laws of heredity and adaptation as have -physiological structures. And it is just as impossible to understand -human nature and psychology unaided by those wider prospects of -universal psychology as it is to understand the facts of human -physiology unaided by analogous universalisations. - -1. Romanes: _Mental Evolution in Animals_; New York, 1898. -2. Gilbraith: _Ethnological Journal_, 1869, p. 304. -3. Burton: _First Footsteps in East Africa_; London, 1856. -4. Lubbock: _Origin of Civilisation_; New York, 1898. -5. Demoor: _Evolution by Atrophy_; New York, 1899. -6. This topic is more fully presented in the chapter “The elements -of the human and non-human mind compared.” - -III. The Common-sense View. - -But it is not necessary to be learned in Darwinian science in order -to know that non-human beings have souls. Just the ordinary -observation of them in their daily lives about us—in their comings -and goings and doings—is sufficient to convince any person of -discernment that they are beings with joys and sorrows, desires and -capabilities, similar to our own. No human being with a -conscientious desire to learn the truth can associate intimately day -after day with these people—associate with them as he himself -would desire to be associated with in order to be interpreted, -without presumption or reserve, in a kind, honest, straightforward, -magnanimous manner; make them his friends and really enter into -their inmost lives—without realising that they are almost unknown -by human beings, that they are constantly and criminally -misunderstood, and that they are in reality beings actuated by -substantially the same impulses and terrorised by approximately the -same experiences as we ourselves. They eat and sleep, seek pleasure -and try to avoid pain, cling valorously to life, experience health -and disease, get seasick, suffer hunger and thirst, co-operate with -each other, build homes, reproduce themselves, love and provide for -their children, feeding, defending, and educating them, contend -against enemies, contract habits, remember and forget, learn from -experience, have friends and favourites and pastimes, appreciate -kindness, commit crimes, dream dreams, cry out in distress, are -affected by alcohol, opium, strychnine, and other drugs, see, hear, -smell, taste, and feel, are industrious, provident and cleanly, have -languages, risk their lives for others, manifest ingenuity, -individuality, fidelity, affection, gratitude, heroism, sorrow, -sexuality, self-control, fear, love, hate, pride, suspicion, -jealousy, joy, reason, resentment, selfishness, curiosity, memory, -imagination, remorse—all of these things, and scores of others, -the same as human beings do. - -The anthropoid races have the same emotions and the same ways of -expressing those emotions as human beings have. They laugh in joy, -whine in distress, shed tears, pout and apologise, and get angry -when they are laughed at. They protrude their lips when sulky or -pouting, stare with wide open eyes in astonishment, and look -downcast when melancholy or insulted. When they laugh, they draw -back the corners of their mouth and expose their teeth, their eyes -sparkle, their lower eyelids wrinkle, and they utter chuckling -sounds, just as human beings do.[1] They have strong sympathy for -their sick and wounded, and manifest toward their friends, and -especially toward the members of their own family, a devotion -scarcely equalled among the lowest races of mankind. They use rude -tools, such as clubs and sticks, and resort to cunning and -deliberation to accomplish their ends. The orang, when pursued, will -throw sticks at his pursuers, and when wounded, and the wound does -not prove instantly fatal, will sometimes press his hand upon the -wound or apply grass and leaves to stop the flow of blood. The -children of anthropoids wrestle with each other, and chase and throw -each other, just as do the juveniles of human households. The -gorilla, chimpanzee, and orang all build for themselves lodges made -of broken boughs and leaves in which to sleep at night. These -lodges, rude though they are, are not inferior to the habitations of -many primitive men. The Puris, who live naked in the depths of the -Brazilian forests, do not even have huts to live in, only screens -made by setting up huge palm-leaves against a cross-pole.[2] Some of -the African tribes are said to live largely in caves and the -crevices of rocks. This is the case with many primitive men. -According to a writer in the _Journal_ of the Anthropological -Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (January, 1902), ‘common -forms of dwelling among the wild tribes of the Malay Peninsula are -rock-shelters (sometimes caves, but more commonly natural recesses -under overhanging ledges) and leaf-shelters, which are sometimes -formed on the ground and sometimes in the branches of trees. The -simplest form of these leaf-shelters consists of a single palm-leaf -planted in the ground to afford the wanderer some slight shelter for -the night.’ - -When they sleep, the anthropoids sometimes lie stretched out, -man-like, on their backs, and sometimes they lie on their side with -their hand under their head for a pillow. The orang retires about -five or six o’clock in the evening, and does not rise until the -morning sun has dissipated the mists of the forest. The gorilla and -chimpanzee seem to mate for life. The former lives, as a rule, in -single families, each family consisting of a male and a female and -their children. During the day this primitive family roams through -the forests of equatorial Africa in search of food. They live on -fruits and nuts and the tender shoots and leaves of plants. They are -especially fond of sugar-cane, which they eat in small-boy fashion -by chewing and discarding the juiceless pulp. Among the foods of the -gorilla is a walnut-like nut which it cracks with stones. As evening -comes on, the head of the family selects a sleeping-place for the -night. This is usually some low tree with a dense growth at the top, -and protected as much as possible by higher trees from the chilly -night wind. Here, on a bed of broken branches and leaves, the mother -and little ones go to sleep, while the father devotedly crouches at -the foot of the tree, with his back against the trunk to guard his -family from leopards and other nocturnal cut-throats who eat -apes.[3] When the weather is stormy, they cover themselves with -broad pandanus leaves to keep off the rain. Koppenfels relates an -incident of a gorilla family which makes one think of things he -sometimes sees among men. The family consisted of the parents and -two children. It was meal-time. The head of the family reposed -majestically on the ground, while the wife and children hustled for -fruits for him in a near-by tree. If they were not sufficiently -nimble about it, or if they were so wanton as to take a bite -themselves, the paterfamilias growled and gave them a cuff on the -head.[3] Notwithstanding the sensational tales of the ferocity of -this being, the gorilla never attacks anyone at any time unless he -is molested.[3] He much prefers to attend to his own business. But -if he is not allowed to do so, if he is attacked, he is as fearless -as a machine. He approaches his antagonist walking upright and -beating his breast with his fists. He presents one of the most -terrifying of all spectacles, as, with gleaming eyes, hair erect, -and resounding yells, he bears down on the object of his resentment. -The natives fear the gorilla more than they fear any other animal. - -The chimpanzee in his native wilds lives in small tribes consisting -of a few families each. Like the gorilla, it passes the most of its -time on the ground, going among the trees only for food or sleep. It -builds a sleeping-place at night in the trees, as in the case of the -gorilla. Brehm, who brought up a number of chimpanzees in his own -home as comrades and playmates of his children, and who studied them -and associated with them for years, says: ‘The chimpanzee is not -only one of the cleverest of all creatures, but a being capable of -deliberation and judgment. Everything he does is done consciously -and deliberately. He looks upon all other animals, except man, as -very inferior to himself. He treats children entirely different from -grown-up people. The latter he respects; the former he looks upon as -comrades and equals. He is not merely inquisitive: he is greedy for -knowledge. He can draw conclusions, can reason from one thing to -another, and apply the results of experience to new circumstances. -He is cunning, even wily, has flashes of humour, indulges in -practical jokes, manifests moods, and is entertained in one company -and bored in another. He is self-willed but not stubborn, -good-natured but not wanting in independence. He expresses his -emotions like a human being. In sickness he behaves like one in -despair, distorts his face, groans, stamps, and tears his hair. He -learns very easily whatever is taught him, as, for instance, to sit -upright at table, to eat with knife and fork and spoon, to drink -from a glass or cup, to stir the sugar in his tea, to use a napkin, -to wear clothes, to sleep in a bed, and so on. Exceedingly -appreciative of every caress, he is equally sensitive to blame and -unkindness. He is capable of deep gratitude, and he expresses it by -shaking hands or kissing without being asked to do so. He behaves -toward infants with touching tenderness. The behaviour of a sick and -suffering chimpanzee is most pathetic. Begging piteously, almost -humanly, he looks into his master’s face, receives every attempt -to help him with warm thanks, and soon looks upon his physician as a -benefactor, holding out his arm to him, stretching out his tongue -whenever told, and even doing so of his own accord after a few -visits from his physician. He swallows medicines readily, and even -submits to surgical operations—in short, behaves very like a human -patient in similar circumstances. As his end approaches, he becomes -more gentle, and the nobler traits of his character stand out -prominently’.[4] - -_The New York Herald_, in its issue of July 2, 1901, contained an -account of the death of Charlemagne, a chimpanzee who died a short -time before at Grenoble, France. This anthropoid at the time of his -death was the most popular inhabitant of the town. His popularity -was due to his good-nature and intelligence, and especially to the -fact that a few years before his death he had saved a child from -drowning in a well. The ape saw the child fall, and without a -moment’s hesitation climbed down the rope used for the buckets, -seized the child, and climbed out again by the same rope by which he -had descended. The people of the town thought so much of him that -they followed his remains to the grave, and the municipal council -voted to erect a bronze statue to his memory. - -A heartless hunter—maybe one of those assassins who fill the wilds -with widows and orphans in the name of Science—tells of the murder -of a mother chimpanzee and her baby in Africa. The mother was high -up in a tree with her little one in her arms. She watched intently, -and with signs of the greatest anxiety, the hunter as he moved about -beneath, and when he took aim at her the poor doomed thing motioned -to him with her hand precisely in the manner of a human being, to -have him desist and go away. - -According to Emin Pasha, who was for a number of years Governor of -an Egyptian province on the Upper Nile, and whom Stanley made his -last expedition to ‘rescue,’ chimpanzees sometimes make use of -fire. He told Stanley that, when a tribe of chimpanzees who resided -in a forest near his camp came at night to get fruit from the -orchards, they always came bearing torches to light them on their -way. ‘If I had not seen it with my own eyes,’ he declares, ‘I -never could have believed that these beings have the power of making -fire’.[5] This same authority relates that on one occasion a band -of chimpanzees descended upon his camp and carried off a drum. The -marauders went away in great glee, beating the drum as they -retreated. He says he heard them several times after that, at night, -beating their drum, in the forest. - -The monkeys are little inferior to the man-like races in their -intelligence and in the general similarity of their feelings and -instincts to those of men. Monkeys live in tribes, and at the head -of each tribe is an old male chief who has won his place by his -strength, courage, and ability. Monkeys have excellent memories and -keen observation, and are able to recognise their friends in a crowd -even after long absences. They are proverbially imitative, have a -strong desire for knowledge, and are exceedingly sensitive and -sympathetic in their natures. Sympathy and curiosity, the two most -prominent traits in simian psychology, are, significantly, the two -most important facts in the psychology of man. Sympathy and -curiosity lie at the foundation of human civilisation, sympathy at -the foundation of morals, and curiosity of invention and science. -The monkey whose diary appears in the closing pages of Romanes’ -‘Animal Intelligence’ was possessed of an almost ravenous desire -to know. He spent hour after hour in exploration, examining with the -indomitable patience of a scientist everything that came within the -bounds of his little horizon. And when he had found out any new -thing, he was as delighted over it as a boy who has solved a hard -problem, repeating the experiment over and over until it was -thoroughly familiar to him. Among the many things he discovered for -himself was the use of the lever and the screw. Monkeys are the most -affectionate of all animals excepting dogs and men. This affection -reaches its culmination, as among men, in the love of the mother for -her child. The mother monkey’s little one is the object of her -constant care and affection. She nurses and bathes it, licks it and -cleans its coat, and folds it in her arms and rocks it as if to lull -it to sleep, just as human mammas do. She divides every bite with -her little one, but does not hesitate to chastise it with slaps and -pinches when it is rude. The monkey child is generally very -obedient, obedient enough for an example to many a human youngster. - -‘Very touching,’ says Brehm, from whom many of the foregoing -facts are gleaned, ‘is the conduct of the mother when her baby is -obviously suffering. And if it dies she is in despair. For hours, -and even for days, she carries the little corpse about with her, -refuses all food, sits indifferently in the same spot, and often -literally pines to death’.[4] - -Orphan monkeys, according to Brehm, are often adopted by the tribe, -and carefully looked after by the other monkeys, both male and -female. The great mass of human beings, who know about as much about -the real emotional life of monkeys as wooden Indians do, are -inclined to pass over lightly all displays of feeling by these -people of the trees. But the poet knows, and the prophet knows, and -the world will one day understand, that in the gentle bosoms of -these wild woodland mothers glow the antecedents of the same -impulses as those that cast that blessed radiance over the lost -paradise of our own sweet childhood. The mother monkey who gathered -green leaves as she fled from limb to limb, and frantically stuffed -them into the wound of her dying baby in order to stanch the cruel -rush of blood from its side, all the while uttering the most pitiful -cries and casting reproachful glances at her human enemy, until she -fell with her darling in her arms and a bullet in her heart, had in -her simian soul just as genuine mother-love, and love just as -sacred, as that which burns in the breast of woman. - -The affection of monkeys is not confined to the love of the mother -for her child, but exists among the different members of the same -tribe, and extends even to human beings, especially to those who -make any pretensions to do to them as they would themselves be done -by. The monkey kept by Romanes, already referred to, became so -attached to his master that he went into the wildest demonstrations -of joy whenever his master, after an absence, came into the room. -Standing on his hind-legs at the full length of his chain, and -reaching out both hands as far as he could reach, he screamed with -all his might. His joy was so hysterical that it was impossible to -carry on any kind of conversation until he had been folded in his -master’s arms, when he immediately grew quiet. - -‘After I took this monkey back to the Zoological Gardens,’ says -Romanes, ‘and up to the time of his death, he remembered me as -well as the day he was returned. I visited the monkey-house about -once a month, and whenever I approached his cage he saw me with -astounding quickness—indeed, generally before I saw him—and ran -to the bars, through which he thrust both hands with every -expression of joy. When I went away he always followed me to the -extreme end of the cage, and stood there watching me as long as I -remained in sight.’ - -The following account of the attachment of a male monkey for his -murdered consort is a pitiful tale of human inhumanity and of simian -tenderness and devotion: - -‘A member of a shooting-party killed a female monkey, and carried -her body to his tent under a banyan-tree. The tent was soon -surrounded by forty or fifty of the tribe, who made a great noise -and threatened to attack the aggressor. When he presented his -fowling-piece, the fearful effects of which they had just witnessed, -and appeared perfectly to understand, they retreated. The leader of -the troop, however, stood his ground, threatening and chattering -furiously. At last, finding threats of no avail, the broken-hearted -creature came to the door of the tent and began a lamentable -moaning, and by the most expressive signs seemed to beg for the dead -body of his beloved. It was given to him. He took it sorrowfully in -his arms and bore it away to his expecting companions’.[6] - -The chattering of monkeys is not, as is vulgarly supposed, -meaningless vocalisation. It is language. It is meaningless to human -ears for the same reason that the chattering of Frenchmen is -meaningless to Americans—_because human beings are foreigners_. -The conversation of monkeys is to convey thought. Every species that -thinks and feels has means for conveying its thoughts and feelings, -and the means for this exchange, whether it be sounds, symbols, -gestures, or grimaces, is language. As Wundt somewhere says: ‘If -psychologists of to-day, ignoring all that an animal can express -through gestures and sounds, limit the possession of language to -human beings, such a conclusion is scarcely less absurd than that of -many philosophers of antiquity who regarded the languages of -barbarous nations as animal cries.’ Mr. Garner, who has so long -and so sympathetically associated with monkeys, has been able to -translate a number of their words and to enter into slight -communication with them. Among the words he has been able to -understand are the words for ‘alarm,’ ‘good-will,’ -‘listen,’ ‘food,’ ‘drink,’ ‘monkey,’ and -‘fruit.’ According to him, the simian tongue has about eight or -nine sounds which may be changed by modulation into three or four -times that number, and each different species or kind has its own -peculiar tongue slightly shaded into dialects. There may be more -discriminating students than Garner, but few certainly who have -approached their favourite problem with more feeling and humanity. -Every one should read his beautiful book on ‘The Speech of -Monkeys.’ ‘Among the little captives of the simian race,’ says -he tenderly, in closing his chapter on the emotional character of -these people, ‘I have many little friends to whom I am attached, -and whose devotion to me is as warm and sincere, so far as I can -see, as that of any human being. I must confess that I cannot -discern in what intrinsic way the love they have for me differs from -my own for them; nor can I see in what respect their love is less -divine than is my own.’ - -Dogs are distinguished for their great intelligence, the -pre-eminence of the sense of smell, fidelity to duty, nobleness of -nature, patience, courage, and affection. In all of these -particulars many individual dogs are superior to whole races of men. -Dogs are more sensitive to physical suffering than savages, and will -cry piteously from slight wounds or other injuries. Dogs of high -life have genuine feelings of dignity and self-respect, and are -easily wounded in their sensibilities. Such dogs have considerable -sense of propriety, and suffer, like sensitive children, from -disapprobation. Romanes had a dog that was so sensitive that he -resented insult, and so sympathetic that he always fought in defence -of other dogs when they were punished or attacked. When out driving -with his master, this dog always caught hold of his master’s -sleeve every time the horse was touched with a whip.[6] Romanes also -tells of a Scotch terrier who, having grown old and useless, and -been supplanted by a younger dog, Jack, became painfully jealous, -and imitated his rival in everything that he did, even to ridiculous -details, in order to retain the attentions of the household. When -Jack was tenderly caressed, the old dog would watch for a time, and -then burst out whining as if in the deepest distress.[6] Dogs -communicate their ideas to each other and to human beings, generally -by means of sounds and gestures. They growl in anger, yelp in -eagerness, howl in despair, bark in joy or warning, bay in wonder, -wail in bitterness and pain, whine in supplication, and prostrate -themselves in submission or apology. It has been said that there -never was a man who possessed the stateliness of a St. Bernard, the -unerring sagacity of the collie, or the courage and tenacity of the -bulldog. The vainest dandy is not more delicate in his ways than the -Italian greyhound, nor more soft and affectionate than the Blenheim. -Many a deed of heroism has been done by dogs which would, if done by -men, have been honoured by the Order of the Victoria Cross. The St. -Bernards belonging to the monks on the passes between Switzerland -and Italy are especially celebrated for their devotion to the -business of saving human life. They often lose their own lives in -their efforts to rescue travellers baffled and overcome by storm. -One particularly sagacious individual, who lost his life in this way -some years ago, wore a medal stating that he had been the means of -saving twenty-two human lives. In devotion the dog is superior to -all other animals, not even excepting man. ‘How could one get -relief from the endless dissimulation, falsity, and malice of -mankind,’ exclaimed Schopenhauer in one of his inspired moments, -‘if there were no dogs into whose honest faces he could look -without distrust?’ A dog will follow a handful of rags wrapped -around a homeless beggar, day after day, through heat and cold and -storm and starvation, just as faithfully as he will follow the -purple of a king. The dog who stood over the lifeless body of his -master, grieving for recognition and starting at every flutter of -his garments, till he himself died of starvation, had in his -faithful breast a nobler heart than that which beats in the bosom of -most men. And the devotion of Greyfriars Bobby, who every night for -twelve years, in all kinds of weather, slept on his master’s -grave, was well worthy the marble tribute which to-day stands in -Edinburgh to his memory. There has never been recorded in the -history of the world an instance of more extravagant trust and -devotion than that told of the canine companion of a certain -vivisector, which licked the hand of his master while undergoing the -crime of being cut to pieces. Such deeds of self-sacrifice remind -one of the tales told of imaginary saints. But they are the deeds of -_only dogs_—of beings whom half the world look upon with -indifference and contempt, and whom the other half would feel, if -they came within reach, under the strictest obligations to kick. - - ‘When some proud son of man returns to earth, - Unknown to glory but upheld by birth, - The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe, - And storied urns record who rests below; - When all is done, upon the tomb is seen, - Not what he was, but what he should have been; - But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend, - The first to welcome, foremost to defend, - Whose honest heart is still his master’s own. - Who labours, fights, lives, breathes, for him alone, - Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth— - Denied in heaven the soul he had on earth.’ - -I am not one of those who regard the evidence for the post-mortem -existence of the human soul as being either abundant or conclusive. -But of one thing I am positive, and that is, that there are the same -grounds precisely for believing in the immortality of the bird and -the quadruped as there are for the belief in human immortality. And -it is delightful to find great thinkers like Haeckel, great -biologists and philosophers, holding the same conviction. Haeckel is -the giant of the Germans, and in his brilliant book ‘The Riddle of -the Universe’ appears this rather poetical paragraph: ‘I once -knew an old head-forester, who, being left a widower and without -children at an early age, had lived alone for more than thirty years -in a noble forest of East Prussia. His only companions were one or -two servants, with whom he exchanged merely a few necessary words, -and a great pack of different kinds of dogs, with whom he lived in -perfect psychic communion. Through many years of training this keen -observer and friend of nature had penetrated deep into the -individual souls of his dogs, and he was as convinced of their -personal immortality as he was of his own. Some of his most -intelligent dogs were, in his impartial estimation, at a higher -stage of psychic development than his old stupid maid and his rough -and wrinkled man-servant. Any unprejudiced observer who will study -the psychic phenomena of a fine dog for a year, and follow -attentively the processes of its thought, judgment, and reason, will -have to admit that it has just as valid a claim to immortality as -man himself.’ - -Fido was a shaggy terrier who lived years ago in the old home on the -farm by the beautiful brook. He was one of the very first -acquaintances the writer of these lines made on coming into -existence. In his earlier years, before age had dimmed his mind and -rheumatism had fastened upon him, he was an exceedingly agreeable -and clever canine, active in all the affairs of the farm. He knew -the old homestead by heart, and he took about as much interest in -having everything go right as anybody—more, perhaps, even than we -boys did. He chased the pigs out of the orchard without being asked -to do so, and guarded the house at night with the vigilance of a -hired watchman. He seemed to realise the demands of everyday -situations about as well as any of us. He could distinguish between -neighbours who were accustomed to come on the premises and strangers -who were not. He always knew when company came, for he invariably -attempted to profit by the fact. He had been taught early the -propriety of keeping in the background when his tyrants were -feeding, and ordinarily on such occasions he slept dutifully by the -kitchen stove. But just as sure as a guest sat at table, Fido would -turn up, and, tapping the visitor gently to get his attention, would -sit up perfectly straight, with his paws pendent and a peculiar grin -on his face, in expectation of a morsel. Dear old Fido! How much he -thought of all of us! And how meagerly, as I know now, were his -matchless love and services requited; On Sundays sometimes the human -members of the household would go away and stay all day, and Fido -and the cat would be left alone to get along the best way they -could. He knew as well as any of us when these days came around, and -he dreaded them. I suppose he had learned from experience to -associate cessation of farm work and peculiar preparations with a -day alone. The long, lonely hours probably affected him somewhat as -they do a human being who is compelled to stay alone all day with -nothing to do. But what a welcome he gave us in the evening when we -came back! This was indubitable evidence of his loneliness. The -first familiar object we would see in the evening, on coming in -sight of home, was faithful Fido, sitting out in the road on the -hill above the house—sitting straight up in that peculiar way of -his—watching and waiting for our home-coming. He knew, or seemed -to know, the direction from which to expect us, and was able to -recognise us a long way off. The years have been many, and Fido’s -dust has long been scattered by the gusts over the farms of -north-west Missouri; but now, in fancy, I can see this faithful -creature bounding down the road in the sunset to meet us, as he used -to do in the golden long-ago, leaping and smiling and wagging his -tail, and wriggling and barking in a perfect ecstasy of gladness. - -Well, I _know_ Fido could feel and think, that he loved and feared -and longed and dreaded and dreamed and hated and grieved and -sympathised and reasoned and rejoiced—in short, that he was moved -by about the same passions and considerations as human beings -usually are. He gave the same evidence of it precisely as a human -being does. - -The dog is the oldest of human associates. Long before the -historical period the dog was domesticated in Europe, Asia, and -Africa. No race of men is too primitive to be without the dog. The -bones of the dog are found in the middens of the Baltic, and rude -representations of it are chiseled on the oldest monuments of Egypt -and Assyria. The dog was the servant of man away in paleolithic -times, when the mastodon was on earth, and man was a naked -troglodyte, and Europe extended westward to the Azores. And he has -been a faithful friend, a tireless ally, and an enthusiastic slave -of a thankless and inhuman master ever since. - -Birds are pre-eminently emotional and artistic. This is shown by -their fondness for singing, their fine dress, their pining for their -dead, their dainty architecture, their pretty forms and manners of -life, their joyousness, and their love for their young. Birds are -the most beautiful and engaging of all terrestrial beings. Endowed -with the power of flight, eminently active, light-hearted and free, -attired in all the colours of the rainbow, and with voices of -unrivalled richness and melody, birds are the admiration and envy of -all of those that dwell on the earth. Birds possess naturally and in -marvellous perfection that power of locomotion which has been so -long sought for by slow-shuffling man. Birds are also incomparable -musicians, no other animals, not even men, approaching them in the -surpassing brilliancy and sweetness of their song. No human musician -in high-sounding hall can equal the artless lay of the wild bird -ringing melodiously through the leafy colonnades of the woods. Like -men, birds sing chiefly of love; but they also sing for pastime or -pleasure. Their singing is sweetest during the season of courtship, -and attains its highest development in the males. Birds are ardent -lovers. To win their brides, the males contend with each other, and -display their charms of plumage and song with the wildness of human -Romeos. - -The song of birds is generally acquired by inheritance from the -species, but is sometimes borrowed by imitation from other birds, or -even from other animals. Birds taken from their species when young, -before they have heard their native song, sing generally the song of -their kind, but it is likely to be interspersed with notes and -phrases from the birds around them. Birds thus isolated have been -known to adopt entirely the song of their surroundings. Olive Thorne -Miller vouches for the fact that an English sparrow she once knew -grew up in company with a canary, and came in time to sing the song -of its more talented companion to perfection. It must have been a -Shakspere of a bird, however, to have soared so high above the -excruciating accomplishments of the generality of its species. - -The songs of birds can be set to music just as the melodies of men -can. The songs of several birds were published in the _American -Naturalist_ a few years ago. And Winchell, the well-known English -student of birds, has written a clever book on the ‘Cries and -Call-notes of Wild Birds,’ in which he prints the calls and songs -of most of the native birds of England. According to this writer, -who has perhaps studied the music of birds more critically than -anyone else, the song of the nightingale, when printed in the -notation of ordinary human music, is like a piano solo. It is made -up of a score or so of different strains, with trills and -crescendos, and all executed in so inimitable a manner that it is -unrecognisable when repeated on a musical instrument or the human -voice. One of these strains, curiously enough, is identical with the -song of a certain bush-warbler of western Canada—as if the English -vocalist had plagiarised the song of its humbler cousin in compiling -its incomparable repertoire. The song of the mocking-bird is a -magnificent medley, made up of the calls, trills, twitters, warbles, -warnings, and love-songs, of a score or more of other birds. I have -heard this bird along the Solomon and Arkansas valleys repeat in the -most perfect manner the notes and songs of the pewee, purple martin, -kingbird, flicker, blue jay, catbird, canary, crow, English sparrow, -red-headed woodpecker, quail, cardinal, cuckoo, robin, red-wings, -grackle, meadowlark, night-hawk, whip-poor-will, besides many other -calls and notes, perhaps of birds I did not know. In the case of -some of these birds the mocker made all of the different sounds of -each bird. The song of the mocking-bird is delivered at any time, -day or night, and generally in a state of high ecstasy and -excitement, the performer flying from tree to tree and from -house-top to barn-top, occasionally throwing himself into the air in -the most absurd manner, and all the time pouring forth such a stream -of melody that one would think all the birds in the neighbourhood -had suddenly come together and let loose in a grand festival of song. - -According to Chapman, many of the notes of birds are language notes -rather than sounds expressive of sentiment. Of the robin this -well-known student of birds says: ‘The song and call-notes of this -bird, while familiar to everyone, are in reality understood by no -one, and offer excellent subjects for the student of bird language. -Its notes express interrogation, suspicion, alarm, and caution, and -it signals to its companions to take wing. Indeed, few of our birds -have a more extended vocabulary.’ Winchell says that the common -English sparrow has as many as seven different notes, which it uses -to express the thoughts and feelings passing through its rather -active but not very highly honoured head: (1) The common note of -address of the male to the female; (2) a note of alarm used by both -male and female adults, but never by the young; (3) an emphatic -alarm note, always uttered by sentinels when a hawk is near or when -a man approaches with a gun; (4) the note of the female when -surrounded by several noisy and contending male rivals; (5) an -autumn cry uttered by the first one of the company perceiving danger -and flying up from the hedges and fields—never uttered by young, -but by adults of both sexes; (6) the love note of both male and -female, used mostly by the female, and generally with a fluttering -or shaking accompaniment of her wings; (7) a curious note sometimes -heard in London—meaning not well understood, but supposed to be a -sort of chuckle or sign of contentment. Each one of these several -different notes may be used to stand for various ideas depending on -the circumstances by being given different emphasis and inflection, -just as in the languages of many primitive races of men a small -vocabulary of words is used to stand for a much larger number of -ideas by being pronounced differently. In the Chinese language, for -instance, the words are increased to three or four times the -original number by modulation; but the same thing is observed in all -languages, both human and non-human. Verbal poverty is pieced out by -verbal variation. We say ać-cent or ac-cent́, depending on whether -we wish to express the idea of a noun or a verb. - -The memory of birds is well developed. Many of them remember the -very grove or meadow, and even the very knot-hole or bush, in which -they built their nest the season before, although in the meantime -they have journeyed over lands and seas and sojourned thousands of -miles away. Every year, for several seasons past, in late summer and -early fall, after the nesting-time is over and the young ones are -all grown, the purple martins have gathered in large numbers about -the Field Columbian Museum, in Jackson Park, Chicago. They stay here -for a few weeks, foraging the surrounding air for insects by day, -and sleeping on the great dome of the Museum by night, finally -flying away to be seen no more in such numbers till next year. These -birds, many of them anyway, must remember from one year to another -this annual assembly here by the big waters, else why would they -come together at this particular spot from all over the country? I -have no doubt that some of them, having sojourned here year after -year for some time, remember well the great ugly building where they -meet, and are more or less familiar with the surrounding locality -from having searched it so often. I wonder what led to the -establishing of the custom in the first place. Customs do not fall -from the skies. And what advantage is there in the practice? What -are they up to as they chirp and wheel in the air, and flutter up -the slopes and sail down again, and perch on the pinnacles and -twitter? Maybe it is a sort of Saratoga for them, where they all -come together ostensibly to dip their bills in the blue waves, but -where sons swell in their new feathers, and sly mammas find -prospects for unmarketable misses. - -A parrot has been known to remember the voice of its mistress after -an absence of a year and a half—a very remarkable feat even for -the grey matter of a bird. A flock of geese mentioned by Romanes -showed their knowledge of the arrival of market-day, which came -every two weeks, by assembling regularly on such days, early in the -morning, in front of the town inn where the market was held, to pick -up the corn. They never came on the wrong day; and on one occasion, -when the market was omitted on account of a holiday, here came the -unfailing fowls cackling and shouting as usual in merry anticipation -of their fortnightly feast, but ignorant of the national necessities -which had doomed them to be disappointed.[6] - -Parrots remember and call for their absent friends, and mumble -phrases in their dreams which have been taught to them. These gifted -birds learn long poems by heart, and sing songs with considerable -art. A parrot belonging to the canon of the Cathedral of Salzburg -was given instruction regularly two hours every day for ten years, -from 1830 to 1840. The bird became very proficient in speech and -exceedingly intelligent. It took part in conversations, whistled -tunes, and was able to sing a number of popular songs, among them an -entire aria from Flotow’s opera of ‘Martha’.[7] - -Educated birds though, like educated dogs, horses, cats, mice, men, -and everything else, are very different beings from the uneducated. -Cultivation is a key that unlocks all sorts of miracles. Cats are -cultivated tigers; and the richest grains that ripen in the fields -of men, and the loveliest flowers that blow, are only educated -weeds. Even the flea may be taught to exchange leaping for walking, -to draw a tiny wagon, to ride on the seat, to fire a toy cannon, and -do many other feats. - -There is one family of birds in which the superior size, -gorgeousness, and vivacity, usual to the males, are found in the -other sex, the females being the larger and more brightly -coloured—the Phalarope family. Indeed, the members of this small -family not only reverse the usual arrangement of the sexual -characters of birds, but completely upset many of the most cherished -traditions of the avian household. The female does the wooing, and -takes the lead in selecting the nest site. And while she lays the -eggs, the privilege of incubation she hands over magnanimously to -her dull-coloured mate. - -Birds have a keen observation and a good deal of that invaluable -faculty known as common-sense. It is wonderful how quickly they -learn to avoid telegraph-wires when these invisible but deadly -gossamers are first stretched across a country, and how unerringly -they keep at safe distances when hunted with firearms. An -experienced crow can tell a cane from a gun-barrel almost as far as -he can see it. - -Nearly all birds build nests of some kind in which to cradle their -eggs and young. The cow-bird and cuckoo (European), however, are -exceptions. These birds have the rather human practice of turning -their cares and labours over to somebody else. They are loafers and -parasites. They lay their eggs secretly in the nests of other birds, -where their eggs are hatched and their young cared for by an alien -mother. I have seen a mother song-sparrow hustling about among the -shrubs and grasses for an hour at a time almost, gathering food for -a young cow-bird nearly twice as big as she was, while her foundling -sat phlegmatically at the foot of a tree chirping and fluttering its -wings, and acting as a thankless and apparently bottomless -receptacle for the morsel after morsel laboriously harvested for it -by its tireless little foster-mother. Sand-martins and kingfishers -burrow in the earth and rear their broods in subterranean cradles; -gulls and gamebirds build on the ground; the flamingoes and -barn-swallows build mud nests; the woodpeckers mine holes in trees; -doves and eagles make platforms of sticks; the tailor-bird bastes -living leaves together; the social weavers construct great straw -roofs covering the top of a tree, and build their nests on the limbs -beneath; most singing birds build daintily-lined baskets, and swing -them in trees and bushes. - -It is often said that all the birds of a species build their nests -in precisely the same way, and that, while men change and improve -their dwelling-places from generation to generation, birds build -their abodes in the same old way, just as their ancestors built -theirs centuries and centuries ago. This is a favourite thought with -the fogies, with those who change not in their thinking from the -ways hacked out for them centuries and centuries ago. Birds are like -men. Some of them—some races and some individuals—are much more -given to initiative than others. There is as wide a difference -between the hang-bird and the auk in the construction of their -domiciles as between the millionaire and the savage. And the -hang-bird has come by her home-making art through centuries of -improvement, just as the millionaire has arrived at his. It is -believed by ornithologists that the first nests of birds were the -niches of rocks or simple hollows scooped in the sand and soil, such -as are still seen among the more primitive bird races, and that from -these aboriginal beginnings have come, through ages of evolution, -the elaborate creations of the cotton-bird, weaver-bird, tailorbird, -oven-bird, the baya-sparrow, the finches, and the orioles. The -savage who lives unmolested generation after generation in the same -land and country builds his simple hut in just the same way as his -ancestors built theirs, and thinks the same things his ancestors -thought a thousand years before him. Sir Samuel Baker, in a paper on -‘The Races of the Nile Basin,’ points out that each tribe of men -in eastern Africa, like each species of bird, has its own peculiar -style of hut, and that the huts of the various tribes are as -constant in their types as are the nests of birds. The same thing is -true of their headdresses as of their huts; and this fixed character -exists also in their languages, customs, and religions. It is only -some races of men that are given to growth and fluidity, and only -some men of these special races. - -Right in our own country, among the remote mountain recesses of -Appalachia, surrounded on all sides by the most wonderful -development, material and intellectual, the world has ever seen, -lives a race of rude mountain folk almost as aboriginal in their -ways and views of life, and as unaffected by civilisation, as if -they were in the heart of Africa. They live huddled together in -one-room log-cabins without windows or floors, eat bacon and -cornmeal, carry on almost constant wars, and execute the deputies of -civilisation who happen to stray into their illicit dominions, just -as they have done from the time these mountain silences were first -broken by them 150 or 200 years ago. - -Birds, as a rule, use a great deal of care and thought in the -location of their nests. After they have selected a certain grove or -field as the one best suited to their purposes, or as the one around -which cluster the happiest memories, it usually requires several -days of flying and peeping about, of spying and exploration, before -the exact spot for the precious domicile is finally settled upon. It -is a delicate matter for many birds, for security from sun, storm, -and enemies must all be taken into account. Old birds, as has been -frequently observed, build better nests and select more clever -locations for their nests than the young and inexperienced. The -nest-building habits of many birds are known to have changed during -the past few hundred years. The American house-swallow did most -certainly not build under the eaves of human houses 300 years ago, -nor did the hair-bird in her nest with horsehair as she invariably -does now. The fact that wrens, swifts, and martins now build almost -altogether in boxes and chimneys shows that birds are able and -willing to adapt themselves to new conditions. The chimney-swift and -purple martin, it is said, still cling to their aboriginal custom of -rearing their young in hollow trees in the unsettled parts of -America. The indomitable house-sparrow builds its nest almost -anywhere, from knot-holes and tin cans to electric-light globes and -tree-tops. Its original dwelling was probably an arboreal affair, -like that of other sparrows, and different nesting-places have been -adopted as a result of its association with man. Not only in its -architecture, but in several other ways, this bird has departed from -the traditions of its tribe. The Fringillidae (the sparrow family of -birds) are seed-eaters, both in structure and practice. But the -house-sparrow, since it left the fields and groves to become a gamin -on human streets, has learned to eat almost anything, and one thing, -too, about as cheerfully as another. The varied habits of this bird -are probably due to its natural elasticity in the first place, -supplemented by the unsettling influences of its rather -kaleidoscopic experiences during the past few hundred years. - -The fear of birds for man is an acquired trait due to ages of -persecution. If man would treat birds kindly, they would act toward -him as they do toward any other friendly animal. When unfrequented -islands are first visited by man, the birds are found to be -perfectly fearless of him, flying about him, feeding from his hand, -and manifesting no more timidity than if he were a big-hearted bird -himself. Darwin states that, when he stopped at the Galapagos -Islands on his famous trip around the world in the _Beagle_, he -found the birds there so tame that he could push them from the -branches of the trees with his gun-barrel. Professor Cutting, of the -State University of Iowa, in an article in the _Popular Science -Monthly_ for August, 1903, tells of the almost absolute fearlessness -of the birds on the island of Laysan, an isolated atoll in the -Pacific west of the Hawaian Islands, which he visited during that -summer. The island swarms with bird life—petrels, albatrosses, and -tropical birds of various kinds—and these birds betray no more -fear in the presence of man than if he were a cow. The albatrosses -were so numerous and so indifferent to the presence of man that it -was necessary to shove them aside with one’s foot to keep from -stepping on them when one went for a walk along the sand-stretches -of the shore. Professor Cutting took photographs of birds which -literally posed for him in all sorts of positions, and half-savage -jackies amused themselves by going about and pulling the pretty tail -feathers from the tropical birds as they sat on their nests. I have -known of two cases where persons, by going to the same place day -after day with food and kindness, have in the course of a few weeks -taught robins, sparrows, and other birds, to lose all fear of them, -so much so as to sit on their shoulders and arms and eat out of -their hands. This is the spirit all birds would show all the time -toward their featherless lords if these featherless ones would only -treat them with half the consideration they merit. - -The love of a bird for the treasures of her nest is one of the most -beautiful things of this world. Mother-like, the parent bird will do -anything almost for the sake of her little ones. Who has not seen -the kildeer strive with all the tact of her clever little soul to -allure some big giant of a human being, who has wandered into her -neighbourhood, away from her nest of precious young? Many a time as -a boy on the farm I have followed one of these birds limping and -tumbling and fluttering along on the ground a few feet ahead of me, -utterly disabled, as I supposed, but always managing to keep just a -little beyond the reach of my eager hands. And when the artful -mother has led me far from the sacred spot where lay all there was -in this world to her, how triumphantly she has lifted herself on her -unharmed wings and, to my utter astonishment, sailed away. The -partridge and the mourning-dove are, if possible, even more artful -in their acting than the kildeer. After I became a large boy and had -been told the meaning of these exhibitions by parent birds, I often -followed the mourning-dove, thinking the bird must be really wounded -after all, so perfectly did it pretend. But the cunning of the -kildeer is not confined to luring one away from the nest. If by some -accident one finds her nest (and the nest is so cleverly concealed -that, if it is discovered at all, it will be by pure accident), the -resourceful mother is ready with other expedients to outwit you. She -watches you all the time from the proper distance, and knows by your -conduct the moment you have found her nest. And before you have even -had time to admire the skill displayed by the mother in blending so -perfectly her abode with its surroundings, a single peculiar note -from her has caused the whole nestful of cuddling young ones to dart -out of their cradle and disappear among the surrounding clods as if -by magic. No amount of searching can find one of them. They have -vanished as effectually as if they had evaporated. And it is enough -to touch the heart of the most indifferent to see the anxious mother -bird, as I have seen her from the cranny of a neighbouring -rock-pile, come back to her nest and call her scattered children -together again after they have once dispersed at her command. -Circling around the nest two or three times to assure herself that -no one is nigh, she alights and begins a low clucking sound like -that of a hen calling her brood. The little ones come out of their -hiding-places one after another as mysteriously as they vanished. -You can’t see for the life of you where they come from. They seem -to just _emanate_. And if one of them fails to come at her -call—for the devoted mother knows very well just how many she -has—she extends her search farther out from her nest, looking all -around and keeping up that peculiar little cluck, until the -half-scared-to-death little slyboots finally comes creeping out from -his improvised snuggery somewhere. If a kildeer’s nest has once -been found, and the mother feels that it is in danger of future -visits, she will move her family at night to some other locality, -and it is practically impossible ever to find it again. The family -relations of the ring-dotterels are said to be ‘so charming and -touching that even hunters recoil from shooting a female surrounded -by her young ones.’ - -Human beings, true to their instinct never to call into action their -ability to think if they can employ their faculty for nonsense -instead, call this love of the mother bird ‘machinery.’ But -there are some of us (and our numbers are increasing) who are -disposed to put off the adoption of this conclusion until we go mad. -The bird builds her nest, weaving it of the rarest fibres. She hides -it in the copse or prudently hangs it far out on some inaccessible -bough. She lays her beautiful eggs, and hatches them with the warmth -and life of her own breast. She tends her young, bringing them food -and drink, and watching over them with a tender and tireless -vigilance. She protects them in storm with her own little body, -worries about them when danger lurks, and dreams of them, no doubt, -as she rocks and sleeps under the silent stars. She sings to them in -the overflow of her gladness and hope, and risks her very existence -to shield them from harm. She teaches them to fly, to find their -food, and to detect their enemies. She is true to her mate, and her -mate is true and kind to her. As the days of summer shorten, and the -cool, long nights warn of approaching autumn, she leads her children -away from the old place, she and her faithful mate, out into the -wide old world. And I say there is love in the heart of that mother -as truly as in the heart of woman, and there are joy and genuineness -and sorrow and fidelity in that sylvan home more sacred than may -sometimes bloom in the cold mansions of men. - -Conjugal love is also very strong in many of the feathered races, -especially among those in which the wedding is for successive -seasons or for life. The pining of love-birds for their dead -sweethearts is well known. The mandarin duck is proverbial for its -marital faithfulness, and a pair of these fowls is carried by the -Chinese in their marriage processions as an emblem of constancy. -Many instances are recorded of birds, after having been deprived of -their mates, refusing steadfastly the attentions of other birds, and -even sometimes separating themselves entirely from the society of -their kind. The following account of the devotion of a widowed -pigeon for her deceased consort sounds like a tale of human woe: - -‘A man set to watch a field much patronised by pigeons shot an old -male pigeon who had long been an inhabitant of the farm. His mate, -around whom he had for many a year cooed, whom he had nourished with -his own crop and had assisted in rearing numerous young ones -immediately settled on the ground by his side She refused to leave -him, and manifested her grief in the most expressive manner. The -labourer took up the dead bird and hung it on a stake. The widow -still refused to forsake her husband, and continued day after day -slowly walking around the stake on which his body hung. The -kind-hearted wife of the farmer heard of the matter, and went to the -relief of the stricken bird. On arriving at the spot, she found the -poor bird still watching at the side of her dead, and making an -occasional effort to get to him. She was much spent with her long -fasting and grief. She had made a circular beaten path around the -corpse of her companion’.[8] - -And these are the beings whose bones men jest over at their feasts, -and brutes shoot for pastime on human holidays. Much has been said -of the sorrow of birds for their deceased mates, but not too much. -For the avian soul may be smothered by the gloom and loneliness that -come upon the heart, when the great light of love and companionship -has gone out, quite as completely as the soul of a bereaved human. -In not many human homes where loved ones lie sick and dying are felt -the pangs of more genuine grief than those sometimes suffered by -birds when their friends and companions are stricken in death. The -following incident, vouched for by Dr. Franklin, who observed it, is -only one among many such instances recorded in the literature on -birds: - -A pair of parrots had lived together on the most loving terms for -four years, when the female was taken with a serious attack of gout. -She grew rapidly worse, and was soon so weak as to be unable to -leave her perch for food, when the male, faithful and tender as a -human spouse, took it upon himself to carry food to her regularly in -his beak. ‘He continued feeding her in this way for four months, -but the infirmities of his companion increased day by day, until at -last she was no longer able to support herself on the perch. She -remained cowering down in the bottom of the cage, making from time -to time ineffectual efforts to regain her perch. The male was always -near her, and did everything in his power to aid the feeble efforts -of his dear better-half. Seizing the poor invalid by the beak or the -upper part of her wing, he tried his best to enable her to rise, and -repeated his efforts several times. His constancy, his gestures, and -his continued solicitude, all showed in this affectionate bird the -most ardent desire to relieve the sufferings and assist the weakness -of his sinking companion. But the scene became still more affecting -when the female was dying. Her unhappy consort moved about her -incessantly, his attentions and tender cares redoubled. He even -tried to open her beak to give some nourishment. He ran to her, and -then returned with a troubled and agitated look. At intervals he -uttered the most plaintive cries; then, with his eyes fixed on her, -kept a mournful silence. At length his companion breathed her last. -From that moment he pined away, and in the course of a few weeks -died’.[6] - -Even the rough-looking ostrich has sensibility enough to die of a -broken heart, as was the case in the Jardin des Plantes at Paris a -few years ago. There is many a heart with a slabless grave far from -the haunts of men, and many a tear in secret brews that never wets -the eye. - -The individual who has never acquired the enthusiasm for a knowledge -of the birds and a love for their presence and association has -omitted some of the richest emotions of life. ‘The sight of a bird -or the sound of its voice is at all times an event of such -significance to me,’ says Chapman, ‘a source of such unfailing -pleasure, that when I go afield with those to whom birds are -strangers I am deeply impressed by the comparative barrenness of -their world, for they live in ignorance of a great store of -enjoyment that might be theirs for the asking.’ - - ‘I cannot love the man who does not love, As men love light, the - song of happy birds.’ - -I have seen a mother mouse in a moment of peril flee from her home -among the falling pieces of a cord-wood pile, and disappear under -the roots of a neighbouring oak. I have seen her a little later, -recovered from her initial dismay, making her way back again, -clambering along among the tangled timbers, stopping now and then to -look and listen, her eyes wild and anxious, and her whole little -body quaking with excitement. I have seen her go among the ruins of -her dwelling, take a poor little squeaking young one in her mouth, -and hurry away with it to the gloomy refuge in the roots of the oak. -I have watched her return again and again, each time taking in her -careful teeth the tiny body of a babe, until five mouthfuls of -precious pink were safely lodged within the fortress of the oak. And -I could as soon believe that woman, when she saves her children from -some fearful harm, is a soulless machine as think that that brave -little wood-mother, out there alone under the trees, snatching her -darlings from the jaws of death, was a heroine without sense or -feeling. That little hairy mother with four feet and bead-like eyes -loved her young ones in just the same way and for just the same -reason as a human mother loves her young ones. She looked upon her -babies, in all probability, with the same mother-love and tenderness -as a human mother looks upon hers, and felt in miniature, with evil -hovering above them, the same consternation a woman feels when -destruction reaches out after those that are nearest and dearest. -And when it was all over, when the good angel of deliverance had -finally spread its healing white wings over that afflicted family, -the heart of that little rodent was doubtless soothed by the same -joy as that which, in the hour of deliverance, calms the hearts of -humankind. - -Ants tend their fields, gather their harvests, domesticate other -insects, and keep slaves. They help each other bear heavy burdens, -extricate each other from misfortune, speak to each other when they -meet, and bury their dead. They build roads and bridges, and -manifest wonderful engineering skill in their construction. They -even tunnel under rivers. They go far from home, and find their way -back again. They inhabit towns, and build splendid and spacious -palaces. Each ant knows every other citizen of its own town, and an -ant from any other town is immediately recognised as a foreigner. -Ants have their overseers of industrial enterprises, and regular -hours for work and sleep. The ant is the most pugnacious of all -animals, and the most muscular compared with its size. It will -boldly attack the biggest creature that walks if this creature -invades its home. It will fasten its mandibles into an enemy, and -allow itself to be torn to pieces without relaxing its hold. Among -some savage tribes, certain species of ants are said to be used as -surgeons. Infuriated ants are allowed to fasten their mandibles on -the opposite edges of a gash, and in this way the wound is closed. -The ants are decapitated, and their bodiless heads with their -relentless jaws serve as stitches to the wound. Ants have holidays -and athletic festivals. On such occasions they romp and chase each -other and play hide-and-seek like children. They stand on their -hind-legs, embrace each other with their fore-limbs, grasp each -other by the feet or antennae, pull each other down the entrances to -their towns, wrestle and roll over on the sand, and so on—all in -the friendliest manner. It is greatly to the credit of these little -people that no observer has ever yet known them to become so -inventively helpless or so athletically hard up as to play -slug-ball. Ants educate their young, and practise the fundamental -principles of human states and societies. Forel, the great Swiss -student of ants, says that several hundred nests are sometimes -united into a single confederation. Each ant knows every other ant -of the entire confederation, and they all take part in the common -defence. Haeckel says, speaking of social evolution in ants, that -the aboriginal ants of the Chalk Age had as little idea of the -division of labour and organisation of modern ant states as -paleolithic flint-chippers had of the complexity and organisation of -twentieth-century civilisation. ‘If we take an ant’s nest, we -not only see that work of every description—rearing of progeny, -foraging, building, rearing of aphides, and so on—is performed -according to the principles of voluntary mutual aid, but we must -also recognise, with Forel, that the fundamental feature of the life -of many species of ants is the obligation of every ant to share its -food, already swallowed and partly digested, with every member of -the community which may apply for it. Two ants belonging to the same -nest or to the same confederation of nests will approach each other, -exchange a few movements with the antennae, and if one of them is -hungry or thirsty—and especially if the other has its crop -full—it immediately asks for food. The individual thus requested -never refuses. It sets apart its mandibles, takes a proper position, -and regurgitates a drop of transparent fluid, which is licked up by -the hungry ant. Regurgitating food for others is so prominent a -feature in the life of the ants, and it so constantly recurs both -for feeding hungry comrades and for feeding larvae, that Forel -considers the digestive tube of ants to consist of two different -parts, one of which—the posterior—is for the special use of the -individual, and the other—the anterior part—is chiefly for the -use of the community. If an ant which has its crop full has been -selfish enough to refuse to feed a comrade, it will be treated as an -enemy. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolks were -fighting with some other species, they will fall upon the greedy -individual with greater vehemence even than upon the enemies -themselves. All this has been confirmed by the most accurate -observations and experiments’.[9] - -Ants keep slaves. And the slaves, in some instances, carry their -masters about, feed them, groom them, and attend to their every -want, just as human lackeys do helpless aristocrats. In some species -the institution of slavery is so old that the physical structures of -the masters have been modified until the masters are physically -unable to feed themselves, and will perish from hunger, though -surrounded by food, if they are left to themselves. The brain of the -ant, as Darwin says, is one of the most wonderful bits of matter in -the universe. It is scarcely one-fourth the size of the head of a -pin, yet it is the seat of the most astonishing wisdom and activity. -If human intelligence were as great, compared with the mass of the -human brain, as is the ant’s, man would be several hundred times -as wise as he is now, and would then probably not fall far short of -that state of erudition which the average man imagines he already -represents. Ants remember, and a fact becomes impressed by -repetition, showing that the faculty of memory in ants is governed -by the same laws as is this faculty in man. Sir John Lubbock found -it necessary to teach his ants the way by repeating the lesson where -the way was long or unusual. ‘Sensation, perception, and -association follow in the social insects, on the whole, the same -fundamental laws as in the vertebrates, including ourselves. -Furthermore, attention is surprisingly developed in insects’ -(Forel). Ants keep standing armies, make alliances, and maraud -neighbouring states. They have their wars, civil and foreign, and -their massacres and enslavements of the conquered. But they have -never got so low yet, so far as anyone knows, as to hypocritically -prosecute their conquests in the name of God and humanity. The -battlefields of ants resemble the carnage-plains of men, strewn with -ghastly corpses and covered with the headless and dying. And the -accounts of their expeditions—their going forth in regular -columns, with captains, scouts, and skirmish lines, their battles, -and their return laden with plunder and captives—read like the -grisly tales of human history. Ants perform, in short, about all the -antics of civilised man, except maltreating the females and drinking -gin. And shall we say their civilisation is less real because it is -miniature and because it is carried on far below the Brobdingnagian -contemplations of man? ‘When we see an ant-hill tenanted by -thousands of industrious inhabitants, excavating chambers, forming -tunnels, making roads, guarding their home, gathering food, feeding -the young, tending their domestic animals, each one fulfilling its -duties industriously and without confusion, it is difficult -altogether to deny them the gift of reason or to escape the -conviction that their mental powers differ from those of men not so -much in kind as in degree’ (Lubbock). - -The industrious and gifted bee, with its wonderful social system, in -advance even of that of the most enlightened societies of men; the -generous horse, who thinks and feels so much more than the clowns -who maul him ever suspect; the artful spider, that confirmed -waylayer lurking in his lair of silk; the soft and predaceous cat; -the timid-hearted hare, poor hounded little dweller of the fields -and stream-sides; the beautiful and vivacious squirrel; the lowly -lady-bug; the cautious fox; the irascible serpent, so cruelly -misunderstood by men; the patient camel; the scornful peafowl; the -indomitable goat; the grave and vindictive elephant; the ingenious -beaver, the woodman of the primeval wilderness; the lordly and -polygamous cock; the maternal hen; the wary trout, beset everywhere -by the villainous traps of impostors; the bride-like butterfly; the -delicate antelope and deer; and the sturdy, incorruptible ox—all -of these beings have within them souls composed primarily of the -same elements as those that compose the souls of men. - -Ground-wasps have been observed to use tiny stones as hammers in -packing the dirt firmly over their nests—a very remarkable act of -intelligence, since the use of tools is not common even among the -higher mammals.[10] - -Fishes have been taught to assemble at the ringing of a bell, and -toads and tortoises to come at the call of their favourite friends. -An alligator which was kept tame for several years became so much -attached to its master that ‘it followed him about the house like -a dog, scrambling up the stairs after him, and showing much -affection and docility.’ The favourite friend and companion of -this alligator was the cat; and, whenever the cat stretched herself -on the floor in front of the fire, the alligator would lie down -beside her, with its head on the cat, and go to sleep. ‘When the -cat was absent, the alligator was restless, but it always appeared -happy when the cat was near it’.[8] - -Wolves and foxes sometimes cooperate with each other in their -hunting expeditions, somewhat as men do in theirs. One of their -number will crouch in ambush by the side of a road known to be used -by hares or other small animals, and leap on the unsuspecting -fugitives when driven that way by others of the hunting band. Many -animals post sentinels when they eat or sleep or engage in other -hazardous undertakings, and these sentinels show a good deal of -discrimination in distinguishing between animals that are friendly -and those that are not. Beavers not only build lodges to live in, -but also construct dams to keep the water in which the villages are -located at a certain height. The outlet of these dams is carefully -regulated, being regularly lessened and enlarged to suit the supply -of water in the stream. The trees used by the beavers in their -enterprises are felled by them along the margins of the stream, and -floated to the place where they are used. In old communities, where -the supply of timber near the stream has been exhausted, artificial -canals are cut by these indomitable engineers for use in the -transportation of their materials. These excavations are made at a -great cost of labour and for the deliberate purpose of enabling the -builders to accomplish that which they could not accomplish in any -other way. ‘In executing this purpose,’ says Romanes, ‘there -is sometimes displayed a depth of engineering forethought over -details of structure required by the circumstances of special -localities which is even more astonishing than the execution of the -general idea’.[6] When, for instance, a canal has been carried so -far from the original water-supply that, owing to the rising ground, -it cannot be continued without a very great expenditure of effort in -digging, a second dam is built higher up-stream, and with water -drawn from this the canal is continued on at a higher level. -Sometimes a third dam is built above the second, and the canal again -continued at a still higher level before the valuable timber of the -higher grounds is reached. These enterprising rodents also carve -sometimes enormous channels across the necks of land formed by -winding rivers, to serve as cut-offs in travel and transportation. -And yet all of these things—all of the intelligence, feeling, and -ingenuity displayed by the non-human races—are still lumped -together by belated psychologists under the head of ‘instinct,’ -by which is meant a blind, unconscious knack of doing the right -thing without in any way realising what is being done or what it is -being done for! The principle in accordance with which mind is -denied to non-human beings would, if carried to its legitimate -conclusions, make machines out of all of us, and limit the -possession of conscious intelligence to the individual who -promulgates the theory. The attitude assumed by many psychologists -toward the mental faculties of inferior races reminds one of -Heine’s interview with the old lizard at Lucca. In the discussion -which ensued between the poet and the reptile, the poet dropped the -words, ‘I think.’ ‘Think!’ snapped the lizard with a sharp, -aristocratic tone of profound contempt—‘think! Which of you -thinks? For 3,000 years, wise sir, I have investigated the spiritual -functions of animals, and I have made men and apes the special -objects of my study. I have devoted myself to these queer creatures -with as great zeal and diligence as Lyonnet to his caterpillars. And -as the result of my researches, I can assure you no man thinks. Now -and then something occurs to him, and these accidentally occurring -somethings he calls thoughts, and the stringing of them together he -calls thinking. But you can take my word for it, no man thinks—no -philosopher thinks. And, so far as philosophy is concerned, it is -mere air and water, like pure vapours in the sky. There is, in -reality, only one true philosophy, and that is engraven in eternal -hieroglyphics on my own tail’.[7] - -This attitude of the lordly saurian toward the human race is a -stinging burlesque on the anthropocentric conceit which perverts all -of man’s views of the other orders of life. - -It is not contended that non-human beings are psychically identical -with human beings. The races of men are not psychically identical -with each other. The difference between the intellectual splendours -of a Spencer evolving volumes of the profoundest philosophy and the -mind of an Australian who cannot count six, or between the -understanding of an Edison, the wizard of the electrical world, and -that of the South Sea islanders, who, when Captain Cook gave them -some English nails, planted them in the hope of raising a new crop, -is almost infinite. The lowest races of men have neither -superstition nor the power of abstract thought as have the higher -races. They have a word for black stone, white stone, and brown -stone, but no word for stone; for elm-tree, oak-tree, and the like, -but no word for tree. As Kingsley says, ‘It is difficult to -believe that a dog does not form as clear an abstract idea of a tree -as these people do.’ There are human beings living in the forests -of Asia, Africa, and Australasia that wander about from place to -place in herds without chief, law, weapons, or fixed habitations. -They go naked, mate by chance, and climb trees like monkeys. Some of -these races know nothing of fire, religion, or a moral world, -chatter to each other like apes, and live on such natural products -as roots, fruits, serpents, mice, ants, and honey. One of these -creatures, we are told, will lie flat on his front for an hour by -the runway of a field-mouse, waiting for a chance to snatch up the -little creature when it comes along and eat it. Dozens of such -degraded races are mentioned by Blichner in his ‘Man: Past, -Present, and Future,’ and by Sir John Lubbock in his ‘Origin of -Civilisation.’ - -Non-human beings have, as a rule, neither the psychic variety nor -the intensity of higher humans. And it is not contended that in -language, science, and superstition they are capable of being -compared with the foremost few of civilised societies, any more than -savages, especially the lowest savages, are capable of such -comparison. But it is maintained that the non-human races of the -earth are _not_ the metallic and soulless lot of fixtures they are -vulgarly supposed to be; that they are just as real living beings, -with just as precious nerves and just as genuine feelings, rights, -heartaches, capabilities, and waywardnesses, as we ourselves: and -that, since they are our own kith and kindred, we have no right -whatever, higher than the right of main strength (which is the right -of devils), to assume them to be, and to treat them as if they were, -our natural and legitimate prey. - -1. Darwin: _Expression of Emotions in Men and Animals_; New York, -1899. -2. Starr: _Human Progress_; Pennsylvania, 1895. -3. Hartmann: _Anthropoid Apes_; New York, 1901. -4. Brehm: _From North Pole to Equator_; London, 1896. -5. Stanley: _In Darkest Africa_, vol i.; New York, 1890. -6. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899. -7. Evans: _Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology_; New York, 1898. -8. Jesse: _Gleanings in Natural History_, vol. i.; London, 1832. -9. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902. -10. Peckham and Peckham: _Instincts and Habits of the Solitary -Wasps_; Madison, Wisconsin, 1898. - -IV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared. - -The analysis of human mind and the comparison of its elements or -powers with the powers of non-human mind corroborate the conclusions -already arrived at through observation and deductive inference. The -chief powers of the mind of man are _sensation_, _memory_, -_emotion_, _imagination_, _volition_, _instinct_, and _reason_. All -of these faculties are found in non-human beings, some of them -developed to a much higher degree than they are in man, and some of -them to a much lower. - -_Sensation_ is the effect produced on the mind when a sense organ is -affected in some way by external stimuli. Sensation is the lumber of -the mind, the raw material out of which are elaborated all other -forms of consciousness. The chief species of sensation are those of -sight, sound, smell, taste, and feeling. The original sense was -feeling, and out of this sense were evolved the other four. The -organs of seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting are therefore -modifications of the skin, which is the organ of original sense. The -fact that in all animals, down almost to the very beginnings of -life, sense organs exist, suggests that sensation may be almost, if -not quite, coextensive with animal life. All mammals, birds, -reptiles, amphibians, and fishes have the same special sense organs -as man, and the organs of sight, sound, taste, and smell occupy in -all vertebrates the same relative positions in the head. Birds see -better than any other animals, and carnivora smell better. Ruminants -see, hear, and smell with great acuteness. Fishes also see and hear -well; and the wings of the bat are so exceedingly sensitive that it -will move about blindfolded and with ears stopped with cotton almost -as unerringly as when aided by sight and sound. Insects have smell, -sight, and taste well developed, as is shown by their keen -appreciation of the colours, perfumes, and flavours of flowers. They -also hear. Stridulation proves this. Worms have eyes and ears, and -land-leeches scent the approach of their prey at a long distance. -The starfish and the medusa respond to all the five classes of -stimuli which affect the five senses of man, and nervous substance -is found in all animals above the sponge. - -_Memory_ is the power of retaining or recognising past states of -consciousness. The power to retain impressions follows in origin -close upon the power to receive impressions. Memory is the historic -faculty of the mind—the power of the mind to store up its -experiences—and is found in nearly all animals. The lowly limpet, -whose world is a seaside rock, will come back from its little -roamings time after time to the same rude lodge from which it set -out. Bees remember where they get honey or sugar months afterwards, -and when it is necessary will sometimes go back to the old home hive -which they left the year before. Ants retrace their steps after -making long journeys from their nest, and are able in some way to -recognise their friends after months of separation. The stickleback -(fish) knows the way back to his nest, although he has been absent -several hours. Fishes return and hatch their young year after year -in the same waters; birds come back to their old nesting-places; and -horses remember their way along devious roads over which they have -not been for years. Horses used in the delivery of milk, or in other -occupations in which they are accustomed to travel daily over about -the same route, come in time to remember every alley, street, and -stopping-place of the whole round almost as accurately as their -drivers. Darwin’s dog remembered and obeyed him after an absence -of five years. The power of dogs, squirrels, and other animals of -remembering where they have long before cached food is indeed -wonderful. A squirrel will come down out of a tree when the earth is -covered to a depth of several inches with lately fallen snow and hop -away, without the slightest hesitancy or mistake, to the exact spot -where it has months before stored its mid-winter acorns. A lion has -been known to recognise its keeper after seven years of separation, -and an elephant obeyed all his old words of command on being -recaptured after fifteen years of jungle life. The similarity of -memory in other animals to the same faculty in man is shown by the -fact that memory everywhere is governed by the same laws. In all -animals, including man, memory is strengthened by repetition—that -is, impressions are always deepened and confirmed by being made over -and over. A parrot or a raven masters a new sentence by working at -it and saying it over and over again, just as a boy memorises his -rules and catechisms. - -_Imagination_ is the picturing power of the mind. In its lowest -stages of manifestation it is akin to memory. Imagination, however, -in its higher reaches, not only reimages previous impressions, but -combines them in new and original relations. Imagination is -displayed in dreams, images, delusions, anticipation, and sympathy. -It also furnishes wings for speculation and reason. Spiders, when -they attach stones to their webs to steady them during anticipated -gales, probably exercise imagination. The tame serpent which was -carried away from its master’s house and found its way back again, -though the distance was one hundred miles, no doubt carried in its -imagination vivid pictures of its old home.[1] Cats, dogs, horses, -and other animals dream, and parrots talk in their sleep. Horses and -cattle sometimes stampede at imaginary objects, and often distort -real objects into imaginary monsters. When a horse at night takes -fright at a big black stump by the roadside, he no doubt imagines it -to be some terrible creature ready to eat him up if he should go -near it, just as a timid child does in the same circumstances. There -is a great difference in horses in this respect, just as there is -among children and men, some of them taking fright at every unusual -thing, while others are more bold or stolid. The cat playing with a -ball of yarn converts it by means of its imagination into an object -of prey, just as a girl converts a doll into a baby, or a boy -changes a stick into a steed. Sympathy is the putting or picturing -of one’s self in the place of another, and by means of the -imagination sharing or simulating the psychic conditions of that -other. This high and holy exercise of the imagination is exhibited -by horses, cattle, dogs, deer, elephants, monkeys, and birds—in -fact, by nearly all animals as far down as the fishes and insects. - -_Emotion_ is the stirring of the sensibilities by way of the -intellect or the imagination. The following emotions are found in -non-human beings: fear, surprise, affection, pugnacity, play, pride, -anger, jealousy, curiosity, sympathy, emulation, resentment, -appreciation of the beautiful, grief, hate, cruelty, joy, -benevolence, revenge, shame, remorse, and appreciation of the -ludicrous. Excepting the emotions of conscience and religion, which -are really compounds, with fear as the main ingredient, this list of -non-human emotions is coextensive with the list of human emotions. -Many of these emotions germinate low down in the animal kingdom, -fear, anger, sexuality, and jealousy all being found in fishes and -in the higher invertebrates. In the higher vertebrates many of these -emotions are almost as strong as they are in men. Does anyone who -has felt the throbbing sides of a frightened puppy or hare have any -doubt that these creatures suffer the keenest agony of fear? Apes -have been known to fall down and faint when suddenly confronted by a -snake, so great is their instinctive horror of serpents; and gray -parrots, which are extremely nervous birds, have been known to drop -from their perch unconscious under the influence of great fear.[2] - -The horse is, perhaps, of all animals, the one which occasionally -gives itself over most completely to the emotion of fear, as -everyone who has witnessed the terrible abandon of a runaway team -can testify. Ants, fishes, birds, cats, dogs, horses, monkeys, -porpoises, and many other animals play. Young kittens, colts, and -puppies enjoy a scuffle about as well as boys do. Pugnacity -originates among the spiders and insects, and is highly developed in -the ant, cock, and bulldog. This emotion is strong in the males of -nearly all vertebrates. Anyone who has observed the vigilance -displayed by fishes in protecting their nests can have little doubt -that these comparatively primitive beings possess pugnacity. I was -one evening floating in a boat by the edge of a Long Island pond -just over a village of perches. Each nest was guarded by an -assiduous male, who hovered over it vigilantly, or darted this way -and that to drive off the piscatorial _hoi polloi_ hanging about the -neighbourhood, ready to slip in at the first opportunity and eat the -eggs. Just to see what would happen, I put my hand down into the -water and moved it slowly toward one of the nests. To my surprise, -the guardian of the nest, instead of fleeing in alarm, proceeded to -show fight. It chased my hand away time after time, and when the -hand was not removed it would nip it vigorously, not once simply, -but two or three times if necessary, and each time with increasing -energy. It contended with the courage of a little hero. I pushed it -and jostled it about, and even took it in my hand and lifted it -clear out of the water. To my amazement, on getting back into the -water, it returned promptly to the attack. It fought until it was -really fagged, for its onsets were at last much feebler than at -first. I came away after twenty minutes, leaving the little hero in -triumphant possession of his charge. - -Among some species of monkeys several individuals will join together -in overturning a stone for the possible ants’ eggs under it; and, -when a burying beetle has found a dead mouse or bird, it goes and -gets its companions to help it in the interment.[3] Crows show -benevolence by feeding their blind and helpless companions, and -monkeys adopt the orphans of deceased members of their tribe. Brehm -saw two crows feeding in a hollow tree a third crow which was -wounded. They had evidently been doing this for some time, for the -wound was several weeks old. Darwin tells of a blind pelican which -was fed upon fishes, which were brought to it by its friends from a -distance of thirty miles.[4] The devotion of cedar-birds to each -other and their kindness to all birds in distress are well known to -every student of ornithology. Olive Thorne Miller tells of a -cedar-bird that raised a brood of young robins that had been left -orphans by the accidental killing of the parents. Weddell saw more -than once during his journey to Bolivia that when a herd of vicunas -were closely pursued the strong males covered the retreat of the -weaker and less swift members of the herd by lagging behind and -protecting them.[3] - -A remarkable instance of altruism which he once saw exhibited by the -king-crabs in a London aquarium is mentioned by Kropotkin in his -work on ‘Mutual Aid a Factor in Evolution.’ One of these crabs -had fallen on its back in a corner of the tank. And for one of these -great creatures, with its saucepan carapace, to get on its back is, -even in favourable circumstances, a serious matter. The seriousness -was increased in this instance by an iron bar, which hindered the -normal activities of the unfortunate crustacean. ‘Its comrades -came to the rescue, and for one hour’s time I watched how they -endeavoured to help their fellow-prisoner. They came two at once, -pushed their friend from beneath, and after strenuous efforts -succeeded in lifting it upright. But then the iron bar prevented -them from achieving the work of rescue, and the crab again fell -heavily on its back. After many attempts, one of the helpers went -into the depth of the tank and brought two other crabs, who began -with fresh forces the same pushing and lifting of their helpless -comrade. We stayed in the aquarium for more than two hours, and, -when leaving, came to cast a glance upon the tank. The work of -attempted rescue still continued. Since I saw that I cannot refuse -credit to the observation quoted by Dr. Erasmus Darwin that the -common crab during the moulting season stations a sentinel, an -unmolted or hard-shelled individual, to prevent marine enemies from -injuring moulted individuals in their unprotected state.’ Walruses -go to the defence of a wounded comrade when summoned by its cries -for help. Romanes tells of a gander who acted as a guardian to his -blind consort, taking her neck gently in his mouth and leading her -to the water when she wanted to take a swim, and after allowing her -to cruise for a time under his guidance and care, conducting her -back home again in the same thoughtful manner. When goslings were -hatched, this remarkable gander seemed to realise the inability of -the mother to look after them, for he took charge of them as if they -were his own, convoying them to the waterside, and lifting them -carefully out of the ruts and pits with his bill whenever they got -into difficulty.[1] - -The disposition to go to the aid of a fellow in trouble is one of -the most characteristic traits in the psychology of the swine. A -single squeal of distress from even the scrawniest member of a swine -herd will bring down on the one who causes this distress the -hair-raising wrath of every porker within hearing. This trait has -been considerably reduced by domestication, and in those varieties -in which degeneracy has gone farthest it scarcely exists. But it is -exceedingly strong in all wild hogs. Animals as low in the scale of -development and as proverbially cold as snakes have been known, when -educated and treated with kindness, to manifest considerable -affection for their friends and masters. Nearly all domestic animals -display a good deal of affection, not only to their young, but to -adult members of their own kind and to their human masters. The -devotion of the dog to man is without a parallel anywhere. It has -been said that ‘the dog is the only thing on this earth that loves -you more than he loves himself.’ When dogs become so much attached -to their masters or mistresses that they pine and die on being -separated from them, they show beyond any question that they have -feelings which, in intensity, are not inferior to those possessed by -the more highly developed men and women. And this has happened time -after time. - -A pathetic story of love and of its tragic close came last year out -of the Maine woods. Two moose, who had been tracked all day by a -couple of human tigers, were finally overtaken, when one of them -fell pierced by two rifle-balls. The remaining moose, instead of -dashing off into the forest, stood still, lowered its head, and -sniffed at its fallen companion. Then, raising its antlers high into -the air, it bellowed loudly. As the cry of the great creature echoed -through the forest, it also fell at the discharge of the rifles. It -was found on examination afterwards that the first moose was blind, -and that the second one, which had neglected to leave it for safety, -was its pilot. - -My father once owned a cow who contracted a strong affection for my -sister. This cow, who showed on many occasions and in many ways her -highly developed emotional nature, would scarcely allow anyone else -than my sister to milk her. She always presented herself to my -sister as soon as she was let into the lot in order to be milked -first, and she was so jealous of this privilege that if it were not -accorded to her she would stand with her head down and give vent to -her unhappiness in low moans. After she was milked she would follow -her human friend around from one cow to another, in order to be as -near her as possible. She knew my sister’s voice from that of -everyone else, and would always low a response and come to her when -called by name, even though she were a quarter of a mile away in the -pasture. Romanes tells somewhere of a band of apes that were being -pursued by dogs when a young ape was cut off from the rest and was -about to be killed by the dogs. The chief of the band, seeing the -peril of the young one, went deliberately back and rescued it. - -Many animals show that they possess a rudimentary sense of humour by -the pranks and tricks which they play on each other and on human -beings. The monkey is the prince of nonhuman jokers, but dogs, cats, -horses, elephants, and other animals have enough of this sense to -have books written about it. A monkey has been observed to slyly -pass his hand back of a second monkey and tweak the tail of a third -one, and then composedly enjoy himself while the resentment of the -injured monkey expended itself on the innocent middle one. Many -monkeys enjoy entertaining their friends with grimaces, by carrying -a cane, putting a tin dish on their heads, or other droll antics. -These intelligent animals have a sufficiently high appreciation of -the ludicrous to dislike ridicule. Like human beings, they can’t -endure being laughed at, and get mad if they are made the victims of -a joke. Romanes’ monkey was one day asked to crack a nut for the -amusement of a visitor. The nut turned out to be a bad one, and the -melancholy look of disappointment on the monkey’s face caused the -visitor to laugh. The insulted monkey flew into a rage, and hurled -the nut at the offending scoffer, then the hammer, and finally the -coffee-pot which simmered on the grate fire.[1] Darwin tells of a -baboon in the Zoological Gardens of London who always became -infuriated every time his keeper took out a letter or book and read -aloud to him. On one occasion when Darwin was present the baboon -became so furious that he bit his own leg until it bled.[4] - -The emotion variously known as shame, regret, repentance, and -remorse, is not common among the non-human races. It is found -sometimes in dogs and monkeys, and especially in educated -anthropoids. But this emotion is exceedingly rare among savages, and -is not at all universal even among civilised societies of men. Some -animals manifest self-restraint, which is an exceedingly elite -quality of mind, and one not so common as it might be even among the -higher breeds of mankind. By restraint is meant the inhibition of a -desire or instinct in the presence of circumstances tending to -render the desire or instinct active—and this is obedience, and -the beginning of morality. A dog that will not chase a hare in the -presence of his master may do so in his absence. I taught my -guinea-pigs to abstain from certain food in their presence which -they wanted very much, and which they would have eaten if they had -not been educated to let it alone. Sympathy is the most beautiful of -all terrestrial emotions. It is manifested, sometimes to an -exceedingly touching degree, by all the highest races of animals. No -other instances than those already given can be mentioned here. It -is sufficient to say that the difference between the savage—whose -sympathies are so feeble that he has been known to knock his own -child’s brains out for dropping a basket, and who puts his aged -parents to death in order to avoid the burden of maintaining them, -and whose sympathies seldom extend beyond his family or tribe—and -civilised men and women, who feel actual pain when in the presence -of those who suffer, and whose sympathies sometimes include all -sentient creation, is much greater than that between the savage and -many nonhuman animals. The frail, narrow, fantastic character of -human sympathy is the most mournful fact in human nature. ‘Man’s -inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn,’ and his -inhumanity to not-men makes the planet a ball of pain and terror. - -_Volition_ is the power of the mind to act executively. Or, perhaps, -it is the resultant of the impulses actuating a mind at any -particular instant. Whatever volition is, it is the same thing in -the insect as in the man. Non-human beings have been observed to -pause and deliberate and to make wise and momentous decisions in the -twinkling of an eye. A chased hare will decide to squat, to go -straight ahead, or to do something else which the emergency demands, -just as unmistakably as a human fugitive. In the sense of being the -power to act differently from the manner in which a being actually -does act, there is no such thing as freewill. The will of the worm -is just as free as the will of the judge—not in the sense that it -is as varied in the directions of its activity, but in the sense -that the character of its activities is determined inevitably by the -character of its antecedents. All will, whether human or non-human, -invariably acts in the direction of the strongest motive, just as a -stone or a river invariably moves, if it moves at all, in the -direction of the strongest tendency or force. It is impossible that -this should be otherwise. For, if the will in any case elects to -overthrow this fact by arbitrarily discarding a stronger motive for -a feebler, in the very motive of the election are concealed elements -which transform the feebler motive into the stronger. All motion, -voluntary and involuntary—the motion of bullets, beings, -societies, and suns—takes place along the lines of least arrest. -Every being is compelled to decide as he does decide and to act as -he does act by the inherited tendencies of his own nature and the -tendencies of the environment in which he exists. And if any being, -after having passed through life, were again placed back at the -beginning of life and endowed with the same nature as before, and -were acted upon through life by surroundings identical with those he -had previously met, he would act—that is, he would exercise his -will—in precisely the same way in every particular as he had -previously done. To deny these things is to assert that the conduct -of living beings is without law, and that psychology and sociology -are not sciences. - -Non-human beings, all of the higher ones, have the same brain and -nervous apparatus as man, and in their involuntary phenomena they -closely resemble human beings. Aim a pretended blow near the eyes of -a dog or a horse and it will wink involuntarily, just as a human -being does. Sever the spinal cord of a man or a frog, and irritate -the feet of each, and they will each manifest the same phenomena of -reflex action, drawing their feet away each time from the stimulus. - -_Instinct_ and _reason_ are forms of intelligence. Intelligence is -the adaptation of acts to ends. Intelligence is manifested by all -organisms, both plants and animals, and may be either conscious or -unconscious. Plant intelligence and reflex action are forms of -_unconscious_ intelligence. Plant intelligence, or the adaptation of -acts to ends by plants, is manifested by plants in the shifting of -their positions when in need of light in order to obtain as large a -supply as possible of the essential sunshine; in devices, such as -traps and flowers, for utilising the juices and services of insects; -in germinating and growing away from, instead of toward, the centre -of the earth; in discriminating between this and that kind of food; -and in a thousand other ways. Plant intelligence is all explicable -in terms of chemistry and physics, and is, so far as is known, -unaccompanied by consciousness. Reflex action is chemical affinity -aided by the co-ordinating powers of nerve tissue. The vital -processes of all animals, from the lowest to the highest, and many -other highly habitual and highly essential operations, are carried -on by reflex action. Reflex action in animals, like plant -intelligence, is unconscious. - -Instinct and reason are _conscious_. Instinct is inherited -intelligence—intelligence manifested independently of, and prior -to, experience and instruction. ‘Instinct,’ says Romanes, ‘is -reflex action into which has been imported the element of -consciousness’.[5] It is exhibited by the babe when it nurses the -mother’s breast; by the chick when it pecks its way out through -the shell of the egg; by animals generally, including man, in their -solicitude for their young; by the parent bird in incubation; and by -all beings when they seek food in obedience to the impulse of -hunger. Our conception of the mental processes of non-humans is as -yet very primitive, owing to our limited means of information and -the erroneous influence on our judgments of traditional ways of -thinking; and much that is attributed by us to instinct is not -instinct at all, but is acquired by the young through education -imparted by the elders. Parent birds have often been seen teaching -their young ones to fly, and no doubt a good deal of the migratory -acumen manifested by birds is nothing but custom and tradition -handed down to each younger generation by the old and experienced. A -large part of the knowledge of mankind (or what passes for -knowledge) consists of habits and hobbies, customs and traditions, -impressed upon each new generation by the generation which produced -it. Each generation of men seems to feel that whenever it creates a -new generation it has got to pile on to this new generation all of -the fool notions which have been acquired from the past, amplified -by its own inventions. And when we come to know other animals -better, there is practically no doubt that we shall find that a -large part of what we now call instinct and look upon as congenital -will, on closer and more rational examination, be found to be -nothing but the pedagogical effects of early environment. Professor -Poulton, of Oxford, who has made many experiments on just-born -birds, says that young chicks learn to fear the hawk and to -interpret the oral warnings of the mother. Cats teach their young to -play with their prey in that cruel manner so characteristic of all -the Felidae, as I have myself observed more than once. A mother cat -will carry a live mouse into the presence of her kittens and lie -down and play with it, tossing it playfully into the air, poking it -with her paw when it does not move, and arresting it when it starts -to run away, the kittens all the time looking on, but never once -attempting to take the mouse. After awhile the mother hands the -captive over to the kittens, who go through the same performance one -after another. After they have practised on it until the unfortunate -creature is almost dead, the old cat will probably walk over to -where the mouse is and eat it up. The whole thing is a _school_. The -mouse is obviously not intended as food for the young, but to be -used simply to impart instruction to them. - -‘In popular writings and lectures some or all of the following -activities of ant-life are commonly ascribed to instinct: The -recognition of members of the same nest; powers of communication; -keeping aphides for the sake of their sweet secretions; collection -of aphid eggs in October, hatching them out in the nest, and taking -them in the spring to the daisies on which they feed, for pasture; -slave-making and slave-keeping, which, in some cases, is so ancient -a habit that the enslavers are unable even to feed themselves; -keeping insects as beasts of burden—_e.g._ a kind of plant-bug to -carry leaves; keeping beetles, etc., as domestic pets; habits of -personal cleanliness—one ant giving another a brush-up, and being, -brushed up in return; habits of play and recreation; habits of -burying their dead; the storage of grain and nipping the budding -rootlet to prevent further germination; the habit of Texan ants of -preparing a clearing around their nest, and, six months later, -harvesting the ant-rice—a kind of grass of which they are -particularly fond—even seeking and sowing the grain which shall -yield the harvest; the collection by other ants of grass to manure -the soil, on which there grows a species of fungus upon which they -feed; the military organisation of the ecitons of Central America; -and so forth. But to class all of these activities of the ant as -illustrations of instinct is a survival of an old-fashioned method -of treatment. - -‘Suppose that the intelligent ant were to make observations on -human behaviour as displayed in one of our great cities or in an -agricultural district. Seeing so great an amount of routine work -going on around him, might he not be in danger of regarding all this -as evidence of hereditary instinct? Might he not find it difficult -to obtain satisfactory evidence of the fact that this routine work -has to some extent to be learned? Might he not say (perhaps not -wholly without truth), “I can see nothing whatever in the training -of these beings to fit them for their life-work. The training of -their children has no more apparent bearing upon the activities of -their after-life than the feeding of our grubs has on the duties of -ant-life. They seem to fall into the routine of life with little or -no preparatory training as the periods for the manifestation of the -various instincts arrive. If learning thereof there be, it has so -far escaped our observation. And such intelligence as their -activities evince (and many of them do show remarkable adaptations -to uniform conditions of life) would seem to be rather ancestral -than of the present time, as is shown by the fact that many of the -adaptations are directed rather to past conditions of life than to -those which now hold good. In the presence of new emergencies to -which their instincts have not fitted them, these poor creatures are -often completely at a loss. We cannot but conclude, therefore, that, -although acting under somewhat different and less favourable -conditions, instinct occupies fully as large a space in the -psychology of man as it does in that of the ant, while human -intelligence is far less unerring and hence markedly inferior to our -own.” - -‘Are these views much more absurd than the views of those who, on -the evidence which we at present possess, attribute all the -activities of ant-life to instinct?’[6] - -_Reason_ is the power of adapting means to ends which is acquired -from experience or instruction. All animals that profit by -experience, therefore, or that learn from instruction—that is, are -teachable—exercise reason. - -The line of demarkation between instinct and reason is a mezzotint, -reason being often instinctive, and instinct being as frequently -flavoured with judgment, ‘Instinct is usually regarded as a -special property of the lower animals, and contrasted with the -conscious reason of man. But just as reason may be looked upon as a -higher form of the understanding or intellect, and not as something -essentially distinct from them, so a closer examination shows that -instinct and the conscious understanding do not stand in absolute -contrast, but rather in a complex relation, and cannot be sharply -marked off from each other.’ It is instinct that urges the bird to -build its nest; but when birds whose habit it is to build on the -ground learn, on the introduction of cats into the neighbourhood, to -change their nesting-places to the tree-tops, intelligence and -thought are necessary. The first time Cavy (one of my guinea-pigs) -smelled a cat, she was almost scared to death. She jumped back from -it as if she had come in contact with a red-hot stove, and screamed -and kept on screaming, and shot down under my coat as if she were -about to be crucified. After a little while I tried to pull her out, -but she refused, and kept hiding. The second time the kitten was -presented to her the result was the same. But after two or three -days of association, she paid little more attention to it than to -the other guinea-pigs. She had never seen a cat before. _It was the -odour of the carnivore_ that terrified her, and the effect was -purely instinctive. But instinct was soon modified by intelligent -experience. (_Poor dear little Cavy! I wonder where she is now!_) - -Both instinct and reason (and one, too, just as much as the other) -are absolutely dependent upon processes that are purely -mechanical—that is, upon brain processes; and brain processes -depend upon brain structure, which is inherited. Hence, reason is, -in a certain sense, as truly inherited as instinct is. A being must -be born with the particular nervous apparatus by means of which -reasoning is carried on, or with the power or disposition to develop -this apparatus, or he will never reason. The genius of the partridge -in cajoling the passer-by from her nest is called instinct, but it -is not more inherited than was the genius of Shakspere. Experience -simply calls into being that, whatever it is in each particular -being, which is inherited. Sir Isaac Newton took to philosophy and -Ole Bull to music not less inevitably than the duck takes to water -or the hound to hunting. Reason is, hence, inherited by every man, -who has it as truly as his erect posture and plantigrade feet. There -is something in the past of all of us and of everything which has -determined, and which may be used to account for, everything that -to-day exists or happens, even to the style and behaviour of every -leaf that flutters in the forest, and to the eccentricities of our -opinions and handwritings. - -Reason, in the sense in which it is here used, is found feebly in -the oyster. Oysters taken from a depth never uncovered by the sea -open their shells, lose their water, and quickly perish. But oysters -taken from the same depths, if kept where they are occasionally left -uncovered for short intervals, learn to keep their shells closed and -to live a much longer period out of the water. On the coast of -France ‘oyster schools’ exist, where oysters intended for inland -cities are educated to keep their shells closed when out of the -water in order to enable them to survive the desiccating exposures -of the overland journey.[1] This act of the bivalve is probably the -result of something like a vague form of reason. It is an act -adapted to the accomplishment of a definite end, and the adapting -power is acquired from experience. It is, moreover, reason which in -its final analysis does not differ from the reason displayed by the -wisest being that thinks. Judgment, forethought, common-sense, -inference, ingenuity, genius, reason, and abstract thought, are all -exercises of the cognitive or perceptive power of mind, and consist, -all of them, in nothing more nor less than the discerning of -relations among stimuli. The dog who adopts a cut-off in order to -intercept a fleeing hare performs exactly the same kind of -intellectual process as the mechanic who erects a windmill in order -to divert the energies of the breeze, or the politician who adopts a -particular platform to catch votes. ‘A perception is always in its -essential nature what logicians term a _conclusion_, whether it has -reference to the simplest memory of the past sensation or to the -highest product of abstract thought. For, when the highest product -of abstract thought is analysed, the ultimate elements must always -be found to consist in material given directly by the senses; and -every stage in the symbolic construction of ideas, in which the -process of abstraction consists, depends on acts of perception -taking place in the lower stages’.[5] - -The difference among the perceptive acts of different individuals -consists, not in the different kinds of intellectual exercise, but -in differences among the _materials_ with which the perceptive -faculty deals. There are perceptions of simple sensations, and there -are perceptions of composite sensations, or concepts—perceptions -of elementary relations, and perceptions of compound and elaborate -relations. But all displays of rational faculty, from the simple -judgment of distance by the dimness and distinctness of definition -and the size of the visual angle, which all higher animals are -compelled to make, to the labyrinthic abstractions of the logician, -consist in nothing in addition to discriminations among stimuli. - -Brehm one day gave one of his apes a paper bag with a lump of sugar -and a wasp in it. The ape in getting the sugar was stung by the -wasp. From that day, whenever Brehm gave that ape, or any other ape -in that cage, a paper package, the animal, before opening it, took -the precaution to shake the package at his ear and listen to find -out whether or not there was a wasp inside.[7] - -Now, such an act of intelligence implies several inferences. A train -of thoughts something like this must have passed through this -ape’s mind: ‘Now, if one wasp can sting, so can another; and, if -a man can deceive me once by wrapping a wasp in a paper with a lump -of sugar, he may try it again; and, if one man will attempt such a -thing, so may another; and, if men will attempt it on me, they may -attempt it on my friends; so I will warn my friends to look out for -those villainous chaps outside.’ These inferences of the ape are -the same kind of generalisations exactly as are made by men -everywhere in their daily lives. And the common-sense inferences -made by ordinary people in their every-day affairs are precisely the -same processes of reasoning as those used by scientists and -philosophers. Many people, like the character in Moliere’s plays -who was surprised and delighted to learn that he had been talking -prose all his life, are surprised on hearing for the first time that -they use _induction_ and _deduction_ every hour almost of their -waking lives. They imagine that philosophers must have some secret -and superior way of acquiring their conclusions, different from what -ordinary mortals have. ‘But there is no more difference,’ says -Huxley, ‘between the mental operations of a man of science and -those of an ordinary person than there is between the operations and -methods of a grocer weighing out his goods in common scales and the -operations of a chemist in performing a difficult and complex -analysis by means of his balance and finely graduated weights. It is -not that the scales in the one case and the balances in the other -differ in the principles of their construction or manner of working; -but the beam of the one is set on an infinitely finer axis than the -other, and, of course, turns by the addition of a much smaller -weight’.[8] And the difference in mental method between the man of -learning and the ordinary man or woman is the same as the difference -between mature men and children and between men generally and other -animals. It is one of _degree_, _not_ of _kind_. The philosopher, -the clodhopper, and the ape, all use precisely the same methods of -reasoning, differing only in exactness and in the materials of -consciousness dealt with. - -Nearly all animals, from mollusks to men, reason—not once or twice -in a lifetime, but the most of them every day and every hour of -their existence. In fact, it would be impossible for any animal -addicted to moving about, and with a delicate and easily wrecked -organism, to long survive in a world like this without that -elasticity of action which reason alone can impart. Since they live -in the same world-conditions as human beings, and are seeking -providence for substantially the same wants, non-human beings -manifest reason in the same general directions as human beings -do—in the location and construction of their homes and fortresses, -in the arrest of their prey, in circumventing their enemies, in -overcoming obstacles and surmounting dangers, in protecting and -educating their young, in meeting the emergencies of food and -climate, in the wooing of mates and the waging of wars, and in the -thousand other cases where they are called upon in their daily -wanderings and doings to deal with novel and unprecedented -situations. - -When wild geese are feeding there is said to be always one of them -that acts as sentinel. This one never takes a grain of corn while on -duty. When it has acted awhile it gives the bird next to it a sharp -peck and utters a querulous kind of cry, and the second one takes -its turn. This is prudence, or forethought, which is a form of -reason. When swans are diving there is generally one that stays -above the water and watches. Sentinels have alarm sounds of various -kinds, which they give to signify ‘enemy.’ ‘Ibex, marmots, and -mountain-sheep whistle; prariedogs bark; elephants trumpet; wild -geese and swans have a kind of bugle call; rabbits and sheep stamp -on the ground; crows caw: and wild ducks utter a low, warning -quack.’ - -In the _Popular Science Monthly_ for March, 1901, is an account of a -series of experiments on the intelligence of the turtle made by -Professor Yerkes, of Harvard. The turtle was placed in a labyrinth, -at the farther end of which was a comfortable bed of sand. It took -just thirty-five minutes of wandering for the turtle to reach the -nest the first time. But in the second trial the nest was reached in -fifteen minutes, and by the tenth trip the turtle was familiar -enough with the route to go through in three and one-half minutes, -making but two mistakes. The turtle was afterwards placed in a more -complex labyrinth, containing, among other features, a blind alley -and two inclines. The inclines were puzzles, and it took one hour -and thirty-five minutes of aimless rambling for the wanderer to -reach its nest the first time. But the fifth trip was made in -sixteen minutes, and the tenth in four minutes, which was not far -from direct. - -These experiments show that animals of almost proverbial density may -learn with surprising quickness. English sparrows and other avian -inhabitants of the city learn to live tranquilly along the busiest -thoroughfares, exposed to all sorts of dangers, and subjected to -what would be to many birds the most terrifying circumstances. -Whizzing trolleys, tramping multitudes, and screaming engines have -no terrors for them. They simply exercise the caution necessary to -keep from being run over. They boldly build their nests right under -passing elevated cars, where the roar is sufficient to scare the -life out of an ordinary country bird. I have seen these testy little -chaps sit and feed and jabber to each other in a perfectly -unconcerned way within ten or fifteen feet of a thundering express -train. They do not do these things from instinct: they _learn_ to do -them. They know that a diabolical-looking locomotive is harmless, -because they have seen it before; and they know that an -insignificant urchin with a savage heart and a sling is not -harmless, and they know it simply because they have previously had -dealings with him. English sparrows will disappear completely from a -neighborhood if a few of them are killed. Cats, dogs, horses—all -animals, in fact—acquire during life a fund of information as to -how to act in order to avoid harm and extinction. If they did not, -they would not live long. And they do it just as man does it, by -memory and discrimination, by retaining impressions made upon them, -and acting differently when an impression is made a second, third, -or thirteenth time. - -Animals of experience (including men) are more skilful in adjusting -themselves to environmental exigencies than the young and -inexperienced, because of their store of initial impressions. It is -a matter of common observation that young animals are more easily -caught or killed or otherwise victimised than the old and -experienced. Many animals, however, (and a good many men) are able -to profit by a single impression. One dose of tartar emetic is -generally sufficient to cure an egg-sucking dog, and it is a very -stupid canine indeed that does not understand perfectly after one or -two experiences with a porcupine or an unsavory skunk. ‘The burnt -child dreads the fire,’ but so does the burnt puppy. Rengger -states that his Paraguay monkeys, after cutting themselves only once -with any sharp tool, would not touch it again, or would handle it -with the greatest caution.[1] Older trout are more wary than young -ones, and fishes that have been much hunted and deceived become -suspicious of traps. Rats, martins, and other animals cannot long be -trapped in the same way, and partridges and other birds seldom fly -against telegraph-wires the second season after the wires are put -up. These animals, however, cannot learn to avoid these dangers from -experience, for only a few of them are ever caught or struck. They -must learn it from observing their unfortunate companions. Everyone -who has read the story of Lobo, the big gray wolf of the Carrumpaw, -cannot but wonder at the remarkable shrewdness shown by this old -leader in baffling for years the tigers that hung upon his -tracks.[9] Nansen states that the seals, before man invaded the -Arctics, occupied the inner ice-floes to avoid the polar bear, but -after man came they took to living on the outer floes in order to -escape the persecutions of this new and more fearful enemy. Domestic -animals, when first turned out in new regions, often die from eating -poisonous weeds, but in some way soon learn to avoid them. Many -animals, when pursuing other animals, or when being pursued, display -a knowledge of facts very little understood by the majority of -mankind, such as of places where scent lies or is obliterated, and -the effects of wind in carrying evidence of their presence to their -enemies. The hunted roebuck or hare will make circles, double on its -own tracks, take to water, and fling itself for considerable -distances through the air as cleverly as if it had read up all the -theory of scent in a book. According to the London _Spectator_ one -of the large African elephants in the Zoological Gardens of that -city restores to its entertainers all the bits of food which on -being thrown to him fall alike out of his reach and theirs. He -points his proboscis straight at the food, and blows it along the -floor to the feet of those who have thrown it. He clearly knows what -he is about, for if he does not blow hard enough to land the food -the first time, he blows harder and harder until he does. The -cacadoos (parrots) of Australia, before descending upon a field or -orchard in search of food, send out a scouting party to reconnoitre -the region and see that ‘all is well.’ Sometimes a second party -is sent. If the report is favourable, the whole band advance and -plunder the field in short order. These birds are exceedingly wary -and intelligent, and seldom make mistakes. But ‘if man once -succeeds in killing one of them, they become so prudent and watchful -that they henceforward baffle all stratagems’.[3] A short time ago -a parrot at Washington, New Jersey, saved the life of its owner by -summoning the neighbours to his relief. Cries of ‘Murder!’ -‘Help!’ ‘Come quick!’ coming from the home of the parrot, -attracted the attention of neighbours, who ran to the house to find -out the cause. ‘They found the owner of the parrot lying on the -floor unconscious, bleeding from a great gash in his neck. He had -been repairing the ceiling, and had fallen and struck his head -against the stove. It required six stitches to close the wound, and -the surgeon said that in only a few minutes the injured man would -have been dead. A few years ago this parrot’s screams awakened its -owner in time to arouse his neighbours and save them from a fire -which started in the house next door.’ - -A friend of mine, who is thoroughly reliable, tells me that when he -was a student at the University of Michigan a few years ago one of -the professors of zoology there had a dog who was used by the -department for experiments in digestion. The dog was compelled to -wear a tube opening downward out of his stomach, and soon grew very -weak and emaciated from the constant loss of food, which leaked out -through this tube. After a time, however, the dog was observed to be -growing unaccountably hale and strong. He was watched, and the poor -creature was found to have struck upon an ingenious expedient to -save his life. On eating his meal, he would go out to the barn, and, -in order to prevent the artificial escape of the contents of his -stomach, would lie down flat on his back between two boxes and -remain there until his digested food had passed safely beyond the -pylorus. - -A few months ago, John, one of the monkeys at Lincoln Park, Chicago, -was suffering from a terrible abscess on the cheek, and an operation -became necessary in order to save the little fellow’s life. It was -a pathetic sight to see the look of trust in the monkey’s eyes -when the surgeon was ready to begin the operation, and the courage -and fortitude displayed by the sufferer were almost human. At the -first touch of the knife the monkey pressed his head hard against -the knee of the assistant and grabbed the forefinger of each of the -assistant’s hands, just as a person does who is about to undergo a -painful operation. The swelling was first cut open and washed with -antiseptic, when the cheek-bone was scraped and a small piece of it -removed. After being again washed in antiseptic, the wound was sewed -up, and John was lifted gently back into his cage—not, however, -until he had licked the hands of the surgeon and kissed his face in -gratitude. The little hero never uttered a sound from the time the -knife first touched his face until he was put back into his cage. A -similar act of intelligence is recorded of an orang. Having been -once bled on account of illness, and not feeling well some time -afterward, this orang went from one person to another, and, pointing -to the vein in his arm, signified his desire to have the operation -repeated. Both of these instances are examples of reason of a very -high order—of a higher order, indeed, than many children and some -grown people exhibit in similar circumstances. The chimpanzee, -Mafuca, learned how to unlock her cage, and stole the key and hid it -under her arm for future use. After watching the carpenter boring -holes with his brad-awl, she took the brad-awl and bored holes in -her table. She poured out milk for herself at meals, and always -carefully stopped pouring before the cup ran over. - -When baboons go on marauding expeditions, they show that they -realise perfectly what they are doing by moving with great stealth. -Not a sound is uttered. If any thoughtless youngster so far forgets -the necessities of the occasion as to utter a single chatter, he is -given a reminder in the shape of a box on the ear. ‘A certain Mr. -Cops, who had a young orang, gave it half an orange one day, and put -the other half away out of its sight on a high press, and lay down -himself on the sofa. But the ape’s movements, attracting his -attention, he only pretended to go to sleep. The creature came -cautiously and satisfied himself that his master was asleep, then -climbed up the press, ate the rest of the orange, carefully hid the -peel among the shavings in the grate, examined the pretended sleeper -again, and then went and lay down on his own bed.’ This incident -is recorded by Tylor in his ‘Anthropology.’ ‘And such -behaviour,’ he adds, ‘is to be explained only by supposing a -train of thought to pass through the brain of the ape somewhat -similar to what we ourselves call reason.’ These instances of -undoubted intelligence and thought might be added to almost without -number if there was room. Every person nearly who has been in the -world any length of time, and has had occasion to associate with -these so-called ‘machines,’ has seen for himself, often -unexpectedly, many flashes of brightness among them. - -It has been said that man differs from other animals, and is -superior to them in the fact that he modifies his environment while -other animals do not, but are modified by environment. Mr. Lester F. -Ward makes this distinction in his ‘Pure Sociology.’ The -distinction is no nearer the truth than other distinctions of like -character that have from time to time been drawn between men and -other animals. It is not much more than half true, if it is that, -and does not by any means deserve the italics awarded to it by this -writer. Many races of non-human beings have a far greater influence -on their environment than many races of men have. Many tribes of men -wander about naked, build no habitations, make no weapons, and feed -upon the fruits, roots, insects, and such other chance morsels as -they can pick up from day to day in their wanderings. Such races are -far inferior in constructive activity to the birds, who build -elaborate houses, and to the beavers, who not only construct -substantial dwellings, but dam rivers, and cut down trees and -transport them long distances, and dig artificial waterways, to be -used as aids in their engineering enterprises. Compare the elaborate -compartments of the Australian bower-birds, surrounded with -ornamented and carefully-kept grounds, with the lean-to of many -savage tribes, made by sticking two or three palm-leaves in the -ground and leaning them against a pole. Even ants plant crops, make -clearings, build roads and tunnels, etc. It must be remembered, too, -that, however affirmative and masterful a race of men may become, it -never succeeds, and never can succeed, in emancipating itself from -the influences of environment. It is true that with the growth of -intelligence among organic forms there has been a constant transfer -of influence from the environment to the organism; but this transfer -began, not with man by any means, but low down in the scale of -animal life. - -It has been said that man is the only animal that uses tools. But -this is not true either, for animals as low in the scale of -development as insects have been known to use tools. At least two -different observers testify to having seen ground-wasps use small -stones as hammers in packing the dirt firmly over their nests. -Spiders use stones as weights to steady their webs in times of -storm. Orangs throw sticks and stones at their pursuers, and certain -tribes of Abyssinian baboons, when they go to battle with each -other, carry stones as missiles. Monkeys often use stones to crack -nuts with, and tame monkeys know very well how to use a hammer when -it is given to them. In the London Zoological Gardens a monkey with -poor teeth kept a stone hidden in the straw of its cage to crack its -nuts with, and it would not allow any other monkey to touch the -stone. ‘Here,’ says Darwin, in speaking of this case, ‘is the -idea of property.’ Monkeys also use sticks as levers in prying -open chests and lifting heavy objects. Cuvier’s orang used to -carry a chair across the room and stand on it to lift the -door-latch. Chimpanzees, who are very fond of making a noise, have -been seen standing around a hollow log in the forest, beating it -with sticks; and if we are to believe Emin Pasha, these ingenious -parodies of men sometimes carry torches when they go at night on -foraging expeditions. The Indian elephant, when travelling, will -sometimes turn aside and break off a leafy branch from a roadside -tree and carry it along in its trunk to sweep off the flies. As Dr. -Wesley Mills says in his work on ‘The Nature and Development of -Animal Intelligence,’ ‘It was formerly believed that animals -cannot reason, but only those persons who do not themselves reason -about the subject, with the facts before them, can any longer occupy -such a position.’ - -1. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899. -2. Cornish: _Animals of To-day_; London, 1898. -3. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902. -4. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874. -5. Romanes: _Mental Evolution in Animals_; New York, 1898. -6. Morgan: _Animal Behaviour_; London, 1900. -7. Brehm: _Thierleben_; Leipzig, 1880. -8. Huxley: _On the Origin of Species_, lecture iii. -9. Thompson: Wild Animals I have Known; New York, 1900. - -V. Conclusion. - -It is enough. The ancient gulf scooped by human conceit between man -and the other animals has been effectually and forever filled up. -The human species constitutes but one branch in the gigantic arbour -of life. And all the merit and all the feeling and all the -righteousness of the world are not, as we have been accustomed to -aver, congested into this one branch. And all of the weakness and -deformity are not, as we have also been anxious to believe, found -elsewhere. The reluctance of wrinkles and deformities to appear in -the pictures of men, and of strength and beauty to appear in the -representations of the other races of the earth, is to be accounted -for by the highly elucidative fact that man is the universal -portrait-painter. There is no one to tell man what he is and how he -strikes others, and hence he is the ‘paragon of creation’—the -inter-stellar pet, half clay and half halo—the image and pride of -the gods—the flower and gem of the eternal spheres. Man is the -only professional linguist in the universe. And it is fortunate for -him that he is. For, if he were not, his auditories would be -compelled to carry to his perceptive centres a great many sentiments -he now never hears. He would be likely to hear a good deal said, and -said with a good deal of feeling, about perpendicular -brigand—grandiloquent kakistocrat swelling with -self-righteousness—rhetorical hideful wrapped in pillage and -gorged with decomposition—a voluble and sanctimonious squash with -two sticks in it. The definition of man as it appears in the -dictionary of the donkey probably runs something like this: ‘_Man_ -is an animal that walks on its hind-legs, invents adjectives with -which to praise itself, and displays its greatest utility in proving -that all sharks are not aquatic.’ We know what a lion looks like -when painted by a man, but human eyes have never yet been allumined -by the sardonic lineaments of a man painted by a lion. Being boiled -alive in order to look well as corpses in store-windows, and having -wooden pegs thrust into our muscles and left there to rot for a week -or two to keep us in our agony from doing something desperate—we -know what these experiences are like when they are delegated to -lobsters, and we take no more serious part in them than to insure -their infliction, but we are too fervent barbarians to bother our -heads about what they are like from the crustacean point of view. - -Let us be candid. Men are not all gentle men and humane, and not-men -are not all inhuman. There are reptiles in broadcloth, and there are -warm and generous hearts among those peoples who have so long -suffered from human prejudice and ferocity. Let us label beings by -what they are—by the souls that are in them and the deeds they -do—not by their colour, which is pigment, nor by their -composition, which is clay. There are philanthropists in feathers -and patricians in fur, just as there are cannibals in the pulpit and -saurians among the money-changers. The golden rule may sometimes be -more religiously observed in the hearts and homes of outcast -quadrupeds than in the palatial lairs of bipeds. The horse, who -suffers and serves and starves in silence, who endures daily wrongs -of scanty and irregular meals, excessive burdens and mangled flanks, -who forgets cruelty and ingratitude, and does good to them that -spitefully use him, and submits to crime without resistance, -misunderstanding without murmur, and insult without resentment, is a -better Christian, a better exemplar of the Sermon on the Mount, than -many church-goers, in spite of the creeds and interdictions of men. -And the animal who goes to church on Sundays, wearing the twitching -skins and plundered plumage of others, and wails long prayers and -mumbles meaningless rituals, and gives unearned guineas to the -missionary, and on week-days cheats and impoverishes his neighbours, -glorifies war, and tramples under foot the most sacred principles of -morality in his treatment of his non-human kindred, is a cold, -hard-hearted _brute_, in spite of the fact that he is cunning and -vainglorious, and towers about on his hinders. - -There are lessons that may be learned from the uncorrupted children -of Nature—lessons in simplicity of life, straightforwardness, -humility, art, economy, brotherly love, and cheerfulness—more -beautiful, perhaps, and more true than may sometimes be learned from -the stilted and Machiavellian ways of men. Would you learn -forgiveness? Go to the dog. The dog can stand more abuse and forgive -greater accumulations of wrong than any other animal, not even -excepting a wife. About the only thing in the universe superior to -the dog in willingness to undergo outrage is the human stomach. -Would you learn wisdom and industry? Go to the ant, that tireless -toiler of the dust. The ant can do that which no man can do—keep -grain in a warm, moist atmosphere without sprouting. Would you learn -art? Go to the bee or to the wild bird’s lodge. The art of the -honeycomb and of the hang-bird’s nest surpasses that of the cranny -of the savage as the Cathedral of St. Peter exceeds the cottage. -Would you learn socialism, that dream of poets and the hope and -expectation of wise men? It is actualised around you in thousands of -insect communities. The social and economic relations existing in -the most highly wrought societies of bees and wasps are -fundamentally the ideal relations of living beings to each other, -but it will require millenniums of struggle and bloodshed for men to -come up to them. Would you learn curiosity—not the curiosity that -gossips and backbites, but the curiosity of the explorer and -searcher after knowledge? Go to the monkey. The monkey has been -known to work two hours, without pause, utterly unconscious of -everything but its purposes, trying to open a fettered trunk -lock.[1] Would you learn sobriety? Go not to the gilded hells of -cities, where men die like flies in gin’s vile miasma. Go to the -spring where the antelope drinks. Would you learn chastity? Go not -to the foul dens and fiery chambers of men. Go to the boudoir of the -bower-bird, or to the subterranean hollow where the wild wolf rears -her litter. - -Man is not the surpassingly pre-eminent individual he so actively -advertises himself to be. Indeed, in many particulars he is -excelled, and excelled seriously, by those whom he calls -‘lower.’ The locomotion of the bird is far superior in ease and -expedition to the shuffling locomotion of man. The horse has a sense -which guides it through darkness in which human eyes are blind; and -the manner in which a cat, who has been carried in a bag and put -down miles away, will turn up at the back-door of the old home next -morning dumfounds science. The eye of the vulture is a telescope. -The hound will track his master along a frequented street an hour -behind his footsteps, by the imponderable odour of his soles. The -catbird, without atlas or geographic manuals, will find her way back -over hundreds of trackless leagues, season after season, to the same -old nesting-place in the thicket. Birds, thousands of them, journey -from Mexico to Arctic America, from Algiers and Italy to -Spitzbergen, from Egypt to Siberia, and from Australia and the -Polynesian Islands to New Zealand, and build their nests and rear -their young, year after year, in the same vale, grove, or tundra. -The nightingale, who pours out his incomparable lovesong in the -twilight of English lanes during May and June, winters in the heart -of Africa; and some birds nest within the Arctic Circle and winter -in Argentina. Some of the plovers travel the entire length of the -American land mass every summer, from Patagonia to the Arctic -Circle, in order to lay three or four pale-green eggs, and see them -turn to birdlings by the shores of the Hudson Sea. Many animals have -the power to foretell storms, and man, though he can weigh worlds, -is ever glad to profit by their superior sense. When herons fly high -above the clouds, when sea-birds dip and sport in the water and the -bittern booms from the marshes, when swallows fly low and the sow -repairs her bed, when horses scamper and cattle sniff the air, when -ravens beat the air with their wings, make noises, and flock -together, when the swan raises her eggs by additions to her nest and -the prairie-dog scratches the dirt up around its hole, when beetles -are not found in the air and caterpillars mass in their webs, when -bees remain near their hives and ants carry their eggs to their -innermost abodes, when frogs croak more loudly from their watery -retreats and fishes seek the safety of the unharried deeps—look -out for foul weather! Man has not the sweetness of the song-sparrow, -the innocence of the fawn, nor the high relative brain capacity of -the tomtit and the fice. - -Many animals have powers by which they are able to act in concert at -times, vast numbers of them moving in unison over immense areas by -signals or intuitions which man can neither imitate nor understand. -Such are the mysterious migrations of the Norway lemming and of many -birds and insects, and such were the memorable stampedes of the -bison hordes on the American plains in years gone by. Kropotkin saw -on the Siberian steppes one autumn ‘thousands and thousands’ of -fallow deer come together from an area as large as Great Britain at -a point on the Amur River in an unprecedented exodus to the lowlands -on the other side.[2] How these scattered thousands knew when to -start so as to arrive at the river at the same time, and how they -knew the direction to travel and found their way so well, are -mysteries which man can as yet only wonder at. More marvellous -yet—more marvellous, perhaps, than the concurrent action of any -other animal, for it implies the most accurate time-keeping -extending over many years—are the annual festivals of the -_palolo_, an annelid living among the interstices of the coral reefs -of some of the islands of the South Pacific. About three o’clock -on the morning following the third quarter of the October moon, -these worms invariably appear on the surface of the sea, swarming in -great numbers. Just after sunrise their bodies begin to break to -pieces, and by nine o’clock no trace of them is left. On the -morning following the third quarter of the November moon they appear -again, but usually in smaller numbers. After that they are seen no -more till the next October. This annual swarming is a phenomenon -connected with reproduction, the ova escaping from the broken bodies -of the females and, after being fertilised by the free-floating -sperms, sinking down among the coral reefs and hatching into a new -generation. ‘Year after year these creatures appear according to -lunar time. And yet in the long-run they keep solar time. They keep -two cycles, one of three and one of twenty-nine years. In the -three-year cycle there are two intervals of twelve lunations and one -of thirteen lunations. These thirty-seven lunations bring lunar time -somewhat near to solar time. But in twenty-nine years there is -enough difference to require the addition of another lunation; the -twenty-ninth year is therefore one of thirteen instead of twelve -lunations. In this way they do not change their season in an entire -century. So unfailing is their appearance that in Samoa they have -given their name to the spring season, which is called “the time -of the palolo.”’ - -Instead of the highest, man is in some respects the lowest, of the -animal kingdom. Man is the most unchaste, the most drunken, the most -selfish and conceited, the most miserly, the most hypocritical, and -the most bloodthirsty of terrestrial creatures. Almost no animals, -except man, kill for the mere sake of killing. For one being to take -the life of another for purposes of selfish utility is bad enough. -But the indiscriminate massacre of defenceless innocents by armed -and organised packs, _just_ _for pastime_, is beyond -characterisation. The human species is the only species of animals -that plunges to such depths of atrocity. Even vipers and hyenas do -not exterminate for recreation. No animal, except man, habitually -seeks wealth purely out of an insane impulse to accumulate. And no -animal, except man, gloats over accumulations that are of no -possible use to him, that are an injury and an abomination, and in -whose acquisition he may have committed irreparable crimes upon -others. There are no millionaires—no professional, legalised, -lifelong kleptomaniacs—among the birds and quadrupeds. No animal, -except man, spends so large a part of his energies striving for -superiority—not superiority in usefulness, but that superiority -which consists in simply getting on the heads of one’s fellows. -And no animal practises common, ordinary morality to the other -beings of the world in which he lives so little, compared with the -amount he preaches it, as man. - -Let us be honest. Honour to whom honour is due. It will not emaciate -our own glory to recognise the excellence and reality of others, or -to come face to face with our own frailties. We _are_ our -brother’s keeper. Our brethren are they that feel. Let us -universalise. Our thoughts and sympathies have been too long -wingless. _The Universe is our Country_, and our Kindred are the -Populations that Mount. _It is well_—it is eminently well, for it -is godlike—_to send our Magnanimity to the Dusts and the Deeps_, -_our Sunrises to the Uttermost Isles_, _and our_ _Charity to the -Stars_. - -1. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899. -2. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902. - - -THE ETHICAL KINSHIP - - I. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle - II. Egoism and Altruism - III. The Ethics of the Savage - IV. The Ethics of the Ancient - V. Modern Ethics - VI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings - VII. The Origin of Provincialism - VIII. Universal Ethics - IX. The Psychology of Altruism - X. Anthropocentric Ethics - XI. Ethical Implications of Evolution - XII. Conclusion - -THE ETHICAL KINSHIP - - - One of the wisest things ever said by one of the profoundest - philosophers of all time was the warning to the seeker after truth - to beware of the influence of the ‘idols (or illusions) of the - tribe’ by which he meant that body of traditional prejudices which - every sect, family, nation, and neighbourhood has clinging to it, - and in the midst of which and at the mercy of which every human - being grows up. - - -I. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle. - -The Golden Rule is not exemplified by the conduct of any -considerable number of the inhabitants of the earth. To be civilised -or even half-civilised is, to the children of this world, neither -instinctive nor easy. To preserve a certain pretence or appearance -of virtue, especially when encouraged to do so by an uplifted cudgel -in the hands of the community, is a possible and not uncommon -accomplishment. But to be at heart and in reality as considerate of -others as we are of ourselves is, unfortunately, not natural. Human -beings are not children of the sun, sojourning for a season on this -spheroid of clay, and needing only pinions to be angels. Human -nature did not come, pure and shining, down from the glittering -gods. It came out of the jungle. Civilised peoples are the not very -remote posterity of savages, and savages are the posterity of -individuals who laid eggs and had literally cold blood in their -veins. Civilised men and women are troglodytes with a veneering of -virtue. In the heart of every ‘civilised’ man and woman is an -unconverted core, large or small, of barbarism. Humanity is only a -habit. Against it, and tending ever to weaken and subvert it, are -the powerful inertias of animalism. Like the ship in Ibsen’s -‘Rhymed Epistle,’ civilisation carries a corpse in its -cargo—the elemental appetites and passions which have been -implanted in all sentient nature by the laws in accordance with -which organic forms have been fashioned. Moral progress is simply -the sloughing off of this inherited animality. - -To the initiated, therefore, it is not strange that we civilised -folk in our conduct display so freely the phenomena of the savage. -There is nothing more inevitable in the life of the convert than the -haunting inclination to give way to original impulses. It is not -strange that we are powerless to be as good and beautiful and true -as we would like to be, that our divine efforts are our half-hearted -efforts, and that the only time we get terribly in earnest and put -forth really titanic energies is when we are dominated directly or -indirectly by the instincts of the pack. Human aspiration is -fettered by the fearful facts of human origin. It is not strange -that we are continually conscious of being torn by contending -tendencies, conscious of ghastly masteries, and of horrible goings -on in our innermost beings. The human heart is the gladiatorial -meeting-place of gods and beasts. - -II. Egoism and Altruism. - -Everything has been evolved—_everything_—from daffodils to -states and from ticks to religion. Every organic thing is the result -of long and incessant survival of the advantageous—advantageous -from the standpoint of the organism itself or from the standpoint of -its kind, not necessarily so from the standpoint of the universe. -That which is true of everything is true also of egoism and -altruism. Egoism and altruism exist as facts in the natures of human -and other beings for the same reason that the various physical facts -exist in the structures of human and other beings, because they have -been advantageous in the struggle for life. There is just as -definite an explanation for the existence of egoism and altruism in -this world, and for their existence in the particular form and ratio -in which they do exist, as there is for the fact that the human hand -has five fingers, the rose odour, and the eggs of the kildeer the -mottled markings of the clods among which they lie. - -Egoism is preference for self, partiality toward that part of the -universe bounded by one’s own skin. It may consist simply of -regard for self, but with regard for self is usually associated -enmity toward others. Egoism manifests itself in such qualities of -mind as selfishness, cruelty, intolerance, hate, hardheartedness, -savagery, rudeness, injustice, narrowness, and the like. It is the -primal impulse of the living heart. Enmity is older and more -universal than love. Enmity constituted the very loins from which -long ago came the original miscreants of this world. - - ‘I saw the fishes playing there; - I saw all that was in the whole world round; - In wood, and bower, and marsh, and mead, and field, - All things which creep and fly, And put a foot to earth. - All these I saw, and say to you, - That nothing lives among them without hate.’ - -Life has been developed through selection. This selection has been -brought about largely through war—war between individuals and -between groups of individuals. War and competition are struggle -between living beings, and the soul of competition is selfishness. -Egoism is the primal and most powerful of terrestrial impulses, -because beings hated and exterminated each other before they -tolerated and loved, and because struggle has far overshadowed -cooperation as a factor in life evolution. - -There are those who believe that mutual aid has been a more dynamic -factor in the development of terrestrial life than competition. -Cooperation has been an important element in the evolution of animal -life, and it has operated among nearly all animals, from the -humblest to the highest. Far down near the beginning of organic -existence we find the one-celled forms huddling together in -colonies, giving rise in the course of time to the many-celled -animals. But to conclude that cooperation is the chief factor in -animal development is to shut one’s eyes to one of the most -obvious and overwhelming facts of organic evolution. Individualism -antedates mutualism, both among the one-celled forms and among the -many-celled metazoa. Cooperation everywhere is the sequence of a -long preliminary of individual contention. And cooperation does not -mean cessation of struggle, either among those co-operating or among -the groups themselves, as Kropotkin and other exaggerators of the -mutual aid factor seem to assume. It usually does little more than -transfer the struggle from individuals to groups. When a lot of -pelicans or wolves get together and work together in order that they -may thereby the better defend themselves or slay others it is hard -to see how such facts can be placed to the credit of cooperation any -more than to that of competition. Then, too, excepting in a few -societies of insects, cooperation has not gone so far as to do more -than slightly alleviate the competition even among the members of a -co-operating group. Competition is a much more common and -influential fact in the phenomena of life than cooperation, for it -involves a large part of the activity of individual life, and is -also prominent in all social activities. - -The preponderance of egoism in the natures of living beings is the -most mournful and immense fact in the phenomena of conscious life. -It has made the world the kind of world it would have been had the -gods actually emptied their wrath vials upon it. Brotherhood is -anomalous, and, even in its highest manifestations, is but the -expression of a veiled and calculating egoism. Inhumanity is -everywhere. The whole planet is steeped in it. Every creature faces -an inhospitable universeful, and every life is a campaign. It has -all come about as a result of the mindless and inhuman manner in -which life has been developed on the earth. It has been said that an -individual of unlimited faculties and infinite goodness and power -made this world and endowed it with ways of acting, and that this -individual, as the world’s executive, continues to determine its -phenomena by inspiring the order of its events. But one cannot help -thinking sometimes, when, in his more daring and vivid moments, he -comes to comprehend the real character and condition of the world, -what a discrepancy exists between the reputation of this builder and -his works, and cannot help wondering whether an ordinary human being -with only common-sense and insight and an average concern for the -welfare of the world would not make a great improvement in -terrestrial affairs if he only had the opportunity for a while. - -Altruism is the recognition of, and regard for, others. It shows -itself in feelings of justice, goodwill, tenderness, charity, pity, -public spirit, sympathy, fraternity and love, and in acts of -kindness, humanity, mercy, generosity, politeness, philanthropy and -the like. Altruism is a graft. The stock is selfishness and -brutality. Altruism (the form of altruism to which I here refer: -there are several distinct species of altruism) has come into the -world as a result of cooperation and consanguinity. It has grown out -of the cooperation of individuals in families and tribes against -their cooperating enemies. Altruism—at least, in its initial -stages—is a sort of tribal egoism. Men and other animals have -learned to stand by each other and help each other against their -common foes because it was the only way in which they were able to -stand. Those aggregates that have had strongest this feeling of -fraternity have prospered and prevailed, while the less fraternal -have gone down. - -The altruism manifested by men in their relations with each other is -not different in kind from the altruism and cooperation displayed by -other social animals. Human gregariousness—the gathering together -of human beings into tribes and communities for purposes of -companionship and defence—is a part of the phenomena of animal -gregariousness in general. The inhabitants of a human town, however -much they may think so, are not impelled to associate with each -other and to cooperate with each other in the affairs of life by -causes or considerations different from those which actuate a -society of ants or apes, of wasps or wolves, who do the same things. -The antecedents of human ethics and society are, therefore, to be -looked for in the ant-hill and the jungle. - -The fact that altruism has been evolved by the cooperation of -individuals _with each other_ and _against others_ is a significant -fact in the analysis and understanding of the ethical phenomena of -the earth. _To this fact is due the restricted and illogical -character of all altruism_. The ethical systems of all peoples are, -and have always been, to a greater or less extent, provincial and -contradictory. Ethical feeling and practice are not extended -universally—that is, to all beings—but are maintained only among -those associating more or less closely as a group, and having -interests that are more or less nearly the same. Among men of -primitive mind, morality is a thing to be practised toward only a -few thousand or even a few hundred individuals, and then in a very -half-awake and half-hearted manner. But as the perceptions sharpen -and vivify and the horizon of knowledge widens—as commerce and -imagination cause the mind to overflow the narrow bounds of the -community into larger dimensions of time and space—as the myriad -influences operating as race experience and race selection enable -men to realise the wider and wider oneness of their origin, natures, -interests, and destiny—an increasing consistency characterises the -conduct among the members of the group, and an increasingly larger -number of individuals are admitted to ethical consideration and -kinship. - -III. The Ethics of the Savage. -∂ -The ethics of the savage is, almost without exception, purely tribal -in its extent. A marked distinction is everywhere made by primitive -peoples between injuries to persons _inside_ the tribe and injuries -to those _outside_ the tribe. Crimes which are looked upon as -felonious when committed by a savage against the members of his own -tribe may be regarded as harmless, or even highly commendable, when -perpetrated on those outside the tribe. Acts are not judged -according to their intrinsic natures or results, but wholly as to -whether they are performed on outsiders or on insiders. The Balantis -(Africa) punish with death a theft committed against a -fellow-tribesman, but encourage and reward thieving from other -tribes. The Afridi (Afghanistan) mother prays that her son may be a -successful robber—not a robber of her own people, but of other -peoples—and in order that he may become proficient in crime -teaches him to creep stealthily through a hole in the wall. By -certain Bedouin tribes the ‘strenuous life’ is held in such high -honour that ‘it is considered a disgrace to die in bed’; and -among the man-eating Fijians ‘men who have not slain an enemy -suffer the most degrading of all punishments’.[1] In the paradise -of the Kukis (India) the cut-throats who have in life killed the -largest number of aliens not only inherit the highest places, but -these adepts of the knife are supposed to be attended in their -celestial comings and goings by their victims as slaves.[1] In his -dealings with the other members of his tribe, the savage observes a -certain rude code of morals, this code being usually, as in the case -of the civilised code, an inglorious mixture of equity and -brutality, superstition and sanity, honesty and hypocrisy. But the -savage recognises no moral obligations to any being outside of his -tribe, clan, or family. Anthropology teaches nothing more positively -than this. Consanguinity and self-interest are the only bases of -savage friendship. Outsiders are outlaws. They may be attacked, -robbed, deceived, murdered, eaten, or enslaved, with perfect -propriety. It was this general hostility of foreigners that Cain -feared when he was turned out from his countrymen after his crime -upon Abel. He knew that he was liable to be set upon by the first -stranger that came upon him. So the Lord is said to have set a mark -upon him, ‘lest any finding him should kill him.’ - -‘There was no brotherhood recognised by our savage forefathers,’ -says Sir Henry Maine, in speaking of the ancestors of the Aryan and -Semitic races, ‘except actual consanguinity regarded as a fact. If -a man was not of kin to another, there was nothing between them. He -was an enemy to be hated, slain, or despoiled as much as the wild -beasts upon which the tribe made war, as belonging, indeed, to the -craftiest and cruelest of wild animals. It would scarcely be too -strong to assert that the dogs which followed the camp had more in -common with it than the tribesmen of an alien and unrelated -tribe’.[2] Among some tribes of savage men the ethical code is -reversed in dealing with outsiders, and enmity toward aliens is -considered a duty. - -This same senseless hostility toward every one from abroad, so -spitefully exhibited by primitive men, is also manifested by ants, -who immediately recognise and pounce upon an individual introduced -from a foreign colony, but welcome with every demonstration of joy, -even after a lapse of weeks or months, a returning member of their -own society. The same spirit of exclusiveness is found also in -elephants. If by accident an elephant becomes separated from his -herd, he becomes an outcast and a fugitive, never being permitted in -any circumstances to attach himself to another herd.[3] - -That the savage should entertain feelings of friendship for those -belonging to the same social unit as himself is, considering the -circumstances in which it takes place, a perfectly natural -phenomenon. The members of his tribe are, to the savage, the beings -among whom he has come into existence, and in the midst of whom he -has grown up. He knows and understands them, and is known and -understood by them. They speak the same language as himself, and -cherish the same customs and traditions. They have the same sacred -trees, the same gods, the same experiences day after day, and the -same memories, as he himself. They are his associates in the chase, -his allies in war, and his comrades in sorrow and success. They are -the only beings into whose lives he has ever entered. They -constitute his world, and are to him the only real beings in the -universe. - -The members of his tribe are, moreover, to the savage, for the most -part, his kinspeople. If they are not actually related to him by -blood, they are usually conceived by him to be so related. The -co-villagers of an Indian community call each other brothers. It is -a characteristic of all the Aryan and Semitic races when in the -tribal state to conceive that the tribes themselves, and all -subdivisions of them, are descended each from a single male -ancestor. The savage sees the living family of which he forms a part -descended from a single living man and his wife or wives. This -family group with which he is familiar and other similar groups make -up the tribe. And the process by which each family has been brought -about is in his mind identical with the process by which the -community as a whole has been formed.[2] It is a conception of this -kind, handed down as a tradition from ancient tribal times, which -causes the Jews even to-day to regard themselves as the ‘seed’ -of that venerable sheik who, so many centuries ago, led them as a -band of nomads in their memorable migration westward from the plains -of Mesopotamia. It is not strange, therefore, considering all of the -circumstances in the midst of which the savage lives and moves, that -he should look upon his fellow-tribesmen as beings to be -distinguished by him from all other beings in the universe. - -Nor is it strange, when we consider the mental sterility of the -savage, his lack of travel and imagination, the meagerness of his -experiences, and his utter ignorance of the world beyond the -community in which he lives, that he should look upon and treat all -outsiders as nobodies—as beings without any claims whatever upon -his humanity or mercy. The imagination is the picturing power of the -mind, the power by which beings are able to get out of themselves -and into the places of others, the power which enables us to view -the world comparatively—that is, from different points of view. -This power of mind, which imparts to the higher types of -intelligence their mobility and sympathy, is rudimentary in the -savage. This has been proved by Tylor in his study of the -comparative mythology of savages. It is this lack of imagination in -the savage, combined with his ignorance and his simplicity of life, -which gives to him his ferocity, and which renders him inaccessible -to those higher sentiments of justice and righteousness which -are—well, which are, at least, dreamed about and theorised about -by the more evolved savages of the ‘civilised world.’ The world, -to the simple mind of the savage, is, as it is to the mind of the -child, the world in which he lives and moves—the world which he -feels, hears, tastes, and sees. The horizon is the boundary of the -universe. Beings beyond his tribe are outside of the world. If they -exist at all, it is as a very different order of beings from him and -his people. They are not of kin to him, speak a strange tongue, and -have monstrous customs and superstitions. How could they be in any -way related to him? They are his enemies—vague villainous -apparitions who appear to him only in the horrible ordeals of -battle. His chief occupation is the waging of war against them, and -his keenest gratification is felt in laying them low. The accounts -of all travellers testify that the intertribal relations of savages -are, with few exceptions, those of chronic feud and hostility. The -irreconcilable antagonism between the savage and those around him -begets in the savage nature its dominating impulse—hate, hatred -and hostility toward other men, as well as toward all other beings. -In fact, the savage makes no moral distinction between man and the -other animals, but regards them all indiscriminately as his foes, -whom he must either use or remove from the face of the earth. The -savage hunts men about as he hunts other animals, and for a like -purpose. The Troglodytes hunted the Ethiopians in four-horse -chariots with as little compunction as Americans hunt antelopes -to-day. - -1. Spencer: _Principles of Ethics_, vol. i.; New York, 1893.. -2. Maine: _Early History of Institutions_; New York, 1869. -3. Tennent: _Natural History of Ceylon_; London, 1861. - -IV. The Ethics of the Ancient.∂ - -But the doctrine that each petty tribe is the centre of the world -and the only real and important people in the universe, and that all -others are mere nobodies, is not peculiar to primitive peoples. -Ethnocentric ethics—the ethics of amity toward their own tribe or -state, their own clique or kind, and the ethics of enmity toward -outsiders—has been manifested to a greater or less extent by the -peoples of all times and of all degrees of enlightenment. Every -people that has ever existed has had its own particular point of -view, its own bias, its own knot-hole, large or small, through which -it has looked at life and the world. This is inevitable. It arises -as a necessary sequence out of the fact that all peoples above -savages are the descendants of savages, and as such have inherited -the limitations, mental and environmental, of those from whom they -have evolved. - -Aliens had no legal rights in ancient times—none whatever. -International cooperation, such as exists among the political -societies of Europe and America to-day, was absolutely unknown. -International relations were everywhere those of hostility. States -and races looked upon each other as foes, as objects of plunder and -victimisation, not as friends. - -Caesar says of the ancient Germans that depredations committed -beyond the boundaries of each state bore no infamy, and that -stealing from aliens was even encouraged as a means of teaching -their young men adroitness. - -The ancient Jews are an excellent illustration of a narrow and -self-centred people. Notwithstanding their insignificance, -politically and intellectually, as compared with the Egyptians, -Greeks, and Persians, the Jews believed themselves to be the only -people of the first class inhabiting the earth. They conceived that -they had been selected as favourites by the gods themselves, and -that around their little district in half-arid Palestine revolved -the interests of the entire world. Their chief city was supposed to -be the sacred and central city of the world, and heaven itself only -a new and idealised edition of their metropolis. Every Jew was bound -to every other Jew by high-wrought ceremony and obligation. But all -non-Jews were ‘Gentiles,’ chaff-like ‘pagans,’ who possessed -no rights which a ‘child of Abraham’ was bound to respect. Their -tribal god is said to have been so indulgent toward them as his -‘chosen people’ that he allowed them to exact usury from -foreigners, to sell them diseased meats, and to borrow jewels from -them and afterwards run away with them. He even permitted them to -make war upon weak peoples and dispossess them of their lands. -‘Whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them -will we possess’ (Judg. xi. 24). - -The kings of the ancient Assyrians were so accustomed to cruelties -upon non-Assyrians, and were so proud of these cruelties, that they -recorded them in stone as a claim to immortality among men. -Assurbanipal, in speaking of the conquered, says: ‘I pulled out -their tongues and cut off their limbs, and caused them to be eaten -by dogs, bears, eagles, vultures, birds of heaven.’ -Assur-natsir-pal, another wonderful fellow, boasts similarly: ‘I -flayed the nobles and covered the pyramid with their skins, and -their young men and maidens I burned as a holocaust.’ ‘Their -carcasses covered the valleys and the tops of the mountains,’ says -Tiglath-Pileser in his account of the slain Muskayans; and -Sennacherib informs us proudly that he drove his chariot over the -dead bodies of his victims until ‘its wheels were clogged with -flesh and blood.’ ‘Evidently’ remarks Spencer, in speaking of -these monstrous inscriptions, ‘the expectation was that men of -after-times would admire these merciless destructions; for we cannot -assume that these Assyrian kings intentionally made themselves -eternally infamous’.[1] - -To the ancient Greeks there were two classes of human beings in the -world: Greeks and ‘barbarians.’ The Greeks were the inhabitants -of Hellas, which was believed to be the central region of the world, -and the ‘barbarians’ were the godless denizens of the -less-favoured and less centrally located remainder of the earth. The -world was believed to be flat or shield-shaped, and in its exact -centre stood Mount Olympus in northern Thessaly. This mountain, -which is 9,700 feet high, was supposed to be the highest elevation -on the earth, and was the awful abode of the gods. The Greeks called -themselves Hellenes. According to their fabled genealogy, they were -the descendants of Hellen, son of Deucalion, the Greek Noah. While -they were often at war with each other, they spoke a common -language, and always regarded themselves as members of a single -family. All non-Greeks were ‘barbarians,’ including the Romans, -who were called ‘barbarians’ down to the time of Augustus. While -the Greeks themselves traced their ancestry back to the bright blood -of the gods, the ‘barbarians’ were generally supposed to have -originated from stones and trees. The ‘barbarians’ were looked -upon and treated by the Greeks everywhere as a different order of -beings from themselves. Those taken by them in war were regularly -reduced to slavery. The slave population created in this way was -increased by the slave traffic carried on with the East until the -slave population of Greece was several times as great as the free -population. The whole Hellenic world, in fact, even in the days of -its greatest magnificence, was one vast pen of slaves. Almost every -freeman of Attica was a slave-owner. Out of a population of about -five hundred thousand, four hundred thousand were slaves. It was -considered a real hardship by the Greeks to be compelled to get -along with less than a half-dozen slaves. In Corinth and Aegina -there were ten slaves to one freeman. In Sparta the slaves were the -vanquished Helots, the original inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, -whom the Spartans had conquered and reduced to chains in early -times. Their lot was particularly horrible. They were the property -of the state, and were distributed to the Spartan lords by lot. -‘They practically had no rights which their masters felt bound to -respect. If one of their number displayed unusual powers of either -body or mind, he was secretly assassinated, as it was deemed unsafe -to allow such qualities to be fostered in the servile class. It is -affirmed [by Thucydides] that, when the Helots grew too numerous for -the supposed safety of the state, their numbers were thinned by -deliberate massacre of the surplus population’.[2] The conception -of human slavery entertained by the common mass of Greeks may be -inferred from the fact that philosophers like Aristotle taught that -‘slaves were simply domestic animals possessed of intelligence.’ -It is this fact, this utter lack of justice and humanity manifested -by the Greeks in their treatment of non-Hellenic mankind, which -gives to Greek ‘civilisation’ its seamy side. Greek society has -been appropriately likened to a pyramid, its apex gleaming with -light and splendour, while its base was sunk in darkness. - -Non-Romans were called ‘barbarians’ also by the Romans, and were -considered by the Romans to be an entirely different order of beings -from themselves. Any splinter of a Roman was, according to the -Romans, superior to the most illustrious ‘barbarian.’ Men were -not treated nor estimated according to their intrinsic qualities, -but wholly as to whether they were or were not ‘Roman citizens.’ -To be a ‘Roman citizen’ was to be entitled to everything; to be -a ‘barbarian’ was not to be entitled to anything necessarily, -except to serve in some way the all-glorious Romans. The elaborate -legal and ethical codes formulated by these masters of the -Mediterranean were reserved religiously for themselves. The business -of the ‘barbarians’ was to furnish fields for pillage and -conquest, to impart magnitude to triumphal pageants, to act as -slaves, and to die by ignominiously butchering each other for the -amusement of their bloodthirsty masters. ‘Barbarian’ lands were -looked upon simply as game-preserves where ambitious captains from -the Tiber went to refresh their reputations by hunting and -victimising the inhabitants. The history of Rome is the history of -infamy on a colossal, almost world-wide, scale. There has never been -displayed by any people pretending to be civilised such shameless -savagery as that displayed by the Romans in their gladiatorial -arenas, where men (generally the captives of war) were ‘butchered -to make a Roman holiday.’ These tragedies, in their magnitude and -atrocity, seem almost frightful when we read of them on the pages of -history. They were generally celebrated by victorious captains and -emperors at the close of some unusual outrage against the -‘barbarians,’ or upon the departure of Roman legions for the -field of activity. The celebrations sometimes lasted weeks, or even -months. The Emperor Trajan celebrated his victories over the Dacians -with shows that lasted more than a hundred days. During this -horrible festival ten thousand men fought upon the arena, and more -than ten thousand wild animals were slain. The gladiators in these -ancient combats fought in chariots, on horseback, on foot—in all -the ways in which soldiers fought in actual battle. They fought with -swords, lances, daggers, tridents, and every other manner of weapon. -Some had nets and lassoes with which they entangled their -adversaries, and then slew them. The life of a wounded gladiator was -in the hands of the spectators, who showed their clemency or their -lack of it by turning their thumbs respectively down or up. The -thirst of the populace for blood was sometimes such that the dying -were aroused and forced on to the fight by burning with a hot iron. -The dead bodies were dragged from the arena with hooks, like the -carcasses of animals, and the pools of blood soaked up with dry -sand.[3] There was an occasional Roman, like Seneca, sane enough to -realise the real character of these performances, and brave enough -to denounce them as crimes. But by the great mass of all classes of -Romans, even by those who pretended to think, they were regarded -with perfect moral indifference. The excuse offered by Pliny was -generally concurred in by his countrymen, that these bloody shows -were necessary for the cultivation of manliness and for keeping -awake the strenuous and red-handed instincts in the young. - -Scarce less revolting than the gladiatorial arena, in its violation -of every principle of humanity, was the institution of human -slavery. During the later republic and the earlier empire, one-half -the population of the Roman state was slaves. The slave population -was recruited chiefly, as in Greece, by war and by slave-hunting. -Slave-traders and slave-markets flourished both in the capital -itself and in all the great ports visited by Roman ships. Some of -the outlying provinces of Asia and Africa were almost depopulated by -the slave-hunters. Greek slaves were the highest-priced, because the -most intelligent. Among the wealthy, who, like the illiterate rich -of every age, dawdled their time in ostentation, there were slaves -for each different function in the household. There were the -_cubicularii_, who acted as housemaids; the _triclinarii_, who -waited at table; the _culinarii_, who acted as kitchen drudges; and -the _balnearii_, who looked after the baths. Then there were -_tonsores_ or barbers; _criniflores_, or hair-crimpers; -_calceatores_, who took care of the feet; and _lectores_, whose -business it was to read aloud to their masters at meals, in the -bath, or in bed. The _ostiarius_, who was sometimes chained in the -vestibule like a dog, was the porter; the _invitator_ summoned the -guests; and the _servus ab hospitiis_ looked after their lodgment. -There was the slave called the _sandalio_, whose sole duty was to -care for his master’s sandals; and another, called the -_nomenclator_, whose exclusive business it was to accompany his -master when he went upon the street, and give him the names of such -persons as he ought to recognise. The common punishment for a -refractory slave was beating. If the runaway were caught, as he -could hardly fail to be, since there were extremely heavy penalties -for harbouring or assisting him, he was either branded or had an -iron collar like a dog’s welded around his neck, or his legs were -fettered, or, in exaggerated or repeated cases of offence, he was at -once turned into the arena or otherwise put to death. If he -attempted to take personal vengeance upon his master for any wrong -whatsoever, his whole family shared his fate, and the regular form -of capital punishment for a slave was crucifixion under the most -ignominious and agonising circumstances.[4] - -‘In many cases, as a measure of precaution, the slaves were forced -to work in chains and to sleep in subterranean prisons. The feeling -entertained toward this unfortunate class in the later republican -period is illustrated by Varro’s classification of slaves as -“vocal agricultural implements,” and by Cato the Elder’s -recommendation that old and worn-out slaves be sold, as a matter of -economy. Sick and hopelessly infirm slaves were taken to an island -in the Tiber, and there left to die of starvation and -exposure’.[3] Slaves were practically without any rights whatever -to the world in which they lived. A Roman could take the life of his -Gallic slave with as complete impunity as an American can slay his -bovine servant to-day. Romans, in short, looked upon and treated -non-Romans about as human beings to-day look upon and treat -non-humans—_as mere prey_. - -1. Spencer: _Principles of Ethics_, vol. i.; New York, 1893. -2. Myers: _Ancient History_, part i.; Boston, 1899. -3. Myers: _Ancient History_, part ii.; Boston, 1899. -4. Preston and Dodge: _The Private Life of the Romans_; Boston, 1896.∂ - -V. Modern Ethics. - -But the peoples of the ancient world are not the only human beings -who have suffered from the psychological bequests of savages. Modern -states and peoples, notwithstanding their far-flung professions of -righteousness, manifest, though in a somewhat weakened form, the -same ethnic prejudices and the same senseless antipathies as those -displayed by the ancients. Remnants of the primitive tribal morality -are found in the moral habits and conceptions of every people, -however emancipated they may imagine themselves to be. Many a person -who would not think of swindling one of his neighbours will not -hesitate to swindle a foreigner, especially if the foreigner happens -to be of a nationality much removed in language, colour, manners, or -interests from his own. Morality is genetic. It is not a consistent -something—something reasoned out and framed according to the -facts. It has grown up. It is essentially tribal—whether it is -confined to a family, as is done by some, to a corporation or trade, -to a nation, to an artificial fraternity, or to a species. We are, -in fact, all of us, even the broadest and most illuminated, simply -savages more or less leafed out. We all suffer, as men have always -suffered, from the over-vividness of the presentative powers of the -mind (sensation and perception) compared with the representative -powers (memory and imagination). We all exaggerate out of their -proper perspective in the phenomena of a universe the things that -are around us and about us—the events we witness or take part in, -the things that are ours, and the affairs of the street, city, -state, neighbourhood, world, and time, in which we live. Every human -being (the sage less than the savage, but the sage to some extent) -is inclined to lump together as foreign to him, and as more or less -useless and shadowy in themselves, the things, beings, and events -that are distant, and to consider them, of less reality than those -with which he is directly concerned, and of which his knowledge is -immediate. _The evolution of consciousness in its social and ethical -aspects consists in the evolution of the ability to make real and -vivid the phenomena that are more and more_ _distant in both space -and time_. - -The Chinese call their country ‘the flower of the middle,’ and -believe it to be the central and choicest portion of the earth’s -surface. All those beyond the bounds of ‘The Heavenly Flower -Kingdom’ are, by those on the inside, venomously lumped together -as ‘foreign devils.’ The people of Spain look upon themselves in -much the same way as the Chinese look upon themselves, although they -are in reality the most belated of all peoples to-day pretending to -be civilised. There are a few travelled and educated Spaniards who -realise the pitiful place held by their country in the family of -reputable states. ‘But the great mass of the people are not only -perfectly satisfied with their condition, but consider themselves -the most fortunate of all God’s creatures. They never go outside -of their country and never read a foreign newspaper or book. Like -the Chinese, they consider other nations barbarians, and point to -Madrid as the centre of civilisation.’ The French, down to the -nineteenth century, confiscated the property of all aliens who died -within the realm; and the savage practice of punishing one alien for -the crimes of another alien was sanctioned by the laws of England -down to the middle of the fourteenth century. It has been only a day -in the history of the world since Caucasians hunted their dusky -brothers in Africa like ‘wild animals,’ and sold and loaned and -lashed them as we do horses to-day. Men now living can remember when -it made no difference how exalted in character men might be: if a -certain pigment of their bodies was dark, they were ‘niggers.’ -They had no ‘souls’ as pale men had, and no more chance of -paradise than cattle. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, -incredible as it may seem, every country of Europe and America held -slaves, and was engaged in the soulless avocation of man-hunting in -Africa. Tens of thousands of Africa’s children were annually -seized by prowling pirate bands and exported to distant lands to -wear their lives out in disgrace and drudgery. It was not until the -latter part of the nineteenth century that civilised nations, -following the initiative of England, finally abolished human -slavery, the United States and Brazil being the last to act. The -Christian sneers at all who do not bow down to his deities and -worship according to his ritual, as ‘heathens’ or -‘freethinkers,’ and to the Moslem all who are not followers of -‘the True Prophet’ are ‘infidel dogs.’ The history of these -two religions is a chronicle of almost unparalleled crimes upon -disbelievers. - -But it is not necessary to go to Arabia or Cathay, nor even -necessary to read history, in order to find examples of bigotry and -provincialism. It is only necessary to open our eyes. Americans are -not a peculiar people—unless it be in the unbridled character of -their conceit. All the barbarism is not behind us nor around us. -History looks dark and discouraging to us, as we turn its terrible -pages, but we would see something just as discouraging if we would -look into a mirror. The old savage spirit still circulates in our -veins. The ‘foreigner’ is not an enemy, but he is still an -individual whose chief significance is in his ‘fleece.’ If the -‘foreigner’ did not ease our economic theories by benevolently -‘paying the tax,’ it would be hard to tell what would become of -him. Those who suffer from a different government, speak a different -language, or laud other gods are regarded by us as distinctly -inferior to ourselves. Millions of dollars are annually squandered -by self-righteous societies in sending missionaries to the other -side of the planet to peoples who need evangels of mercy and -humanity far less than we do ourselves. In these times of -ecclesiastical enterprise, however, missionaries are being -superseded, as agents of evangelisation, by the more effective -inventions of Messrs. Maxim and Krupp. ‘American’ is regarded by -us as the synonym of perfection, and to be ‘patriotic’ is to -give unthinking enthusiasm to every scheme incubated by wolfish -spoilsmen. Crimes of conquest carried on by others become, when -undertaken by us, shining masterpieces of ‘benevolent -assimilation.’ We are not so far from the naked and unkempt -contemporaries of the cave-bear and sabre-toothed lion as we imagine -we are. To carry a bayonet, and especially to redden it with an -alien’s blood, is here in this degenerate land of Jefferson, more -glorious than to create a book. Captains particularly competent as -butchers, though their characters be as coarse as a savage -chief’s, are hailed as heroes by thousands besides silly women, -and held up, like the cutthroats of the Kukis, as the highest -exemplars of right-doing. Old Rameses, holding by their hair a -half-dozen dwarfs, and ostentatiously cutting off their heads with a -single sweep of his sword, finds his modern counterpart in miserable -Americans pompously gloating over the offhand slaughter of the -children of distant archipelagoes. - -VI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings.∂ - -But the most mournful instance of provincial ethics afforded by the -inhabitants of the earth is not that furnished by the varieties of -the human species in their conduct toward each other, but that -afforded by the human race as a whole in its treatment of the -non-human races. Human nature is nowhere so hideous, and human -conscience is nowhere so profoundly inoperative, as in their -disregard for the life and happiness of the non-human animal world. -With the development of the representative powers of the mind, the -widening and mutualising of human activities, and the consequent -enlargement of the human horizon, the feeling of amity has spread -and intensified, until to-day, notwithstanding all that is true of -human sectionalism, the ethical systems of civilised peoples -include, theoretically at least, and more or less seriously, all -human beings whatsoever. Ethical consciousness has extended from -individual to family, from family to clan, from clan to tribe, from -tribe to confederacy, from confederacy to kingdom, from kingdom to -race, from race to species, until, in the case of many millions of -men, ethical feeling has reached, with greater or less vividness and -consistency, the anthropocentric stage of evolution. The fact that -an individual is a _man_—that is, that he belongs to the human -species of animals—entitles him in all civilised lands to the -fundamental rights and privileges of existence. The rights to life, -liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are believed to-day, by all -exalted minds, to be the inalienable properties of every _human_ -being who comes into the world. - -But, except by occasional individuals here and there whose emotions -are more civilised than the rest, or whose conceptions are more -ample and clear, ethical relations are not extended by human beings -beyond the bounds of their own species. Non-human millions are -_outsiders_. They are looked upon and treated by human beings as if -they were an entirely different order of existences, with entirely -different purposes and susceptibilities, from human beings. They are -not considered to be living beings at all, as human beings are, who -are here in the world to enjoy life and all that life holds that is -dear to a living being. They belong to the same class of existences -as the waves of the sea and the weeds of the field. They are looked -upon as mere _things_—mere moving, multiplying objects, without -the slightest equity in the world in which they find themselves. -They may be set upon, beaten, maimed, starved, assassinated, eaten, -insulted, deceived, imprisoned, robbed, tormented, skinned alive, -shot down for pastime, cut to pieces out of curiosity, or compelled -to undergo any other enormity or victimisation anybody can think of -or is disposed to visit upon them. It is enough almost to make -knaves shudder, the cold-blooded and business-like manner in which -we cut their throats, dash out their brains, and discuss their -flavour at our cannibalistic feasts. As Plutarch says, ‘Lions, -tigers, and serpents we call savage and ferocious, yet we ourselves -come behind them in no species of barbarity.’ Accustomed from our -cradle up to look upon violence and assassination, we have become so -habituated and hardened to these things that we perpetrate them and -see them perpetrated with the same indifference as that with which -we watch waves die on the beach. Human beings are, in fact -(‘paragons’ though they pretend to be), the most predatory and -brutal of all animals—the great bone-breakers and bone-pickers of -the planet. - -It is scarcely possible, astounding as it is, to commit crimes upon -any beings in this world, except men. There are no beings in the -universe, according to human beings, except themselves. All others -are commodities. They are of consequence only because they have -thighs and can fill up the unoccupied places of the human -alimentary. Human beings are ‘persons,’ and have souls and gods -and places to go to when they die. But the hundreds of thousands of -other races of terrestrial inhabitants are mere ‘animals,’ mere -‘brutes,’ and ‘beasts of the field,’ ‘livestock’ and -‘vermin.’ Every crime capable of being perpetrated by one being -upon another is day after day rained upon them, and with an -equanimity that would do honour to the managers of an inferno. Human -beings preach as the cardinal rule of morality—and they seem never -to tire of its reiteration—that they should do unto others as they -would that others would do unto them; but they hypocritically -confine its application to the members of their own crowd, -notwithstanding there are the same reasons identically for extending -it to all creatures. The happiness of the human species is assumed -to be so much more precious than that of others that the most sacred -interests of others are unhesitatingly sacrificed in order that -human desires may all be fastidiously catered to. Even for a tooth -or a feather or a piece of skin to wear on human vanity, forests are -depopulated and the land filled with the dead and dying. -Assassination is the commonest and most fashionable of human -pastimes. Jaded systems are regularly recuperated by massacre. Men -arm themselves—men who roar about ‘rights,’ and even ministers -of mercy—and go out on killing expeditions with as little -compunction as savages put on war-paint. They come back from their -campaigns of crime like the cut-throats of old Rome, trailing their -victims as trophies, and expecting to be hailed as heroes for the -hells they have established. Barbarians preponderate, and morality -is turned inside out. Cruelty is lionised, and broad-mindedness is -rewarded with a sneer. Compassion is a disease, and to be -fashionable is to be a fiend. If non-human peoples had no nerves and -no choice of emotions, and were utterly indifferent to life, they -could scarcely be treated more completely as personal nonentities. - -The denial by human animals of ethical relations to the rest of the -animal world is a phenomenon not differing either in character or -cause from the denial of ethical relations by a tribe, people, or -race of human beings to the rest of the human world. The -provincialism of Jews toward non-Jews, of Greeks toward non-Greeks, -of Romans toward non-Romans, of Moslems toward non-Moslems, and of -Caucasians toward non-Caucasians, is not one thing and the -provincialism of human beings toward non-human beings another. They -are all manifestations of the same thing. The fact that these -various acts are performed by different individuals and _upon_ -different individuals, and are performed at different times and -places, does not invalidate the essential sameness of their natures. -Crimes are not classified (except by savages or their immediate -derivatives) according to the similarity of those who do them or -those who suffer from them, but by grouping them according to the -similarity of their intrinsic qualities. All acts of provincialism -consist essentially in the disinclination or inability to be -universal, and they belong in reality, all of them, to the same -species of conduct. There is, in fact, but one great crime in the -universe, and most of the instances of terrestrial wrong-doing are -instances of this crime. It is the crime of _exploitation_—the -considering by some beings of themselves as _ends_ and of others as -their _means_—the refusal to recognise the equal, or the -approximately equal, rights of all to life and its legitimate -rewards—the crime of acting toward others as one would that others -would _not_ act toward him. For millions of years, almost ever since -life began, this crime has been committed, in every nook and quarter -of the inhabited globe. - -_Every being_ is an _end_. In other words, every being is to be taken -into account in determining the ends of conduct. This is the only -consistent outcome of the ethical process which is in course of -evolution on the earth. This world was not made and presented to any -particular clique for its exclusive use or enjoyment. The earth -belongs, if it belongs to anybody, to the beings who inhabit it—to -_all_ of them. And when one being or set of beings sets itself up as -the sole end for which the universe exists, and looks upon and acts -toward others as mere means to this end, it is usurpation, nothing -else and never can be anything else, it matters not by whom or upon -whom the usurpation is practised. A tyrant who puts his own welfare -and aggrandisement in the place of the welfare of a people, and -compels the whole people to act as a means to his own personal ends, -is not more certainly a usurper than is a species or variety which -puts its welfare in the place of the welfare of all the inhabitants -of a world. The refusal to put one’s self in the place of others -and to act toward them as one would that they would act toward him -does not depend for its wrongfulness upon who makes the refusal or -upon whether the refusal falls upon this or that individual or set. -Deeds are right and wrong in themselves; and whether they are right -or wrong, good or evil, proper or improper, whether they should be -done or should not be done, _depends upon their effects upon the -welfare of the inhabitants of the universe_. The basic mistake that -has ever been made in this egoistic world in the judging and -classifying of acts has been the mistake of judging and classifying -them with reference to their effects upon some particular fraction -of the inhabitants of the universe. In pure egoism conduct is judged -as good or bad solely with reference to the results, immediate or -remote, which that conduct produces, or is calculated to produce, on -the _self_. To the savage, that is right or wrong which affects -favourably or unfavourably _himself_ or his _tribe_. And this -sectional spirit of the savage has, as has been shown, characterised -the moral conceptions of the peoples of all times. The practice -human beings have to-day—the practice of those (relatively) broad -and emancipated minds who are large enough to rise above the petty -prejudices and ‘patriotisms’ of the races and corporations of -men, and are able to view ‘the world as their country’ (the -world of _human_ beings, of course)—the practice such minds have of -estimating conduct solely with reference to its effects upon the -human species of animals is a practice which, while infinitely -broader and more nearly ultimate than that of the savage, belongs -logically in the same category with it. The partially emancipated -human being who extends his moral sentiments to all the members of -his own species, but denies to all other species the justice and -humanity he accords to his own, is making on a larger scale the same -ethical mess of it as the savage. The only consistent attitude, -since Darwin established the unity of life (and the attitude we -shall assume, if we ever become really civilised), is the attitude -of _universal gentleness and humanity_. - -‘The world is my country,’ said Thomas Paine, and every man, -woman, and child capable of appreciating the exalted sentiment -applauded. But ‘the world’ of the great freethinker was -inhabited by _men only_. - -The following lines were written by Robert Whitaker, and first -printed in a San Francisco newspaper: - - ‘My Country is the world! I count - No son of man my foe, - Whether the warm life currents mount - And mantle brows like snow, - Or whether yellow, brown, or black, - The face that into mine looks back. - - ‘My Native Land is Mother Earth, - And all men are my kin, - Whether of rude or gentle birth, - However steeped in sin; - Or rich or poor, or great or small, - I count them brothers one and all. - - ‘My Flag is the star-spangled sky, - Woven without a seam, - Where dawn and sunset colours lie, - Fair as an angel’s dream, - The Flag that still unstained, untorn, - Floats over all of mortal born - - ‘My Party is all humankind, - My Platform, brotherhood; - I count all men of honest mind - Who work for human good, - And for the hope that gleams afar. - My comrades in the holy war. - - ‘My Country is the world! I scorn - No lesser love than mine, - But calmly wait that happy morn - When all shall own this sign, - And love of country, as of clan, - Shall yield to love of Man.’ - -Robert Whitaker, you are a grand improvement on the ‘jingo.’ But -you are still too small. There are conceptions as much more -prophetic and exalted than yours as your conception is superior to -that of the Figian. - -Broad as he is who can look upon all men as his brethren and -countrymen—broad as he is compared with those groundlings called -‘patriots,’ who can see nothing clearly beyond the bounds of the -political unit to which they belong—he is not broad enough. He is -still a _sectionalist_, a _partialist_. He represents but a _stage_ -in the process of ethical expansion. He is, in fact, small compared -with the _universalist_, just as the savage is small compared with -the philanthropist. ‘Mankind,’ ‘humanity,’ ‘all men,’ -‘the whole human family’—these are big conceptions, too big -for the poor little nubbins of brains with which most millions make -the effort to think. But they are pitifully small compared with that -grand conception of kinship which takes in all the races that live -and move upon the earth. Smaller yet are these conceptions compared -with that sublime and supreme synthesis which embraces not only the -present generation of terrestrial inhabitants, but which extends -longitudinally as well as laterally, extends in time as well as in -space, and embraces the generations which shall grow out of the -existing generation and which are yet unborn—_that conception -which recognises earth-life as a single process, world-wide and -immortal, every part related and akin to every other party and each -generation linked to an unending posterity_. - -Every individual, therefore, emancipated enough to judge of acts of -conduct according to their intrinsic natures and consequences rather -than according to some local or traditional bias, cannot help -knowing that the exploitation of birds and quadrupeds for human whim -or convenience is an offence against the laws of morality, not -different in kind from the offences denounced in human laws as -robbery and murder. The creophagist and the hunter exemplify the -same somnambulism, are the authors of the same kind of conduct, and -belong literally in the same category of offenders, as the cannibal -and the slave-driver. To take the life of an ox for his muscles, or -to kill a sheep for his skin is _murder_, and those who do these -things or cause them to be done are _murderers_ just as actually as -highwaymen are who blow off the heads of hapless wayfarers for their -guineas. If these things _seem untrue_ it is not because they _are_ -untrue, but because those to whom they seem so _are unable to judge -conduct from the quadrupedal point of view_. If there were in this -world beings as much more clever than Caucasians as Caucasians are -more clever than cows and sheep, and these beings should regard -themselves as the darlings of the gods and should attach a -fictitious dignity and importance to their own lives, but should -look upon Caucasians as simply so much ‘beef’ and ‘mutton,’ -these bleached terrorists of the world would in the course of a few -generations of experience probably become sufficiently illumined to -realise that current human conceptions of cows and sheep are not -only preposterous, but fiendish. - -VII. The Origin of Provincialism. - -Human provincialism, all of it, is the consequence of a common -cause—_the provincialism of the savage_. Back of the provincialism -of the savage is, of course, the antecedent fact of primordial -egoism. The savage is the common ancestor of all men, and as such -has imparted to all men their general characters of mind and heart. -Everything that grows, whether it be a tree, a human being, a grass -blade, or a race, grows from something. This something, this germ or -embryo from which each thing springs, imparts to the thing its -fundamental characters. However far anything may evolve, and however -much it may come to differ superficially from its original, it will -always remain at heart more or less faithful to the facts of its -genesis. This hereditary tendency of everything, this tendency -toward invariability, is the conservative, or inertial tendency of -the universe. All races, colours, and conditions of men—civilised, -slightly civilised, and barbarous—extend back to, and take root -in, savages, just as all savages have probably sprung in some still -more remote period of the past from a single stirp of anthropoids. -The savage is, therefore, the author of human nature and philosophy. -Just as the fish, which is the common ancestor of all amphibians, -reptiles, birds, and mammals, has predetermined the general -structural style of all subsequently evolved vertebrates, so the -savage, as the original ancestor of mankind, has predetermined the -general mental and dispositional make-up of all higher men. That -civilised and semi-civilised men are naturally narrow and -revengeful, selfish and superstitious, and find it next to -impossible to feel and act toward others as they would like to have -others feel and act toward them, is, therefore, not more mysterious -than that vertebrates have red blood, two eyes, two pairs of limbs, -and a backbone with a bulging brain-box at the hither end of it. -Just as the habits, beliefs, and conceptions of the child persist, -often but slightly modified, in the full-grown man or woman, so the -habits, beliefs, and conceptions, formed by the race in its -childhood, continue, under the influence of the same laws of -inertia, on into the more mature stages of racial development. Human -nature changes with great reluctance, and only in its superficial -aspects at that. There are cave-men, men with the primitive ideas -and practices of the Stone Age, and men in the pastoral and hunting -stages of mankind, in all the highest societies of men. There is -scarcely a habit, vice, occupation, amusement, crime, or trait of -character, found among men of the past but may be seen still among -our contemporaries. - -Altruism (other-love) is just as natural as egoism (self-love) is. -There is not so much of it in the world as there is of egoism. But -that is simply the misfortune of our place of existence. There is no -reason why there might not have been as much, or even more, under -different conditions. With the same antecedents, nothing can, of -course, happen differently from what does happen. But with different -antecedents, different causes, the results are bound to be -different. Civilised men are not beings of altruism, because they -are not the _effects_ of that kind of _causes_. But there is no -reason why there might not be a world—several of them, in fact, or -even a universeful—where the inhabitants have never known or heard -of such an indelicate thing as of beings preferring themselves to -others—where it is as natural for them to act toward each other -according to what we call the Golden Rule as it is for us -terrestrial heathens to violate it. It is possible to conceive of -beings with even too much altruism. The ideal condition is one of -balanced egoism and altruism—one in which each thinks as much of -others as he does of himself, no more and no less. And if beings -were endowed with natures rendering them not only willing but -_determined_ to act primarily in the interests of others, and this -condition of things were universal, there would be about as much -discord and strife as if everyone acted in the interest of himself. -The Golden Rule among a lot of hypothetical otherists like this -would be the opposite of ours, for, instead of emphasising the -importance of others as we do, they would need to encourage regard -for self. Wouldn’t it seem original to live in a world where men -were sent to gaol for over-benevolence, and where sermons had to be -preached on such texts as, ‘Love thyself as thy neighbour’; -‘It is more blessed to receive than to give’; ‘Avoid doing to -yourself that which you do not like when done to others’; ‘The -Lord loves a cheerful taker’; and the like? - -The persistence with which savage ideas and instincts continue to -influence men long after those ideas and instincts have really -become anachronistic and vestigial is well illustrated by civilised -men and women everywhere. The sun continues to ‘rise’ and -‘set’ in all civilised lands just as it used to do to the -savage, although men have long since learned that it does not do -either. Hell, as originally conceived, was an actual subterranean -region, and heaven was an abode located a few hours’ journey above -the supposedly flat earth. To-day we continue to say ‘_up_ to -heaven,’ and ‘_down_ to hell’ (never ‘down to heaven’ and -‘up to hell’), and always think of these places as being thus -relatively located, although it is extremely doubtful whether any -really sane mind continues to believe that hell is on the inside of -the earth (or any place else, for that matter), and although _up_ -means simply away from the centre of the earth, and away from the -centre of a ball means literally every possible direction. The -theological theories of the origin, nature, and destiny of man and -of the universe in general, all of which originated in savage or -semi-savage minds, and all of which bear the unmistakable traces of -their origin, continue to cling to the minds of the masses of -civilised men, notwithstanding the inherent absurdity of these -theories, and notwithstanding the fact that their unsoundness is -vouched for by the most positive and unanimous assurances from the -scientific world. Why should civilised men and women, any of them, -be indifferent to the sufferings of others, or find delight in such -loathsome avocations as the fishing and hunting of their -fellow-creatures? Because their ancestors were savages, and they are -not yet sufficiently evolved to be independent of the instincts of -their savage sires. There is no other explanation. No human being -could enjoy seeing a pack of hounds hunt down and rend to pieces a -poor harmless hare—unless he were a savage. No human being could -go out to the abodes of the squirrel and quail, and shoot murderous -balls into their beautiful bodies for food or fun—unless he were a -savage. No human being would lounge all day about the margins of a -brook, blind to the beauties of the stream and the glories of forest -and sky, in order to thrust brutal hooks into the lips of those whom -he deceives, and drag them from their waters to suffocate in the -sun—unless he were a savage. No human being would have palaces and -parks and yachts and equipages, townships of lands, packs of hounds, -and studs of horses, troops of lackeys and nothing to do, when all -around him are the men and women who made this wealth, half clad and -half starved, suffocating in shanties and working like wretches from -morning till night—unless he were a savage. All of these deeds are -savage deeds, deeds of exceeding thoughtlessness and brutality, and, -instead of being enjoyable, are to every emancipated mind positively -painful. - -Hunting, fishing, and fighting are the chief occupations of savage -life. Back of the activities displayed in these occupations are -powerful instincts prompting and sustaining them. Civilised peoples -are devoted primarily to the arts of industry and peace. But there -are enough savages in every civilised society, and enough of the -savage spirit in those who pretend to approximate the civilised -state, to give to civilised life a decidedly barbaric aspect. War is -a more or less regular exercise, and killing and competing and -torturing enter largely into the pastimes of all peoples. Next to -eating, fighting, in one form or another, is the favourite pursuit -of men nearly everywhere on holy days and days of leisure. Whenever -human beings have any energy or time left over from what they are -required to spend in maintaining their existence, they use it in -fighting somebody or in watching somebody else fight. And generally -the more brutal and sanguinary the conflict, the more popular and -satisfying it is. Witness the bull-fights and cock-fights of Spain -and Mexico, the fisticuffs of Anglo-Saxons, and the baseball and -slugball battles of the Americans, where eager thousands gather and -roar for hours like hysterical idiots simply to see one animal or -set of animals punish or discredit another. If there are no pigeons -to shoot, or if the community is ruled by men and women who are too -emancipated to allow such things, we make glass birds and heroically -bang away at them, supplying by our imaginations the blood and agony -of real carnage. And if we can’t do anything else, we take some -poor pig, that never did anyone any harm in the world, and grease it -and turn it loose, and then take after it with knives, as Chicago -butchers do on vacation days, and see who can cut its throat the -quickest. This amusement, in pure barbarity, certainly stands pretty -near the top in the list of human pastimes so far invented. Maybe it -is outclassed by that other contest sometimes advertised as a -feature of butchers’ barbecues, in which a band of professional -cutthroats compete to see who can kill, skin, and eviscerate the -largest number of their fellow-beings in a given time. - -Games and other performances in which interest is aroused by -contending or killing are all of them entertainments gotten up -primarily for the amusement of the under-exercised savage within us. -The bloody carnivals of the ancient Romans, which seem so -incomprehensible to the people of to-day, find their diabolical -parallels right here in our high-sniffing civilisation. The -bull-pen, where poor quadrupeds are baited by gorgeous assassins for -the amusement of Castilian communities, and the cockpit and the -prize-ring, where irate fowls and naked thugs peck and pound each -other to insensibility for the entertainment of blood-loving mobs, -are the legitimate successors of the gladiatorial arena of the -Romans. The gladiatorial horror is not changed, either in its nature -or functions, by changing the combatants to cocks and bulls. The -ringside roars that rise to-day beside the Tagus and the Hudson over -the fatal thrust of the matador or the knockout lunge of the -pugilist are howls of barbaric elation arising from the satisfaction -of the same instincts as those which seventeen centuries ago made -amphitheatres thunder at the spectacle of gutted Gauls. The ability -to enjoy strife and suffering in one form is not different in kind -from the ability to be entertained by strife and suffering in any -other form. Beings who can follow in riotous glee the terrified form -of a fleeing stag, or shout ecstatically at sight of the -death-stagger of a mangled ox, are psychologically equipped to go -into raptures over the blood-curdling combustions of a literal hell. - -Few pastimes indulged in by civilised peoples are more horrible to -an emancipated mind than that of bull-fighting. It is the national -amusement of Spain, and is carried on among all peoples who have -acquired their natures and institutions from the Spanish. ‘Every -Sunday afternoon, whenever the weather permits, 14,000 or 15,000 men -and women, representing every class of society, mothers and -grandmothers, priests and monks, assemble at the Plaza de Toros in -Madrid to witness the most brutal spectacle the human taste -approves. Six bulls are tortured and worried until they are -exhausted. Then they are killed by the thrusts of the sword of a -matador, who is the most popular person in the community and makes -more money than any other man. Often as many as twelve horses are -ripped open by the horns of the infuriated bulls, and are allowed to -die in the presence of the audience, with blood gushing from their -wounds and their entrails dragging upon the ground. This sort of -thing is carried on not only in Madrid, but is a regular weekly -festival in all the cities of Spain. The horses are blindfolded, so -they cannot even see what attacks them. The men who torture the -bulls have wooden screens behind which they can dodge when pursued, -and if one of the baited creatures crowds too closely upon any of -its tormentors, the other matadors throw a blanket over its head. It -is not sport, for the poor bulls have no chance whatever to escape -or to fight back. It is simply slow butchery, an exhibition of -unmitigated cowardice and cruelty. And yet, although the Spanish -people are the most religious people of Europe, 95 per cent, of the -population approve this atrocious barbarism—not only approve it, -but demand that the King shall appear in the royal box at every -bull-fight, or have his throne upset.’ - -The notorious ‘Juke’ family of criminals, who sprang from a -single ruffian who lived in 1720, has cost the State of New York -millions of dollars in money and incalculable misery and crime. But -the initial savage progenitors of the human species have stocked the -earth with the most stupendous array of wrong-doers—knaves, -felons, kings, warriors, barbarians, butchers, brutalitarians, -kleptomaniacs, and thugs—that has ever (let us hope) brought -damnation to a world. - -VIII. Universal Ethics.∂ - -There are the same reasons for the recognition by human beings of -ethical relations to non-human beings as there are for the -recognition by human beings of ethical relations among themselves -Analyse the reasons for being considerate toward men, any variety of -men, and you will find the same reasons to exist for being -considerate toward all men. And analyse the reasons for being -altruistic toward men—for being kind and sympathetic toward -them—and you will find the same reasons to exist for being -altruistic toward those who are not men. The doctrine that we human -beings may perform upon the other inhabitants of the earth all sorts -of injurious acts, and that these acts when so performed by us are -perfectly right and proper, but that these same things when done by -others to us are crimes, is the logic of pure brutalitarianism. It -is a doctrine utterly without intelligence, at variance with every -sentiment of justice and humanity, and has no legitimate existence -outside the fibrous brains of ruffians. - -_Right_ and _wrong_ are qualities belonging to two diverse kinds of -conduct. They are the qualities which render conduct respectively -proper and improper. All terrestrial races (unless the very lowest) -have the power of experiencing two kinds of conscious states—the -desirable (pleasurable) and the undesirable (painful). Now, if -beings were indifferent as to what sort of conscious states entered -into and made up their experiences, there would manifestly be no -such thing as propriety and impropriety in the causing of these -states. But they are not indifferent. The pleasurable experiences -are the experiences all beings are seeking, and the painful ones are -the ones they are all seeking to avoid. Those acts which help or -tend to help beings to those experiences for which they are striving -are, therefore, right and proper, and are, they and their authors, -called _good_. While those acts which compel beings to undergo that -which they are striving to avoid are improper and wrong, and are, -they and their authors, called _bad_. Kindness, courtesy, justice, -mercy, generosity, sympathy, love, and the like, are good, and -selfishness, cruelty, deceit, pillage, injustice, and murder, are -bad, because they are respectively the promoters and destroyers of -wellbeing and happiness in the world. - -But these two kinds of conduct produce the same respective effects -upon non-human beings as they do upon human beings. The emotion of a -mangled sensory—is it not the same terrible thing whether the -sensory hang to the brain of a quadruped or a man? Do shelter and -food not affect shivering and empty cattle, horses, and fowls, -precisely as they do human beings? Thunder harsh words at your dog. -Will he not shrink and suffer, just as your child or hired hand will -under like acts of terrorisation? Speak kindly to him, love him, and -accord to him a quarter of the consideration you claim for yourself. -Is he not caused to be one of the happiest and most devoted of -associates? To take squirrels or song-birds, the most active of -animals, and shut them up in narrow cages, and keep them there shut -off from their companions and their own green world their whole -lives long; to take an animal as sensitive and high-minded as the -horse and put a pack on his back and a bit in his mouth, and then -strike him dozens of times a day with a lash whose touch is like -fire; to shoot off the legs and wings of birds and fill their vitals -with lead, and leave them to flounder out a lingering death in the -reeds and grasses—do these things not cause misery and desolation -in the world? To place temptations in the way of fur-bearing animals -and induce them to enter carefully concealed traps, and then allow -them to remain in the villainous clutches of these devices, not -minutes, but hours, perhaps days, until it suits the convenience of -the ensnarer to knock out their brains, or until, crazed by pain, -the poor wretches eat off their own limbs and escape—is not this a -_monstrous_ thing to do? - -Oh that men everywhere were moved by the deep tenderness and the -all-embracing sympathy of poor Robert Burns, who could apologise -with real feeling to a frightened field-mouse whom he had -accidentally upturned with his plough. - - ‘Wee, sleekit, cow’rin’, tim’rous beastie, - O, what a panic’s in thy breastie! - Thou needna start awa’ sae hasty, - Wi’ bick’ring brattle! - I had be laith to rin and chase thee, - Wi’ murd’rous pattle! - ‘I’m truly sorry man’s dominion - Has broken nature’s social union, - And justifies that ill opinion - Which makes thee startle - At me, thy poor, earth-born companion, - And fellow-mortal.’ - -Long ago it was said, and truthfully, that the merciful man is -merciful to his ox. The truly kind man, the truly honest and the -truly humane man, is not kind and honest and humane to men only, but -to _all_ beings—to the humble and lowly as well as to the proud -and powerful—_to all that have the misfortune to feel and mourn_. -Benevolence is the same beautiful thing whether it pour sunshine -into the dark and saddened souls of men or into the dark and -saddened souls of other beings. John Howard never hearkened to a -nobler duty when he lifted the darkness that hung over English gaols -than will some inflamed soul some day who hears the cry of the -lonely captives who to-day languish in menagerial dungeons to -satisfy human curiosity. He who will emancipate horses from the hell -in which they pass their lives—make them the associates of men -instead of their slaves—will deserve to stand in the constellation -of the world’s redeemers beside Garrison and Garibaldi. Is there -he who holds in his heart-cups the love and compassion of Buddha? -Let him go where the dagger drips and the heartless pole-axe -crashes, and the meek-eyed millions of the meadows pour out their -innocent existences in the soulless houses of slaughter. Let him -lift from off the races the hounding incubus of fear, give back to -them their birthright—the right to a free, unhunted life—and -make the great monster (man) to be their high-priest and friend. - - ‘Among the noblest in the land, - Though he may count himself the least, - That man I honour and revere - Who, without favour, without fear, - In the great city dares to stand - The friend of every friendless beast, - And tames with his unflinching hand - The brutes that wear our form and face, - The were-wolves of the human race.’ - -If to do good is to generate welfare, then to cause welfare to a -horse, a bird, a butterfly, or a fish, is to do good just as truly -as to cause welfare to men. And if to do evil is to cause -unhappiness and illfare, then to cause these things to one -individual or race is evil just as certainly as to cause them to any -other individual or race. And if to put one’s self in the place of -others, and to act toward them as one would wish them to act toward -him, is the one great rule—the Golden Rule—by which men are to -gauge their conduct when acting toward each other, then this is also -the one great rule—the Golden Rule—by which men are to regulate -their conduct toward all beings. There is no escape from these -conclusions, except for the savage and the fool.[1] - -1. The deliberate causing of misery and death to criminals, whether -they be human or non-human beings, individuals or species, is not, -as is sometimes supposed, a violation or reversal of the general -theory of ethics. When they are prompted by a spirit of tenderness -and universal goodness rather than by a spirit of revenge, penalties -are justifiable by the everyday assumption that it is sometimes wise -to inflict or undergo a certain amount of illfare in order to avoid -or forestall a larger amount. The problems of universal penology are -not different from those of human penology, practically the same -cases and perplexities being presented by all delinquents. See -‘Better-World Philosophy,’ by the author, pp. 218-227, for a -discussion of the function of punishment. - -IX. The Psychology of Altruism.∂ - -The growth of altruism in the world has been largely cotemporaneous -with the growth of the power of _sympathy_. Sympathy is the emotion -a being has when by means of his imagination he gets so actually -into the place of another that his own feelings duplicate more or -less the feelings of that other. It is the ability or the impulse to -weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who are glad. -Sympathy is the substance and the only sure basis of morality—the -only tie of sincere and lasting mutualism. Men have always been to a -considerable extent, and are yet, disposed to think about and act -toward each other from motives of mutual fear or advantage. But such -motives are not the highest nor the most reliable bonds of -fellowship and unity. True altruism and solidarity—true expansion -and universalisation of the self—are found in sympathy. It is -impossible for one individual to do in his heart to another as he -would that another should do to him, unless he is at all times able -and willing to get into the place of that other, and to realise in -his own consciousness the results to the other of his acts. It is -only when there is such an intertwining of the consciousnesses that -the joys and sorrows of each individual consist to a greater or less -extent of the reflexes of the joys and sorrows around him that there -exists true social oneness. The great task of reforming the universe -is, therefore, since the world is so steeped in selfishness and -hate, the task of endowing beings, or the task of stocking the -universe with beings, with dispositions to get out of themselves. If -the far-away first parents of men and women had been broad-minded -beings instead of narrow—had been beings whose most natural -impulse was to be kind to others, and whose sympathies were as -far-reaching as feeling—terrestrial life would not to-day present -to the all-seeing understanding the disheartening spectacle it does -present, and the long struggle for justice and amelioration would -not have been. - -The primary fact prompting and underlying the exploitation of one -being or set of beings by another is, and has always been. -_Selfishness_. Whenever and wherever one people have exploited -another—whether the exploiters have been savages, Jews, Romans, -Caucasians, or men—they have done so primarily because the act of -exploitation was a convenience and pleasure to them and in harmony -with their natures. This selfishness, in the case of civilised -peoples, has been acquired by them through inheritance from the -savage tribes from whom they have severally evolved; and the -selfishness of the savage is a legacy from the animal forms from -whom the savage has come. Human selfishness is simply an eddy of an -impulse that is universal—an impulse that has been implanted in -the nature of the life-process of the earth by the manner in which -life has been evolved. - -But there is another fact which has generally, if not always, -contributed to every act of exploitation in this world, and that is -_Ignorance_—ignorance on the part of those who have executed the -exploitation: not ignorance of grammar or geography or any other -particular branch of human information or philosophy, but ignorance -regarding those upon whom they have worked their -will—unconsciousness on the part of the exploiters of the -similarity which actually existed between themselves and their -victims. However free an individual may be from naturally selfish -impulses, he will never act in an altruistic manner toward others -unless he is able to realise that these others, are similar to -himself, and that acts toward them produce results of good and evil, -of welfare and suffering, similar to what these same acts produce -when done to himself. Altruistic conduct implies not only altruistic -impulses, but altruistic conceptions as well. Tyrants hold, and have -always held, themselves to be an entirely different order of beings -from their subjects, and far more deserving. Read history—it is a -tale told over and over. Between those who have ruled and those who -have served—between the Ends and the Means—has ever yawned a -chasm, wide, deep, and impassable. The exploited have always been, -according to their masters, a fibrous set, unfavoured and unthought -of by the gods, endowed with little feeling or intelligence, and -brought into existence more or less expressly as adjuncts to their -masters. This is the theory of the savage, and it is the theory of -all those who have inherited his narrow and unfeeling philosophy. -The Gentile had no rights because he was a ‘pagan.’ He was a -human being, it is true, and had come forth from the womb of woman, -just as the Jew had. But he spoke a different language from the -Jews, had his own ways of life, belonged to a different order of -things, and was irritatingly unconcerned about the gods and -traditions of the ‘chosen people.’ The Gaul had no rights that -were inconvenient to Romans, because he was a ‘barbarian.’ The -fact that he had blood, and brains, and nerves, and love of life, -and ambitions, and that he suffered when he was subjected to -humiliation, hard treatment, and death, just as Romans did, was -never really thought of by the arrogant and reckless Romans. Romans -never realised in their minds what it meant for non-Romans to be -treated as they were treated; and one reason why they never realised -it was because it was convenient for them not to do so. To kill or -enslave a Gaul or German we now know, who are able to judge these -acts from an un-Roman and unprejudiced point of view, was -practically the same crime as to kill or enslave a Roman. But it was -not so to Romans. The most trifling offence against a Roman citizen -was enough, according to Roman law, to condemn the offender to -execution. But the most horrible outrages, when committed by Romans -upon non-Romans, were nothing. Romans always thought and felt _from -the standpoint of Romans_. They never got over into the world of the -‘barbarians,’ and really pictured to themselves—_really -felt_—the misfortunes of their victims. It was the same way with -the black man in the eyes of the white man a generation or two ago; -it is the same way with the brown man to-day. The black man had no -rights that were inconvenient for the white man to respect, because -he was a ‘nigger,’ and had no ‘soul,’ and was the offspring -of Ham. This spirit of unconsciousness, which has been so prominent -throughout the history of mankind, still survives in the minds of -civilised men and women to-day, as is shown by the conception (or -_mis_conception) cherished by the Caucasian toward the ‘nigger,’ -by the Christian toward the ‘heathen,’ by the Moslem toward the -‘infidel,’ by the Protestant toward the Catholic, and _vice -versâ_, by the plutocrat toward the proletarian, by men toward -women, and by the human being toward the ‘animal.’ - -The psychology of the exploitation of nonhuman beings by human -beings is not different in kind from the psychology of any other act -of exploitation. The great first cause of man’s inhumanity to -not-men is the same precisely as the great first cause of man’s -inhumanity to man—_Selfishness_—blind, brutal, unconscionable -egoism. Monopolist-like man thinks and cares only about himself. He -has the heart of the bully—deriving from the contemplation of his -fiendish supremacy a sort of monstrous satisfaction. But there is -also present in this case the same half-sincere, half-fostered -nescience as in all other cases of exploitation. The ox, the hare, -the bird, and the fish have no rights in the world in which they -live other than those that are convenient for men to allow to them, -because they are ‘animals.’ They are assumed to belong to an -order of beings entirely different from that to which human beings -belong. They are filled with nerves, and brains, and bloodvessels; -they love life, and bleed, and struggle, and cry out when their -veins are opened, just as human beings do; they have the same -general form and structure of body, their bodies are composed of the -same organs busied with the same functions; and they are descended -from the same ancestors and have been developed in the same world -through the operation of the same great laws as we ourselves have. -But all of these things, and dozens of others just as significant, -are disregarded by us in our hard-hearted determination to exploit -them. We have a set of words and phrases which we use in speaking of -ourselves, and another very different set for other beings. The very -same things are called by different names with wholly different -connotations depending on whether it is a man that is referred to or -some other being. It is ‘murder’ to take the life of a human -being, but to take the life of a sheep or a cow is only ‘knocking -it on the head.’ A man may murder squirrels or birds all -day—that is, he may do that which when done to human beings is -called murder—but it is only ‘sport’ when done to these humble -inhabitants of the wilds. The dead body of a man is a ‘corpse’; -the dead body of a quadruped is only a ‘carcass.’ A race of -horses or dogs is a ‘breed’; but a breed of men and women is -always respectfully referred to as a race. We perpetuate our -blindness by the use of words. We accommodate our consciences by -inventing ways of looking at things that will bring out our own -lustre and relieve us from the ghastly faces of our crimes. For the -human race to rob and kill other races is the same kind of activity -exactly as it is for human beings to rob and kill each other. But it -is not considered so to-day—except by a few lost-caste -‘visionaries’ scattered here and there over Christendom, and -some millions of ‘heathens’ in Asia. - -A short time ago a series of letters came into my hands written from -Burmah by an American missionary in that country. According to this -writer, one of the greatest obstacles the missionaries have to -contend with in their work there is the hostility aroused in the -people by the killing and flesh-eating habits of the missionaries -themselves. The native inhabitants, who are the most compassionate -of mankind, look upon the Christian missionaries, who kill and eat -cows and shoot monkeys for pastime, as being little better than -cannibals. Contemplate the presumption necessary to cause an -individual to leave behind him fields white for mission-work, and -travel, at great expense, halfway round the earth in order to preach -a narrow, cruel, anthropocentric gospel to a people of so great -tenderness and humanity as to be kind even to ‘animals’ and -enemies! - -We human beings feel at liberty to commit any kind of outrage upon -other races, and these outrages are looked upon by us as nothing. -But the most trifling annoyances of other races are deemed by us of -sufficient consequence to justify us in visiting upon them the most -fearful retributions. We can break up the laboriously built home of -a mother mouse in the rubbish-heap of our back yard, scatter the -pink babies of that mother over the ground to die of cold and -starvation, and cause the frightened mother to flee at the risk of -her very life—all to give to the terrier and ourselves a little -moment of savage pastime. But if that same mother, some hard -winter’s night, when she has failed in her search elsewhere for -something to stay her hunger, comes into our larder and nibbles a -bit of cheese or a few mouthfuls of crust from our pie, although she -takes but a crumb in all, and is as dainty in her feeding as a lady, -we immediately get out our traps and poisons and storm around as if -a murder or some other irreparable wrong had been committed. We -think of our acts toward non-human peoples, when we think of them at -all, _entirely from the human point of view_. We never take the time -to put ourselves in the places of our victims. We never take the -trouble to get over into their world, and realise what is happening -over there as a result of our doings toward them. It is so much more -comfortable not to do so—_so much more comfortable to be blind and -deaf and insane_. We go on quieting our consciences, as best we can, -by the fact that everybody else nearly is engaged in the same -business as we are, and by the fact that so few ever say anything -about the matter—anaesthetised, as it were, by the universality of -our iniquities and the infrequency of disquieting reminders. - -Many years ago an eccentric but gifted Englishman had a dream in -which he saw the fortunes of the world reversed. Man was no longer -master, but victim. The earth was ruled by the birds and quadrupeds, -the mice and monkeys, who proceeded to inflict upon their erstwhile -tyrant the same cruelties he had hitherto inflicted upon them. -‘Multitudes of human beings were systematically fattened for the -carnivora. They were frequently forwarded to great distances by -train, in trucks, without food or water. Large numbers of infants -were constantly boiled down to form broth for invalid animals. In -over-populous districts babies were given to malicious young cats -and dogs to be taken away and drowned. Boys were hunted by terriers -and stoned to death by frogs. Mice were a good deal occupied in -setting mantraps, baited with toasted cheese, in poor -neighbourhoods. Gouty old gentlemen were hitched to night-cabs, and -forced to totter, on their weak ankles and diseased joints, to -clubs, where fashionable young colts were picked up, and taken, at -such speed as whipcord could extract, to visit chestnut fillies. -Flying figures in scarlet coats, buckskins, and top-boots were run -down by packs of foxes that had nothing else to do. Old cock-grouse -strutted out for a morning’s sport, and came in to talk of how -many brace of country gentlemen they had bagged. Gamekeepers lived a -precarious life in holes and caves. They were perpetually harried by -game and vermin; held fast in steel traps, their toes were nibbled -by stoats and martens; and finally, their eyes picked out by owls -and kites, they were gibbeted alive on trees, head downwards, until -the termination of their martyrdom. In one especially tragic case, a -naturalist in spectacles dodged about painfully among the topmost -branches of a wood, while a mias underneath, armed with a gun, -inflicted on him dreadful wounds. A veterinary surgeon of Alfort was -stretched on his back, his arms and legs secured to posts, in order -that a horse might cut him up alive for the benefit of an equine -audience; but the generous steed, incapable of vindictive feelings, -with one disdainful stamp on the midriff, crushed the wretch’s -life out’.[1] - -The following is from the Chinese. The speaker is an ox: - -‘I request, good people, that you will listen to what I have to -say. _In the whole world there is no distress equal to that of the -ox_. In spring and summer, autumn and winter, I diligently put forth -my strength; during the four seasons there is no respite to my -labours. I drag the plough, a thousand-pound weight fastened to my -shoulders. Hundreds of thousands of lashes are, by a leather whip, -inflicted upon me. Curses and abuses, in a thousand forms are poured -upon me. I am driven, with threatenings, rapidly along, and not -allowed to stand still. Through the dry ground or the deep water I -with difficulty drag the plough, with an empty belly; the tears flow -from both my eyes. I hope in the morning that I shall be early -released, but I am detained until the evening. If, with a hungry -stomach, I eat the grass in the middle of the field, the whole -family, great and small, insultingly abuse me. I am left to eat any -species of herbs among the hills, but you, my master, yourself -receive the grain that is sown in the field. Of the _chen paddy_ you -make rice; of the _no paddy_ you make wine. You have cotton, wheat, -and herbs of a thousand different kinds. Your garden is full of -vegetables. When your men and women marry, amid all your felicity, -if there be a want of money, you let me out to others. When pressed -for the payment of duties, you devise no plans, but take and sell -the ox that ploughs your field. When you see that I am old and weak, -you sell me to the butcher to be killed. The butcher conducts me to -his home and soon strikes me in the forehead with the head of an -iron hatchet, after which I am left to die in the utmost distress. -My skin is peeled off, my bones are scraped, and my skin is taken to -cover the drum by which the country is alarmed.’ - - ‘Witness the patient ox, with stripes and yells - Driven to the slaughter, goaded as he runs - To madness, while the savage at his heels - Laughs at the frantic sufferer’s fury.’ - -The angler brags about his ‘haul’ and the hunter about his -‘bag’ and his ‘big game’ with as little realisation of what -these things mean as the slave-master boasts of his ‘niggers.’ -Men talk of ‘chops’ and ‘steaks’ and ‘roasts’ with the -same somnambulism, the same profound unconsciousness of what these -things really signify in the psychic economies of the world, as the -conqueror contemplates his ‘captives,’ the robber his -‘spoil,’ or the savage his ‘scalps.’ If before the eyes and -in the mind of each individual who sits unconcernedly down to a -parsleyed ‘steak’ could rise the facts in the biography of that -‘steak’—the happy heifer on the far western meadows, the -fateful day when she is forced by the drover’s whip from her -home,[2] the arduous ‘drive’ to the village and her baffled -efforts to escape, the crowding into cars and the long, painful -journey, the silent heartaches and the low, pitiful moans, the -terrible hunger and thirst and cold, her arrival, bruised and -bewildered, in the city, her dazed mingling with others, the great -murder-house, the prods and bellowings, the treacherous crash of the -brain-axe, the death drop and shudder, the butcher’s knife, the -gush of blood from her pretty throat, and the glassy gaze of her -dead but beautiful eyes—there would be, in spite of the inherent -hardness of the human heart, a great drawing back from those acts -which render such fearful things necessary. If human beings _could -only realise_ what the hare suffers, or the stag, when it is pursued -by dogs, horses, and men bent on taking its life, or what the fish -feels when it is thrust through and flung into suffocating gases, no -one of them, not even the most recreant, could find pleasure in such -work. _How painful_ to a person of tenderness and enlightenment is -_even the thought_ of rabbit-shootings, duck-slaughterings, -bear-hunts, quail-killing expeditions, tame pigeon massacres, and -the like! And yet with what light-hearted enthusiasm the mindless -ruffians who do these atrocious things enter upon them! One would -think that grown men would be ashamed to arm themselves and go out -with horses and hounds and engage in such babyish and unequal -contests as sportsmen usually rely on for their peculiar -‘glory.’ And they would be if grown men were not so often simply -able-bodied bullies. _If human beings could only realise what it -means to live in a world and associate day after day with other -beings more intelligent and powerful than themselves, and yet be -regarded by these more intelligent individuals simply as merchandise -to be bought and sold, or as targets to be shot at, they would hide -their guilty heads in shame and horror_. - -The Being from whose breaking heart gushed these lines of sorrow and -sympathy on seeing a wounded hare was a god: - - ‘Inhuman man! curse on thy barbarous art, - And blasted be thy murder-aiming eye: - May never pity soothe thee with a sigh, - Nor ever pleasure glad thy cruel heart! - - ‘Go, live, poor wanderer of the wood and field - The bitter little that of life remains; - No more the thickening brakes and verdant plains - To thee shall home, or food, or pastime yield. - - ‘Seek, mangled one, some place of wonted rest, - No more of rest, but now thy dying bed; - The sheltering rushes whistling o’er thy head. - The cold earth with thy bloody bosom pressed. - - ‘Oft, as by winding Nith I, musing, wait - The sober eve or hail the cheerful dawn, - I’ll miss thee sporting o’er the dewy lawn. - And curse the ruffian’s aim and mourn thy hapless fate.’ - -We human beings, in our conduct toward the races of beings -associated with us on this planet, are almost pure _savages_. We are -not even half civilised. And this fact is certain to bring upon us -the criticism and condemnation of the more enlightened generations -to come. The fact is apparent to-day, however—just as apparent as -the barbarity of the Romans—to everyone who will take the trouble -to rid himself of the prejudices which enslave and blind him, and -view human phenomena from an un-human, extra-terrestrial point of -view. - -To most persons—to all except to a few—everything is simply a -matter of habit and education. And a majority of persons, too, can -become educated to one thing about as easily and completely as they -can to another. In Mr. Huxley’s ‘Man’s Place in Nature’ -there is reprinted from an old volume the picture of a butcher’s -shop as it is said to have existed among the savage Anziques of -Africa in the sixteenth century. Mr. Huxley says that the original -engraving claims to represent an actual fact, and that he has -himself no doubt but it does really stand for just what it purports -to represent, especially since the fact has been corroborated by Du -Chaillu in comparatively recent times. The fact for which this old -picture stands is a good illustration of the power of custom in -shaping human ideas. In this savage ‘market’ pretty much the -same line of goods appears as is found in modern ‘markets,’ -except that, instead of the quartered corpses of sheep and bullocks, -there hang the shoulders, thighs, and gory heads of men. The butcher -is represented as standing beside the chopping-block in the act of -cutting up the leg of a man. A child’s head and other fragments of -the human body are piled up on another block, and behind these on -pegs are ranged the more pretentious wares of the establishment. -‘Presently we passed a woman,’ says Du Chaillu, in speaking of -the cannibalism of the Fans, who were probably identical with those -referred to two centuries earlier as Anziques. ‘She bore with her -a piece of the thigh of a human body, just as we should go to market -and carry thence a roast of steak.’ We can easily imagine (by the -help of the sights we see every day) the anthropophagous crowd -standing around giving their early morning orders, and the -enterprising assassin hustling about to wait on them. One of them -wants an arm, another wants a leg, another a liver, another a -half-dozen nice fat ribs. One fellow wants a tender ‘cut’ of -young girl’s sirloin, and another would like an old man’s calf -for soup. A little naked urchin, who has had to wait a long time in -order to get a chance to buy anything at all, exchanges a few shells -for a section of human bologna. One fellow wants to know the price -of the boy’s head which lies on the neighbouring block, and a -woman complains that the baby’s brains which she bought the day -before, and which were recommended as being especially ‘fresh and -nice,’ turned out to be ‘bad.’ We can see them go home with -their gruesome purchases, cook them, and sit down and eat them, -discussing their flavour or their lack of it, and remarking their -tenderness, toughness, or juiciness, and finally throwing the bones -out to the dogs—all with as little thought of the immorality of it -as ‘Thanksgiving’ gluttons have to-day at their feasts of blood. -There may have been an occasional ‘visionary’ among these people -fanatical enough to ‘refuse to eat meat,’ or even to protest -against the practice. Probably there was. There generally are a few -such discordants in every generation of vipers. But ‘fanatics’ -in those days were in all likelihood, as they are to-day, too few to -be troublesome. - -To anyone familiar with the pliability of the human conscience, or -with the soundness and depth of intellectual sleep, these things are -neither impossible nor strange. There is so little looking into the -essence of things, so little looking at things as they are, and so -much thinking and doing as we are accustomed or told to think and -do—there are, in fact, so few who can really think at all—that -if we had been accustomed and taught to do so from childhood, and -the world were practically unanimous in its conduct and teachings on -the matter, very few of us indeed would not sit down to a breakfast -of scrambled infant’s brains, a luncheon of cold boiled aunt, or a -dinner of roast uncle, with as little compunction, perhaps with the -same horrible merriment, as we to-day attend a ‘barbecue’ or a -‘turkey.’ Why should we not make hash and sausages out of our -broken-down grandfathers and grandmothers just as we do out of our -worn-out horses, and help out the pigeons at our killing carnivals -with a few live peasants? How much more artistic and civilised to -pile our tables on holy days with the gold and crimson of the fields -and orchards than to load them with the dead! And yet how strangely -few are mature enough to care anything at all about the matter. - -Oh, the helplessness and irresponsibility of the human mind! There -is no spontaneity, no originality, only the dead level of the -machine. How impossible it is for us to think, to discover anything -unassisted, to perceive anything after it has been pointed out to us -even, if it is a little different from what we are used to! This, it -seems to me, is one of the most pathetic things in all this -world—this illimitable impotence, this powerlessness to inspect -things from any other point of view than the one we inherit when we -come into the world; to be a knave or lunatic (or the next thing to -it), and never have the slightest suspicion of the fact. The human -mind will certainly not always be this way. It will surely be -different some time. It seems incredible that the planet will drag -along in disgrace this way forever. The men of Europe and America -are not so primitive as the junglemen, and the junglemen are -superior in some respects to the quadrupeds and reptiles, and this -gives reason for a little hope. _But when that is the question, when -will it be? In what distant time will the Golden Dream of our -prophetic hours come to this poor darkened larva of a world?_ Ages -upon ages after our little existences have gone out, and the -detritus of our wasted bodies has wandered long in the labyrinths of -the sod or been sown by aimless gusts over our native hills. - -1. Hamley: _Our Poor Relations_; Boston, 1872. -2. I have many times seen cows chased all over their native -premises, round and round, through fields and barnyards, across -streams and over fences—chased until the poor things were utterly -exhausted, and whipped and beaten until their faces and backs were -covered with wounds—before they could be compelled to leave for -ever the old farm where they had been born and raised. - -X. Anthropocentric Ethics. - -Anthropocentricism, which drifted down as a tradition from ancient -times, and which for centuries shaped the theories of the Western -world, but whose respectability among thinking people has now nearly -passed away, was, perhaps, the boldest and most revolting expression -of human provincialism and conceit ever formulated by any people. It -was the doctrine that man was the centre about whom revolved all -facts and interests whatsoever; and Judaism and its two children, -Christianity and Mahometanism, were responsible for it. Everything, -according to this conception, was interpreted in terms of human -utility. Everything was made for man—including women. The sun and -moon were luminaries, not worlds, hung there by the fatherly -manufacturer of things for the convenience and delight of his -children. The stars were perforations in the overarching concave -through which eavesdropping prophets peered into celestial secrets, -and errand-angels came and went with messages between gods and men. -Not only the spheres in space, but the earth and all it -contained—the rivers, seas, and seasons, all the plants that grow, -and all the flowers that blow, and all the millions that swim and -suffer in the waters and skies—were, according to this remorseless -notion, the soulless adjuncts of man. Intrinsically they were -meaningless. They had significance only as they served the human -species. The hues and perfumes of flowers, the songs of birds, the -dews, the breezes, the rains, the rocks, the ‘beasts of the field -and the fowls of the air,’ the great forests, the mighty -mountains, the fearful solitudes, even famine and pestilence, were -all made for the being with the reinless imagination. Luther -believed that the fly—festive little _Musca domestica_, who -inhabits our homes, and sometimes unwittingly wanders over our -tender places—was a pestiferous invention of the devil, -maliciously sent to annoy him in his meditations. Garlic grew on the -swamp brim as a handy antidote for human malaria. Fruits ripened in -the summertime because the acids and juices which they contained -were believed to be necessary for man’s health and refreshment. -The great muscles of the ox were made to provide men with delicacies -and leisure. The cloak of the ewe was made without any special -thought, or without any thought at all, of the comforts of the ewe. -It was placed there on the ewe by an all-tender creator, to be torn -by his images from her bleeding back and worn. The fossil forms -found in the rocks were not the _bonâ fide_ remains of creatures -that had lived and perished when the calcareous foundations of the -continents were forming in ancient sea-beds. They were counterfeits, -slyly designed by a suspicious providence, and sandwiched among the -strata ‘to test human faith.’ The rainbow was a phenomenon with -which the laws of reflection and refraction had nothing whatever to -do. It was a sign or seal stamped on the retreating storms as a -pledge that submersion would not be again used as a punishment for -sinners. The universal ruler was conceived to be an individual of -transcendent power and respectability, but was supposed to spend the -most of his time and a good deal of anxiety on the regulation and -repair of his illustrious likenesses. - -The history of intellectual evolution is the history of -disillusionment. The stars, we now know, are not hatchways, but -worlds. They burn because they are fire. They blaze and circle in -obedience to their own unchangeable inertias, just as the earth -does. They blazed and wheeled when the elemental matters of the -earth mingled indistinguishably with the vapours of the sun, and -they will blaze and wheel when the last inhabitant of this clod has -dissolved into the everlasting atoms. The earth is not the capital -of cosmos nor the subject of celestial anxiety. The earth is a -satrap of the sun—a subordinate among servants, not a sovereign -with a retinue of stars. The earth and its contents were not made -for man. They were not made at all. They were evolved. The concaves -of the sea have been hollowed, the mountains upheaved, and the -continents planted and peopled, by the same tendencies as those that -hold the universes in their grasp. The primal matters of the earth -came out of the substance of the sun, and by the play and activity -of these elements and the play and activity of their derivatives -were evolved all the multitudinous forms of land, fluid, plant, -animal, and society. The flowers that ‘blush unseen’ do not -necessarily ‘waste their sweetness on the desert air,’ as the -poet so melodiously imagines. The colours and scents of flowers -serve their purposes—which are to secure the services of insects -in fertilisation—quite as well when unperceived, as when perceived -by human senses. The non-human races of beings were not made for -human beings. They were evolved—the higher forms from the lower -forms, and the lower forms from still lower—just as the higher -societies of men have been evolved, under the eye of history, out of -barbarism and savagery. They are our ancestors. They have made human -life and civilisation possible. They made their homes on primeval -land patches when the continents we creep over were sleeping in the -seas. They lived and loved and suffered and died in order that a -being intelligent enough to analyse himself and recreant enough to -pick their bones might come into the world. - -There are supposed to be something like a million (maybe there are -several million) species of inhabitants living on the earth. The -human species is one of these. Not more than a few thousand of these -species are seriously advantageous to men. The harmful and useless -species are many times more numerous than the helpful. Now, if the -999,999 non-human species were made for the human species, why were -the hundreds of thousands of species made that are of no possible -human importance, and the hundreds of thousands of other species -that are a positive injury? And if by some miraculous stretch of -imagination the 999,999 species now living on the earth are -conceived to have been made for man, why were the 10,000,000 or -15,000,000 of species made that lived and passed away before there -was a human being in existence. Perhaps the traditionist will -say—accustomed as he is to treat syllogisms with contempt—that -they were made to invigorate human ‘faith.’ - -If the age of the human species be estimated at 50,000 years and the -age of the life-process at 100,000,000 years, the time during which -man has been on the earth is, when compared with the entire period -during which the planet has been tenanted, as 1 to 2,000. And the -time during which the earth has been inhabited—immense as that -time is when compared with the little span of human history—is -also insignificant when compared with the enormous lapse of time -during which the planet was slowly cooling and solidifying -preliminary to the existence of life. And the entire life of the -planet—inconceivably vast as it is—is as nothing compared with -that eternity, that duration without beginning or close, during -which the sidereal millions have undergone, and are destined to -continue to undergo, their countless and immeasurable -transformations. - -It is about as profound to suppose that the earth and its contents, -and the suns, stars, and systems of space, were all made for a -single species inhabiting an obscure ball located in a remote -quarter of the universe as it is to suppose that the gigantic body -of the elephant was made for the wisp of hair on the tip of its -tail. _Man_ is _not_ the _end_, he is but an _incident_, of the -infinite elaborations of Time and Space. - -XI. Ethical Implications of Evolution. - -The doctrine of organic evolution, which forever established the -common genesis of all animals, sealed the doom of -anthropocentricism. Whatever the inhabitants of this world were or -were thought to be before the publication of ‘The Origin of -Species,’ they never could be anything since then but a _family_. -The doctrine of evolution is probably the most important revelation -that has come to the world since the illuminations of Galileo and -Copernicus. The authors of the Copernican theory enlarged and -corrected human understanding by disclosing to man the comparative -littleness of his world—by discovering that the earth, which had -up to that time been supposed to be the centre and capital of -cosmos, is in reality a satellite of the sun. This heliocentric -discovery was hard on human conceit, for it was the first broad hint -man had thus far received of his true dimensions. The doctrine of -evolution has had, and is having, and is destined to continue to -have, a similarly correcting effect on the naturally narrow -conceptions of men. It tends to fry the conceit out of us. It has -been impossible since Darwin for any sane and honest man to go -around bragging about having been ‘made in the image of his -maker,’ or to successfully lay claim to a more honourable origin -than the rest of the creatures of the earth. And if men had accepted -the logical consequences of Darwin’s teachings, the world would -not to-day—a half-century after his revelation—be filled with -practices which find their only support and justification in -out-of-date traditions. But logical consequences, as Huxley -observes, are the official scarecrows of that large and prolific -class of defectives usually known as fools. The doctrine of -evolution is accepted in one form or another by practically all who -think. It is taught even in school primers. But while the _biology_ -of evolution is scarcely any longer questioned, the _psychology_ and -_ethics_ of the Darwinian revelation, though following from the same -premises, and almost as inevitably, are yet to be generally -realised. Darwin’s revelation, like every other revelation that -has come to the world, is perceived most tardily by those working in -departments where the phenomena are the most intangible and -complicated. - -Darwin himself called ‘the love for all living creatures the most -noble attribute of man.’ Giant as he was, he perceived more -clearly than any of his contemporaries, more clearly even than his -successors, the ultimate goal of evolving altruism. For he says: -‘As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into -larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual -that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all -members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. There -is, then, only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies -extending to the men of all nations and races. Experience, however, -shows us how long it is, if such men are separated from him by great -differences of appearance or habits, before he looks upon them as -his fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man is one of -the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, -except for their pets. The very idea of humanity, so far as I could -observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue -seems to arise from our sympathies becoming more tender and more -widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient -beings.’[1] - -The influences of a doctrine old enough and precious enough to have -become embodied in the life and institutions of a race persist -generally, through mere momentum, long after the substance of the -doctrine has passed away. This is eminently true of that -misconception which has come down to us regarding the nature and -origin of man and his relations to the rest of the universe. Darwin -has lived, shed his light over the world, and passed back to the -dust whence he came. Men no longer believe that other races and -other worlds were really made for them. But they continue to _act_ -in about the same manner as they did when; they _did_ believe it. -This assertion applies not simply to those half-baked intelligences -who have only the rudest and most antiquated notions about anything -but also to thousands of men and women who pretend to have -up-to-date conceptions of themselves and the universe—men and -women noted even for their activity in reminding others of their -inconsistency—men and women who - - ‘Compound for sins they are inclined to, - By damning those they have no mind to.’ - -The doctrine of Universal Kinship is not a new doctrine, born from -the more brilliant loins of modern understanding. It is as old -almost as human philosophy. It was taught by Buddha twenty-four -hundred years ago. And the teachings of this divine soul, spreading -over the plains and peninsulas of Asia, have made unnumbered -millions mild. It was taught also by Pythagoras and all his school -of philosophers, and rigidly practised in their daily lives. -Plutarch, one of the grandest characters of antiquity, wrote several -essays in advocacy of it. In these essays, as well as in many -passages of his writings generally, he demonstrates that he was far -ahead of his contemporaries in the breadth and intensity of his -moral nature, and in advance even of all except a very few of those -living to-day, 2,000 years after him. Shelley among the poets of -modern times, and Tolstoy in these latter days, are others among the -eminent adherents of this holy cause. - -Wherever Buddhism prevails, there will be found in greater or less -purity, as one of the cardinal principles of its founder, the -doctrine of the sacredness of all Sentient Life. But the Aryan race -of the West has remained steadfastly deaf to the pleadings of its -Shelleys and Tolstoys, owing to the overmastering influence of its -anthropocentric religions. Not till the coming of Darwin and his -school of thinkers was there a basis for hope of a reformed world. -To-day the planet is _ripe_ for the old-new doctrine. Tradition is -losing its power over men’s conduct and conceptions as never -before, and Science is growing more and more influential. A central -truth of the Darwinian philosophy is the unity and consanguinity of -all organic life. And during the next century or two the ethical -corollary of this truth is going to receive unprecedented -recognition in all departments of human thought. Ignorance and -Inertia are fearful facts. They endure like granite in the human -mind. But the tireless chisels of evolution are invincible. And the -time will come when the anthropocentric customs and conceptions, -which are to-day fashionable enough to be ‘divine,’ will have -nothing but a historic existence. The movement to put Science and -Humanitarianism in place of Tradition and Savagery, which is so -weak, languishing, and neglected to-day, is a movement which has for -its ultimate destiny the conquest of the Human Species. - -1. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874. - -XII. Conclusion. - -_All beings are ends;_ _no_ creatures are _means_. All beings have -not equal rights, neither have all men; but _all have rights_. The -_Life Process_ is the _End_—_not man_, nor any other animal -temporarily privileged to weave a world’s philosophy. Nonhuman -beings were not made for human beings any more than human beings -were made for nonhuman beings. Just as the sidereal spheres were -once supposed by the childish mind of man to be unsubstantial -satellites of the earth, but are known by man’s riper -understanding to be worlds with missions and materialities of their -own, and of such magnitude and number as to render terrestrial -insignificance frightful, so the billions that dwell in the seas, -fields, and atmospheres of the earth were in like manner imagined by -the illiterate children of the race to be the mere trinkets of men, -but are now known by all who can interpret the new revelation to be -beings with substantially the same origin, the same natures, -structures, and occupations, and the same general rights to life and -happiness, as we ourselves. - -In their phenomena of life the inhabitants of the earth display -endless variety. They swim in the waters, soar in the skies, squeeze -among the rocks, clamber among the trees, scamper over the plains, -and glide among the grounds and grasses. Some are born for a summer, -some for a century, and some flutter their little lives out in a -day. They are black, white, blue, golden, all the colours of the -spectrum. Some are wise and some are simple; some are large and some -are microscopic; some live in castles and some in bluebells; some -roam over continents and seas, and some doze their little day-dream -away on a single dancing leaf. But they are all the children of a -common mother and the co-tenants of a common world. Why they are -here in this world rather than some place else; why the world in -which they find themselves is so full of the undesirable; and -whether it would not have been better if the ball on which they ride -and riot had been in the beginning sterilised, are problems too deep -and baffling for the most of them. But since they are here, and -since they are too proud or too superstitious to die, and are -surrounded by such cold and wolfish immensities, what would seem -more proper than for them to be kind to each other, and helpful, and -dwell together as loving and forbearing members of One Great Family? - -Act toward others as you would act toward a part of your own self. - -This is _The Great Law_, the all-inclusive gospel of social -salvation. It is the rule of social rectitude and perfection which -has been held up in greater or less perfection in all ages by the -sages and prophets of the human species. - -Hear Confucius, the giant of Mongolia, and the idol and law-giver of -one-third of mankind: - -‘What you do not like when done to yourself do not do to others.’ - -And again he says: - -‘Do not let a man practise to those beneath him that which he -dislikes in those above him.’ - -Over and over again the illustrious master repeats these precepts to -his disciples and countrymen. - -In the Mahabharata, the great epic of the Sanskrit, written by -Indian moralists in various ages, and representing the accumulated -wisdom of one of the most marvellous of all peoples, we find these -words: - -‘Treat others as thou wouldst thyself be treated.’ - -‘Do nothing to thy neighbour which thou wouldst not hereafter have -thy neighbour do to thee.’ - -‘A man obtains a rule of action by looking upon his neighbour as -himself.’ - -These same truths were also taught by Jesus, that godlike Galilean, -the great teacher and saviour of the Western world: - -‘Love thy neighbour as thyself.’ - -‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ - -Oh that these words were etched in fire, and stamped in scorching -characters on the dull, cold hearts of this world! - -Act toward others as you would act toward a part of your own self. - -Look upon and treat others as you do your own hands, your own eyes, -your very heart and soul—with infinite care and compassion—as -suffering and enjoying members of the same Great Being with -yourself. This is the spirit of the ideal universe—the spirit of -your own being. It is this alone that can redeem this world, and -give to it the peace and harmony for which it longs. Yes, - - ‘So many gods, so many creeds, - So many paths that wind and wind, - While just the art of being kind - Is all the sad world needs.’ - -Oh the madness, and sorrow, and unbrotherliness of this mal-wrought -world! Oh the poor, weak, poisoned, monstrous natures of its -children! Who can look upon it all without pain, and sympathy, and -consternation, and tears? What an opportunity for philanthropy, if -the ‘All-mighty One’ of our traditions would only set about it! - -Yes, do as you would be done by—and _not_ to the dark man and the -white woman alone, but to the sorrel horse and the gray squirrel as -well; _not_ to creatures of your own anatomy only, but to all -creatures. You cannot go high enough nor low enough nor far enough -to find those whose bowed and broken beings will not rise up at the -coming of the kindly heart, or whose souls will not shrink and -darken at the touch of inhumanity. Live and let live. Do more. Live -and _help_ live. _Do to beings below you as you would be done by -beings above you_. Pity the tortoise, the katydid, the wild-bird, -and the ox. Poor, undeveloped, untaught creatures! Into their dim -and lowly lives strays of sunshine little enough, though the fell -hand of man be never against them. They are our fellow-mortals. They -came out of the same mysterious womb of the past, are passing -through the same dream, and are destined to the same melancholy end, -as we ourselves. Let us be kind and merciful to them. - - ‘Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods? - Draw near them, then, in being merciful; - Sweet mercy is nobility’s true badge.’ - -Let us be true to our ideals, true to the spirit of Universal -Compassion—whether we walk with the lone worm wandering in the -twilight of consciousness, the feathered forms of the fields and -forests, the kine of the meadows, the simple savage on the banks of -the gladed river, the political blanks whom men call wives, or the -outcasts of human industry. - -Oh this poor world, this poor, suffering, ignorant, fear-filled -world! How can men be blind or deranged enough to think it is a good -world? How can they be cold and satanic enough to be unmoved by the -groans and anguish, the writhing and tears, that come up from its -unparalleled afflictions? - -But _the world is growing better_. And in the Future—in the long, -long ages to come—it will be redeemed! The same spirit of sympathy -and fraternity that broke the black man’s manacles and is to-day -melting the white woman’s chains will to-morrow emancipate the -working man and the ox; and, as the ages bloom and the great wheels -of the centuries grind on, the same spirit shall banish Selfishness -from the earth, and convert the planet finally into one unbroken and -unparalleled spectacle of Peace, Justice, and Solidarity. - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's The Universal Kinship, by J. Howard Moore - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP *** - -***** This file should be named 61363-0.txt or 61363-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/1/3/6/61363/ - -Produced by L. Reeves from scans generously made available -by the Internet Archive. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |