{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61363/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61363","id":"gutenberg_61363","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61363","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Human beings","Sociology"],"text":"THE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP\n\nBY\n\nJ. HOWARD MOORE\n\nINSTRUCTOR IN ZOOLOGY, CRANE MANUAL TRAINING HIGH SCHOOL, CHICAGO\n\n\n  \u2018A Sacred Kinship I would not forego\n  Binds me to all that breathes.\u2019\n\n  \u2014 Boyesen.\n\n\nCHICAGO\n\nCHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n\n56 FIFTH AVENUE\n\n1906\n\n\nTO\n\nMY DEAR MOTHER AND FATHER\n\nWHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR ME IN THE LONG YEARS\n\nTHAT ARE PAST AND GONE\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n_The Universal Kinship_ means the kinship of all the inhabitants of\nthe planet Earth. Whether they came into existence among the waters\nor among desert sands, in a hole in the earth, in the hollow of a\ntree, or in a palace; whether they build nests or empires; whether\nthey swim, fly, crawl, or ambulate; and whether they realise it or\nnot, they are all related, physically, mentally, morally\u2014this is\nthe thesis of this book. But since man is the most gifted and\ninfluential of animals, and since his relationship with other\nanimals is more important and more reluctantly recognised than any\nother, the chief purpose of these pages is to prove and interpret\nthe kinship, of the human species with the other species of animals.\n\nThe thesis of this book comes pretty squarely in conflict with\nwidely-practised and highly-prized sins. It will therefore be\ngenerally criticised where it is not passed by in silence. Men as a\nrule do not care to improve. Although they have but one life to\nlive, they are satisfied to live the thing out as they have started\non it.\n\nEnthusiasm, which in an enlightened or ideal race would be devoted\nto self-improvement, is used by men in weaving excuses for their own\ninertia or in singing of the infirmities of others.\n\n_But there is a Future_. And the creeds and ideals, men bow down to\nto-day will in time to come pass away, and new creeds and ideals\nwill claim their allegiance. Shrines change as the generations come\nand go, and out of the decomposition of the old comes the new. The\ntime will come when the sentiments of these pages will not be hailed\nby two or three, and ridiculed or ignored by the rest; _they will\nrepresent Public Opinion and Law_.\n\nM.\nChicago, 1905\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nTHE PHYSICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. Man an Animal\n  II. Man a Vertebrate\n  III. Man a Mammal\n  IV. Man a Primate\n  V. Recapitulation\n  VI. The Meaning of Homology\n  VII. The Earth an Evolution\n  VIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution\n  IX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution\n  X. The Genealogy of Animals\n  XI. Conclusion\n\nTHE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. The Conflict of Science and Tradition\n  II. Evidences of Psychical Evolution\n  III. The Common-sense View\n  IV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared\n  V. Conclusion\n\nTHE ETHICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle\n  II. Egoism and Altruism\n  III. The Ethics of the Savage\n  IV. The Ethics of the Ancient\n  V. Modern Ethics\n  VI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings\n  VII. The Origin of Provincialism\n  VIII. Universal Ethics\n  IX. The Psychology of Altruism\n  X. Anthropocentric Ethics\n  XI. Ethical Implications of Evolution\n  XII. Conclusion\n\n\nTHE PHYSICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. Man an Animal\n  II. Man a Vertebrate\n  III. Man a Mammal\n  IV. Man a Primate\n  V. Recapitulation\n  VI. The Meaning of Homology\n  VII. The Earth an Evolution\n  VIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution\n  IX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution\n  X. The Genealogy of Animals\n  XI. Conclusion\n\n\n  \u2018Like the Roman emperors, who, intoxicated by their power, at\n  length regarded themselves as demigods, so the ruler of the earth\n  believes that the animals subjected to his will have nothing in\n  common with his own nature. Man is not content to be the king of\n  animals. He insists on having it that an impassable gulf separates\n  him from his subjects. The affinity of the ape disturbs and humbles\n  him. And, turning his back upon the earth, he flies, with his\n  threatened majesty, into the cloudy sphere of a special \u201chuman\n  kingdom.\u201d But Anatomy, like those slaves who followed the\n  conqueror\u2019s car crying, \u201cThou art a man,\u201d disturbs him in his\n  self-admiration, and reminds him of those plain and tangible\n  realities which unite him with the animal world.\u2019\n\n  \u2014 Broca.\n\n\nTHE UNIVERSAL KINSHIP\n\nThe PHYSICAL KINSHIP\n\nI. Man an Animal.\n\nIt was in the zoology class at college. We had made all the long\njourney from amoeba to coral, from coral to worm, from worm to\nmollusk, from mollusk to fish, from fish to reptile, and from\nreptile to mammal\u2014and there, in the closing pages of faithful old\nPackard, we found it. \u2018A mammal of the order of primates,\u2019 the\nbook said, with that unconcern characteristic of the deliverances of\nscience. I was almost saddened. It was the first intimation I had\never received of that trite but neglected truth that _man is an\nanimal_.\n\nBut the intimation was so weak, and I was at that time so\nunconscious, that it was not till years later that I began, through\nreflection, actually to realise the truth here first caught sight\nof. During these years I knew that man was not a mineral nor a\nplant\u2014that, indeed, he belonged to the animal kingdom. But, like\nmost men still, I continued to think of him as being altogether\ndifferent from other animals. I thought of man _and the animals_,\n_not_ of man and the _other_ animals. Man was somehow _sui generis_.\nHe had had, I believed, a unique and miraculous origin; for I had\nnot yet learned of organic evolution. The pre-Darwinian belief that\nI had come down from the skies, and that non-human creatures of all\nkinds had been brought into existence as adjuncts of the\ndistinguished species to which I belonged, occupied prominent place\nin my thinking. Non-human races, so I had been taught, had in\nthemselves no reason for existence. They were accessories. A chasm,\ntoo wide for any bridge ever to span, yawned between the human and\nall other species. Man was celestial, a blue-blood barely escaping\ndivinity. All other beings were little higher than clods. So\nfaithfully and mechanically did I reflect the bias in which I had\ngrown up.\n\nBut man _is_ an _animal_. It was away out there on the prairies,\namong the green corn rows, one beautiful June morning\u2014a long time\nago it seems to me now\u2014that this revelation really came to me. And\nI repeat it here, as it has grown to seem to me, for the sake of a\nworld which is so wise in many things, but so darkened and wayward\nregarding this one thing. However averse to accepting it we may be\non account of favourite traditions, man is an animal in the most\nliteral and materialistic meaning of the word. Man has not a spark\nof so-called \u2018divinity\u2019 about him. In important respects he is\nthe most highly evolved of animals; but in origin, disposition, and\nform he is no more \u2018divine\u2019 than the dog who laps his sores, the\nterrapin who waddles over the earth in a carapace, or the\nunfastidious worm who dines on the dust of his feet. Man is not the\npedestalled individual pictured by his imagination\u2014a being\nglittering with prerogatives, and towering apart from and above all\nother beings. He is a pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking,\ndeath-dreading organism, differing in particulars, but not in kind,\nfrom the pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking, death-dreading organisms\nbelow and around him. Man is neither a rock, a vegetable, nor a\ndeity. He belongs to the same class of existences, and has been\nbrought into existence by the same evolutional processes, as the\nhorse, the toad that hops in his garden, the firefly that lights its\ntwilight torch, and the bivalve that reluctantly feeds him.\n\nMan\u2019s body is composed fundamentally of the same materials as the\nbodies of all other animals. The bodies of all animals are composed\nof clay. They are formed of the same elements as those that murmur\nin the waters, gallop in the winds, and constitute the substance of\nthe insensate rocks and soils. More than two-thirds of the weight of\nthe human body is made up of oxygen alone, a gas which forms\none-fifth of the weight of the air, more than eight-ninths of that\nof the sea, and forty-seven per cent, of the superficial solids of\nthe earth.\n\nMan\u2019s body is composed of cells. So are the bodies of all other\nanimals. And the cells in the body of a human being are not\nessentially different in composition or structure from the cells in\nthe body of the sponge. All cells are composed primarily of\nprotoplasm, a compound of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.\nLike all other animals, man is incapable of producing a particle of\nthe essential substance of which his body is made. No animal can\nproduce protoplasm. This is a power of the plant, and the plant\nonly. All that any animal can do is to burn the compounds formed in\nthe sun-lit laboratories of the vegetable world. The human skeleton,\nlike the skeletons of nearly all other animals, is composed chiefly\nof lime\u2014lime being, in the sea, where life spent so many of its\nearlier centuries, the most available material for parts whose\npurpose it is to furnish shape and durability to the organism. Man\ngrows from an egg. So do all creatures of clay. Every animal\ncommences at the same place\u2014in a single, lowly, almost homogeneous\ncell. A dog, a frog, a philosopher, and a worm cannot for a long\ntime after their embryonic commencement be distinguished from each\nother. Like the oyster, the ox, the insect, and the fish, like all\nthat live, move, and breathe, man is mortal. He increases in size\nand complexity through an allotted period of time; then, like all\nhis kindred, wilts back into the indistinguishable flux from which\nhe came. Man inhales oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. So does\nevery animal that breathes, whether it breathe by lungs, gills,\nskin, or ectosarc, and whether it breathe the sunless ooze of the\nsea floor or the ethereal blue of the sky. Animals inhale oxygen\nbecause they eat carbon and hydrogen. The energy of all animals is\nproduced mainly by the union of oxygen with the elements of carbon\nand hydrogen in the tissues of animal bodies, the plentiful and\nardent oxygen being the most available supporter of the combustion\nof these two elements.\n\nMan is, then, an animal, more highly evolved than the most of his\nfellow-beings, but positively of the same clay, and of the same\nfundamental make-up, with the same eagerness to exceed and the same\ndestiny, as his less pompous kindred who float and frolic and pass\naway in the seas and atmospheres, and creep over the land-patches of\na common clod.\n\nII. Man a Vertebrate.\n\nMan is a _vertebrate_ animal.[1] He has (anatomically at least) a\nbackbone. He belongs to that substantial class of organisms\npossessing an articulating internal skeleton\u2014the family of the\nfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most animals have\nsome sort of skeleton, some sort of calcareous contrivance, whose\nbusiness it is to give form and protection to the softer parts of\nthe organism. Some animals, as the starfishes, have plates of lime\nscattered throughout the surface parts of the body; others, as the\ncorals and sponges secrete plant-like frames, upon and among the\nbranches of which the organisms reside; and still others, as the\nclams, crustaceans, and insects, have skeletons consisting of a\nshell or sheath on the outside of, and more or less surrounding, the\nsofter substances of the body. The limbs of insects are tiny tubes\non the inside of which are the miniature muscles with which they\nperform their marvels of locomotion. The skeleton of vertebrates,\nconsisting of levers, beams, columns, and arches, all skilfully\njoined together and sunk deep within the muscular tissue, forms a\nconspicuous contrast to the rudimentary frames of other animals. The\nvertebrate skeleton consists of a hollow axis, divided into segments\nand extending along the dorsal region of the body, from the ventral\nside of which articulate, by means of awkwardly-constructed girdles,\nan anterior and a posterior pair of limbs. This dorsal axis ends in\nfront in a peculiar bulbous arrangement called the head, which\ncontains, among other valuables, the brain and buccal cavern. The\nthoracic segments of the backbone send off pairs of flat bones,\nwhich, arching ventrally, form the chest for the protection of the\nheart and other vitals. The limbs (except in fishes) consist each of\na single long bone, succeeded by two long bones, followed by two\ntransverse rows of short, irregular wrist or ankle bones, ending\nnormally in five branching series of bones called digits. This is\nessentially the skeleton of all fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds,\nand mammals. In short, it is the universal vertebrate type of frame.\nThere are minor modifications to suit the various kinds of\nenvironment, adaptations to the necessities of aquatic, terrestrial,\nand aerial locomotion and life, some parts being specialised, others\natrophied, and still others omitted, but there is never anywhere,\nfrom fishes to philosophers, any fundamental departure from the\nestablished vertebrate type of skeleton.[2] The pectoral fins of\nfishes correspond to the fore-limbs of frogs and reptiles, the wings\nof birds, and the arms of men. The pelvic fins of fishes are\nhomologous with the hind-limbs of frogs, reptiles, and quadrupeds,\nand the legs of birds, apes, and men. The foot of the dog and\ncrocodile, the hand of the orang, and the flipper of the dolphin and\nseal, all have the same general structure as the hand of man; and\nthe wings of the bat and bird, the forelimbs of the lizard and\nelephant, and the comical shovels of the mole and ornithorhynchus,\nnotwithstanding the great differences in their external appearance\nand use, contain essentially the same bones and the same arrangement\nof the bones as do the arms of men and women. The human body has two\nprimary cavities in it. So have the bodies of all vertebrates: a\nneural cavity containing the brain and spinal cord, and a visceral\ncavity containing the heart, liver, lungs, and alimentary canal.\nInvertebrates have only one body cavity\u2014the one corresponding to\nthe visceral cavity of vertebrates\u2014and the main nerve trunk,\ninstead of extending along the back, as among vertebrates, is in\ninvertebrates located ventrally. Vertebrates are the only animals on\nthe earth that have a highly developed circulatory system, a system\nentirely shut off from the other systems, and containing a heart,\narteries, veins, and capillaries. In all invertebrates the digestive\nand circulatory systems remain to a greater or less extent\nconnected, the blood and food mingling more or less in the general\ncavity of the body. Worms and insects have pulsating tubes instead\nof heart and arteries. Crustaceans have hearts with one chamber, and\nmollusks have two or three chambered hearts, but the blood, instead\nof returning to the heart after its journey through the arteries,\npasses into the body cavity. In man and other vertebrates the\ncirculating current is confined strictly to the bloodvessels, no\nparticle of it ever escaping into the general body cavity. The heart\nof vertebrates is distinguished from that of invertebrates by being\nlocated ventrally. The heart of invertebrates is in the back. The\nblood of vertebrates differs from that of invertebrates in\ncontaining both red and white corpuscles. Invertebrates have white\ncorpuscles only. Worms have yellow, red, or bright green blood. The\nblood of crustaceans is bluish, that of mollusks is white, and that\nof insects dusky or brown. The blood of all vertebrates, excepting\namphioxus, is red. All backboned beings, whether they dwell in seas\nor cities, and whether they build nests or empires, have two eyes,\ntwo ears, nose and mouth, all located in the head, and always\noccupying the same relative position to each other. Invertebrates\nmay have their brains in their abdomen, as do the mites; hear with\ntheir legs or antennae, as many insects do; see with their tunics,\nlike the scallops; and breathe with their skin, as do the worms. The\ncrayfish hears with its \u2018feelers,\u2019 the cricket and katydid with\ntheir fore-legs, the grasshopper with its abdomen, the clam with its\n\u2018foot,\u2019 and mysis and other low crustaceans have their auditory\norgans on their tails.\n\nMan is, then, like the fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, and\nquadrupeds, a vertebrate animal. Excepting in his infancy, when he\nis a quadruped going on all fours, he uses his posterior limbs only\nfor locomotion, and his anterior for prehension and the like. His\nspinal axis is erect instead of horizontal, and his tail is\natrophied. But he possesses all of the unmistakable qualities of the\nvertebrate type of structure\u2014a two-chambered body cavity, a highly\ndeveloped and dorsally located nerve trunk, vertebrate vitals, a\nclosed circulatory system, a ventral heart, red blood, a head\ncontaining sense organs and brain, and a well-ordered internal\nskeleton, consisting of a vertebral column with skull and ribs and\ntwo pairs of limbs, the limbs consisting each of one long bone, two\nlong bones, two transverse rows of irregular bones, and five\nbranches at the end.\n\n1. See \u2018Classes of Animals,\u2019 at the end of the chapter.\n2. Snakes are limbless, and hind-limbs are lacking in whales and\nother degenerates; but rudimentary limbs are found in the embryonic\nstages of these animals. Frogs, it may be said also, have no ribs.\n\nIII. Man a Mammal.\n\nMan is a _mammal_. He belongs to the most brilliant and influential\nof the five classes of vertebrates\u2014the class to which belong so\nmany of his associates and victims, the class to which belong the\nhorse, the dog, the deer, the ox, the sheep, the swine, the\nsquirrel, the camel, the unattenuated elephant, and the\ntimid-hearted hare. To this class belong also the lion, the tiger,\nthe kangaroo, the beaver, the bear, the bat, the monkey, the mole,\nthe wolf, the ornithorhynchus, and the whale\u2014in short, _all\nanimals that have hair_. Fishes and reptiles have scales; birds have\nfeathers; all mammals are covered to a greater or less extent with\nhair. The aquatic habits of whales render hair of no use to them.\nHence, while the unborn of these animals still cling to the\nstructural traditions of their ancestors and are covered with hair,\nthe adults are almost hairless. The sartorial habits of human beings\nand the selective influences of the sexes have had a similar effect\non the hairy covering of the human body. Hair exists all over the\nhuman body surface, excepting on the soles of the hands and feet,\nbut in a greatly dwarfed condition. It is only on the scalp and on\nthe faces of males, where it is scientifically assisted for purposes\nof display, that it grows luxuriantly. It is by no means certain\nthat even the hair on the masculine scalp will last forever. For if\nthe hermetical derby and other deadly devices worn by men continue\ntheir devastations as they have in the past, we may expect to have,\nin the course of generations, men with foreheads reaching regularly\nto the occiput. Most animals lay eggs. Man does not. Like the dog,\nthe horse, the squirrel, and the bat, man is viviparous, the eggs\nhatching within the parental body. Human young are born helpless,\nand are sustained during the period of their infancy by the\nsecretions of the milk glands. So are all the sons and daughters of\nmammals. Whether they come into the world among the waters or among\nthe desert sands, in the hollow of a tree, in a hole in the earth,\nor in a palace, the children of mammals are frail and pitiful, and\nthey survive to grow and multiply only because they are the object\nof the loving and incessant sacrifices of a mother.\n\nMammals are distinguished from all other animals by the possession\nof two kinds of skin glands\u2014the sweat glands and the oil\nglands\u2014and by the development of certain of these glands in the\nfemale into organs for the nourishing of the young. Among reptiles\nand birds the lower jaw is suspended from the skull by a bone called\nthe quadrate bone. Among men and other mammals the lower jaw is\njoined directly to the skull, the quadrate bone becoming, in the\nvicissitudes of evolution, the hammer (malleus) of the mammalian\near. Man has a four-chambered heart\u2014two reservoirs which receive,\nand two pumps which propel, the scarlet waters of the body. Fishes\nhave two-chambered hearts; frogs and most reptiles have\nthree-chambered hearts; all mammals and birds have four-chambered\nhearts. The red corpuscles in the blood of fishes, frogs, reptiles,\nand birds, are discs, double-convex, nucleated, and in shape oval or\ntriangular. In man and in all other mammals (except the archaic\ncamel) the red corpuscles are double-concave, non-nucleated, and\ncircular. \u2018Man has a diaphragm dividing the body cavity into chest\nand abdomen, and a shining white bridge of interlacing fibres,\ncalled _corpus callosum_, uniting his cerebral hemispheres. And man\nis a mammal because, like other mammals, he has, in addition to the\nqualities already mentioned, these valuable and distinct\ncharacteristics.\n\nIV. Man a Primate.\n\nMan is a _primate_. There are four divisions in the order of\nprimates\u2014lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men. But the most interesting\nand important of these, according to man, is man. Man is a primate\nbecause, like other primates, he has arms and hands instead of\nfore-legs. And these are important characteristics. It was a\nsplendid moment when the tendencies of evolution, pondering the\npossibilities of structural improvement, decided to rear the\nvertebrate upon its hind-limbs, and convert its anterior appendages\ninto instruments of manipulation. So long as living creatures were\nable simply to move through the airs and waters of the earth and\nover the surface of the solids, they were powerless to modify the\nuniverse about them very much. But the moment beings were developed\nwith parts of their bodies fitted to take hold of and move and\nfashion and compel the universe around them, that moment the life\nprocess was endowed with the power of miracles. With the invention\nof hands and arms commenced seriously that long campaign against the\ntendencies of inanimate nature which finds its most marvellous\nachievements in the sustained and triumphant operations of human\nindustry. None of the primates excepting man use their hind-limbs as\na sole means of changing their place in the universe, but in all of\nthem the fore-limbs are regularly used as organs of manipulation.\nMan is a primate because his fingers and toes, like those of other\nprimates (except the tiny marmosets of Brazil), end in nails. Man\nhas neither claws to burrow into the earth, talons with which to\nhold and rend his victims, nor hoofs to put thunder into his\nmovements. The human stomach, like that of all the other primates,\nis a bagpipe. The stomach of the carnivora is usually a simple sack,\nwhile rodents have, as a rule, two stomachs, and ruminants four. Man\nis a primate because his milk glands are located on the breast and\nare two in number. The mammary glands vary in number in the\ndifferent orders of mammals, from two in the horse and whale to\ntwenty-two in some insectivora. Most ruminating animals have four,\nswine ten, and carnivora generally six or eight. These glands may be\nlocated in the region of the groin, as in the horse and whale;\nbetween the forelimbs, as in the elephant and bat; or arranged in\npairs extending from the fore to the hind limbs, as in the carnivora\nand swine. In man and all other primates (except lemurs) the mammary\nglands are pectoral and two in number. All primates, including man,\nhave also a disc-shaped placenta. The placenta is the organ of\nnutrition in mammalian embryos. It is found in all young-bearing\nanimals above the marsupials, and consists of a mass of glands\nbetween the embryo and the parental body. In some animals it\nentirely surrounds and encloses the embryo; in others it assumes the\nform of a girdle; and in still others it is bell-shaped. The\nprimates are the only animals in which this peculiar organ is in the\nshape of a simple disc.[1]\n\nThe nearest relatives by blood man has in this world are the\nexceedingly man-like apes\u2014the tailless anthropoids\u2014the gorillas\nand chimpanzees of Africa, and the orangs and gibbons of southern\nand insular Asia. The fact that man is an actual relative and\ndescendant of the ape is one of the most disagreeable of the many\ndistasteful truths which the human mind in its evolution has come\nupon. To a vanity puffed, as is that of human beings, to the\nsplitting, the consanguinity of gorilla and gentleman seems\nhorrible. Man prefers to have arrived on the earth by way of a\nladder let down by his imagination from the celestial concave.\nWithin his own memory man has been guilty of many foolish and\ndisgraceful things. But this attempt by him to repudiate his\nancestors by surreptitiously fabricating for himself an origin\ndifferent from, and more glorious than the rest is one of the most\nabsurd and scandalous in the whole list. It is a shallow logic\u2014the\nlogic of those who, without worth of their own, try to shine with a\nfalse and stolen lustre. No more masterly rebuke was ever\nadministered to those in the habit of sneering at the truth in this\nmatter than the caustic reply of Huxley to the taunt of the\nfat-witted Bishop\u2014that he would rather be the descendant of a\nrespectable ape than the descendant of one who not only closed his\neyes to the facts around him, but used his official position to\npersuade others to do likewise. Man\u2019s reluctance to take his\nanatomical place beside his simian kinspeople has been exceeded only\nby his selfish and high-handed determination to exclude all other\nterrestrial beings from his heaven.\n\nMan is a talkative and religious ape. He is an ape, but with a much\ngreater amount of enterprise and with a greater likelihood of being\nfound in every variety of climate. Like the anthropoid, man has a\nbald face and an obsolete tail. But he is distinguished from his\narboreal relative by his arrogant bearing, his skilled larynx, and\nespecially by the satisfaction he experiences in the contemplation\nof the image which appears when he looks in a mirror.\n\nThe man-like apes are from three to six feet tall, and are all of\nthem very strong, the gorilla, who sometimes weighs over three\nhundred pounds, being about the bravest and most formidable unarmed\nanimal on the planet. They are erect or semi-erect, have loud\nvoices, plantigrade feet, and irritable dispositions\u2014in all of\nthese particulars being strikingly like men. The gorilla,\nchimpanzee, and gibbon are highlanders, preferring the uplands and\nmountains. The orang is a lowlander, living phlegmatically among the\nsylvan swamps of Sumatra and Borneo. The gorilla and chimpanzee are\nterrestrial, seldom going among the trees except to get food or to\nsleep. The orang and gibbon are arboreal, seldom coming to the\nground except to drink or bathe. They all walk on their hind-limbs,\ngenerally in a stooping posture, with their knuckles or fingers\ntouching the ground. But they sometimes walk with their arms hanging\ndown by their sides, and sometimes with their hands clasped back of\ntheir heads to give them balance. None of them ever place their\npalms on the ground when they walk\u2014that is, none of them walk on\nfour feet. The anthropoid races, in the shape of their heads and\nfaces and in the general form and structure of their bodies, and\neven in their habits of life, resemble in a remarkable manner the\nlowest races of human beings. This resemblance is recognised by the\nnegro races, who call the gorilla and chimpanzee \u2018hairy men,\u2019\nand believe them to be descendants of outcast members of their own\nspecies.\n\nThere are differences in structure between man and the apes, just as\nthere are differences in structure between the Caucasian and the\nCaffre, or even between individual Caucasians or individual Caffres.\nThere are differences in structure and topography, often very\nnoticeable differences, even among members of the same family. But\nin all of its essential characters, and extending often to\nastonishing particulars, the structure of man is identical with that\nof the anthropoid.[2]\n\nIn external appearances the man-like races differ from men in having\na luxuriant covering of natural hair. But anthropoids differ very\nmuch among themselves in this particular. The orang, usually covered\nwith long hair, is sometimes almost hairless. There are, too, races\nof human beings whose bodies are covered with a considerable growth\nof hair. The Todas (Australians) and Ainus (aborigines of Japan) are\nnoted for the hairiness of their bodies, certain individuals among\nthem being covered with a real fur, especially on the lower limbs.[3]\n\nIndividuals also often appear in every race with a remarkable\ndevelopment of the hair. Adrian and his son Fedor, exhibited years\nago over Europe as \u2018dog-men,\u2019 are examples. The father was\ncompletely covered with a thick growth of fine dirty-yellow hair two\nor three inches long. Long tufts grew out of his nostrils and ears,\ngiving him a striking resemblance to a Skye terrier. Fedor, and also\nhis sister, were covered with hair like the father, but another son\nwas like ordinary men. The man-like races have also longer arms in\nproportion to the height of the body than man generally has. But\nthis is also true of human infants and negroes. The gibbon has\nrelatively much longer arms than the other anthropoids. It differs\nfrom the chimpanzee in this respect more than the chimpanzee differs\nfrom man. When standing upright and reaching down with the middle\nfinger, the gibbon can touch its foot, while the chimpanzee can\nreach only to the knee. Man ordinarily reaches part way down the\nthigh, but negroes have been known to have arms reaching to the\nknee-pan.[4]\n\nThe skeleton of the African races contains many characters\nrecognised by osteologists as \u2018pithecoid,\u2019 or ape-like. It is\nmassive, the flat bones are thick, and the pelvis narrow. In the\nmanlike apes the large toe is opposable to the other four, and is\nused by them much as the thumb is used. But this difference between\nthe two races of beings is just what might be expected from the\ndifferences in their modes of life. Man has little need of this\nopposability on account of his exclusively terrestrial life, while\nto the ape it is indispensable on account of his arboreal\nenvironment and life. \u2018But there are,\u2019 says Haeckel, \u2018wild\ntribes of men who can oppose the large toe to the other four just as\nif it were a thumb, and even new-born infants of the most\nhighly-developed races of men can grasp as easily with their\nhind-hands as with their forehands. Chinese boatmen row with their\nfeet, and Bengal workmen weave with them. The negro, in whom the big\ntoe is freely movable, seizes hold of the branches of trees with it\nwhen climbing, just like the four-handed apes\u2019.[5]\n\nMany men have lost their arms by accident and have learned to use\ntheir feet as hands with wonderful skill. Not many years ago there\ndied in Europe an armless violinist who had during his lifetime\nplayed to cultured audiences in most of the capitals of the world.\nSome of the most accomplished of penmen hold their pen between their\ntoes. The man-like apes live to about the same age as man, and all\nof them, like man, have beards. The anthropoid beard, too, like the\nhuman, appears at the age of sexual maturity. The human beard often\ndiffers in colour from the hair of the scalp, and whenever it does\nit has been observed to be invariably lighter\u2014never darker\u2014than\nthe hair on the scalp. This is true among all races of men. The same\nrule and the same uniformity exists among anthropoids. The races of\nmankind are divided into two primary groups depending upon the shape\nof the head and the character of the hair: the short-headed races\n(Brachycephali), such as the Malays, Mongols, and Aryans, with round\nor oval faces, straight hair, and vertical profiles; and the\nlong-headed races (Dolichocephali), with woolly hair and prognathous\nfaces, such as the Papuans and Africa races. The skin of the\nshort-headed races is orange or white, while the skin and hair of\nthe long-headed races are glossy black.\n\nIt is, at least, interesting that the orang and gibbon, who live in\nAsia and its islands, where the brachycephalic races of men\nsupposedly arose, are themselves brachycephalic; and that the\ngorilla and chimpanzee, who live in Africa, where the\ndolichocephalic races chiefly live, are dolichocephalic. The gorilla\nand chimpanzee also have, like the men and women of Africa, black\nskin and hair; while the hair of the orang is a reddish-brown, and\nits skin sometimes yellowish-white. The dentition of the anthropoids\nand men is in all essentials identical. They all have two sets of\nteeth: a set of milk-teeth, twenty in number, and thirty-two\npermanent teeth, the permanents consisting of two incisors, one\ncanine, two premolars, and three molars, in each half-jaw. Man has\nordinarily twelve pairs of ribs and thirty-two vertebrae. So has the\norang. The other anthropoids have thirteen pairs of ribs. But the\nnumber of ribs in both human and anthropoid beings is not uniform,\nman occasionally having thirteen pairs, and the gorilla fourteen.\nMan has also the same number of caudal vertebrae in his rudimentary\ntail as the anthropoid has. The hands and feet of anthropoids, bone\nfor bone and muscle for muscle, correspond with those of men, no\ngreater structural differences existing than among different species\nof men. The human foot has three muscles not found in the human\nhand\u2014a short flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long\nmuscle extending from the fibula to the foot. All of these muscles\nare found in the anthropoid foot just as in the foot of man. There\nare also the same differences between the arrangement of the bones\nof the anthropoid wrist and ankle as between the wrist and ankle\nbones of man. Whatever set of anatomical particulars may be\nselected, whether it be hands, arms, feet, muscles, skull, viscera,\nribs, or dentition, it is found that the anthropoid races and men\nare in all essentials the same. The differences are such as have\narisen as a result of different modes of life, and such as exist\nbetween different tribes of either group of animals.\n\n\u2018The structural differences which separate man from the gorilla\nand chimpanzee,\u2019 says Huxley, in summing up the conclusion of his\nbrilliant inquiry into \u2018Man\u2019s Place in Nature,\u2019 \u2018are not so\ngreat as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes.\u2019\n\n\u2018The body of man and that of the anthropoid are not only\npeculiarly similar,\u2019 says Haeckel, \u2018but they are practically one\nand the same in every important respect. The same two hundred bones,\nin the same order and structure, make up our inner skeleton; the\nsame three hundred muscles effect our movements; the same hair\nclothes our skin; the same four-chambered heart is the central\npulsometer in our circulation; the same thirty-two teeth are set in\nthe same order in our jaws; the same salivary, hepatic, and gastric\nglands compass our digestion; the same reproductive organs insure\nthe maintenance of our race\u2019.[6]\n\n\u2018Not being able,\u2019 says Owen in his paper on \u2018The Characters of\nMammalia,\u2019 \u2018to appreciate or conceive of the distinction between\nthe psychical phenomena of a chimpanzee and of a Boschisman or of an\nAztec with arrested brain-growth, as being of a nature so essential\nas to preclude a comparison between them, or as being other than a\ndifference in degree, I cannot shut my eyes to the significance of\nthat all-pervading similitude of structure\u2014every tooth, every\nbone, strictly homologous\u2014which makes the determination of the\ndifference between _Homo_ and _Pithecus_ the anatomist\u2019s\ndifficulty.\u2019\n\n\u2018If before the appearance of man on the earth,\u2019 says Ward in his\n\u2018Dynamic Sociology,\u2019 \u2018an imaginary painter had visited it, and\ndrawn a portrait embodying the thorax of the gibbon, the hands and\nfeet of the gorilla, the form and skull of the chimpanzee, the brain\ndevelopment of the orang, and the countenance of _Semnopithecus_,\ngiving to the whole the average stature of all of these apes, the\nresult would have been a being not far removed from our conception\nof the primitive man, and not widely different from the actual\ncondition of certain low tribes of savages. The brain development\nwould perhaps be too low for the average of any existing tribe, and\nwould correspond better with that of certain microcephalous idiots\nand cretins, of which the human race furnishes many examples.\u2019\n\nAnd it is not true, as is commonly supposed, that, after all other\nresemblances between the human and anthropoid structures have been\nmade out, there still exists somewhere some undistinguishable\ndifference in the organic structure of their brains. All differences\nin structure from time to time suspected or asserted to exist\nbetween the brain of man and that of the man-like apes have been one\nafter another completely swept away. And it is now known to all\nneurologists that the human and anthropoid brains differ\nstructurally in no particulars whatever, both of them containing the\nsame lobes, the same ventricles and cornua, and the same\nconvolutional outline. Even the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu,\nand the hippocampus minor, so long triumphantly asserted to be\ncharacteristic features of the human brain, have been pitilessly\nidentified in all anthropoids by the profound and terrible Huxley.\nThere is not an important fold or fissure in the brain of man that\nis not found in the brain of the anthropoid. \u2018The surface of the\nbrain of a monkey,\u2019 says Huxley, \u2018exhibits a sort of skeleton\nmap of man\u2019s, and in the man-like apes the details become more and\nmore filled in, until it is only in minor characters that the\nchimpanzee\u2019s or the orang\u2019s brain can be structurally\ndistinguished from man\u2019s\u2019.[7]\n\nThe great difference physically between man and the anthropoids,\naside from man\u2019s talented larynx and erect posture, lies in\nman\u2019s abnormal cranial capacity. The normal human cranium never\ncontains less than 55 cubic inches of space, while the largest\ngorilla cranium contains only 34\u00bd cubic inches. This is a\ndifference of 20\u00bd cubic inches. And 20\u00bd cubic inches of thinking\nmatter is an alarming amount to be lacking in a single individual.\nBut this cranial gap between gorilla and man is deprived of some of\nits significance by the fact that human crania sometimes measure 114\ncubic inches, making a difference between the smallest and largest\nhuman brains of 59 cubic inches. The difference between the gorilla\nand the savage in cranial capacity is, therefore, _only about\none-third as great as the cranial chasm between the savage and the\nsage_.\n\n1. The bat and a few other animals have a disc-like placenta, but it\ndevelops into the disc shape by a different route from what it does\nin the primates.\n2. Hartmann: _Anthropoid Apes_; New York, 1901.\n3. Quatrefages: _The Human Species_; New York, 1898.\n4. Tyler: _Anthropology_; New York; 1899.\n5. Haeckel: _History of Creation_, 2 vols.; New York, 1896.\n6. Haeckel: _The Riddle of the Universe_; New York, 1901.\n7. Huxley: _Man\u2019s Place in Nature_; New York, 1883.\n\nV. Recapitulation.\n\nThe anatomical gulf between men and apes does not exist. There are,\nin fact, no gulfs anywhere, only gradations. All chasms are\ncompletely covered by unmistakable affinities, in spite of the fact\nthat the remains of so many millions of deceased races lie hidden\nbeneath seas or everlastingly locked in the limy bosoms of the\ncontinents. There are closer kinships and remoter kinships, but\nthere are kinships everywhere. The more intimate kinships are\nindicated by more definite and detailed similarities, and the more\ngeneral relationships by more fundamental resemblances. All\ncreatures are bound to all other creatures by the ties of a varying\nbut undeniable consanguinity.\n\nMan stands unquestionably in the primate order of animals, because\nhe has certain qualities of structure which all primates have, and\nwhich all other animals have not: hands and arms and nails, a\nbagpipe stomach, great subordination of the cerebellum, a disc-like\nplacenta, teeth differentiated into incisors, canines, and molars,\nand pectoral milk glands.\n\nMan is more closely akin to the anthropoid apes than to the other\nprimates on account of his immense brain, his ape-like face, his\nvertical spine, and in being a true two-handed biped. The manlike\napes and men have the same number and kinds of teeth, the same limb\nbones and muscles, like ribs and vertebrae, an atrophied tail, the\nsame brain structure, and a suspicious similarity in looks and\ndisposition. Men and anthropoids live about the same number of\nyears, both being toothless and wrinkled in old age. The beard, too,\nin both classes of animals appears at the same period of life and\nobeys the same law of variation in colour. Even the hairs on\ndifferent parts of the bodies of men and anthropoids, as on the\narms, incline at a like angle to the body surface. The hair on the\nupper arm and that on the forearm, in both anthropoids and men,\npoint in opposite directions\u2014toward the elbow. This peculiarity is\nfound nowhere in the animal kingdom excepting in a few American\nmonkeys.\n\nMan\u2019s mammalian affinities are shown in his diaphragm, his hair,\nhis four-chambered heart, his _corpus callosum_, his non-nucleated\nblood-corpuscles, and his awkward incubation.\n\nThe fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, and non-human mammals are human\nin having two body cavities, segmented internal skeletons, two pairs\nof limbs, skulls and spinal columns, red blood, brains, and dorsal\ncords; and in possessing two eyes, two ears, nostrils, and mouth\nopening out of the head. And finally all animals, including man, are\nrelated to all other animal forms by the great underlying facts of\ntheir origin, structure, composition, and destiny. All creatures,\nwhether they live in the sea, in the heavens, or in subterranean\nglooms; whether they swim, fly, crawl, or walk; whether their world\nis a planet or a water-drop; and whether they realise it or not,\ncommence existence in the same way, are composed of the same\nsubstances, are nourished by the same matters, follow fundamentally\nthe same occupations, all do under the circumstances the best they\ncan, and all arrive ultimately at the same pitiful end.\n\nVI. The Meaning of Homology.\n\nThe similarities and homologies of structure existing between man\nand other animals, and between other animals and still others, are\nnot accidental and causeless. They are not resemblances scattered\narbitrarily among the multitudinous forms of life by the capricious\nlevities of chance. That all animals commence existence as an egg\nand are all made up of cells composed of the same protoplasmic\nsubstance, and all inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and are\nall seeking pleasure and seeking to avoid pain, are more than\nordinary facts. They are filled with inferences. That vertebrate\nanimals, differing in externals as widely as herring and Englishmen,\nare all built according to the same fundamental plan, with\nmarrow-filled backbones and exactly two pairs of limbs branching in\nthe same way, is an astonishing coincidence. That the wing of the\nbird, the foreleg of the dog, the flipper of the whale, and the\nfore-limb of the toad and crocodile, have essentially the same bones\nas the human arm has is a fact which may be without significance to\nblind men, but to no one else. The metamorphosis of the frog from a\nfish, of the insect from a worm, and of a poet from a senseless\ncell, are transformations simply marvellous in meaning. And it is\nnot easy, since Darwin, to understand how such lessons could remain\nlong unintelligible, even to stones and simpletons. Not many\ngenerations have passed, however, since these revelations, now so\ndistinct and wonderful, fell on the listless minds of men as\nineffectually as the glories of the flower fall on the sightless\nsockets of the blind.\n\nIt is hardly two generations since the highest intelligences on the\nearth conceived that not only the different varieties of men\u2014the\nblack, the white, and the orange\u2014but all the orders and genera of\nthe animal world, and not only animals, but plants, had all been\nsomehow simultaneously and arbitrarily brought into existence in\nsome indistinct antiquity, and that they had from the beginning all\nexisted with practically the same features and in approximately the\nsame conditions as those with which and in which they are found\nto-day. The universe was conceived to be a fixed and stupid\nsomething, born as we see it, incapable of growth, and indulging in\nnothing but repetitions. There were no necessary coherencies and\nconsanguinities, no cosmical tendencies operating eternally and\nuniversally. All was whimsical and arbitrary. It was not known that\nanything had grown or evolved. All things were believed to have been\ngiven beginning and assigned to their respective places in the\nuniverse by a potential and all-clever creator. The serpent was\nlimbless because it had officiously allowed Eve to include in her\ndietary that which had been expressly forbidden. The quadruped\nwalked with its face towards the earth as a structural reminder of\nits subjection to the biped, who was supposed to be especially\nskilled in keeping his eyes rolled heavenward. The flowers flung out\ntheir colours, not for the benefit of the bugs and bees, and the\nstars paraded, not because they were moved to do so by their own\neternal urgings, but because man had eyes capable of being affected\nby them. Man was an erect and featherless vertebrate because his\nhypothetical maker was erect and featherless. (I wonder whether, if\na clam should conceive a creator, it would have the magnanimity to\nmake him an insect or a vertebrate, or anything other than a great\nbig clam.)\n\nVII. The Earth an Evolution.\n\nThe world now knows\u2014at least, the scientific part of it\nknows\u2014that these things are not true, that they are but the solemn\nfancies of honest but simple-minded ancients who did the best they\ncould in that twilight age to explain to their inquiring instincts\nthe wilderness of phenomena in which they found themselves. The\nuniverse is a process. It is not petrified, but flowing. It is going\nsomewhere. Everything is changing and evolving, and will always\ncontinue to do so. The forms of life, of continents and oceans, and\nof streams and systems, which we perceive as we open our senses upon\nthe world to-day, are not the forms that have always existed, and\nthey are not the forms of the eternal future. There was a time, away\nin the inconceivable, when there was no life upon the earth, no\nsolids, and no seas. The world was an incandescent lump, lifeless\nand alone, in the cold solitudes of the spaces. There was a\ntime\u2014there must have been a time\u2014when life appeared for the\nfirst time upon the earth, simple cellules without bones or blood,\nand without a suspicion of their immense and quarrelsome posterity.\nThere was a time when North America was an island, and the Alleghany\nMountains were the only mountains of the continent. The time\nwas\u2014in the coal-forming age\u2014when the Mississippi Valley, from\nthe Colorado Islands to the Alleghanies, was a vast marsh or sea,\nchoked with forests of equisetum and fern, and swarming with\ngigantic reptiles now extinct. There was a time when palms grew in\nDakota, and magnolias waved in the semi-tropical climate of\nGreenland and Spitzbergen. There was a time when there were no Rocky\nMountains in existence, no Andes, no Alps, no Pyrenees, and no\nHimalayas. And that time, compared with the vast stretches of\ngeological duration, was not so very long ago, for these mountains\nare all young mountains. The time was when Jurassic saurians\u2014those\nrepulsive ruffians of that rude old time\u2014represented the highest\nintelligence and civilisation of the known universe. There were no\nmen and women in the world, not even savages, when our ape-like\nforefathers wandered and wondered through the awesome silences of\nprimeval wilds; there were no railroads, steamboats, telegraphs,\ntelephones, typewriters, harvesters, electric lights, nor sewing\nmachines; no billionaires nor bicycles, no socialists nor\nsteam-heat, no \u2018watered stock\u2019 nor \u2018government by\ninjunction,\u2019 no women\u2019s clubs, captains of industry, labour\nunions, nor \u2018yellow perils\u2019\u2014there was none of these things on\nthe earth a hundred years ago. All things have evolved to be what\nthey are\u2014the continents, oceans, and atmospheres, and the plants\nand populations that live in and upon them.\n\nThere will come a time, too, looking forward into the future, when\nwhat we see now will be seen no more. As we go backward into the\npast, the earth in all of its aspects rapidly changes; the\ncontinents dwindle, the mountains melt, and existing races and\nspecies disappear one after another. The farther we penetrate into\nthe past, the stranger and the more different from the present does\neverything become, until finally we come to a world of molten rocks\nand vapourised seas without a creeping thing upon it. As it has been\nin the past so will it be in time to come. The present is not\neverlasting. The minds that perceive upon this planet a thousand\ncenturies in the future will perceive a very different world from\nthat which the minds of this day perceive\u2014different arts, animals,\nevents, ideals, geographies, sciences, and civilisations. The earth\nseems fixed and changeless because we are so fleeting. We see it but\na moment, and are gone. The tossing forest in the wrath of the storm\nis motionless when looked at by a flash of lightning. The same\ntendencies that have worked past changes are at work to-day as\ntirelessly as in the past. By invisible chisels the mountains are\nbeing sculptured, ocean floors are lifting, and continents are\nsinking into the seas. Species, systems, and civilisations are\nchanging, some crumbling and passing away, others rising out of the\nruins of the departed. Mighty astronomical tendencies are secretly\nbut relentlessly at work, and immense vicissitudes are in store for\nthis clod of our nativity. The earth is doomed to be frozen to\ndeath. In a few million years, according to astronomers, the sun\nwill have shrunken to a fraction of his present size, and will have\nbecome correspondingly reduced in heat-giving powers. It is\nestimated that in twelve or fifteen million years the sun, upon\nwhose mighty dispensations all life and activity on the earth are\nabsolutely dependent, will become so enfeebled that no form of life\non the earth will be possible. The partially-cooled earth itself is\ngiving up its internal warmth, and will continue to give it up until\nit is the same temperature as the surrounding abysms, which is the\nfrightful negative of something like 270 centigrade degrees. These\nare not very cheerful facts for those who inhabit the earth to\ncontemplate. But they that seek the things that cheer must seek\nanother sphere. No power can stay the emaciation of suns or the\nthievery of enveloping immensities. Old age is inevitable. It is far\noff, but it is as certain as human decay, and as mournful. In that\ndreadful but inevitable time no living being will be left in this\nworld; there will be no cities nor states nor vanities nor creeping\nthings, no flowers, no twilights, no love, only a frozen sphere. The\noceans that now rave against the rocky flanks of the continents will\nbe locked in eternal immobility; the atmospheres, which to-day drive\ntheir fleecy flocks over the azure meads of heaven and float sweet\nsounds and feathered forms, will be, in that terrible time, turned\nto stone; the radiant woods and fields, the home of the myriads and\nthe green play-places of the shadows, will, like all that live,\nmove, and breathe, have rotted into the everlasting lumber of the\nelements. There will be no Europe then, no pompous philosophies, no\nhellish rich, and no gods. All will have suffered indescribable\nrefrigeration. The earth will be a fluidless, lifeless, sunless\ncinder, unimaginably dead and desolate, a decrepit and pitiful old\nruin falling endlessly among heartless immensities, the universal\ntomb of the activities.\n\nThe universe is an evolution. Change is as extensive as time and\nspace. The present has come out of that which has been, and will\nenter into and determine that which is to be. Everything has a\nbiography. Everything has evolved\u2014_everything_\u2014from the murmur\non the lips of the speechless babe to the soul of the poet, and from\nthe molecule to Jehovah.\n\nVIII. The Factors of Organic Evolution.\n\nThe animal kingdom represents one of the two grand branches of the\norganic universe. It has been evolved\u2014evolved in a manner as\nsimple and straightforward as it is revolting. It has all been\nbrought about by _partiality_ or _selection_. Generations of beings\nhave come into existence. The individual members of each generation\nhave differed from each other\u2014differed in size, strength, speed,\ncolour, shape, sagacity, luck, and likelihood of life. No two\nbeings, not even those born from the same womb, are in all respects\nidentical. Hardships have come. They have come from the inanimate\nuniverse in the form of floods, fires, frosts, accidents, diseases,\ndroughts, storms, and the like; from other species, who were\ncompetitors or enemies; and from unbrotherly members of the same\nspecies. Some have survived, but the great majority have perished.\nOnly a fraction, and generally an appallingly small fraction, of\neach generation of a species have lived to maturity. The lobster\nlays 10,000 eggs in a season, yet the mortality is such that the\nnumber of lobsters do not increase from one year to another. The\nelephant is the slowest breeder of all animals, yet, if they should\nall live, the offspring of a single pair in 750 years would,\naccording to Darwin, number nearly 19,000,000. It has been shown\nthat at the normal rate of increase of English sparrows, if none\nwere to die save of old age, it would take but twenty years for a\nsingle pair to give one sparrow to every square inch in the State of\nIndiana.[1] A single cyclops (one of the humbler crustaceans) may\nhave 5,000,000 descendants in a season. One aphis will produce 100\nyoung, and these young will reproduce in like manner for ten\ngenerations in a season, when, if they should all live, there would\nbe a quintillion of young. A female white ant, when adult, does\nnothing but lie in a cell and lay eggs. She lays 80,000 eggs a day\nregularly for several months. An oyster lays 2,000,000 eggs in a\nseason, and if all these eggs came to maturity a few dozen oysters\nmight supply the markets of the world. The tapeworm is said to\nproduce the incredible number of 1,000,000,000 ova, and some of the\nhumbler plants three times this number of spores. If each egg of the\ncodfish should produce an adult, a single pair in twenty-five years\nwould produce a mass of fish larger than the earth. Lower forms of\nlife are even more prolific than the higher. Maupas said that\ncertain microscopic infusorians which he studied multiplied so\nrapidly that, if they should continue to multiply for thirty-eight\ndays, and all of them should live, any one of them would produce a\nmass of protoplasm as big as the sun.\n\nThose of each generation that have died have been inferior, or\nunfitted to the environment in which they found themselves. Those\nthat have survived have been superior, superior in\nsomething\u2014bigness, cunning, courage, virtue, vitality, strength,\nspeed, littleness, or ferocity\u2014something that has related them\nadvantageously to surrounding conditions. The surviving remnant of\neach generation have become the progenitors of the next generation,\nand have transmitted, or tended to transmit, to their offspring the\nqualities of their superiority. This winnowing has gone on in each\ngeneration of living beings during many millions of years\u2014almost\never since life commenced to be on the earth. Some have continued\nthemselves, and others have died childless. The environment of each\nspecies has been an immense sieve, and only the superior have gone\nthrough it. Different environments have emphasised different\nqualities of structure and disposition, and have thus given rise to\npermanent varieties in survival. These varieties, through the\naccumulated effects of many generations of selection, have diverged\ninto species; species, after a still longer series of selections,\nhave evolved into genera; genera have evolved into families;\nfamilies into orders; and so on. In this simple, terrible manner\nhave all the branches of organic beings (thanks to the horrors of a\nmillion ages) been brought into existence.\n\n_Variation_, therefore, which furnishes variety in offspring;\n_Heredity_, which tends to perpetuate peculiarities by causing\noffspring to resemble more or less the characters of their parents;\nand _Environment_, which determines the character of the selections,\nare the three factors, and the only three factors, in organic\nevolution.\n\n1. Jordan: _Footnotes of Evolution_; New York, 1898.\n\nIX. The Evidences of Organic Evolution.\n\nThat the forms of life to-day found on the earth have come into\nexistence by the evolution of the more complex forms from the\nsimpler, and of these simpler forms from still simpler, through the\never-operating law of Selection, is a necessary conclusion from the\nfollowing facts:\n\n1. The existence in the animal world of all grades of structures,\nfrom the humblest possible protozoan, whose body consists of a\nsingle simple speck, to the most powerful and complex of mammals.\nThere are estimated to be something like a million species of\nanimals living on the earth to-day. There may be several times this\nnumber. These species are linked together by millions of varieties,\nand are so related to each other that they may be all gathered\ntogether into various genera; these genera may be grouped into\nfamilies, the families into orders, and the orders into seven or\neight great primary phyla. By taking existing species and adding to\nthem the extinct species of the rocks, and placing them all\naccording to their structural affinities, it is possible to arrange\nthem in the form of a tree with the various phyla, orders, families,\ngenera, and species, branching and rebranching from the main trunk.\nThe existence of structures, so graduated as to render such an\narrangement possible, is in itself suggestive of a common\nrelationship and origin.\n\n2. Evolution is suggested by the similarities and homologies of\nstructure found throughout the animal kingdom. Some of these\nsimilarities and homologies have already been mentioned. They are\neverywhere\u2014remoter and more fundamental, some of them, others\ncloser and more detailed. To the untrained mind, which sees surfaces\nonly, and not even surfaces well, the animal world is an\ninterminable miscellany of forms. But to the biologist, who looks\ndeeper and with immense acumen over the whole field of animal life,\nthere are only seven or eight different types of structure in the\nentire animal world. These seven or eight types correspond with the\nprimary classes, or phyla, into which animals are divided, viz.,\nprotozoa, sponges, celenterates, echinoderms, worms, mollusks,\narthropods, and vertebrates. However widely the members of each of\nthese great groups may differ among themselves in colour, size,\nhabits of life, and the like, the members of each group all resemble\neach other fundamentally. Moles differ from monkeys, bats from men,\nand birds from crocodiles and toads. They differ enormously. But\nthey are all vertebrates with red blood, double body cavities,\nbackbones, two pairs of limbs, and five fingers on each limb. When\nthey are looked at superficially, there is not much similarity\nbetween a water-strider and a butterfly or between a stag-beetle and\na gnat. But they are all, in reality, built according to the same\nplan. Like all other insects, they have six legs, a sheath-like\nskeleton, and bodies characteristically divided into head, thorax,\nand abdomen. It is the same with all other great classes of beings.\nAll worms resemble each other; and so do all mollusks, although they\nmay differ in particulars as widely as nautiluses and clams.\nEchinoderms have a radiate structure, celenterates and sponges are\nvase-like in shape, and protozoa are one-celled. The differences in\nstructure among the members of a group consist in different\nmodifications of a fundamental type. Among the vertebrates the\nfore-limb may be an arm, a leg, a wing, a shovel, a flipper, or a\nfin. But in all cases it is the same organ\u2014that is, the same\nimplement modified to serve different ends. Take the mouth-parts of\ninsects. In the grasshopper and cricket these parts are fitted for\ngrinding; in the moths and butterflies they are fashioned into long\ntubes for sucking the sweets of flowers; in the mosquito they form\nan elaborate apparatus for drilling and drinking; and in the mayfly\nthe mouth-parts, though present, are not used at all. In all of\nthese animals these parts are essentially the same, although\ndiffering so much in their forms and purposes that the unscientific\ncan scarcely be made to believe they are fundamentally alike. There\nis no fact more familiar to the biologist or more frequently met\nwith in the fields of animal morphology than the fact that the same\ngeneral type may be hammered into dozens, or hundreds, or even\nthousands, of different patterns by the incessant industry of its\nsurroundings, and that the same organic part may be moulded into\nvarious implements serving totally different ends by the\nenvironmental vicissitudes of time and space. On the hypothesis that\nthe members of each group of animals possessing common\ncharacteristics, whether the group be large or small, have sprung\nfrom a common ancestry, and that the differences in structure have\narisen as a result of differences in environment, the similarities\nand homologies of structure existing among animals are perfectly\nintelligible. But on any other supposition they are inexplicable.\n\n3. Evolution is suggested by the remarkable series of phenomena\npresented by embryology. There are at least four facts in the\ndevelopmental history of every creature which can hardly be\naccounted for on any other supposition than that of organic\nevolution.\n\n_First_, the fact that every animal, above the lowest, individually\npasses through an evolution between the beginning of its existence\nand its maturity. Terrestrial beings are not born, like Minerva,\nfull-grown. They grow. They evolve. They commence close down to the\nvery atoms. And from this lowly genesis they rise, through a series\nof marvellous changes, to that high state of perfection and\ngreatness from which they descend to dissolution.\n\nIf we knew by actual observation as little concerning the evolution\nof individuals as we do of the evolution of species\u2014if we had\nalways been used to seeing animals, including ourselves, in full\nbloom\u2014had never watched the tadpole, the pupa, and the babe pass\nthrough their wonderful metamorphoses on their way to maturity, it\nwould probably be just as hard for many minds to believe that\nanimals evolve individually to be what they are as it is for them to\nbelieve that species have grown to be what they are. In the case of\nindividuals, however, the evolution takes place right before our\neyes largely, while the evolution of species goes on so slowly and\nstretches back so far into the past that it can only be inferred.\n\n_Second_, the fact that animals, no matter how much they may differ\nfrom each other at maturity, all begin existence at the same place.\nEvery animal commences its organic existence as an egg\u2014as a\none-celled animal\u2014as an organism identical in structure with the\nsimplest protozoan. The ova of whales \u2018are no larger than fern\nseeds.\u2019 The eggs of the coral, the crab, the ape, and the man are\nso precisely alike that the highest powers of the microscope cannot\ndistinguish between them.\n\n_Third_, the fact that the members of the same great group of\nanimals in their individual development pass through similar stages\nof evolution. The \u2018worm\u2019 stage in the development of most\ninsects and the \u2018fish\u2019 stage of frogs are well known.\n\nThere are no more remarkable instances of individual evolution in\nthe whole range of animal life. The fish, the reptile, the bird, the\ndog, and the human being\u2014all vertebrates, in short\u2014cannot for\nsome time after their embryonic commencement be distinguished from\neach other. \u2018The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet\nof birds, and the hands and feet of men,\u2019 says the illustrious Von\nBaer, as quoted by Darwin, \u2018all arise from the same fundamental\nform\u2019.[1]\n\n\u2018It is quite in the later stages of development,\u2019 says Huxley,\n\u2018that the human being presents marked differences from the ape,\nwhile the latter departs as much from the dog in its development as\nthe man does\u2019.[2]\n\nNot only frogs, but reptiles, birds, and mammals, including man, all\nhave gills at a certain stage in their embryonic development. Nearly\nall the lower invertebrate animals are hermaphroditic\u2014that is, in\nthe body of each animal is found the two kinds of sex organs which\nin the higher animals exist in distinct animals. And frogs, birds,\nand other higher animals, which as adults are unisexual, have, as an\ninheritance from these primitive forms, hermaphroditic embryos.[3]\n\n_Fourth_, the fact that the structural stages through which animals\nin embryo pass correspond in a wonderful manner with the permanent\nstructures of those lower forms which extend serially back to the\nbeginnings of life. It is the proudest boast of the embryologist\nthat he is able to know the route through which any species has come\nto be what it is by a simple study of the individual evolution of\nits members. Each animal repeats in its individual evolution the\nevolution of its species. This recapitulation is not always\ncomplete\u2014is, in fact, frequently vague, sometimes circuitous, and\noften broken or abbreviated. Processes requiring originally\ncenturies or thousands of years to accomplish are here telescoped\ninto a few months, or even days. It is not strange that the process\nis imperfect. But so firmly is the belief in the correspondence of\nontogeny and phylogeny fixed in the minds of modern biologists that,\nin determining the classification and affinities of any particular\nanimal, more reliance is placed on the facts of embryology than on\nthose of adult structure.\n\nThe first thing that an animal becomes after it is an egg\u2014unless\nit is a one-celled animal, in which case it remains always an\negg\u2014is two cells; these two cells become four; these four become\neight; and so on, until the embryo becomes a many-celled ball,\nconsisting of a single layer of cells surrounding a fluid interior.\nA dimple forms in the cell layer on one side of this ball, and, by\ndeepening to a hollow, changes the ball into a double-walled sac.\nThis is the gastrula\u2014the permanent structure of the sponges and\ncelenterates, and an (almost) invariable stage in the larval\ndevelopment of all animals above the sponges and celenterates. The\ngastrula becomes a worm (or an insect or a fish through the worm) by\nelongation and enlargement, and by the development of the endoderm,\nwhich is the inner layer of the cell wall, into organs of nutrition\nand reproduction, and by the development of the ectoderm, which is\nthe outer cell layer, into organs of motion and sensation.\n\nThe embryonic development of a human being is not different in kind\nfrom the embryonic development of any other animal. Every human\nbeing at the beginning of his organic existence is a protozoan,\nabout 1/125 inch in diameter; at another stage of development he is\na tiny sac-shaped mass of cells without blood or nerves, the\ngastrula; at another stage he is a worm, with a pulsating tube\ninstead of a heart, and without head, neck, spinal column, or limbs;\nat another stage he has, as a backbone, a rod of cartilage extending\nalong the back, and a faint nerve cord, as in amphioxus, the lowest\nof the vertebrates; at another stage he is a fish with a\ntwo-chambered heart, mesonephric kidneys, and gill-slits with gill\narteries leading to them, just as in fishes; at another stage he is\na reptile with a three-chambered heart, and voiding his excreta\nthrough a cloaca like other reptiles; and finally, when he enters\nupon post-natal sins and actualities, he is a sprawling, squalling,\nunreasoning quadruped. The human larva from the fifth to the seventh\nmonth of development is covered with a thick growth of hair and has\na true caudal appendage, like the monkey. At this stage the embryo\nhas in all thirty-eight vertebrae, nine of which are caudal, and the\ngreat toe extends at right angles to the other toes, and is not\nlonger than the other toes, but shorter, as in the ape.\n\nThese facts are unmistakable. There is a reason for everything, and\nthere is a reason for these transformations through which each\ngeneration of living beings journeys. The individual passes through\nthem because the species to which he belongs has passed through\nthem. They represent ancestral wanderings. As if to emphasise the\nkinship of all of life\u2019s forms and to render incontrovertible the\nfact of universal evolution, Nature compels every individual to\ncommence existence at the same place, and to recapitulate in his\nindividual evolution the phylogenetic journeyings of his species.\n\n4. That existing forms of life have been evolved from other forms,\nand that these ancestral forms have been different from those\nderived from them, is shown by the occasional appearance of\nantecedent and abandoned types of structure among the offspring of\nexisting species. Occasionally a human child is born strangely\nunlike its parents, but bearing an unmistakable resemblance in looks\nand disposition to his great-grandfather or some other remote\nancestor. This is _atavism_, that tendency to revert to ancestral\ntypes which is prevalent among all animals. We may think of it\nfiguratively as a flash of indecision when Nature hesitates for a\nmoment whether to adopt a new form of structure or cling to the old\nand tried. Horses and mules are sometimes born with three toes on\neach foot, and zebra-like stripes on their legs and shoulders; and\ndomestic pigeons, such as are naturally black, red, or mottled,\noccasionally produce offspring with blue plumage and two black\nwing-bars, like the wild rock-dove, from which all domestic breeds\nhave sprung. In man the cheekbone and the frontal bone of the\nforehead consist normally each of a single bone. But in children and\nhuman embryos these bones are always double, as is normally the case\nin adults among some of the anthropoids and other mammals. Gills\nappear regularly in the embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals, and\nhuman young are sometimes born with gill-slits on the neck. There\nare times when, owing to inaccurate or incomplete embryological\ndevelopment, these fish-like characteristics are so perfect at birth\nas to allow liquids, on being swallowed, to pass out through them\nand trickle down on the outside of the neck. Many muscles are\noccasionally developed in man which are normal in the apes and other\nmammals. As many as seven different muscular variations have been\nfound in a single human being, every one of which were muscles found\nnormally in the structure of the apes.[1]\n\n5. Closely akin to atavism, which is the occasional persistence of\nancestral types of character, is the regular occurrence of vestigial\norgans or structures, organs which in ancestral forms have definite\nfunctions, but which in existing species, owing to changed\nconditions, are rudimentary and useless. On the back of each ankle\nof the horse are two splints, the atrophied remains of the second\nand fourth toes. Similar vestiges of two obsolete toes are also\nfound just back of the wrists and ankles on all the two-toed\nungulates, such as the cow and sheep. In the body of the whale where\nhind-limbs would naturally be, there are found the anatomical ruins\nof these organs in the form of a few diminutive bones. The same\nthing is true in the sirenians. In the Greenland whale there are\nremnants of both femur and tibia in the region of the atrophied\nhind-limbs. The snakes are limbless, but the pythons and boas have\ninternal remnants of hind-limbs and sometimes even clawed structures\nrepresenting toes. The so-called \u2018glass-snake\u2019 or\n\u2018joint-snake\u2019 (which is really a limbless lizard) has four\ncomplete internal limbs. Young turtles, parrots, and whalebone\nwhales have teeth, but the adults of these animals are toothless.\nCows, sheep, deer, and other ruminants, never have as adults any\nupper incisors, but these teeth are found in the foetal stages of\nthese animals just under the gums. The female frog has rudimentary\nmale reproductive organs, and the male has corresponding vestiges of\nfemale organs. Similar remnants of the reproductive structures exist\nin many other animals. They represent stages in the transition from\nthe hermaphroditism of primitive animals to the unisexuality of the\nhigher forms, the separation of the sex organs into those of male\nand female having come about through the decay of one set of\nstructures in each individual.\n\nFor reasons which it is not necessary to mention here, biologists\nbelieve that insects all originated from a common parental form,\nwith two pairs of wings and six legs. Insects all retain their\noriginal allowance of legs, but in many species one or the other\npair of wings has become more or less degenerated. In the whole\norder of flies the back pair of wings is represented by a couple of\ninsignificant knobs. In the Strepsiptera, a sub-order of beetles,\nthe front-wings are similarly reduced, being mere twisted filaments.\nMany parasites, such as fleas and ticks, whose mode of life renders\norgans of aerial locomotion unnecessary, are entirely wingless. The\ninsects of small isolated islands are also largely without wings,\nthe proportion of wingless species being much larger than among\ninsects inhabiting continents. This is due to their greater\nliability on small land masses of being carried out to sea and\ndrowned, owing to the feebleness and uncertainty of insect flight.\nOn the island of Madeira, out of the 550 species found there, 220\nspecies no longer have the power of flight.\n\nAir-breathing animals\u2014amphibians, reptiles, birds, and\nmammals\u2014have normally a pair of lungs\u2014a right one and a left\none. But in snakes and snake-like lizards, where the body is very\nslender and elongated, only one lung, sometimes the right one, and\nsometimes the left, is fully developed. The right ovary is likewise\naborted in all birds, the left one yielding all the eggs. The swifts\nand frigate birds live almost their whole lives long on the wing,\nand the legs of these birds have grown so short and weak and\nrudimentary, as a result of their constant life in the air, that\nthey can scarcely walk. The chimney swift is said never to alight\nanywhere except on the sooty inner walls of the chimney where its\nnest is. Its food consists of insects which it gathers in the air,\nand the few dead twigs used in making its nest are nipped from the\ntree while the bird continues its flight. The ostriches,\ncassowaries, and many other birds, have, on the other hand,\ndeveloped their legs at the expense of their wings. The ostrich is\nsaid to be able to outrun the horse, but it has no power of flight,\nalthough it has wings and wing muscles, and even the skin-folds\ncovering the wings corresponding to those of birds that fly. But its\nwhole flying apparatus is in ruins. The rudimentary hind-toe of\nbirds is a vestigial organ, and so are the claws which appear on the\nthumb and first finger of all young birds. So also are the rudiments\nof eyes in cave crickets, fishes, and other inhabitants of total\ndarkness. The flounder and other so-called flat fishes swim straight\nup, as ordinary fishes do, when young. But as they grow they incline\nmore and more to one side, and finally swim entirely on their side,\nthe eye on the lower side migrating around, and joining the other on\nthe upper side of the head.\n\nAbout the first thing a human infant does on coming into the world\nis to prove its arboreal origin by grasping and spitefully clinging\nto everything that stimulates its palms. A little peeperless babe an\nhour old can perform feats of strength with its hands and arms that\nmany men and women cannot equal. It can support the entire weight of\nits body for several seconds hanging by its hands. Dr. Robinson, an\nEnglish physician, found as a result of sixty experiments on as many\ninfants, more than half of whom were less than an hour old, that\nwith two exceptions every babe was able to hang to the finger or to\na small stick, and sustain the whole weight of the body for at least\nten seconds. Twelve of those just born held on for nearly a minute.\nAt the age of two or three weeks, when this power is greatest,\nseveral succeeded in sustaining themselves for over a minute and a\nhalf, two for over two minutes, and one for two minutes and\nthirty-five seconds. The young ape for some weeks after birth clings\ntenaciously to its mother\u2019s neck and hair, and the instinct of the\nchild to cling to objects is probably a survival of the instinct of\nthe young ape. I believe it is Wallace who relates somewhere an\nincident which illustrates the instinct of the young simian to cling\nto something. Wallace had captured a young ape, and was carrying it\nto camp, when the little fellow happened to get its hands on the\nnaturalist\u2019s whiskers, which it mistook, evidently, for the\nhirsute property of its mother, and, driven by the powerful instinct\nof self-preservation, it hung on to them so desperately it could\nscarcely be pulled loose. Many mammals are provided with a\nwell-developed muscular apparatus for the manipulation of their\nears. But in man there does not exist the same necessity for\nauricular detection of enemies, and while these muscles still exist,\nand are capable of being used to a slight extent by occasional\nindividuals, they are generally so emaciated as to be useless.\n\nAnother vestigial organ in the body of man, and one of significance\nfrom the standpoint of morphology, is the tail. The tail is an\nexceedingly unpopular part of the human anatomy, most men and women\nbeing unwilling to admit that they have such an appendage. But many\na person who has hitherto dozed in ignorance on this matter has\nlearned with considerable dismay, when he has for the first time\nlooked upon the undraped lineaments of the human skeleton, that man\nactually has a tail. It consists of three or four (sometimes five)\nsmall vertebrae, more or less fused, at the posterior end of the\nspinal column. That this is really a rudimentary tail is proved\nbeyond a doubt by the fact that in the embryo it is highly\ndeveloped, being longer than the limbs, and is provided with a\nregular muscular apparatus for wagging it. These caudal muscles are\ngenerally represented in grown-up people by bands of fibrous tissue,\nbut cases are known where the actual muscles have persisted through\nlife.[4]\n\nThe nictitating membrane, which in birds and many reptiles consists\nof a half-transparent curtain acting as a lid to sweep the eye, is\nin the human eye dwindled to a small membranous remnant, draped at\nthe inner corner. The growth of hair over the human body surface may\nbe regarded, in view of the sartorial habits of man, as a vestigial\ninheritance from hairy ancestors. One of the most notorious of the\nvestigial organs of man is the vermiform appendix, a small slender\nsac opening from the large intestine near where the large intestine\nis joined by the small intestine. In some animals this organ is\nlarge and performs an important part in the process of digestion.\nBut in man it is a mere rudiment, not only of no possible aid in\ndigestion, but the source of frequent disease, and even of death.\n\nThere are in all, according to Darwin, about eighty vestigial organs\nin the human body. But these organs occur everywhere throughout the\nanimal kingdom. There is not an order of animals, nor of plants\neither, without them. They are necessary facts growing out of\nevolution. Organic structures are the result of adjustment to\nsurrounding conditions. The continual changes in environment to\nwhich all organisms are exposed necessitate corresponding changes in\nstructure. And the vestiges found in the bodies of all animals\nrepresent parts which in the previous existence were useful and\nnecessary to a complete adjustment of the organism, but which, owing\nto a change of emphasis in surroundings, have become useless, and\nconsequently shrunken. They are the obsolete or obsolescent parts of\nanimal structure\u2014parts which have been outgrown and\nsuperseded\u2014the \u2018silent letters\u2019 of morphology. They sustain\nthe same relation to the individual organism as dead or dwindling\nspecies sustain to a fauna. They furnish indisputable proof of the\nkinship and unity of the animal world.\n\n6. It is only on the supposition that the life of the earth has\nevolved step by step with the evolution of the land masses, and that\nthe forms of life from which existing forms were evolved were\ndispersed over the earth at a time when physiographic conditions\nwere very different from what they are now, that it is possible to\naccount for the peculiar manner in which animals are distributed\nover the earth. The cassowary is a flightless bird of the ostrich\norder inhabiting Australia and the islands to the north of it. This\nbird is found nowhere else in the world, and each area has its own\nparticular species. The same things are also true of the kangaroo.\nIt is found over a similar region, with a different species\noccupying each land mass. Now, on the hypothesis of special creation\nthere is no thinkable reason why these animals should be divided, as\nthey are, into distinct species, and restricted to this particular\nregion. But on the hypothesis of evolution it is perfectly plain.\nAll of these regions at one time were united with one another, and\nwere subsequently submerged in part, forming islands. Each group of\nanimals, being isolated from every other group and subjected to\nsomewhat different conditions, developed a style of departure from\nthe original type of structure different from that of every other\ngroup in response to the peculiar conditions operating upon it. This\nhas led, in the course of centuries of selection, to the formation\nof distinct species such as exist to-day.\n\nLombock Strait, a narrow neck of water between Bali and Lombock\nIsland, and Macassar Strait, separating Celebes from Borneo, are\nparts of a continuous passage of water which in remote times\nseparated two continents\u2014an Indo-Malayan continent to which\nbelonged Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and the Malay Peninsula; and an\nAustro-Malayan continent, now represented by Australia, Celebes, the\nMoluccas, New Guinea, Solomon\u2019s Islands, etc. Wallace first\nannounced this ancient boundary, and it has been called\n\u2018Wallace\u2019s line.\u2019 He was led to infer its existence by the\nfact which he observed as he travelled about from island to island,\nthat, while the faunas of these two regions are as wholes very\ndifferent from each other, the faunas of the various land patches in\neach area have a wonderful similarity. Australia is a veritable\nmuseum of old and obsolete forms of both plants and animals. Its\nfauna and flora are made up prevailingly of forms such as have on\nthe other continents long been superseded by more specialised\nspecies. No true mammals, excepting men and a few rats, lived in\nAustralia when Englishmen first went there. The most powerful\nanimals were the comparatively helpless marsupials. The explanation\nof these remarkable facts is probably this: The Australian\ncontinent, which formerly included New Guinea and other islands to\nthe north, has not been connected with the other land masses for a\nvery long period of time. The development upon the other continents\nof the more powerful mammals, especially of the ungulates and the\ncarnivora, resulted in the extermination of the more helpless forms\nfrom most of the earth\u2019s surface. But Australia, protected by its\nisolation, has retained to this day its old-fashioned forms of life,\nneither land animals nor plants having been able to navigate the\nintervening straits. This supposition is strengthened by the fact\nthat fossil remains of marsupials are to-day found scattered all\nover the world, while, with the exception of the American opossums,\nliving marsupials are found only in Australia and its islands. There\nis to-day not a single survivor of these once-numerous races in\neither Europe, Asia, or Africa. Similar facts of distribution are\nfurnished by the lemurs\u2014those small, monkey-like animals with fox\nfaces, which are sometimes called \u2018half-apes,\u2019 since they are\nsupposed to be the link connecting the true apes with lower forms.\nFossil lemurs are found in both America and Europe, but lemurs are\nnow extinct in both continents. Those of America were probably\nexterminated by the carnivora, who are known to be very fond of\nmonkey meat of all kinds. The European lemurs seem to have migrated\nsouthward into eastern Africa at a time when Madagascar formed a\npart of the mainland. \u2018There they have been isolated, and have\ndeveloped in a fashion comparable to that which has occurred in the\ncase of the Australian marsupials. Of fifty living species, thirty\nare confined to Madagascar, and the lemurs are there exceedingly\nnumerous in individuals. Outside of Madagascar they only maintain a\nprecarious footing in forests or on islands, and are usually few in\nnumber\u2019.[3]\n\nIf the earth were peopled by migrations from Ararat, it would\nrequire a good deal of intellectual legerdemain to show why the\nsloths are confined to South America and the monotremes to Australia\nand its islands. The reindeer of northern Europe and Asia, and the\nelk and caribou of Arctic America, are so much alike they must have\ndescended from a common ancestry, and been developed into distinct\nspecies since the separation of North America and Eurasia. The same\nthing is probably also true of the puma and jaguar, who inhabit the\nmiddle latitudes of the New World, and the lion, tiger, and leopard,\noccupying like latitudes of the Old World. They all belong to the\ncat family, and represent divergences from a common feline type of\nstructure. The camel does not exist normally outside of northern\nAfrica and central and western Asia. And when the camel-like llama\nof South America first became known to zoologists, it was a problem\nhow this creature could have become separated so far from the\napparent origin of the camel family. But since then fossil camels\nhave been found all over both North and South America. And it has\neven been suspected that perhaps America was the original home of\nthe camel, and that, like the horse, the camel migrated to the\neastern hemisphere at a time when the eastern and western land\nmasses were connected. The foxes, hares, and other mammals of the\nupper Alps, also many Alpine plants, are like those of the Arctic\nregions. The most probable explanation of these resemblances is that\nthese Alpine species climbed up into these inhospitable altitudes,\nand were left stranded here on this island of cold, when their\nrelatives, on the return of warmth at the close of the glacial\nperiod, retreated back to the ice-bound fastnesses around the pole.\nIt is for a similar reason, probably, that the flora of the upper\nWhite Mountains resembles that of Labrador.\n\n7. One of the strongest pieces of evidence bearing on evolution that\nis furnished by any department of knowledge is that furnished by\ngeology. It is the evidence of the rocks. Geology is, among other\nthings, a history of the earth. This history has been written by the\nearth itself on laminae of stone. It is from these records that we\nlearn incontestably the order in which the forms of life have made\ntheir appearance on the earth.\n\nThree-fourths of the surface of the earth is sea. Over the surface\nof the remaining fourth, excepting in mountainous places, is a layer\nof soil, varying from a few feet to a few hundred feet in depth.\nBeneath this coverlet of soil, extending as far as man has\npenetrated into the earth, is rock. Excepting in regions overflowed\nby lava poured out from beneath, or along the backbones of\ncontinents where the surface rocks have been upheaved into folds and\ncarried away by denudation, the rocks immediately beneath the soil,\nto a thickness often of thousands of feet, are in the form of\nlayers, or sheets, arranged one above another. These rocks are\ncalled sedimentary rocks, as distinguished from the unlaminated\nrocks of the interior. They have been formed at the bottom of the\nsea, and have, hence, all been formed since the condensation of the\noceans. They have been formed out of the detritus of continents\nbrought down by the rivers and the accumulated remains of animal and\nvegetal forms which have slowly settled down through the waters.\nThey are the successive cemeteries of the dead past. Such rocks are\nnow forming over the floors of all oceans\u2014forming just as they\nhave formed throughout the long eons of geological history. Along\nthe axes of ancient mountains and in deep-cut canyons the rock\nlayers are exposed to a thickness of thousands of feet, in some\ncases thirty or forty thousand feet. Here they lie, piled up, one on\ntop of another, the great, broad pages upon which are written the\nlong, dark story of our planet. It is the mightiest and most\neverlasting of all annals\u2014the autobiography of a world. It is\npossible, by studying these rock records, to know not only the kind\nof life that lived in each age, but a good deal regarding the\nconditions in which that life lived and passed away. Just as the\nnaturalist is able, from a single bone of an unknown animal, to\nreconstruct the entire animal and to infer something of its\nsurroundings and habits of life, and as the archeologist, by going\nback to the graves of deceased races and digging up the dust upon\nwhich these races wrought, is able to tell much of their history and\ncharacteristics, so the geologist, by studying the bones of those\nmore distant civilisations, the civilisations sandwiched among the\nfossiliferous rocks, is able to know, not only just the kind of life\nthat lived in each age, but, by comparing the species of successive\nstrata, can construct with astonishing fulness the genealogical\noutline of the entire life process. The succession of life forms as\nthey appear in the rocks, with a sketch of their probable genealogy,\nis traced elsewhere in this chapter. It is only necessary to say\nhere that the order in which the forms of life appear in the\nsedimentary strata is that of a gradually increasing complexity. The\ninvertebrates appear first; then the fishes, the lowest of the\nvertebrates; after these come the amphibians; following these the\nreptiles; and finally the birds and mammals.\n\n8. There is another reason for a belief in evolution furnished by\ngeology, but of a somewhat different kind from that just stated. It\nconsists in the fact that there are found in the rocks series or\ngrades of structures, which fit with amazing accuracy on to the\nstructures of existing species. Now, this is precisely what,\naccording to the evolutional hypothesis, is to be expected. For, if\nevolution is true, existing species represent the tops of things.\nThey are the existing and visible parts of processes which extend\nindefinitely back into the past, and whose deceased stages may\nreasonably be expected to be found fossil in the earth. Considering\nthe youth and inexperience of paleontology and the torn and\nincoherent character of the record, it is surprising that anatomists\nhave been able to accomplish what they have accomplished. In many\ncases\u2014notably, those of man, the snail, the crocodile, and the\nhorse\u2014antecedent forms of structure have been found in almost\nunbroken gradations leading back to types differing immensely from\ntheir existing representatives. Bones and fossils of men have been\nfound buried beneath the alluvium of rivers, under old lava-beds,\nand in caves, crusted over by the deposits of percolating waters.\nMany such fossils are found in quaternary rocks, along with the\nbones of animals still living and some extinct. Some of these\nremains indicate unmistakable affinities with the ape. The most\ncelebrated of these discoveries is the fossil of an erect ape-man\n(_Pithecanthropus erectus_), found by a Dutch Governor on the island\nof Java in 1894. This fossil, in the shape and size of the head and\nin its general structure, strikes about as near as could be the\nmiddle between man and ape. That it is the fossil of an ambiguous\nform is indicated by the fact that, when it was examined by a\ncompany of twelve specialists at Berlin soon after its discovery,\nthree of them declared it to be the remains of an individual\nbelonging to a low variety of man; three others thought it was a\nlarge anthropoid; while the other six held that it was neither man\nnor anthropoid, but a genuine connecting link between them. It is\ndiscussed at length by Haeckel in \u2018The Last Link,\u2019 a paper read\nbefore the International Congress of Zoology, at Cambridge, in 1898.\n\u2018It is,\u2019 says the veteran biologist, \u2018the much-sought\n\u201cmissing link\u201d supposed to be wanting in the chain of primates\nwhich stretches unbroken from the lowest catarhine to the most\nhighly developed man.\u2019 Associated with this fossil ape-man were\nthe fossils of the elephant, hyena, and hippopotamus, none of which\nany longer exist in that part of the world, also the fossil remains\nof two orders of animals now extinct. The genealogy of the crocodile\nhas been traced by Huxley, through all intermediate stages, back to\nthe giant reptiles of the early Tertiary.[5]And the pedigree of the\nhorse has been even more completely worked out by the indefatigable\nMarsh. In the museum of Yale University may be seen the fossil\nhistory of this splendid ungulate, from the time it was a clumsy\nlittle quadruped only 14 inches high, and with four or five toes on\neach foot, down to existing horses. The earliest known ancestor of\nthe horse, the eohippus, lived at the beginning of the Eocene epoch.\nIt had five toes, almost equal, on each front foot (four toes\nbehind), and was about the size of a fox. The orohippus, which lived\na little later, had four toes on each front-foot, and three behind.\nThe mesohippus, found in the Miocene, had three toes and one\nrudimentary toe on each front-foot, and three toes behind. It was\nabout the size of a sheep. The miohippus, which is found later, had\nthree toes on each of its four feet, with the middle toe on each\nfoot larger than the other two. The pliohippus, living in the\nPliocene epoch, had one principal toe on each foot, and two\nsecondary toes, the two secondary toes not reaching to the ground.\nIt was about the size of a donkey. Existing horses have one toe on\neach foot\u2014the digit corresponding to the big middle finger\u2014and\nthe ruins of two others in the form of splints on the back of each\nankle. In the embryo of the horse these splints are segmented, each\nof them, into three phalanges. Fossil remains representing all\nstages in the development of the horse have been found in the\nregions about the upper waters of the Missouri River.\n\nIt is an important fact that the types of structure forming any\nseries grow more and more generalised as the distance from the\npresent increases, and that different lines of development, when\ntraced back into the past, often converge in types which combine the\nmain characters of various existing groups. The horses,\nrhinoceroses, and tapirs, great as are the differences among them\nnow, can be traced back step by step through fossil forms, their\ndifferences gradually becoming less marked, until \u2018the lines\nultimately blend together, if not in one common ancestor, at all\nevents into forms so closely alike in all essentials that no\nreasonable doubt can be held as to their common origin.\u2019 \u2018The\nfour chief orders of the higher mammals\u2014the primates, ungulates,\ncarnivora, and rodents\u2014seem to be separated by profound gulfs,\nwhen we confine our attention to the representatives of to-day. But\nthese gulfs are completely closed, and the sharp distinctions of the\nfour orders are entirely lost, when we go back and compare their\nextinct predecessors of the Cenozoic period, who lived at least\nthree million years ago. There we find the great sub-class of the\nplacentals, which to-day comprises more than two thousand five\nhundred species, represented by only a small number of insignificant\npro-placentals, in which the characters of the four divergent orders\nare so intermingled and toned down that we cannot in reason do other\nthan consider them as the precursors of those features. The oldest\nprimates, the oldest ungulates, the oldest carnivora, and the oldest\nrodents, all have the same skeletal structure and the same typical\ndentition (forty-four teeth) as these pro-placentals; all are\ncharacterised by the small and imperfect structure of the brain,\nespecially of the cortex, its chief part, and all have short legs\nand five-toed, flat-soled (plantigrade) feet. In many cases among\nthese oldest placentals it was at first very difficult to say\nwhether they should be classed with the primates, ungulates,\ncarnivora, or rodents, so very closely and confusedly do these four\ngroups, which diverge so widely afterwards, approach each other at\nthat time. Their common origin from a single ancestral group follows\nincontestably\u2019.[6]\n\n9. Man is the most powerful and influential of animals. He rules the\nworld\u2014rules it with a sovereignty more despotic and extensive than\nthat hitherto exercised by any other animal. Many races of beings\nare, and have been for centuries, completely dominated by him. These\nraces, during their long subjection, have been changed and\ntransformed by man in a wonderful manner through his control of\ntheir power to breed. All domestic animals have come from wild\nanimals; they have been derived by a process of selective evolution\nconducted by man himself. By continually choosing as the progenitors\nof each generation those with qualities best suited to his whims and\npurposes, man has evolved races as different from each other in\nappearance and structure, and as different from the original\nspecies, as many groups which, in the wild state, constitute\ndistinct species; indeed, man has in some cases created entirely new\nspecies, both of plants and animals\u2014species that breed true and\nare what biologists call \u2018good\u2019\u2014by his own selections.\n\nThere are something over 150 different varieties of the domestic\npigeon. Some of these varieties\u2014as many as a dozen, Mr. Darwin\nthinks\u2014differ from each other sufficiently to be reckoned, if they\nare considered solely with reference to their structures, as\nentirely distinct species. The carrier, for instance, the giant of\nthe pigeons, measures 17 inches from bill-tip to the end of its\ntail, and has a beak 1 3/4 inches long. Around each eye is a large\ndahlia-like wattle, and another large wattle is on the beak, giving\nthe beak the appearance of having been thrust through the kernel of\na walnut. The tumbler is small, squatty, and almost beakless. It has\nthe preposterous habit of rising high in the air and then tumbling\nheels over head. The roller, one of the many varieties of the\ntumbler, descends to the ground in a series of back somersaults,\nexecuted so rapidly that it looks like a falling ball. The runt is\nlarge, weighing sometimes as much as the carrier. The fantail has\nthirty or forty feathers in its tail, while all other varieties have\nonly twelve or fourteen, the normal number for birds. The trumpeter,\nso named on account of its peculiar coo, has an umbrella-like hood\nof feathers covering its head and face, and its feet are so heavily\nfeathered that they look like little wings. In the correct specimens\nof this variety the feathers have to be clipped from the face before\nthe birds can see to feed themselves. The pouter has the absurd\nhabit of inflating its gullet to a prodigious size, and the Jacobin\nwears a gigantic ruff. The homing pigeon has such a strong\nattachment for its cote that it will travel hundreds of miles,\nsometimes as many as 1,400 miles, in order to reach the home from\nwhich it has been separated. But it is not simply in their colour,\nsize, habits, and plumage, that pigeons vary. There are\ncorresponding differences in their structures, in the number of\ntheir ribs and vertebrae, in the shape and size of the skull, in the\nbones of the face, in the development of the breast-bone, and in the\nlength of the neck, legs, and bill. Pigeons also differ in the shape\nand size of their eggs, and in their dispositions and voice.\n\u2018There is,\u2019 says Huxley in summing up his discussion of the\ngreat variety in these birds, \u2018hardly a particular of either\ninternal economy or external shape which has not by selective\nbreeding been perpetuated and become the foundation of a new\nrace\u2019.[7]\n\nAll of the 150 different varieties of domestic pigeons have been\nevolved by human selection during the past three or four thousand\nyears from the blue rock-doves which to-day inhabit the seacoast\ncountries of Europe.\n\nWhat is true of pigeons is also true largely of most of the other\nraces associated with man\u2014of cats, cattle, horses, sheep, swine,\ngoats, fowls, and the like. All varieties of the domestic\nchicken\u2014the clumsy Cochin with its feather-duster legs, the tall\nand stately Spanish, the great-crested Minorca, the Dorking with its\nmatchless; comb and wattle, the almost combless Polish, the blue\nAndalusian, the gigantic Brahma, the tiny Bantam, the Wyandottes in\nall colours (black, white, buff, silver, and golden), the\nmagnificent Plymouth Rocks, and the exceedingly pugnacious\nGame-cock\u2014these and dozens of other varieties, all flightless,\nhave come from the jungle-bird whose morning clarion still greets\nAurora from the wilds of distant India. The dog is a civilised wolf,\nand the wild-boar is the progenitor of the oleaginous swine. The\nMerino and South Down breeds of sheep have come from the same stock\nin the last century and a half. In 1790 a lamb was born on the farm\nof Seth Wright in Massachusetts. It had a long body and short, bowed\nlegs. It was noticed that this lamb could not follow the others over\nthe fences. The owner thought it would be a good thing if all his\nsheep were like it. So he selected it to breed from. Some of its\noffspring were like it, and some were like the ordinary sheep. By\ncontinual selection of those with long bodies and short legs the\nancon breed of sheep was finally produced. In 1770 in a herd of\nParaguay cattle a hornless male calf appeared, and from this\nindividual in a similar way came the stock of Muleys. The occasional\nappearance of horned calves and lambs among the offspring of\nhornless breeds of cattle and sheep are examples of atavism\nindicating the presence of a vestigial tendency to breed true to\ntheir horned ancestors. The Hereford cattle originated as a distinct\nvariety about 1769 through the careful selections of a certain\nEnglishman by the name of Tompkins. All domesticated quadrupeds,\nexcept the elephant, have come from wild species with erect ears,\nthe ears acting as funnels to harvest the sound-waves. But there are\nfew of them in which there is not one or more varieties with\ndrooping ears\u2014cats in China, horses in parts of Russia, sheep in\nItaly, cattle in India, and pigs, dogs, and rabbits in all\nlong-civilised lands. We are so accustomed to seeing dogs and pigs\nwith pendent ears that we are surprised to know there are varieties\nwith erect ears. The goldfish is a carp, and in its native haunts in\nthe waters of China it has the colour of the carp. The golden hue\nseen in the occupants of our aquaria has been given to this fish by\nthe Chinese through the continual selection of certain kinds. The\ngoldfish, almost as much as the pigeon, has been the sport of\nfanciers, and the strangest varieties have resulted. Some have\noutlandishly long fins, while others have no dorsal fin at all. Some\nare streaked and splotched with gold and scarlet; others are pure\nalbinos. One of the most monstrous varieties has a three-lobed\ntail-fin, and its eyeballs, without sockets, are on the outside of\nits head. All of our common barnyard fowls\u2014turkeys, ducks, geese,\nand chickens\u2014are flightless, but the varieties from which the\ndomesticated forms have come all have functional wings, two of these\nvarieties crossing continents in their annual migrations.\n\nNot only animals, but plants also, many of them, have been greatly\nchanged by man in his efforts to adapt them to his uses as food,\nornamentation, and the like. On the seaside cliffs of Chili and Peru\nmay still be found growing the wild-potato\u2014the small, tough,\nbitter ancestor of the mammoth Burbank, Peerless, Early Rose, and\nthe nearly two hundred other varieties of this matchless tuber found\nin the gardens of civilised man. The cabbage, kale, cauliflower, and\nkohlrabi are all modifications of the same wild species (_Brassica\noleracea_), the cauliflower being the developed flower, kohlrabi the\nstalk, and kale and cabbage the leaves. The peach and the almond,\nDarwin thinks, have also come from a common ancestral drupe, the\npeach being the developed fruit, and the almond the seed. There are\nnearly 900 different varieties of apples, varying in the most\nwonderful manner in size, colour, flavour, texture, and shape, but\nall of them probably derived from the little, sour, inedible Asiatic\ncrab. The many times \u2018double\u2019 roses of our gardens have come\nfrom the five-petalled wild-rose of the prairies. The cultivated\nvarieties of viburnum and hydrangea have showy corymbs of infertile\nflowers only, but the wild forms from which the domestic varieties\nhave been derived have only a single marginal row of showy infertile\nflowers surrounding a mass of inconspicuous fertile flowers. It has\nbeen due to their efforts to please men that bananas, pineapples,\nand oranges have got into the habit of neglecting to produce seeds.\nThere are certain species of grapes that are seedless, also seedless\nsugar-cane, and a seedless apple has just been announced by\nhorticulturists. The development of domesticated plants is only in\nits infancy, and it is probably impossible even for the most agile\nimagination to dream of the miracles the horticulturist is destined\nto work in the ages to come. There is every reason to believe that\nseedless varieties of all our common fruits will ultimately be\nproduced, and that in size, flavour, nutrient constituents, and\nappearance, they will be developed into forms utterly different from\nexisting varieties. Just within the last few years the U.S.\nDepartment of Agriculture has developed a cotton-plant immune to the\nbacterial diseases of the soil, which had completely driven the\ncotton-raising industry out of large districts of the South. The\ncultivation of many of the cereals has gone on so long, and has\nproceeded so far, that their origin is lost in antiquity.\n\nWhether or not it is possible for new varieties and species to be\nevolved is a question, therefore, which does not need to depend for\nreply wholly upon theory. It is known to have taken place; and the\nprocess by which the different varieties of domestic animals and\nplants have been evolved\u2014domestic selection\u2014is not different in\nprinciple from the process of natural selection, the chief operation\nby which life in general, both plant and animal, is assumed to have\nbeen evolved.\n\n10. There are other reasons for a belief in organic evolution, but\nthe last one I shall mention is the fact that the theory of organic\nevolution harmonises with the known tendencies of the universe as a\nwhole. The organic kingdoms of the earth\u2014animals and plants\u2014are\nas truly parts of the terrestrial globe as the inorganic kingdom is;\nand as such they share in, and are actuated by, the same great\ntendency or instinct as that which actuates the whole. Nine-tenths\nof the substance of all animals and plants is oxygen, hydrogen,\ncarbon, and nitrogen\u2014the very elements which make up the entire\nocean and air, and enter largely into the composition of the\ncontinents. The human body, which has essentially the same chemical\ncomposition as the bodies of animals in general, is made up of four\nsolids, five gases, and seven metals\u2014in all, sixteen elements of\nthe something like seventy which constitute the entire planet. \u2018In\nthe past, man appeared to be a creature foreign to the earth, and\nplaced upon it as a transitory inhabitant by some incomprehensible\npower. The more perfect insight of the present day sees man as a\nbeing whose development has taken place in accordance with the same\nlaws as those that have governed the development of the earth and\nits entire organisation\u2014a being not put upon the earth\naccidentally by an arbitrary act, but produced in harmony with the\nearth\u2019s nature, and belonging to it as do the flowers and the\nfruits to the tree which bears them.\u2019 Animals are not outside of,\nnor distinct from, the universe, as one might suspect who has\nlistened much to the recital of tradition so long accepted as\nscience. They are more or less detached portions of the planet earth\nwhich move over its surfaces and through its fluids and multiply,\nbut which in their phenomena obey the same laws of chemistry and\nphysics as those in accordance with which the rest of the universe\nacts. Animals are moulds through which digressing matters from the\nsoil, sea, and sky pass on rounds of eternal itineracy.\n\nNow, the earth as a planet is in process of evolution. Not many\nthings are more certain than this. The earth has come out of fire.\nIt has _grown_ to be what it is. Its mountains, valleys, plains,\nseas, shores, islands, lakes, rivers, and continents\u2014these were\nnot always here. They have been evolved. Not only the earth, but the\nentire family of spheres of which the earth is a member\u2014the solar\nsystem\u2014are all evolving. Mr. Spencer never did anything more\nprofound than when he demonstrated in his \u2018Law and Cause of\nProgress\u2019 the universal migration of things from a condition of\nhomogeneity toward a condition of greater and greater heterogeneity.\nThe whole universe, or as much of it as can be examined by\nterrestrial instruments, has probably evolved out of the same\nprimordial matters. The organic part of the earth has evolved,\ntherefore, and is destined to continue to evolve, because it is a\npart of a whole whose habit or ambition it is to evolve.\n\nThe evidence is overwhelming. The theory of organic evolution is\nsustained by a mass of facts not less authoritative and convincing\nthan that which supports the Copernican theory of the worlds.\nEvolution is, in fact, a doctrine so apparent that it only needs to\nbe honestly and intelligently looked into to be accepted\nunreservedly. It is, indeed, _more_ than a _doctrine_. It is a\n_known_ fact. It is a _necessary effect_ of the _conditions known to\nexist_ among the animals and plants of the earth. If beings _vary_\namong themselves generation after generation, if only the _fittest_\nof each generation _survive_ and if the survivors tend to _transmit_\nto their offspring the qualities of their superiority (and the\nanimals and plants of the earth are known to do continually all of\nthese things), then it follows _with mathematical certainty_ that\nevolution is going on, and that it will continue to go on as long as\nthese conditions continue. It is inevitable. It could not be\notherwise. We would _know_ that evolution were going on among\norganisms where these conditions existed, even though we had never\nobserved it.\n\nThe boldest and most enthusiastic opponents of evolution have always\nbeen those with the least information about it. But the evidence is\naccumulating so rapidly, and is being drawn up in such unanswerable\narray, that, if it is not already the case, it will not be many\nyears before it will be an intellectual reproach for anyone to\ndiscredit, or to be known to have discredited, this splendid and\ninspiring revelation.\n\n1. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874.\n2. Huxley: _Man\u2019s Place in Nature_; New York, 1883.\n3. Thompson: _Outlines of Zoology_, 3rd edit.; Edinburgh, 1899.\n4. Drummond: _Ascent of Man_; New York, 1894.\n5. See table of geological ages, at the end of the chapter.\n6. Haeckel: _The Riddle of the Universe_; New York, 1901.\n7. Huxley: _On the Origin of Species_, lecture iv.\n\nX. The Genealogy of Animals.\n\nLife originated in the sea, and for an immense period of time after\nit commenced it was confined to the place of its origin. The\ncivilisations of the earth were for many millions of years\nexclusively aquatic. It has, indeed, been estimated that the time\nrequired by the life process in getting out of the water\u2014that is,\nthat the time consumed in elaborating the first species of land\nanimals\u2014was much longer than the time which has elapsed since\nthen. I presume that during a large part of this early period it\nwould have seemed to one living at that time extremely doubtful\nwhether there would ever be on the earth any other kinds of life\nthan the aquatic. And if those who to-day weave the fashionable\nfabrics of human philosophy, and who know nothing about anything\noutside the thin edge of the present, had been back there, they\nwould no doubt have declared confidently, as they looked upon the\nnaked continents and the uninhabited air and the sea teeming with\nits peculiar faunas, that life upon solids or in gases, life\nanywhere, in fact, except in the sea, where it had always existed,\nand to which alone it was adapted, was absolutely, and would be\nforever, impossible; and that feathered fishes and fishes with the\npower to run and skip, and especially \u2018sharks\u2019 competent to walk\non one end and jabber with the other, were unthinkable nonsense.\nLife originated in the sea for the same reason that the first of the\nseries of so-called \u2018civilisations\u2019 which have appeared in human\nhistory sprang from the alluvium of the Euphrates and the Nile,\nbecause the conditions for bringing life into existence were here\nthe most favourable. The atmosphere was incompetent to perform such\na task as the inventing of _protoplasm_ and there was no land above\nthe oceans.\n\nThe first forms of life were one-celled\u2014simple, jelly-like dots of\nalmost homogeneous plasm\u2014the _protozoa_. These primitive organisms\nwere the common grandparents of all beings. From them evolved,\nthrough infinite travail and suffering, all of the orders, families,\nspecies, and varieties of animals that to-day live on the earth, and\nall those that have in the past lived and passed away. By the\nmultiplication and specialisation of cells, and the formation of\ncell aggregates, the sponges, celenterates, and flat worms were\ndeveloped from the protozoa.[1] The connecting links between the\none-celled and the many-celled animals consist of a series of\ncolonial forms of increasing size and complexity, some of which may\nbe found in every roadside ditch and pool, while others are extinct.\nThe development of these many-celled organisms (metazoa) from\none-celled organisms was a perfectly natural process, a process\nwhich takes place in the initial evolutions of every embryo. There\nis no more mystery about it than there is about any other act of\nassociation. All association is simply a matter of \u2018business.\u2019\nMany-celled organisms are colonies, or societies, of more or less\nclosely co-operating one-celled organisms, and they have come into\nexistence in obedience to the same laws of economy and advantage as\nhave those more modern societies of metazoa known as nations,\ncommunities, and states, the organised bodies of men, ants, and\nmillionaires.\n\nThe sponges are the lowest of the many-celled animals. They consist\nof irregular masses of loosely associated cells, hopelessly anchored\nto the sea-floor. They represent the social instinct in embryo. The\ncells are but slightly specialised, and each cell leads a more or\nless independent existence. The sponge stands at about that stage of\nsocial integration and intelligence represented by those stupendous\nporifera which cover continents and constitute the \u2018social\norganisms\u2019 of the civilised world. The nutritive system of sponges\nconsists of countless pores opening from the surface into a common\ncanal within, through which ever-waving cilia urge the alimental\nwaters. In the celenterates the cells arrange themselves in the form\nof a cup with one large opening into and from the vase-like stomach.\nThe unsegmented worms are flat and sac-like, with bilateral symmetry\nand the power to move about, but not tubular, as are the true worms.\nThey are bloodless, like the celenterates and sponges.\n\nFrom the flat worms developed the annelid worms, animals perforated\nby a food canal and possessing a body cavity filled with blood\nsurrounding this canal. The body cavity is the space between the\nwalls of the body and the alimentary canal, the cavity which in the\nhigher animals contains the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, etc. The\nworms and all animals above them have this cavity. The worms and all\nanimals above them also have, as an inheritance from the flat worms,\nbodies with bilateral symmetry\u2014that is, bodies with two halves\nsimilar. This peculiarity was probably acquired by the flat worms,\nand so fastened upon all subsequently evolved species, as a result\nof pure carelessness. It probably arose out of the habit of using\ncontinually, or over and over again, the same parts of the body as\nfore and aft. It has been facetiously said that if it had not been\nfor this habit, so inadvertently acquired by these humble beings so\nlong, long ago, we would not to-day be able to tell our right hand\nfrom our left. In the worm is found the beginning of that wonderful\norgan of co-ordination, the brain. The brain is a modification of\nthe skin. It may weaken our regard for this imperial organ to know\nthat it is, in its morphology, akin to nails and corns. But it will\ncertainly add to our admiration for the infinite labours of\nevolution to remember that the magnificent thinking apparatus of\nmodern philosophers was originally a small sensitive plate developed\ndown in the sea a hundred million years ago on the dorsal wall of\nthe mouths of primeval worms.\n\nFrom the worms developed all of the highest four phyla of the animal\nkingdom\u2014the echinoderms, the mollusks, the arthropods, and the\nchordate animals, the last of which were the progenitors of the\nillustrious vertebrates. The lowest of the mollusks are the snails,\nand from these humble tenants of our ponds and shores sprang the\nheadless bivalves and the giant jawed cuttles. The mollusks were for\na long time after their development the mailed monarchs of the sea,\nand shared with the worms the dominion of the primordial waters. But\nafter the development of the more active arthropods, especially the\ncrustaceans, the less agile worms and mollusks rapidly declined.\nExisting worms and mollusks are remnants of once powerful and\npopulous races.\n\nFrom the worms also developed the arthropods, the water-breathing\ncrustaceans and the air-breathing spiders and insects. The\ncrustaceans came early, away back in the gray of the Silurian\nperiod, just about the time North America was born. North America\nlay, a naked, V-shaped infant, in the regions of Labrador and\nCanada. The crustaceans rapidly superseded the mollusks as rulers of\nthe sea, attaining, in extreme species, a length of four or five\nfeet. The spiders and Insects came into existence toward the latter\npart of the Silurian period,[1] probably contemporaneous, or nearly\nso, with the appearance of land vegetation. The spiders and insects\nwere the aborigines of the land and air. They are the only races of\nliving beings, except the original inhabitants of the sea, who ever\ninvaded and settled an unoccupied world. The earliest land fossils\nso far found are the fossils of scorpions. But the existence of a\nsting among the structural possessions of these animals indicates\nthat there were already others who contended with them for supremacy\nin the new world. The first insects were the masticating insects,\ninsects such as cockroaches, crickets, grasshoppers, dragon-flies,\nand beetles. They are found abundantly in the Devonian and\nCarboniferous rocks. The licking insects (bees) and the pricking\ninsects (flies and bugs) appeared first in the Mesozoic Era, and the\nsipping insects (butterflies) in the Cenozoic. The flower-loving\ninsects (the bees and butterflies) came into the world at the same\ntime as did the flowers. The wings of insects may be modifications\nof the gills used by insect young in respiration during their\naquatic existence. They are, hence, very different in origin from\nthe wings of birds, which are the modified fore-legs of reptiles.\n\nThe most important class of animals arising out of the worms, on\naccount of their distinguished offspring, were the hypothetical cord\nanimals. The only existing species allied to these animals is the\namphioxus, a strange, unpromising-looking creature, half worm and\nhalf fish, found in the beach sands of many seas. It has white blood\nand a tubular heart. It is without either head or limbs, and looks\nvery much like a long semitransparent leaf, tapering at both ends.\nBut it has two unmistakable prophecies of the vertebrate anatomy: a\ncartilaginous rod, pointed at both ends, extending along the back,\nand above this, and parallel to it, a cord of nerve matter. These\nare the same positions occupied by the spinal column and spinal cord\nin all true vertebrates. That the amphioxus is a genuine relative of\nthe ancestor of the vertebrates is also shown by the fact that these\nsimple forms of column and cord possessed by amphioxus are precisely\nthe forms assumed by the spinal column and spinal cord in the\nembryos of all vertebrates, including man.\n\nFrom these quasi-vertebrates developed the fishes\u2014first (after the\nscaleless, limbless lampreys) the sharks with spiny scales and\ncartilaginous skeleton, and after these the lung fishes and the bony\nfishes, with flat, horny scales and skeletons of bone. From the\nbeginning of the Devonian age, when fishes first came into\nprominence, till the rise of the great reptiles in the Triassic\ntime, fishes were the dominant life of the sea. In the fishes first\nappeared jaws, a sympathetic nervous system, red blood, backbone,\nand the characteristic two pairs of limbs of vertebrates.\n\nThe lung fishes (Dipneusta), a small order of strange\nsalamander-like creatures which live ingeniously on the borderland\nbetween the liquid and the land, may be looked upon as\nphysiological, if not morphological, links between the fishes and\nthe frogs. They combine the characters of both fishes and frogs, and\nzoologists have been tempted to make a separate class of them, and\nplace them between the two classes to which they are related. They\nare like fishes in having scales, fins, permanent gills, and a\nfish-like shape and skeleton. They resemble frogs in having lungs,\nnostrils, an incipiently three-chambered heart, a pulmonary\ncirculation, and frog-like skin glands. There are three genera with\nseveral species. One genus (Neoceratodus) is found in two or three\nsmall rivers of Queensland, Australia; another (Protopterus) lives\nin the Gambia and other rivers of Africa; and the third\n(Lepidosiren) inhabits the swamps of the Amazon region. They all\nbreathe ordinarily by means of gills, like true fishes, but have the\nhabit of coming frequently to the surface and inhaling air. The\nair-bladder acts as an incipient lung in supplementing respiration\nby gills. They all live in regions where a dry season regularly\nconverts the watercourses into beds of sand and mud. During the\nseason of drought these strange animals build for themselves a\ncocoon or nest of mud and leaves. This cocoon is lined with mucus,\nand provided with a lid through which air is admitted. Here they lie\nin this capsule throughout the hot southern summer, from August to\nDecember, breathing air by means of their lungs and living upon the\nstored-up fat of their tails, until the return of the wet season,\nwhen they again live in the rivers and breathe water in true\npiscatorial fashion. These capsules have often been carried to\nEurope, and opened 3,000 miles from their place of construction\nwithout harming the life within.\n\nHere, in these eccentric denizens of the southern world, we find the\nbeginnings of a grand transformation\u2014a transformation in both\nstructure and function, a transformation made necessary by the\ntransition from life in the water to life in the air, a\ntransformation which reaches its maturity in the higher\nair-breathing vertebrates, where the simple air-sac of the fish\nbecomes a pair of lobed and elaborately sacculated lungs, performing\nalmost exclusively the function of respiration, and the gills change\ninto parts of the ears and lower jaw.\n\nThe air-bladder of ordinary fishes, which is used chiefly as a\nhydrostatic organ to enable the fish to rise and fall in the water,\nis probably the degenerated lung of the lung fishes.\n\nFrom the lung fishes or allied forms developed the amphibians, the\nwell-known fish quadrupeds of our bogs and brooks. The amphibians\nare genuine connectives\u2014living links between the life of the sea\nand the life of the land. In early life they are fishes, with gills\nand two-chambered hearts. In later life they are air-breathing\nquadrupeds, with legs and lungs and three-chambered hearts. Here is\nevolution, plenty of it, and of the most tangible character. And it\ntakes place right before the eyes. The transformation from the fish\nto the frog is, however, no more wonderful than the embryonic\ntransformations of other vertebrates. It is simply more apparent,\nbecause it can be seen. The lungs of amphibians and the lower\nreptiles are simple sacks opening by a very short passage into the\nmouth. Some amphibians, as the axolotl of Mexican lakes, ordinarily\nretain their gills through life, but may be induced to develop lungs\nand adapt themselves to terrestrial life by being kept out of the\nwater. Others, as the newts, which ordinarily develop lungs, may be\ncompelled to retain their gills through life by being forced to\nremain uninterruptedly in the water. The black salamander,\ninhabiting droughty regions of the Alps, brings forth its young\nbearing lungs, and only a pair at a time. But if the young are\nprematurely removed from the body of the mother and placed in the\nwater, they develop gills in the ordinary way. These are remarkable\ninstances of elasticity in the presence of a varying environment.\n\nIn the amphibians the characteristic five-toed or five-fingered\nfoot, which normally forms the extremities of the limbs of all\nvertebrates except fishes, is first met with. It was this\npentadactyl peculiarity of the frog, inherited by men and women\nthrough the reptiles and mammals, that gave rise to the decimal\nsystem of numbers and other unhandy facts in human life. The decimal\nsystem arose out of the practice of early men performing their\ncalculations on their fingers. This method of calculating is still\nused by primitive peoples all over the world. The sum of the digits\nof the two hands came, in the course of arithmetical evolution, to\nbe used as a unit, and from this simple beginning grew up the\ncomplicated system of tens found among civilised peoples. It has all\ncome about as a result of amphibian initiative. Our very arithmetics\nhave been predetermined by the anatomical peculiarities of the\nfrog\u2019s foot. If these unthinking foreordainers of human affairs\nhad had four or six toes on each foot instead of five, man would no\ndoubt have inherited them just as cheerfully as the number he did\ninherit, and the civilised world would in this case be to-day using\nin all of its mathematical activities a system of eights or twelves\ninstead of a system of tens. A system of eights or twelves would be\nmuch superior in flexibility to the existing system; for eight is a\ncube, and its half and double are squares; and twelve can be divided\nby two, three, four, and six, while ten is divisible by two and five\nonly.\n\nHow helpless human beings are\u2014in fact, how helpless all beings\nare! How hopelessly dependent we are upon the past, and how\nimpossible it is to be really original! What the future will be\ndepends upon what the present is, for the future will grow out of,\nand inherit, the present. What the present is depends upon what the\npast was, for the present has grown out of, and inherited, the past.\nAnd what the past was depends upon a remoter past from which it\nevolved, and so on. There is no end anywhere of dependence, either\nforward or backward. Every fact, from an idea to a sun, is a\n_contingent link in an eternal chain_.\n\nFrom the amphibians (probably from extinct forms, not from living)\nthere arose the highest three classes of vertebrates\u2014the true\nreptiles, the birds, and the mammals\u2014all of whom have lungs and\nbreathe air from the beginning to the end of their days. Gills, as\norgans of breathing, disappear forever, being changed, as has been\nsaid, into parts of the organs of mastication and hearing. In the\nreptiles first appear those organs which in the highest races\noverflow on occasions of tenderness and grief, the tear glands.\nThese organs are, however, in our cold-blooded antecedents, organs\nof ocular lubrication rather than of weeping. There are but four\nsmall orders of existing reptiles\u2014snakes, turtles, lizards, and\ncrocodilians. These are the pygmean descendants of a mighty line,\nthe last of a dynasty which during the greater part of the Mesozoic\nages was represented by the most immense and powerful monsters that\nhave ever lived upon the earth. Mesozoic civilisation was\npre-eminently saurian. Reptiles were supreme everywhere\u2014on sea and\nland and in the air. Their rulership of the world was not so bloody\nand masterful as man\u2019s, but quite as remorseless. Imagine an\naristocracy made up of pterosaurs (flying reptiles), with teeth, and\nmeasuring 20 feet between wing-tips; great plesiosaurs (serpent\nreptiles) and ichthyosaurs (fish reptiles), enormous bandits of the\nseas; and dinosaurs and atlantosaurs, giant land lizards, 30 feet\nhigh and from 50 to 100 feet in length. A government of demagogs is\nbad enough, as king-ridden mankind well know, but dragons would be\nworse, if possible. The atlantosaurs were the largest animals that\nhave ever walked upon the earth. They were huge plant-eaters\ninhabiting North America. It has been surmised that one of these\nbehemoths \u2018may have consumed a whole tree for breakfast.\u2019 It was\nthe mighty saurians of the Mesozoic time who brought into\neverlasting subordination the piscatorial civilisation of the\nDevonian and carboniferous ages.\n\nToward the latter part of the Reptilian Age, and somewhere along\nabout the time of the appearance of hard-wood forests, came the\nbirds, those beautiful and emotional beings who, in spite of human\ndestructiveness, continue to fill our groves and gardens with the\nmiracles of beauty and song. The bird is a \u2018glorified reptile.\u2019\nHow the \u2018slow, cold-blooded, scaly saurian ever became transformed\ninto the quick, hot-blooded, feathered bird, the joy of creation,\u2019\nis a considerable mystery, yet we know no reason for believing that\nthe transformation did not take place. Although in their external\nappearance and mode of life birds and reptiles differ so widely from\neach other, yet, in their internal structure and embryology, they\nare so much alike that one of the brightest anatomists that has ever\nlived (Huxley) united them both into a single class under the name\nSauropsida. It might naturally be supposed that the birds are\ndescendants of the flying reptiles, the pterosaurs. But this may not\nbe true. The pterosaurs were structurally much further removed from\nthe birds than were certain extinct terrestrial reptiles. The fact\nthat birds and pterosaurs both had wings has really nothing to do\nwith the case. For the wings of reptiles, we almost know, were not\nhomologous with the wings of birds. The bird\u2019s wing is a feathered\nfore-leg; the wing of the reptile was an expanded skin stretching\nfrom the much-elongated last finger backwards to the hind-leg and\ntail. Wings, it may be remarked in passing, have had at least four\ndifferent and distinct beginnings in the animal kingdom, represented\nby the bats, the birds, the reptiles, and the insects. This does not\ninclude the parachutes of the so-called flying squirrels, lemurs,\nlizards, phalangers, and fishes.\n\nThe first birds had teeth and vertebrated tails. The archeopteryx,\nwhich is the earliest toothed bird whose remains have yet been\nfound, was about the size of a crow. It had thirty-two teeth and\ntwenty caudal vertebrae. Two specimens of it have been found in the\nJurassic slates of Bavaria. One of these fossils is in the British\nMuseum, and the other in the Museum of Berlin. Other toothed birds\nhave been found fossil by Dr. Mudge in the cretaceous chalk of North\nAmerica. These last had short, fan tails like existing birds.\n\nFrom the toothed birds developed the beaked birds\u2014the\nkeel-breasted birds (the group to which most existing birds belong)\nand the birds with unkeeled breasts, _i.e._, the ostrich-like birds.\nThe ostrich-like birds are runners. They have rudimentary wings, and\nthe keel of the breast-bone, which in the keel-breasted birds acts\nas a stay for the attachment of the wing muscles, is lacking. The\nostrich-like birds are probably degenerate flyers, the flying\napparatus having become obsolete through disuse. The feathers of\nbirds are generally supposed to be the modified scales of reptiles.\n\nThe most brilliant offspring of the reptiles were the mammals,\nanimals capable of a wider distribution over the face of the earth\nthan the cold-blooded reptiles, on account of their hair and their\nwarm blood. Cold-blooded animals of great size are able to inhabit\nbut a small zone of the existing earth\u2019s surface\u2014the torrid\nbelt. They cannot house themselves during the seasons of cold, as\nmen can; nor escape to the tropics on the wings of the wind, as do\nthe birds; nor bury themselves in subaqueous mud, as do the frogs,\nsnakes, and crustaceans. During the Mesozoic period, when\ncold-blooded reptiles of gigantic size flourished over a wide area\nof the earth\u2019s surface, the planet was far warmer than now.\nAnimals, therefore, like the mammals (or birds), capable of\nmaintaining a fixed temperature regardless of the thermal\nfluctuations of the surrounding media, are the only animals of large\nsize and power capable of uninterrupted existence over the greater\npart of the surface of the existing earth. The pre-eminent life of\nthe Cenozoic time was mammalian. But the decline and fall of the\nsaurian power was not wholly due to the rise of the more dynamic\nmammals. It was in part due, no doubt, to adverse conditions of\nclimate, and also to the fact that mammals and birds guard their\neggs, and saurians do not.\n\nThe lowest of the mammals are the monotremes, animals which blend in\na marvellous manner the characteristics of birds, reptiles, and\nmammals. Only two families of these old-fashioned creatures are\nleft, the echidna and the duck-bill (ornithorhynchus), both of them\nfound on or near that museum of biological antiquities, Australia.\nThey are covered with hair and suckle their young like other\nmammals, but they have only the rudiments of milk glands, and they\nlay eggs with large yolks from a cloaca, like the reptiles and\nbirds. The duck-bill hides its eggs in the ground, but the echidna\nhatches its eggs in a small external brooding pouch, periodically\ndeveloped for this purpose. The young of the monotremes feed on the\noily perspiration which exudes from the body of the mother. The\nmonotremes first appear in the fossiliferous rocks of the Triassic\nAge.\n\nFrom the monotreme-like mammals developed the marsupial mammals,\nanimals possessing a purse-like pouch on the after part of the\nabdomen, in which they carry their young. The young of marsupials\nare born in an extremely immature state, and are carried in this\npouch in order to complete their development. The young of the\nkangaroo, an animal as large as a man, are only about an inch in\nlength when they are born. They are carried for nine months after\ntheir birth in the marsupium of the mother, firmly attached to the\nmaternal nipple. The marsupials came into existence during the\nJurassic Age, and during the next age, the Cretaceous, they arose to\nconsiderable power. During this latter age they were found on every\ncontinent. But they have been almost exterminated by their more\npowerful descendants.\n\nFrom the marsupials developed the placental mammals, animals so\ncalled because their young are developed within the parental body in\nassociation with a peculiar nourishing organ called the placenta.\nFrom the herbivorous marsupials developed the almost toothless\nedentates, the rodents, or gnawing animals, the sirenians, the\ncetaceans, and the hoofed animals, or ungulates. The sirenians are\nfish-like animals with two flippers, and are often called sea-cows.\nThey resemble whales in many respects, and are sometimes classed\nwith them. They are plant-eaters exclusively, and are found grazing\nalong the bottoms of tropical estuaries and rivers. They have tiny\neyes, teeth fitted for grinding (not spike-like as in the whales),\nand a strong affection for their young, the mother, when pursued,\noften carrying her little one under her flippers. An immense\nsirenian, known as Steller\u2019s manatee, was discovered on the\nBehring Islands, along the Kamschatka coast, in 1741. Twenty-seven\nyears afterwards not one of them was left, all having been murdered\nby the Russian sailors. The sirenians are probably degenerate forms\nof land quadrupeds, having lost their hind-limbs and developed the\nfish-like shape in adapting themselves to aquatic conditions. They\nappear first in the Eocene Age.\n\nAmong the most interesting derivatives of the herbivorous\nmarsupials, because the most aberrant, are the whales. They are true\nmammals\u2014have warm blood, breathe the air with lungs, and suckle\ntheir young like other mammals. But, like the sirenians, they live\nin the surface of the waters, and have flippers and a fish-like tail\nand form. They differ from the sirenians, however, in being\ncarnivorous, in having inguinal instead of pectoral milk glands, and\nin being structurally less like quadrupeds. They probably\ndegenerated from land quadrupeds during the Jurassic period, and,\nowing to their longer residence in the waters, have become further\nremoved from the quadrupedal type than the sirenians. Whales have\ntwo limbs, the hind-limbs having disappeared as a result of the\npre-eminent development of the tail. The tails of whales and\nsirenians are flattened horizontally, not vertically, as in fishes.\n\nOut of generalised forms of hoofed animals now extinct developed the\nodd-toed and even-toed races of existing ungulates. The original\nungulates had five hoofs on each foot, and were highly generalised\nin their structure. From these original five-toed forms have arisen\nthe variously hoofed and variously structured tribes of existing\nungulates: the five-toed elephant, the four-toed tapir and\nhippopotamus, the three-toed rhinoceros, the two-toed camel, sheep,\nswine, deer, antelope, giraffe, and ox, and the one-toed horse and\nzebra.\n\nThe carnivorous branch of the placental animals came from the\ncarnivorous branch of the marsupials. From early forms of\ncarnivorous placentals developed the ape-like lemurs and those\ngeneralised forms of rapacious animals from which arose the\ninsect-eaters, the bats, and the true carnivora. The seals represent\na by-development from the main line of the carnivora, a third\ndefection, and a comparatively recent one, from land faunas. Seals\nlive at the meeting of the land and the waters rather than in or on\nthe waters, as do the cetaceans and sirenians. They have retained\ntheir fur and their four limbs, but have almost lost their power of\nland locomotion by the conversion of their feet into flippers. The\ntwo front-limbs of seals are the only ones used as ordinary limbs\nare used. The hind-limbs in most seals stretch permanently out\nbehind, the webbed digits spreading out fan-shaped on either side of\nthe stumpy tail, and constituting a rowing apparatus functionally\nhomologous with the tail of fishes and whales. According to Jordan,\nthe fur seals and the hair seals are descended from different\nfamilies of land carnivora, the former probably from the bears, and\nthe latter from the cats.\n\nThe lemurs are of especial interest to human beings, because in them\nare found the first startling approximation in looks and structure\nto the \u2018human form divine.\u2019 The lemurs are monkey-like creatures\nliving in trees, but differ enough from true monkeys to be often\nplaced in an order by themselves. Their milk glands are abdominal\ninstead of pectoral, as in the monkeys, and the second digit of each\nhand and foot ends in a claw. The most of them live in Madagascar.\nThey are generally nocturnal in their habits, although some species\nare diurnal. They appear first in the Eocene rocks, and Haeckel\nthinks they may have developed from opossum-like marsupials in the\nlate Cretaceous or early Eocene Age.\n\nFrom lemurs or from some other similar sort of semi-apes developed\nthe true apes\u2014the flat-nosed (platyrhine) apes of the New World\nand the narrow-nosed (catarhine) apes of the Old World. There is\nconsiderable difference between the New World apes and those of the\nOld World. The differences between the two classes is, in fact, so\nstriking that they are thought by some to have developed\nindependently of each other from distinct species of semi-apes. The\napes of the New World have flat noses, and the nostrils are far\napart and open in front of the nose, never below. The Old World apes\nhave narrow noses, the nostrils being close together and opening\ndownwards as in man. The tail of (nearly) all New World apes is\nprehensile, being used regularly as a fifth limb, while among Old\nWorld apes the tail is never so used. The Old World apes all have\nthe same number and kinds of teeth as man has, while the New World\napes (excepting the Brazilian marmosets) have an additional premolar\nin each half-jaw, making thirty-six in all. The catarhine apes are,\ntherefore, structurally much nearer to man than their platyrhine\ncousins. All tailed apes probably sprang originally from a single\nstirp of semi-apes, and spread over the earth at a time when the\neastern and western land masses of the southern hemisphere were\nconnected with each other. The earliest remains of apes appear in\nthe Miocene Age.\n\nFrom the Old World tailed apes were developed the tailless,\nman-like, or anthropoid apes\u2014the gorillas and chimpanzees of\nAfrica, and the orangs and gibbons of Asia and the East Indies. The\nanthropoids arose from the tailed apes by the loss of the tail, the\nthinning of the hairy covering, the enlargement of the fore-brain,\nand by structural adaptations to a more nearly vertical position. No\nremains of anthropoids are found earlier than the Pliocene Age.\n\nThe man-like apes are the nearest living relatives of the human\nraces. It is not probable that man has been derived directly from\nany of the existing races of man-like apes. For no one of them in\nall particulars of its structure stands closer to him than the rest.\nThe orang approaches closest to man in the formation of the brain,\nthe chimpanzee in the shape of the spine and in certain\ncharacteristics of the skull, the gorilla in the development of the\nfeet and in size, and the gibbon in the formation of the throat and\nteeth. The earliest human races probably sprang from man-like races\nof apes now extinct, who lived in southern Asia or in Africa during\nthe Pliocene Age (possibly as early as the Miocene), and who\ncombined in their structures the various man-like characters\npossessed by existing anthropoids.\n\nThe earliest races of men were speechless\u2014the ape-like\n\u2018Alali\u2019\u2014beings, living wholly upon the ground and walking upon\ntheir hind-limbs, but without more than the mere rudiments of\nlanguage. The vertical position led to a much greater development of\nthe posterior parts, especially of the muscles of the back and the\ncalves of the leg. The great toe, which in the ape is opposable,\nlost its opposability, or all except traces of it, after the\nabandonment of arboreal life. It must have been a sight fit to stir\nthe soul of the most leathern, these children of the night, with low\nbrows, stooping gait, and ape-like faces, armed with rude clubs,\nclothed in natural hair, and wandering about in droves without law,\nfire, or understanding, hiding in thickets and in the holes of the\nearth, feeding on roots and fruits, and contending doubtfully with\nthe species around them for food and existence.\n\nFrom the \u2018Alali\u2019\u2014the speechless ape-men\u2014we may imagine the\ntrue men to have evolved\u2014talking men, men with erect posture and\nmature brain and larynx, the woolly-haired ulotrichi and the\nstraight-haired lissotrichi. There are four existing species of\nwoolly-haired men: the Papuans of New Guinea and Melanesia, and the\nHottentots, Caffres, and Negroes of southern, equatorial, and north\ncentral Africa respectively. They all have long heads, slanting\nteeth, very dark skin, and black, bushy hair, each individual hair\nin cross-section being flat or oval in shape. In the straight-haired\nraces the skin is much fairer than in the woolly-haired races, being\nseldom darker than brown, and each individual hair in cross-section\nis round like the cross-section of a cylinder. The principal species\nof straight-haired men are the sea-roving Malays of the East Indies\nand the Pacific, the round-faced Mongols of eastern and northern\nAsia, the aboriginal Americans of the western hemisphere, and the\nincomparable Aryans, including the ancient Greeks and Romans and the\nmodern peoples of India, Persia, and Europe.\n\nMan is to-day the pre-eminent animal of the planet. The successive\nascendancies of the Worm, the Mollusk, the Crustacean, the Fish, the\nReptile, and the Mammal, are followed triumphantly by the ascendancy\nof the Children of the Ape.\n\nA large part of the life of the earth has remained steadfastly where\nit was cradled, beneath the waves. But more restless portions have\nleft the sea and crept forth upon the land, or swarmed into the air.\nOne migration, the most numerous, is represented by the insects.\nAnother, the most enterprising, was the amphibian. After ages of\nevolution the amphibian branch divided. One branch acquired wings\nand sailed off into the air. The other divided and subdivided. One\nof these subdivisions entered the forests, climbed and clambered\namong the trees, acquired perpendicularity and hands, descended and\nwalked upon the soil, invented agriculture, built cities and states,\nand imagined itself immortal. Human society is but the van\u2014the\nhither terminus\u2014of an evolutional process which had its beginning\naway back in the protoplasm of primeval waters. There is not a form\nthat creeps beneath the sea but can claim kinship with the eagle.\nThe philosopher is the remote posterity of the meek and lowly amoeba.\n\n1. See \u2018Genealogy of Animals,\u2019 at the end of the chapter.\n2. See table of geological ages, at the end of the previous chapter.\n\nXI. Conclusion.\n\nThe resemblances, homologies, and metamorphoses existing everywhere\namong animal forms are, therefore, evidence of the most logical\nconsanguinities. It is all so perfectly plain. The structures of\norganic beings have come about as a result of the action and\nreaction of environment upon these structures. Every being\u2014and not\nonly every being, but every species, the whole organic world\u2014has\ncome to be what it is as a result of the incessant hammerings of its\nsurroundings, the hammerings not only of the present, but of the\nlong-stretching past. By surroundings is meant, of course, the rest\nof the universe. Those animals belonging to the same stock resemble\neach other because they have been subjected to the same experiences,\nthe same series of selections. They have lain on the same great\nanvil, and felt the down-comings of the same sledge. The\nsimilarities among animal forms in general indicate relationships,\njust as the similarities among the races of men indicate racial\nconsanguinities. All men belong to the human species because they\nare all fundamentally alike. But there are differences in the\ncharacter of the hair, in the colour of the skin, in the\nconformation of the skull, and in the structure of the language,\namong the different varieties of the species, indicating striking\nvariety in relationship and origin. An eminent biologist has said\nthat if Negroes and Caucasians were snails they would be classed as\nentirely distinct species of animals. Whether, as is thought by\nsome, the woolly-haired races are the descendants of the African\nanthropoids, and the straight-haired varieties are the posterity of\nthe orangs and gibbons, we may never know positively. But we do know\nthat these two great branches of mankind must have different\ngenealogies, extending to a remote antiquity, and that the varieties\nbelonging to each great group sustain to each other the relations of\na common kinship. Englishmen look like each other, act like each\nother, and speak the same language. So do Frenchmen and Swedes and\nChinese. Every people is peculiar. This is not the result of\naccident or agreement, but the result of law. Mongolians do not all\nhave short heads, yellow faces, slanting eyes, and prominent malars\nbecause they have agreed to have them, but as a result of a common\npedigree. Similarity of structure implies commonalty of origin, and\ncommonalty of origin means consanguinity.\n\nAnd this is true whether you contemplate the featural resemblances\nof brothers and sisters of the same human parent, or those more\nfundamental characteristics which distinguish species, orders, and\nsub-kingdoms. All animals are composed of protoplasm, which is a\ncompound of clay, because all animals are descended from the same\nfirst parents, protoplasmic organisms evolved out of the elemental\nooze. All vertebrates have nerve-filled backbones with two pairs of\nventrally branching limbs, because the original ancestors of the\nvertebrates had nerve-filled backbones with two pairs of ventrally\nbranching limbs. Insects individually evolve from worms because\nworms are their phylogenetic fathers and mothers. Man has hands and\na vertical spine, and walks on his hind-limbs, not because he was\nfashioned in the image of a god, but because his ancestors lived\namong the trees. The habit of using the posterior limbs for\nlocomotion, and the anterior for prehension, and the resulting\nperpendicular, are peculiarities developed by our simian ancestors\nwholly on account of the incentives to such structure and posture\nafforded by aboreal life. These peculiarities would not likely have\nbeen acquired by quadrupeds living upon and taking their food from a\nperfectly level and treeless plain. If there had been no forests on\nthe earth, therefore, there would have been no incentive to the\nperpendicular, and the \u2018human form divine\u2019 would have been\ninconceivably different from what it is to-day. And if fishes had\nhad three serial pairs of limbs instead of two, and their posterity\nhad inherited them, as they certainly would have had the foresight\nto do if they had had the opportunity, the highest animals on the\nearth to-day, the \u2018paragons of creation,\u2019 would probably be\ntwo-handed quadrupeds (centaurs) instead of two-handed bipeds. And\nmuch more efficient and ideal individuals they would have been in\nevery way than the rickety, peculiar, unsubstantial plantigrades\nwho, by their talent to talk, have become the masters of the\nuniverse, and, by their imaginations, \u2018divine.\u2019\n\nKinship is universal. The orders, families, species, and races of\nthe animal kingdom are the branches of a gigantic arbour. Every\nindividual is a cell, every species is a tissue, and every order is\nan organ in the great surging, suffering, palpitating process. Man\nis simply one portion of the immense enterprise. He is as veritably\nan animal as the insect that drinks its little fill from his veins,\nthe ox he goads, or the wild-fox that flees before his bellowings.\nMan is not a god, nor in any imminent danger of becoming one. He is\nnot a celestial star-babe dropped down among mundane matters for a\ntime and endowed with wing possibilities and the anatomy of a deity.\nHe is a mammal of the order of primates, not so lamentable when we\nthink of the hyena and the serpent, but an exceedingly discouraging\nvertebrate compared with what he ought to be. He has come up from\nthe worm and the quadruped. His relatives dwell on the prairies and\nin the fields, forests, and waves. He shares the honours and\npartakes of the infirmities of all his kindred. He walks on his\nhind-limbs like the ape; he eats herbage and suckles his young like\nthe ox; he slays his fellows and fills himself with their blood like\nthe crocodile and the tiger; he grows old and dies, and turns to\nbanqueting worms, like all that come from the elemental loins. He\ncannot exceed the winds like the hound, nor dissolve his image in\nthe mid-day blue like the eagle. He has not the courage of the\ngorilla, the magnificence of the steed, nor the plaintive innocence\nof the ring-dove. Poor, pitiful, glory-hunting hideful! Born into a\nuniverse which he creates when he comes into it, and clinging, like\nall his kindred, to a clod that knows him not, he drives on in the\npreposterous storm of the atoms, as helpless to fashion his fate as\nthe sleet that pelts him, and lost absolutely in the somnambulism of\nhis own being.\n\n\nTHE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. The Conflict of Science and Tradition\n  II. Evidences of Psychical Evolution\n  III. The Common-sense View\n  IV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared\n  V. Conclusion\n\n\n  \u2018I saw, deep in the eyes of the animals, the human soul look out\n  upon me.\u2019\n  \u2018I saw where it was born down deep under feathers and fur, or\n  condemned for awhile to roam four-footed among the brambles. I\n  caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner, and swore that I\n  would be faithful.\u2019\n  \u2018Thee, my brother and sister, I see and mistake not. Do not be\n  afraid. Dwelling thus and thus for awhile, fulfilling thy appointed\n  time\u2014thou too shalt come to thyself at last.\u2019\n  \u2018Thy half-warm horns and long tongue lapping round my wrist do not\n  conceal thy humanity any more than the learned talk of the pedant\n  conceals his\u2014for all thou art dumb we have words and plenty\n  between us.\u2019\n\n  \u2014 Edward Carpenter.\n\n\nTHE PSYCHICAL KINSHIP\n\nI. The Conflict of Science and Tradition.\n\nThe doctrine that on mankind\u2019s account all other beings came into\nexistence, and that non-human beings are mere hunks of matter devoid\nof all psychic qualities found in man, is a doctrine about as\nsagacious as the old geocentric theory of the universe. Conceit is a\ndistinctly human emotion. No other animal has it. But it has been\nlavished upon man with a generosity sufficient to compensate for its\ntotal absence from the rest of the universe. Man has always\noverestimated himself. In whatever age or province of the world you\nlook down on the human imagination, you find it industriously\ndigging disparities and establishing gulfs. Man, according to\nhimself, has had great difficulty many times in the history of the\nworld in escaping the divine. According to the facts, he has only in\nrecent biological times and after great labour and uncertainty\nabandoned his tail and his all-fours. According to himself, man was\nmade \u2018in the image of his maker,\u2019 and has been endowed with\npowers and properties peculiarly his own. According to the facts, he\nhas come into the world in a manner identical with that of all other\nanimals, and has been endowed with like nature and destiny. Man has\nnever manifested a warmer or more indelicate enthusiasm than the\nenthusiasm with which he has appreciated himself. And with the same\nardour with which he has praised himself he has maligned and\nmisrepresented others. Man has set himself up as the supreme judge\nand executive of the world, and he has not hesitated to award to\nhimself the lion\u2019s share of everything. He has ransacked his fancy\nfor adjectives with which to praise himself, and driven his\ninventive faculties to the verge of distraction in search of\njustification for his crimes upon those around him. Every individual\nbent on deeds of darkness first seeks in his own mind justification\nfor his purposed sins. And it is a caustic comment on the character\nof human conviction that no enthusiastic criminal\u2014from the\nmarauder of continents to the kitchen pilferer\u2014ever yet sought\nunsuccessfully at the court of his conscience for a sinful permit.\nIt was an easy matter, therefore, for man\u2014aided as he was by such\nan experienced imagination\u2014to convince himself that all other\nanimals were made for him, that they were made without feeling or\nintelligence, and that hence he was justified in using in any way he\nchose the conveniences so generously provided by an eccentric\nprovidence. But Darwin has lived. Beings have come into the world,\nwe now know, through the operation of natural law. Man is not\ndifferent from the rest. The story of Eden is a fabrication,\nbequeathed to us by our well-meaning but dimly-lighted ancestors.\nThere has been no more miracle in the origin of the human species\nthan in the origin of any other species. And there is no more\nmiracle in the origin of a species than there is in the birth of a\nmolecule or in the breaking of a tired wave on the beach. Man was\nnot made in the image of the hypothetical creator of heaven and\nearth, but in the image of the ape. Man is not a fallen god, but a\npromoted reptile. The beings around him are not conveniences, but\ncousins. Instead of stretching away to the stars, man\u2019s pedigree\nslinks down into the sea. Horrible revelation! Frightful antithesis!\nInstead of celestial genesis and a \u2018fall\u2019\u2014long and doleful\npromotion. Instead of elysian gardens and romance\u2014the slime.\nInstead of a god with royal nostrils miraculously animating an\nimmortal duplicate\u2014a little lounging cellule, too small to be seen\nand too senseless to distinguish between midnight and noon. But the\nsituation is not half so horrible as it looks to be to those who see\nonly the skin of things. Is it not better, after all, to be the\nhonourable outcome of a straightforward evolution than the offspring\nof flunky-loving celestials? Are the illustrious children of the ape\nless glorious than the sycophants of irrational theological systems?\nDarwin dealt in his quiet way some malicious blows to human conceit,\nbut he also bequeathed to a misguided world the elements of its\nultimate redemption.\n\nThe supposed psychical gulf between human and non-human beings has\nno more existence, outside the flamboyant imagination of man, than\nhas the once-supposed physical gulf. It is pure fiction. The\nsupposition is a relic of the rapidly dwindling vanity of\nanthropocentricism, and is perpetuated from age to age by human\nselfishness and conceit. It has no foundation either in science or\nin common-sense. Man strives to lessen his guilt by the laudation of\nhimself and the disparagement and degradation of his victims. Like\nthe ostrich, who, pursued by death, improvises an imaginary escape\nby plunging its head into the desert, so man, pursued by the\nvengeful correctives of his own conscience, fabricates a fictitious\ninnocence by the calumniation of those upon whom he battens. But\nsuch excuses cannot much longer hold out against the rising\nconsciousness of kinship. Psychology, like all other sciences, is\nrapidly ceasing to attend exclusively to human phenomena. It is\nlifting up its eyes and looking about; it is preparing to become\ncomparative. It has come to realise that the mind of man is but a\nsingle shoot of a something which ramifies the entire animal world,\nand that in order to understand its subject it is necessary for it\nto familiarise itself with the whole field of phenomenon. The soul\nof man did not commence to be in the savage. It commenced to be in\nthe worm, whose life man grinds out with his heel, and in the\nbivalve that flounders in his broth. The roots of consciousness are\nin the sea. Side by side with physical evolution has gone on\npsychical evolution; side by side with the evolution of organs and\ntissues has gone on the evolution of intellect, sensibility, and\nwill. Human nature and human mind are no more _sui generis_ than are\nhuman anatomy and physiology. The same considerations that prove\nthat man\u2019s material organism is the cumulative result of long\nevolution proclaim that human mind, the immaterial concomitant of\nthe material organism, is also the cumulative result of long\nevolution.\n\nWe might just as well recognise facts first as last, for they will\nhave to be recognised some time. Truths are not put down by\ninhospitality\u2014they are simply put off. The universe has a policy,\na program. We may close our eyes to the facts around us, hoping in\nthis way to compel them to pass away or be forgotten. But they do\nnot pass away, nor will they be forgotten. They simply become\ninvisible. They will live on and present themselves to other minds\nor ages or climes more hospitable or honest than our own. The only\nproper attitude of mind to assume toward the various doctrines\nexisting among men is the attitude of perfect willingness to believe\n_anything_\u2014anything that appeals to us as being reasonable and\nright. The great majority of men, however, are intellectual\nsolids\u2014unable to move and unwilling to think. They have certain\nbeliefs _to which they are determined to hold on_, and everything\nthat does not fit in with these beliefs is rejected as a matter of\ncourse.\n\nII. Evidences of Psychical Evolution.\n\nThat mind has evolved, and that there is a psychical kinship, an\nactual consanguinity of feelings and ideas, among all the forms of\nanimal life is proved incontestably by the following facts:\n\n1. The evolution of mind is implied by the fact of the evolution of\nstructures. \u2018I hold,\u2019 says Romanes, in the introduction to his\ngreat work on \u2018Mental Evolution,\u2019 \u2018that, if the doctrine of\norganic evolution is accepted, it carries with it, as a necessary\ncorollary, the doctrine of mental evolution.\u2019 It makes no\ndifference what theory we adopt regarding the essential natures of\nthe physical and the psychical\u2014whether we agree with the\nmaterialist that mind is an attribute of matter, with the idealist\nthat matter is a creation of mind, with the monist that mind and\nbody are only different aspects of the same central entity, or with\nthe dualist that body and soul are two distinct but temporarily\ndependent existences\u2014we must in any case recognise the fact, which\nis perceived by all, that there is an ever-faithful parallel between\nthe neural and psychical phenomena of every organism. And if the\nelements which enter into and make up the physical structure of man\nhave been derived from, and determined by, preceding forms of life,\nthe elements which enter into and make up the psychical counterpart\nof the physical have also, without any doubt, been inherited from,\nand determined by, ancestral life forms.\n\n2. Closely allied to the foregoing reason for a belief in the\nevolution of mind is that derived from a comparative survey of the\nnervous system in man and other animals. In man, mind is closely\nassociated with a certain tissue or system of tissues\u2014_nerve\ntissue or the nervous system_. That mind is correlated with nerve\nstructure, and that mental anatomy may be learned from a study of\nthe anatomy of the nervous system, especially of the brain, is the\nbasic postulate of the science of physiological psychology. Now,\nnerve cells exist in all animals above the sponge, and a\ncomparatively well-developed nervous system is found even among many\nof the invertebrates, as the higher worms, crustaceans, insects, and\nmollusks. The nervous system of invertebrates, though composed of\nthe same kind of tissue, is constructed according to a somewhat\ndifferent plan of architecture from that of the vertebrates. But in\nall of the great family of backboned animals the nervous system is\nbuilt on the same general plan as in man, with a cerebro-spinal\ntrunk extending from the head along the back and motory and sensory\nnerves ramifying to all parts of the body. There is also a\nsympathetic nervous system in all animals down as far as the\ninsects. The brain, which is the most important part of the nervous\nsystem, and which has been called the \u2018organ of consciousness,\u2019\npresents throughout the animal kingdom, from its beginning in the\nworms to man, a graduated series of increasing complication\nproceeding out of the same fundamental type. This is especially true\nof the vertebrates. Fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and\nmammals, all have in their brains the same primary parts, the same\nfive fundamental divisions, as are found in the brain of man. Hence,\nwhatever may be thought about the mental states of invertebrates, we\nhave the right, in the case of the vertebrate orders of life, to\ninfer, from the general similarity of their nervous system to our\nown, that they have a corresponding similarity to ourselves in\nmental constitution and experience.\n\n3. The evolution of mind is suggested by the existence in the animal\nworld of all grades of intelligence, from almost mindless forms to\nforms even exceeding in some respects the mental attainments of men.\nThe jelly-fish and the philosopher are not mental aliens. They are\nlinked to each other by a continuous gradation of intermediate\nintelligences. The existence of these grades of mental development\nsuggest psychical evolution and kinship, just as the existence of\nlike grades of structural development suggest physical evolution.\n\n4. In the mental life of animals the same factors of evolution exist\nas those by means of which organic structures have been brought into\nexistence, and it is reasonable to suppose that the operation of\nthese factors have produced in the mental world results analogous to\nthose produced by the operation of the same factors among organic\nstructures.\n\nMen and other animals _vary_ in their natures and mental faculties\nquite as much as they do in colour, size, and shape. It is commonly\nsupposed that the mental and temperamental variety existing among\nindividual men does not exist among individual birds, quadrupeds,\ninsects, etc. But a little observation or reflection ought to be\nenough to convince anyone that such a supposition belongs to that\nbatch of pre-Darwinian mistakes presented to us by an over-generous\npast. We are _not acquainted_ with the inhabitants of our fields and\nbarn-yards. We are almost as ignorant of the mental life and\npersonality of these door-yard neighbours and friends of ours as we\nwould be if they were the inhabitants of another continent. That is\nwhy our obtuse minds lump them together so indiscriminately\u2014we do\nnot know anything about them. We never take the trouble, or think it\nworth while, to get acquainted with them, much less to study and\nknow them. We have grown up in the falsehood that they are\naltogether different from what we are, and that it is really not\nworth while to bother our gigantic heads about them, except to use\nthem when it comes handy, or kick them to one side, or execute them,\nwhen they get in the way. Everybody else looks at the matter in\nabout the same way, so we just let it go at that.\n\nThere is a sameness about foreigners and other classes of _human_\nbeings with whom we are but slightly, or not at all, acquainted,\nuntil we come to know them and can discriminate one from another. I\nremember once asking my sister, if her baby, which looked to me like\nall other babies I had ever seen, were mixed up with a lot of other\nbabies of about the same age, whether she could pick hers out from\nall the rest, and she gave me an unmistakable affirmative by\nanswering, \u2018What a foolish question!\u2019\n\nThere is less variety among the individuals of non-human races than\namong individual men, just as there is less variety among individual\nsavages than among the members of a civilised community. But there\nis mental diversity among all beings, and we only need to whittle\nour observation a little to recognise the fact. You never hear the\nkeeper of a menagerie or any intelligent associate of dogs, horses,\nbirds, or insects say there is no individuality among these animals.\nBrehm, the great German naturalist, assures us that each individual\nmonkey of all those he kept tame in Africa had its own peculiar\ntemper and disposition. And this is no more than what everyone who\nknows anything about it knows to be true of dogs, horses, cats,\ncattle, birds, and even fishes and insects. Any intelligent\ndog-fancier or pigeon-fancier can tell you the personal\npeculiarities of every one of the fifty or a hundred dogs or pigeons\nin his charge. He has watched and studied them since they came into\nexistence, and through this continuous association he has come to\n_know_ them. He simply makes discriminations that are not made by\nthe casual or superficial observer. The Laplander knows and names\neach reindeer in his herd, though to a stranger they are all as much\nalike as the multitudes on an ant-hill. The Peckhams of Milwaukee,\nthose indefatigable investigators of spiders and insects, are\nconstantly telling us of the wonderful individuality possessed by\nthese lowly lessees of our fields and gardens. In their work on\n\u2018The Habits and Instincts of the Solitary Wasps,\u2019 speaking of\nthe ammophiles, these authors say: \u2018In this species, as in every\none that we have studied, we have found a most interesting variation\namong the different individuals, not only in methods, but in\ncharacter and intellect. While one was beguiled from her hunting by\nevery sorrel blossom she passed, another stuck to her work with\nindefatigable perseverance. While one stung her caterpillars so\ncarelessly and made her nest in so shiftless a way that her young\ncould survive only through some lucky chance, another devoted\nherself to these duties not only with conscientious earnestness, but\nwith an apparent craving after artistic perfection that was touching\nto see.\u2019 The variation in the mental phenomena of animals,\nincluding man, is partly innate, and partly the result of\nenvironment or education.\n\nAnimals not only vary in their mental qualities, but they also\n_inherit_ these variations, just as they do physical properties and\npeculiarities. Evidence of this is furnished by every new being that\ncomes into the world. Insanity runs in families, and so does genius\nand criminality. Even the most trifling idiosyncrasies are often\ntransmitted, not only by men, but also by dogs, horses, and other\nanimals. Such qualities of mind as courage, fidelity, good and bad\ntemper, intelligence, timidity, special tastes and aptitudes, are\ncertainly transmitted in all the higher orders of animal life.\n\nAnimals are also _selected_, are enabled to survive in the struggle\nfor life quite as much through the possession by them of certain\nmental qualities as on account of their physical characters. Whether\nthe selections are made by nature or by man, they are not determined\nby the physical facts of size, strength, speed, and the like, more\nthan by cunning, courage, sagacity, skill, industry, devotion,\nferocity, tractability, and other mental properties. The fittest\nsurvive, and the fittest may be the most timid or analytic as well\nas the most powerful. No better illustration of this truth can be\nfound than that furnished by man himself. Man is by nature a\ncomparatively feeble animal. He is neither large nor powerful. Yet\nhe has been selected to prosper over all other animals because of\nhis ingenuity, sympathy, and art. The great feeling and civilisation\nof higher men have been built up by slow accretion due to the\noperation of the law of survival extending over vast measures of\ntime. Creeds and instincts, governments and impulses, forms of\nthought and forms of expression, have struggled and survived just as\nhave cells and species. A struggle for existence is constantly going\non, as Max M\u00fcller has pointed out, even among the words and\ngrammatical forms of every language. The better, shorter, easier\nforms are constantly gaining the ascendancy, and the longer and more\ncumbrous expressions grow obsolete.\n\nIf, therefore, the higher types of mind have not come into existence\nas have the higher types of structure, through evolution from\nsimpler and more generalised forms, it has not been due to the\nabsence of the factors necessary for bringing about this evolution.\n\n5. The presumption created by the existence of the factors of\npsychic evolution is strengthened by the facts of artificial\nselection. We _know_ mind _can_ evolve, _for it has done so in many\ncases_. The races of domesticated animals, the races whom man has\nexploited and preyed upon during the past several thousand years,\nhave, many of them, been completely changed in character and\nintelligence through human selection. Old instincts have been wiped\nout and new ones implanted. In many instances the psychology has\nbeen not only revolutionised, but remade.\n\nTake, for instance, the dog. The dog is a reformed bandit. It is a\nrevised wolf or jackal. It has been completely transformed by human\nselection; indeed, it may be said that the dog in the last ten or\nfifteen thousand years has made greater advances in sagacity and\ncivilisation than any other animal, scarcely even excepting man. Man\nhas made wonderful strides along purely intellectual lines, but in\nthe improvement of his emotions he has not been so successful. The\nrapid development of the dog in feeling and intelligence has no\ndoubt been due to the fact that his utility to man has always\ndepended largely on his good sense and fidelity, and man has\npersistently emphasised these qualities in his selection. Fierceness\nand distrust\u2014two of the most prominent traits in the psychology of\nthe primitive dog\u2014have been entirely eradicated in the higher\nraces of dogs. There is not anywhere on the face of the earth a more\ntrustful, affectionate, and docile being than this one-time\ncut-throat. Whether the dog has been derived from the wolf or from\nsome wild canine race now extinct, or from several distinct\nancestors, he must have had originally a fierce, distrustful, and\nbarbaric nature, for all of the undomesticated members of the dog\nfamily wolves, foxes, jackals, etc.\u2014have natures of this sort.\n\nThere are about 175 different races of domestic dogs. They represent\nalmost as great a range of development as do the races of men. Some\nof them are exceedingly primitive, while others are highly\nintelligent and civilised. The Eskimo dogs are really nothing but\nwolves that have been trained to the service of man. They look like\nwolves, and have the wolf psychology. They are not able to bark,\nlike ordinary dogs; they howl like wolves, and their ears stand up\nstraight, like the ears of all wild Canidae. Some of the more\nadvanced of the canine races\u2014like the sheep-dogs, pointers, and\nSt. Bernards\u2014are animals of great sympathy and sensibility. When\neducated, these dogs are almost human in their impulses and in their\npowers of discernment. In patience, vigilance, and devotion to duty,\nthey are superior to many men. At a word, or even a look, from its\nmaster, the loyal collie will gather the sheep scattered for miles\naround to the place designated, and do it with such tact and\nexpedition as to command admiration. It has been said that if it\nwere not for this faithful and competent canine the highlands of\nScotland would be almost useless for sheep-raising purposes, because\nof the greater expense that would be entailed if men were employed.\nOne collie will do the work of several men, and will do it better,\nand the generous-hearted creature pours out its services like water.\nIt requires no compensation except table refuse and a straw bed. In\nSouth America sheep-dogs are trained to act as shepherds and assume\nthe whole responsibility of tending the flock. \u2018It is a common\nthing,\u2019 says Darwin, \u2018to meet a large flock of sheep guarded by\none or two dogs, at a distance of some miles from any house or\nman.\u2019 When the dogs get hungry, they come home for food, but\nimmediately return to the flock on being fed. \u2018It is amusing,\u2019\nremarks this writer, \u2018to observe, when approaching a flock, how\nthe dog immediately advances barking, while the sheep all close in\nhis rear as around the oldest ram.\u2019 Romanes relates an incident\nwhich well illustrates the high character and intelligence of the\ndog and its wonderful devotion to a trust. \u2018It was a Scotch\ncollie. Her master was in the habit of consigning sheep to her\ncharge without supervision. On this particular occasion he remained\nbehind or proceeded by another road. On arriving at home late in the\nevening, he was astonished to learn that his faithful animal had not\nmade her appearance with the drove. He immediately set out in search\nof her. But on going out into the streets, there she was coming with\nthe drove, not one missing, and, marvellous to relate, she was\ncarrying a young puppy in her mouth. She had been taken in travail\non the hills, and how the poor creature had contrived to manage her\ndrove in her condition is beyond human calculation, for her road lay\nthrough sheep all the way. Her master\u2019s heart smote him when he\nsaw what she had suffered and effected. But she was nothing daunted,\nand after depositing her young one in a place of safety she again\nset out full speed for the hills, and brought another and another,\ntill she brought the whole litter, one by one; but the last one was\ndead\u2019.[1]\n\nWhat a wonderful transformation in canine character! The very beings\nwhose blood the dog once drank with ravenous thirst it now protects\nwith courage and fidelity. And this transformation in character is\nnot due to education simply. It is innate. Young dogs brought from\nTierra del Fuego or Australia, where the natives do not keep such\ndomestic animals as sheep, pigs, and poultry, invariably have an\nincurable propensity for attacking these animals.\n\nThe feeling of ownership possessed by so many dogs is an entirely\nnew element in canine character, a trait implanted wholly by human\nselection. Bold and confident on his own premises, the dog\nimmediately becomes weak and apologetic when placed in circumstances\nin which he feels he has no rights.\n\nThe pointers and setters have been developed as distinct breeds by\nhuman selection during the past 150 or 200 years.\n\nWhat is true of the dog is true also, to a large extent, of the cat,\ncow, horse, sheep, goat, fowl, and other domestic animals. Serene\nand peaceful puss is the tranquillised descendant of the wild cat of\nEgypt, one of the most untamable of all animals. The migratory\ninstinct, so strong in wild water-fowl, is almost absent from our\ngeese and ducks, as is the fighting propensity (prominent in the\nIndian jungle-bird) from most varieties of the domesticated chicken.\nThere are now as many as a hundred different kinds of domesticated\nanimals, and there is scarcely one of these animals that has not\nbeen profoundly changed in character during the period of its\ndomestication. There are much greater changes in some races than in\nothers. Some races have been much longer in captivity than others.\nAnd then, too, there is great difference in the degree of plasticity\nin different races, the races of ancient origin being much more\nfixed in their psychology than those of more recent beginnings. In\nsome races, too\u2014as in the sheep\u2014the selections made by man have\nbeen made primarily with reference to certain physical qualities,\nand in these cases the mental qualities have been only incidentally\naffected. In Polynesia, where it is selected for its flavour instead\nof for its fleetness or intelligence, the dog is said to be a very\nstupid animal. But in most cases of domestication the changes\nwrought by selection in the mental make-up of the race have been\nfully as great as the changes in body, and in some instances much\ngreater. And the process by which these great changes in psychology\nhave been effected is in principle identically the same as that by\nwhich mental evolution in general is assumed to have been brought\nabout.\n\nHistory everywhere has come out of the night, out of the deep gloom\nof the unrecorded. But it has not leaped forth like lightning out of\nthe darkness. It has dawned, night being succeeded by the amorphous\nshadows of legend and tradition, and these in turn by the attested\nevents of true history. Almost every civilised people can trace back\nits genealogy to a time when it was represented on the earth by one\nor more tribes of savage or half-savage ancestors. The Anglo-Saxons\ngo back to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, three semi-savage tribes\nwho came to England from the borderlands of the Baltic fourteen or\nfifteen centuries ago. The French are the descendants of the Gauls,\nwho formed the scattered population of warring and superstitious\ntribes referred to by Julius Caesar in the opening lines of his\n\u2018Commentaries.\u2019 The blue-eyed Germans came from the Cimbri, the\nGoths, and the Vandals, those bold, wild hordes who charged out of\nthe north to battle with the power of Rome. And all of the Aryan\nraces\u2014English, German, Italian, Scandinavian, Russian, Roman,\nGreek, and Persian\u2014trace their ancestry back, by means of common\nlanguages and legends, to a time when they were wandering tribes of\nnomads tenting somewhere on the plains of transcaspian Asia.\n\n6. The evolution of mind in the animal world in general is suggested\nby the fact that mind in man has evolved. The rich, luminous\nintellect of civilised man, with its art, science, law, literature,\ngovernment, and morality, has been evolved from the rude, raw,\ndemon-haunted mind of the savage. Evidence of this evolution is\nfurnished by the recorded facts of human history, by the antiquarian\ncollections of our museums, and by a study of existing savages.\n\nIn all our museums there are collections of the relics of\nprehistoric peoples. These collections consist of objects upon which\nmen in distant ages of the world have wrought\u2014their weapons,\nornaments, utensils, implements, and playthings\u2014which have been\nsaved from the teeth of Time by their durability. The character of\nthe minds which operated on these objects, which produced and used\nthem, may be inferred from the character of the objects, just as the\nlife and surroundings of an ancient animal or plant may be inferred\nfrom its fossil. These relics are of stone, bone, bronze, and iron.\nThey are found in almost every region of the earth\u2014all over Europe\nand its islands, in western and central Asia, in China and Japan, in\nMalay, Australia, and New Zealand, in the islands of the Pacific,\nand throughout the length and breadth of America. They antedate\nhuman history by thousands of years. They are the ruins of the Stone\nAge, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age of mankind. In all of these\nremains there is evidence of a slow but gradual improvement as we\napproach the present. There are places on the earth where the\nevolution of human implements, from the rudest chipped stones to the\ncomparatively finished products of historic peoples, is epitomised\nin the deposits of a few feet in depth. One of these occurs at\nChelles, a suburb of Paris, and was made the subject of a paper by\nProfessor Packard in the _Popular Science Monthly_ for May, 1902.\nHere three distinct layers, containing human remains entirely\ndifferent in character from each other, appear within a depth of 30\nfeet from the surface. The lowest bed, a layer of pebbles and sand,\nand probably preglacial in origin, contains the famous Chellean\n\u2018axes,\u2019 rude almond-shaped implements of chipped flint, and used\nby these ancient inhabitants by being held in the hand. In this bed\nare also found the bones of the straight-tusked elephant, cave-bear,\nbig-nosed rhinoceros, and other species now extinct. The next bed is\nthe interglacial, and contains implements entirely different from\nthe one below it, among which are skin-scrapers and lance-points.\nThe animal remains of this bed are also different from those found\nin the bed below, and include animals like the musk-ox and the\nreindeer, which were probably driven to this southern clime from\nmore northern regions by the excessive cold of the time. The third\nbed, which lies just below the surface soils, contains polished\nstone axes and other remains of human industry cotemporaneous with\nthe Swiss lake-dwellers. From the swamps and loams are sometimes dug\nup the remains of Gallo-Roman civilisations\u2014Gallic coins,\nserpentine axes, and bronzes of the time of the Antonines.\n\nNo one can fully realise the vast advance that has been made by the\nhuman mind until he has looked upon a savage\u2014has seen the savage\nin his native haunts attacking the problems of his daily life, and\nhas tasted of his philosophy and disposition. The savage is the\nancestor of all higher men. When we look upon the savage, we look\nupon the infancy of the human world. All of the laws, languages,\nsciences, governments, religions, and philosophies of civilised man,\nor nearly all of them at any rate, are the exfoliated laws,\nlanguages, sciences, governments, religions, and philosophies of\nsavages. It is impossible to understand the laws of civilised\nsocieties without a knowledge of the laws of savage societies. The\nsame thing is true of government, religion, and philosophy\u2014and of\nhuman nature itself. Human nature as exhibited by civilised men and\nwomen\u2014I mean men and women with a veneering of civility, not\nreally civilised folks, for there are none of them on the earth\u2014is\na perpetual enigma unless it is illumined by retrospection, by a\ncomparative study of human nature, by a study of human nature as\nseen in more and more primitive men and women. The mind of the\nsavage, as compared with that of civilised man, is exceedingly\nprimitive. The picture drawn by Gilbraith of the North American\nSioux is a typical picture of savage life and character. Gilbraith\nlived among these tribes for several years, and was thoroughly\nacquainted with them. He says:\n\n\u2018They are bigoted, barbarous, and exceedingly superstitious. They\nregard most of the vices as virtues. Theft, arson, rape, and murder\nare regarded by them as the means of distinction. The young Indian\nis taught from childhood to regard killing as the highest of\nvirtues. In their dances and at their feasts, the warriors recite\ntheir deeds of theft, pillage, and slaughter as precious things; and\nthe highest, indeed the only, ambition of the young brave is to\nsecure \u201cthe feather,\u201d which is but the record of his having\nmurdered, or participated in the murder of, some human\nbeing\u2014whether man, woman, or child, it is immaterial\u2019.[2]\n\n\u2018Conscience,\u2019 says Burton, \u2018does not exist in East Africa, and\n\u201crepentance\u201d simply expresses regret for missed opportunities\nfor crime. Robbery makes an honorable man; and murder, the more\natrocious the crime the better, makes the hero\u2019.\u2018Conscience,\u2019\nsays Burton, \u2018does not exist in East Africa, and \u201crepentance\u201d\nsimply expresses regret for missed opportunities for crime. Robbery\nmakes an honorable man; and murder, the more atrocious the crime the\nbetter, makes the hero\u2019.[3]\n\nMany things appear natural and self-evident to the savage which seem\nto us actually revolting. When the Fuegians are hard pressed by\nwant, they kill their old women for food rather than their dogs,\nsaying: \u2018Old women no use; dogs kill otters.\u2019 \u2018What I\u2019 said\na negro to Burton, \u2018am I to starve while my sister has children\nwhom she can sell?\u2019\n\nLubbock, in his great work on \u2018The Origin of Civilisation,\u2019\ncites hundreds of instances of savage rudeness and simplicity which\nseem almost incredible to one accustomed all his life to types of\nhuman character such as are found in Europe and America. For\ninstance, \u2018when the natives of the Lower Murray first saw\npack-oxen, some of them were frightened and took them for demons\nwith spears on their heads, while others thought they were the wives\nof the settlers, because they carried the baggage.\u2019 Speaking of\nthe wild men in the interior of Borneo, this writer says: \u2018They\nlive absolutely in a state of nature, neither cultivating the ground\nnor living in huts. They eat neither rice nor salt, and do not\nassociate with each other, but rove about the woods like wild\nbeasts. The sexes meet in the jungle. When the children are old\nenough to shift for themselves, they usually separate, neither one\nafterwards thinking of the other. At night they sleep under some\nlarge tree whose branches hang low. They fasten the children to the\nbranches in a kind of swing, and build a fire around the tree to\nprotect them from snakes and wild beasts. The poor creatures are\nlooked on and treated by the other Dyaks as wild beasts.\u2019 Lubbock\nsums up his conclusions on the morality of savages in the following\npathetic acknowledgment: \u2018I do not remember a single instance in\nwhich a savage is recorded as having shown any symptoms of remorse;\nand almost the only case I can call to mind in which a man belonging\nto one of the lower races has accounted for an act by saying\nexplicitly that it was right, was when Mr. Hunt asked a young Figian\nwhy he had killed his mother\u2019.[4]\n\nA few pages further on, the same author adds, regarding the\ndeplorable state of morality among savages: \u2018That there should be\nraces of men so deficient in moral feeling was altogether opposed to\nthe preconceived ideas with which I commenced the study of savage\nlife, and I have arrived at the conviction by slow degrees, and even\nwith reluctance. I have, however, been forced to this conclusion,\nnot only by the direct statements of travellers, but also by the\ngeneral tenor of their remarks, and especially by the remarkable\nabsence of repentance and remorse among the lowest races of men.\u2019\nAmong ourselves the words used to distinguish right and wrong are\nmetaphors. Right originally meant \u2018straight,\u2019 and wrong meant\n\u2018twisted.\u2019 Language existed, therefore, before morality; for if\nmoral ideas had preceded language, there would have been original\nwords to stand for them. Religion, according to Lubbock, has no\nmoral aspect or influence except among the more advanced races of\nmen. \u2018The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may be\nforced into compliance with the wishes of man; they generally\ndelight in bloody, and often require human, sacrifices; they are\nmortal, not immortal; they are to be approached by dances rather\nthan by prayers; and often approve what we call vice rather than\nwhat we esteem as virtue. In fact, the so-called religion of the\nlower races of mankind bears somewhat the same relation to religion\nin its higher forms as astrology does to astronomy or alchemy to\nchemistry\u2019.[4]\n\nSavages have few general ideas of any kind, as is evidenced by the\nalmost total absence among them of words denoting general ideas.\nMany savage races cannot comprehend numbers greater than five or\nsix, and are unable to make the simplest mathematical computations\nwithout using the fingers. The languages of savages are extremely\nrude, words being freely pieced out with pantomime. Savages talk\nwith difficulty in the dark, because of their great reliance on\ngesture in conversation. The rich vocabularies of the languages of\nEurope and America have grown up step by step with the evolution of\nEuropean and American mind. Every language is an evolution. The\nlanguages of many primitive peoples lack the verb to be entirely,\nand all nouns are proper nouns. Words are often little more than\ngrunts or clucks, and are without the euphony and articulation found\nin the languages of the civilised. Darwin says that the language of\nthe Fuegians sounds like a man clearing his throat. Not only every\nlanguage, but every word, both in its form and meaning, is in\nprocess of evolution. _Spirit_, for instance, originally meant\n\u2018blowing,\u2019 _understanding_ meant \u2018getting beneath,\u2019 and\n_development_ the physical act of \u2018unfolding.\u2019 Words are\ncontinually drifting from their original meanings under the stress\nof incessant use, as ships drag their anchors in a gale. Those words\nthat are exposed to common use undergo the most rapid changes, while\nwords sheltered from the rush of human affairs, like harboured\nships, hold to their moorings forever. _Let_, for instance, once\nmeant \u2018hinder\u2019; now it means \u2018allow.\u2019 _Bisect_, on the other\nhand, a word of rare and technical use, has remained unaltered in\nsignificance for twenty centuries.\n\nEven our alphabet has been evolved. The twenty-six symbols composing\nit have been eroded into the peculiar forms in which they appear at\npresent by the various peoples through whose hands they have come to\nus. The originals were pictographs such as are still found on the\naged monuments of earth\u2019s earliest civilisations. The English got\ntheir alphabet from the Romans, who obtained it, along with almost\neverything else they had, from the Greeks. The Greeks received it\nfrom the Phenicians, and the Phenicians from the papyrus writers of\nEgypt, who in turn procured it from those hieroglyph chiselers who\ncarved their curious literature on the granite tombs of the Nile in\nthe remotest dawn of human history. _A_, the first letter of our\nalphabet, is a figure which has been evolved, as the result of long\nwear and tear, from the picture of an eagle; _B_ was originally the\npicture of a crane; _C_ represents a throne; _D_ a hand; _F_ an asp;\n_H_ a sieve; _K_ a bowl; _L_ a lioness; _M_ an owl; _N_ a\nwater-line; _R_ a mouth; _S_ a garden; _T_ a lasso; _X_ a chairback;\nand _Z_ a duck.\n\nThe psychology of civilised man, though derived from that of the\nsavage, and hence resembling it fundamentally, is, nevertheless,\nvery different from it, both in character and in what it contains.\nThe mind of the savage is rude, unresourceful, vicious, and\nchildlike, while that of the civilised man or woman may be\noverflowing with wisdom and benignity. This gulf has not been\ncovered by a stride, but by the slow operation of the same laws of\nInheritance, Variation, and Selection by which all progress has been\nbrought about.\n\n7. Degeneration is a necessary part of the process of organic\nevolution. All progress, whether anatomical, intellectual, or\nsocial, takes place through selection, and selection means the\npining and ultimate passing away of that which is left. In\nindividual evolution it is organs, ideas, and traits of character\nthat are eliminated, and in social evolution it is customs and\ninstitutions. One of the reasons given in the preceding chapter for\nthe belief in the evolution of structures is the existence in man\nand other animals of _vestigial organs_, organs which in lower forms\nof life are useful, but which in higher forms are represented by\nuseless or even injurious remnants. Similar remnants are found in\nthe _psychology_ of man and other animals. These vestiges of mind\nare not so easily recognised as the vestiges of structure, but they\nare everywhere. We find them in the antiquated instincts of man and\nthe domestic animals, in the silent letters and worn-out words of\nlanguages, and in the emaciated remains of abandoned beliefs and\ninstitutions.\n\nThe hunting and fishing instinct of civilised man is a vestigial\ninstinct, normal in the savage, but without either sense or decency\namong men devoted to industrial pursuits. The savage hunts and\nfishes because he is hungry, never for pastime; civilised men and\nwomen do so because they are too mechanical to assort their\nimpulses. Civilised man is a mongrel, a cross between a barbarian\nand a god. His psychology is a compound of the jungle and the sky.\nIn their loftier moments, many men are able to obscure the cruder\nfacts of their origin and to put into temporary operation those more\nsplendid processes of mind which characterise their ideals. But even\nthe most civilised are forever haunted by the returning ghosts of\ndeparted propensities\u2014propensities which grew up in ages of hate,\nwhich are now out-of-date, but which in the trying tedium of daily\nlife come back and usurp the high places in human nature. Revenge,\nhate, cruelty, pugnacity, selfishness, vanity, and the like, are all\nmore or less vestigial among men who have entered seriously on the\nlife of altruism. Like the vermiform appendix and the human tail,\nthese old obsolete parts of the human mind are destined, in the\nripening of the ages, to waste away and disappear through disuse.\n\nThe practice of the dog of turning round two or three times before\nlying down is in response to an instinct which was no doubt\nbeneficial to it in its wild life, when it was wont to make its bed\nin the grasses, but which is now a pure waste of time. Darwin\nrecords it as a fact, that he has himself seen a simple-minded dog\nturn round twenty times before lying down. The sheep-killing mania,\nwhich sometimes comes over dogs when three or four of them get\ntogether and become actuated by the \u2018mob\u2019 spirit, is a vestige\nof the old instinct of the carnivore which centuries of\ndomestication have not yet quite erased. Goodness, if too prolonged,\nbecomes irksome to dogs for the same reason that it does to men.\nDogs have come from savages just as men have, and, while the\ncivilised nature of the dog is more constitutional than that of\ncivilised man, the old deposed instincts mount to the throne once in\nawhile, and the faithful collie is for the time being a wolf again.\nThe instinct of domestic sheep to imitate their leader in leaping\nover obstacles is another probable survival of wild life. If a bar\nor other obstacle be placed where the leader of a flock of sheep is\ncompelled to leap over it, and the obstacle is then removed, the\nentire band of followers will leap at the same place regardless of\nthe fact that the obstruction is no longer there. No other animals\ndo this. The instinct is probably a survival of wild life, when\nthese animals, pursued by their enemies over chasms and precipices,\nwere compelled to imitate in the flight those in front of them in\norder to live. Darwin thinks the donkey shows its aboriginal desert\nnature in its aversion for crossing the smallest stream, and its\nrelish for rolling in the dust. The same aversion for everything\naquatic exists also in the camel. Quails kept in captivity, I am\ntold, persist in scratching at the pan when they are feeding, just\nas they would need to do, and were accustomed to do, among the\nleaves and grasses of the groves. The restlessness of cage-birds and\ndomestic fowls at migrating time, the mimic dipping and sporting of\nducks when confined to a terrestrial habitat, the grave marshalling\nof geese by the chief gander of the band, the ferocity of cows,\newes, and the females of other domestic animals during the first few\ndays of motherhood, the hunting instinct of dogs kept as shepherds\nand pets, the squatting of young pigs when suddenly alarmed\u2014all of\nthese are vestigial instincts, functional in the wild state, but now\nuseless and absurd.\n\nThe silent letters and superannuated words and phrases found\neverywhere in literature are the vestigial parts of language. Every\nsilent letter was originally sounded, and every obsolete word was at\none time used. In the French word, _temps_, for instance, which\nmeans \u2018time,\u2019 neither the _p_ nor the _s_ is sounded. But in the\nLatin word _tempus_, from which the French word is derived, all of\nthe letters are sounded.\n\nMan has been defined as a creature of habit. As he has done a thing\nonce, or as his ancestors have done a thing, so he does it again. By\nprecept and example he transmits to each new generation the customs,\nbeliefs, and points of view which he has invented. Social changes\ntake place with extreme moderation. The drowsy ages take plenty of\ntime to get anywhere. Civilisation is lazy, deliberate,\nunimpassioned. It loafs and hesitates. It holds on to the past.\nLiving civilisations always drag behind them a trail of traditions\nfrom dead civilisations. Religions and philosophies change, and\ncreeds and governments flow into strange and undreamed-of forms; but\ntheir personalities survive, their souls live on, their remnants,\ntransmitted as traditions from generation to generation, defy the\nmeddlings of innovators. Hence in every society there are forms and\nceremonies, laws and customs, games and symbols, etc., which have\nbeen completely diverted from their original purposes, or which have\nbecome so reduced in importance as to be of no use. Spencer has\nshown that the forms of salutation in vogue among civilised\nsocieties are the vestiges of primitive ceremonial used to denote\nsubmission. The May Day festivals with which the opening spring is\nusually hailed are the much-modified survivals of pagan festivals in\nhonour of plant and animal fecundity. Superstition and folklore are\nvestigial opinions. The gorgeous Easter egg is a survival of a dawn\nmyth older than the Pyramids, and our Christmas dinner is a\nreminiscence of a cannibal carnival celebrating the turning back of\nthe sun at the winter solstice (Brinton). In the English government,\nwhere democracy has in recent centuries made such inroads on the\nmonarchy, there are numerous examples of vestigial\ninstitutions\u2014institutions which continue to exist purely because\nthey have existed in the past, but which were functional a few\ncenturies ago. The supreme office itself is one of these. The King\nrepresents the petered-out tail-end of a privilege which in the time\nof the early Stuarts was almost unlimited. Similar vestiges exist in\nthe United States, where the national spirit during the last century\nand a half has so completely wiped out colonialism. Such are the\nTown Meetings of Boston and of New Haven. The earliest form of human\nmarriage was marriage by capture. The man stole the woman and\ncarried her away by force. This form of marriage was in the course\nof evolution succeeded by marriage through purchase. A man anxious\nto become a husband could do so by paying to the father a stipulated\namount of cash or cattle for his daughter. This second form of\nmarriage finally evolved into marriage arranged by direct and\npeaceful negotiation between the prospective husband and wife. This\nis the form most commonly employed at the present time among the\nmore advanced societies of men. But in the ceremonies which surround\nthe nuptial event among civilised peoples survive vestiges of many\nof the facts associated with aboriginal marriages. A marriage in\nhigh life is a sort of epitome of the evolution of the institution.\nThe coyness and hesitancy of the woman in accepting the offers of\nher proposed spouse are the lineal descendants of the original\nreluctance of her savage sisters. The wedding-ring is the old token\naccepted by the woman when she gave her pledge of bondage. The\ncoming of the groom with his aids to the marriage is a figurative\nmarauding expedition. The honeymoon is the abduction. And the\ncharivari and missile-throwing indulged in by friends and relatives\non the departure of the wedded twain is a good-humoured counterfeit\nof the armed protest made by relatives of old when a bride-snatcher\ncame among them.[5]\n\nThe vestiges found everywhere in the mental and social phenomena of\nman and other animals have arisen as necessary facts in the process\nof mental evolution. _They are the vermiform appendices of the mind_.\n\n8. One of the strongest reasons for a belief in the physical\nevolution of animal species is that furnished by individual\nevolution. Each individual animal recapitulates in a wonderful\nmanner the phylogenesis of its species. Now, it is extremely\nsignificant that a similar parallel exists in the case of mental\nevolution. Each individual mind ascends through a series of mental\nfaculties which epitomises in a remarkable manner the psychogenesis\nof the animal kingdom.\n\nThe human child is not born with a full-grown mind any more than\nwith a full-grown body. It grows. It exfoliates. It ripens with the\nyears. It begins in infancy at the zero-point, and in manhood or\nwomanhood may blaze with genius and philanthropy.\n\nBut the mind of the child not only unfolds: it unfolds in a certain\norder, the more complex parts and the more civilised emotions\ninvariably appearing last. The initial powers of the newborn babe\nare those of sensation and perception. The babe cannot think. It has\nno feeling of fear, no affection, no sympathy, and no shame. It can\nsee, and hear, and taste, and feel pain and satisfaction\u2014and these\nare about all. Even these are vague and confused. In a week the\nperceptions are more sharp and vivid, more distinct and orderly.\nMemory arises. Memory is the power of reproducing past impressions.\nAt three weeks the emotions begin to sprout. The first to make their\nappearance are fear and surprise. When the babe is seven weeks old\nthe social affections show themselves, and the simplest acts of\nassociation are performed. At the age of twelve weeks jealousy and\nanger may be expected, together with simple exhibitions of\nassociation by similarity. At fourteen weeks affection and reason\ndawn. Sympathy germinates at about the age of five months; pride and\nresentment germinate at eight months; grief, hate, and benevolence\nat ten months; and shame and remorse at fifteen months.\n\nNow, the remarkable thing about this is that this is the order, or\nvery much like the order, in which mind in the animal kingdom as a\nwhole has apparently evolved. The lower orders of animal life have\nnone of the higher emotions and none of the more complicated\nprocesses of mind. There is no shame in the reptile, no\ndissimulation in the fish, no sympathy in the mollusk, and no memory\nin the sponge. Memory dawns in the echinoderms, or somewhere near\nthe radiate stage of development, and fear and surprise in the\nworms. Pugnacity makes its appearance in the insects, imagination in\nthe spiders, and jealousy in the fishes. Pride, emulation, and\nresentment originate in the birds: grief and hate in the carnivora;\nshame and remorse among dogs and monkeys; and superstition in the\nsavage.[1]\n\nIt is also an important fact bearing on the general problem of\nevolution, that the civilised child, from about the age of one on,\nis a sort of synopsis, rude but unmistakable, of the historic\nevolution of the human race. The child is a savage. It has the\nemotions of the savage, the savage\u2019s conceptions of the world, and\nthe desires, pastimes, and ambitions of the savage. It hates work,\nand takes delight in hunting, fishing, fighting, and loafing, like\nother savages. The hero of the child is the bully, just as the\ndemigod of primitive man is a blood-letting Caesar or Achilles. The\nchildren of the civilised are savages\u2014some more so than\nothers\u2014and if they ever become civilised\u2014some do, and some do\nnot\u2014they do so through a process of rectification and selection\nsimilar to that through which the Aryan races have passed during the\nages of human history.\n\nThere is a similar evolution in the young of other animals,\nespecially of the higher animals. Each individual begins in a\nperfectly mindless form, and grows mentally as it develops\nphysically. The young puppy has a very different thinking and\nfeeling apparatus from the grown-up mastiff. It is controlled almost\nexclusively by sense and instinct. It is devoid of common-sense, and\ndivides its time impartially between play and sleep. It is easily\nfrightened, and cries at every little thing. It has the rollicking,\nawkward, irresponsible personality of a boy of six. About the same\nthing is true of kittens, colts, calves, bear cubs, the whelps of\nwolves, and other young quadrupeds. A kitten will chase shadows, try\nto catch flies crawling on the other side of a windowpane, sit and\nwatch in wonder the moving objects about it, and do many other\nthings which it never thinks of doing when it has grown to be a wise\nand sophisticated puss trained in the ways of the world about it.\nDoghood, cathood, and horsehood, like manhood and womanhood, are the\nripened products of long processes of growth and exfoliation.\n\nThe parallel is, of course, imperfect. There are many abbreviations,\nmany breaks and ambiguities, in the summary presented by the\nindividual mind of the evolution of the race. And, in the present\nstate of psychogeny, only the barest outline can be traced. _But\nenough is known to render the fact unquestionable_.\n\n9. If human mind has been evolved, it is logical to expect to find\nin other animals, especially in those more closely resembling\nourselves in structure, mind elements similar to those we find in\nourselves.[6] And this is precisely what we do find. The same great\ntrunk impulses that animate men animate also those more rudimentary\nbut not less real individuals below and around men. The great\nprimary facts of sex, of self-preservation, of pleasure and pain, of\nlife and death, of egoism and altruism, of motherhood, of\nalimentation, etc.\u2014all of these are found everywhere, down almost\nto the very threshold of organic life. And they are the antecedents\nof the same great tendencies as those that control the lives of men.\nIt is often supposed by the superficial that the facts of sex and\nalimentation, which are so prominent in other animals, have been\nrelegated to a very subordinate place in the nature of man. But\nnothing could be much farther from the truth. It has been said that\nthere are only two things that will induce the typical African or\nAustralian to undergo prolonged labour\u2014hunger and the sex\nappetite. It is probable that men\u2014not only primitive men, but the\nmost evolved races, including even poets and philosophers\u2014will do\nmore desperate and idiotic things and undergo more trying\nexperiences when actuated by the sex impulse than from the effects\nof any other impulse in human nature. This impulse is especially\novermastering in races like the Italian and Spanish, and has been\nmentioned by ethnologists as a probable factor in the deterioration\nof these races. The sentiments of love, marital affection, and\nfamily life control mankind more completely than any other motives.\nAnd next to these comes hunger. Let anyone who imagines that only\nthe non-human creatures are carnal observe with what uniformity\nalmost every function in both savage and civilised life gravitates\ntoward eating and drinking. If it is a picnic, a convention, a\nnational holiday, a Christmas celebration, a meeting of a fraternal\nsociety, a thanksgiving ceremony, or what not, eating is one of the\nmain things, and the one exercise into which four-fifths of those\npresent probably enter with the greatest enthusiasm.\n\nThe human soul is the blossom, not the beginning, of psychic\nevolution. Mother-love compassionated infancy long before a babe\ncame from the stricken loins of woman. The inhabitants of the earth\nhad been seeking pleasure and seeking to avoid pain, and seeking\never with the same sad futility, long before man with his retinue of\npuny philosophies strutted upon the scene. Hate poisoned the\ncisterns of the sea and dropped its pollutions through the steaming\nspaces ages before there was malice among men. Altruism is older\nthan the mountains, and selfishness hardened the living heart before\nthe continents were lifted. There was wonder in the woods and in the\nwild heart of the fastnesses before there were waitings in\nsynagogues and genuflections about altar piles. The frogs, crickets,\nand birds had been singing love a thousand generations and more when\nthe first amoroso knelt in dulcet descant to a beribboned Venus.\nHuman nature is not an article of divine manufacture, any more than\nis the human form. It came out of the breast of the bird, out of the\nsoul of the quadruped. The human heart does not draw back from the\nmysterious dissolutions of death more earnestly than does the hare\nthat flees before resounding packs or the wild-fowl that reddens the\nreeds with its flounderings. Bowerbirds build their nest-side\nresorts, decorate them with gay feathers, and surround them with\ngrounds ornamented with bright stones and shells, for identically\nthe same reason as human beings design drawing-rooms, hang them with\ntapestries, and surround them with ornamented lawns. The scarlet\nwaistcoat of the robin and the flaming dresses of tanagers and\nhumming-birds, which seem, as they flash through the forest aisles,\nlike shafts of cardinal-fire, serve the same vanities and minister\nto the same instincts as the plumage of the dandy and the tints and\ngewgaws of gorgeous dames. Art is largely a manifestation of sex,\nand it is about as old and about as persistent as this venerable\nimpulse. How did Darwin\u2019s dog know his master on his master\u2019s\nreturn from a five-years\u2019 trip around the world? Just as the boy\nremembers where the strawberries grow and the philosopher recalls\nhis facts\u2014by that power of the brain to retain and to reproduce\npast impressions. Why does the thinker search his soul for new\ntheories and the spaces for new stars? For the same reason that the\nchild asks questions and the monkey picks to pieces its toys. What\nis reason? A habit of wise men\u2014an expedient of ants\u2014a mania the\nfools of all ages are free from. All of the activities of men,\nhowever imposing or peculiar, are but elaborations in one way or\nanother of the humble doings of the animalcule, whose home is a\nwater-drop and whose existence can be discovered by human senses\nonly by the aid of instruments.\n\n10. Mind has evolved because the universe has evolved. Whether mind\nis a part of the universe, or all of it, or only an attribute of it,\nit is, in any case, inextricably mixed up with it. And, since the\nuniverse as a whole has evolved, it is improbable that any part of\nit or anything pertaining to it has remained impassive to the\ngeneral tendency. There are no solids. Nothing stands. The whole\nuniverse is in a state of fluidity. Even the \u2018eternal hills,\u2019\nthe \u2018unchanging continents,\u2019 and the \u2018everlasting stars,\u2019\nare flowing, flowing ever, slowly but ceaselessly, from form to\nform. So is mind. Indeed, if there is anywhere in the folds of\ncreation a being such as the one whom man has long accused of having\nbrought the universe into existence, we may rest assured that even\nhe is not sitting passively apart from the enormous enterprise which\nhe has himself inaugurated.\n\nThe evidence is conclusive. The evolution of mind is supported by a\nseries of facts not less incontrovertible and convincing than that\nby which physical evolution is established. The data of mental\nevolution are not quite so definite and plentiful as those of\nphysical evolution. But this is due to the greater intangibility of\nmental phenomena and to the backward condition of the psychological\nsciences, especially of comparative psychology. Mental phenomena are\nalways more difficult to deal with than material phenomena, and\nhence are always more tardily attended to in the application of any\ntheory. But taking everything into account, including the close\nconnection between physical and psychical phenomena, it may be\nasserted that it is not more certain that the physical structure of\nman has been derived from sub-human forms of life than it is that\nthe human mind has also been similarly derived.\n\nMan is the adult of long evolution. The human soul has ancestors and\nconsanguinities just as the body has. It is just as reasonable to\nsuppose that the human physiology, with its definitely elaborated\ntissues, organs, and systems, is unrelated to the physiology of\nvertebrates in general, and through vertebrate physiology to the\nphysiology of invertebrates, as to suppose that the states and\nimpulses constituting human nature and consciousness began to exist\nin the anthropic type of anatomy and are unrelated to the states and\nimpulses of vertebrate consciousness in general, and through\nvertebrate consciousness to those remoter types of sentiency lying\naway at the threshold of organic life. Human psychology is a part of\nuniversal psychology. It has been evolved. It has been evolved\naccording to the same laws of heredity and adaptation as have\nphysiological structures. And it is just as impossible to understand\nhuman nature and psychology unaided by those wider prospects of\nuniversal psychology as it is to understand the facts of human\nphysiology unaided by analogous universalisations.\n\n1. Romanes: _Mental Evolution in Animals_; New York, 1898.\n2. Gilbraith: _Ethnological Journal_, 1869, p. 304.\n3. Burton: _First Footsteps in East Africa_; London, 1856.\n4. Lubbock: _Origin of Civilisation_; New York, 1898.\n5. Demoor: _Evolution by Atrophy_; New York, 1899.\n6. This topic is more fully presented in the chapter \u201cThe elements\nof the human and non-human mind compared.\u201d\n\nIII. The Common-sense View.\n\nBut it is not necessary to be learned in Darwinian science in order\nto know that non-human beings have souls. Just the ordinary\nobservation of them in their daily lives about us\u2014in their comings\nand goings and doings\u2014is sufficient to convince any person of\ndiscernment that they are beings with joys and sorrows, desires and\ncapabilities, similar to our own. No human being with a\nconscientious desire to learn the truth can associate intimately day\nafter day with these people\u2014associate with them as he himself\nwould desire to be associated with in order to be interpreted,\nwithout presumption or reserve, in a kind, honest, straightforward,\nmagnanimous manner; make them his friends and really enter into\ntheir inmost lives\u2014without realising that they are almost unknown\nby human beings, that they are constantly and criminally\nmisunderstood, and that they are in reality beings actuated by\nsubstantially the same impulses and terrorised by approximately the\nsame experiences as we ourselves. They eat and sleep, seek pleasure\nand try to avoid pain, cling valorously to life, experience health\nand disease, get seasick, suffer hunger and thirst, co-operate with\neach other, build homes, reproduce themselves, love and provide for\ntheir children, feeding, defending, and educating them, contend\nagainst enemies, contract habits, remember and forget, learn from\nexperience, have friends and favourites and pastimes, appreciate\nkindness, commit crimes, dream dreams, cry out in distress, are\naffected by alcohol, opium, strychnine, and other drugs, see, hear,\nsmell, taste, and feel, are industrious, provident and cleanly, have\nlanguages, risk their lives for others, manifest ingenuity,\nindividuality, fidelity, affection, gratitude, heroism, sorrow,\nsexuality, self-control, fear, love, hate, pride, suspicion,\njealousy, joy, reason, resentment, selfishness, curiosity, memory,\nimagination, remorse\u2014all of these things, and scores of others,\nthe same as human beings do.\n\nThe anthropoid races have the same emotions and the same ways of\nexpressing those emotions as human beings have. They laugh in joy,\nwhine in distress, shed tears, pout and apologise, and get angry\nwhen they are laughed at. They protrude their lips when sulky or\npouting, stare with wide open eyes in astonishment, and look\ndowncast when melancholy or insulted. When they laugh, they draw\nback the corners of their mouth and expose their teeth, their eyes\nsparkle, their lower eyelids wrinkle, and they utter chuckling\nsounds, just as human beings do.[1] They have strong sympathy for\ntheir sick and wounded, and manifest toward their friends, and\nespecially toward the members of their own family, a devotion\nscarcely equalled among the lowest races of mankind. They use rude\ntools, such as clubs and sticks, and resort to cunning and\ndeliberation to accomplish their ends. The orang, when pursued, will\nthrow sticks at his pursuers, and when wounded, and the wound does\nnot prove instantly fatal, will sometimes press his hand upon the\nwound or apply grass and leaves to stop the flow of blood. The\nchildren of anthropoids wrestle with each other, and chase and throw\neach other, just as do the juveniles of human households. The\ngorilla, chimpanzee, and orang all build for themselves lodges made\nof broken boughs and leaves in which to sleep at night. These\nlodges, rude though they are, are not inferior to the habitations of\nmany primitive men. The Puris, who live naked in the depths of the\nBrazilian forests, do not even have huts to live in, only screens\nmade by setting up huge palm-leaves against a cross-pole.[2] Some of\nthe African tribes are said to live largely in caves and the\ncrevices of rocks. This is the case with many primitive men.\nAccording to a writer in the _Journal_ of the Anthropological\nInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland (January, 1902), \u2018common\nforms of dwelling among the wild tribes of the Malay Peninsula are\nrock-shelters (sometimes caves, but more commonly natural recesses\nunder overhanging ledges) and leaf-shelters, which are sometimes\nformed on the ground and sometimes in the branches of trees. The\nsimplest form of these leaf-shelters consists of a single palm-leaf\nplanted in the ground to afford the wanderer some slight shelter for\nthe night.\u2019\n\nWhen they sleep, the anthropoids sometimes lie stretched out,\nman-like, on their backs, and sometimes they lie on their side with\ntheir hand under their head for a pillow. The orang retires about\nfive or six o\u2019clock in the evening, and does not rise until the\nmorning sun has dissipated the mists of the forest. The gorilla and\nchimpanzee seem to mate for life. The former lives, as a rule, in\nsingle families, each family consisting of a male and a female and\ntheir children. During the day this primitive family roams through\nthe forests of equatorial Africa in search of food. They live on\nfruits and nuts and the tender shoots and leaves of plants. They are\nespecially fond of sugar-cane, which they eat in small-boy fashion\nby chewing and discarding the juiceless pulp. Among the foods of the\ngorilla is a walnut-like nut which it cracks with stones. As evening\ncomes on, the head of the family selects a sleeping-place for the\nnight. This is usually some low tree with a dense growth at the top,\nand protected as much as possible by higher trees from the chilly\nnight wind. Here, on a bed of broken branches and leaves, the mother\nand little ones go to sleep, while the father devotedly crouches at\nthe foot of the tree, with his back against the trunk to guard his\nfamily from leopards and other nocturnal cut-throats who eat\napes.[3] When the weather is stormy, they cover themselves with\nbroad pandanus leaves to keep off the rain. Koppenfels relates an\nincident of a gorilla family which makes one think of things he\nsometimes sees among men. The family consisted of the parents and\ntwo children. It was meal-time. The head of the family reposed\nmajestically on the ground, while the wife and children hustled for\nfruits for him in a near-by tree. If they were not sufficiently\nnimble about it, or if they were so wanton as to take a bite\nthemselves, the paterfamilias growled and gave them a cuff on the\nhead.[3] Notwithstanding the sensational tales of the ferocity of\nthis being, the gorilla never attacks anyone at any time unless he\nis molested.[3] He much prefers to attend to his own business. But\nif he is not allowed to do so, if he is attacked, he is as fearless\nas a machine. He approaches his antagonist walking upright and\nbeating his breast with his fists. He presents one of the most\nterrifying of all spectacles, as, with gleaming eyes, hair erect,\nand resounding yells, he bears down on the object of his resentment.\nThe natives fear the gorilla more than they fear any other animal.\n\nThe chimpanzee in his native wilds lives in small tribes consisting\nof a few families each. Like the gorilla, it passes the most of its\ntime on the ground, going among the trees only for food or sleep. It\nbuilds a sleeping-place at night in the trees, as in the case of the\ngorilla. Brehm, who brought up a number of chimpanzees in his own\nhome as comrades and playmates of his children, and who studied them\nand associated with them for years, says: \u2018The chimpanzee is not\nonly one of the cleverest of all creatures, but a being capable of\ndeliberation and judgment. Everything he does is done consciously\nand deliberately. He looks upon all other animals, except man, as\nvery inferior to himself. He treats children entirely different from\ngrown-up people. The latter he respects; the former he looks upon as\ncomrades and equals. He is not merely inquisitive: he is greedy for\nknowledge. He can draw conclusions, can reason from one thing to\nanother, and apply the results of experience to new circumstances.\nHe is cunning, even wily, has flashes of humour, indulges in\npractical jokes, manifests moods, and is entertained in one company\nand bored in another. He is self-willed but not stubborn,\ngood-natured but not wanting in independence. He expresses his\nemotions like a human being. In sickness he behaves like one in\ndespair, distorts his face, groans, stamps, and tears his hair. He\nlearns very easily whatever is taught him, as, for instance, to sit\nupright at table, to eat with knife and fork and spoon, to drink\nfrom a glass or cup, to stir the sugar in his tea, to use a napkin,\nto wear clothes, to sleep in a bed, and so on. Exceedingly\nappreciative of every caress, he is equally sensitive to blame and\nunkindness. He is capable of deep gratitude, and he expresses it by\nshaking hands or kissing without being asked to do so. He behaves\ntoward infants with touching tenderness. The behaviour of a sick and\nsuffering chimpanzee is most pathetic. Begging piteously, almost\nhumanly, he looks into his master\u2019s face, receives every attempt\nto help him with warm thanks, and soon looks upon his physician as a\nbenefactor, holding out his arm to him, stretching out his tongue\nwhenever told, and even doing so of his own accord after a few\nvisits from his physician. He swallows medicines readily, and even\nsubmits to surgical operations\u2014in short, behaves very like a human\npatient in similar circumstances. As his end approaches, he becomes\nmore gentle, and the nobler traits of his character stand out\nprominently\u2019.[4]\n\n_The New York Herald_, in its issue of July 2, 1901, contained an\naccount of the death of Charlemagne, a chimpanzee who died a short\ntime before at Grenoble, France. This anthropoid at the time of his\ndeath was the most popular inhabitant of the town. His popularity\nwas due to his good-nature and intelligence, and especially to the\nfact that a few years before his death he had saved a child from\ndrowning in a well. The ape saw the child fall, and without a\nmoment\u2019s hesitation climbed down the rope used for the buckets,\nseized the child, and climbed out again by the same rope by which he\nhad descended. The people of the town thought so much of him that\nthey followed his remains to the grave, and the municipal council\nvoted to erect a bronze statue to his memory.\n\nA heartless hunter\u2014maybe one of those assassins who fill the wilds\nwith widows and orphans in the name of Science\u2014tells of the murder\nof a mother chimpanzee and her baby in Africa. The mother was high\nup in a tree with her little one in her arms. She watched intently,\nand with signs of the greatest anxiety, the hunter as he moved about\nbeneath, and when he took aim at her the poor doomed thing motioned\nto him with her hand precisely in the manner of a human being, to\nhave him desist and go away.\n\nAccording to Emin Pasha, who was for a number of years Governor of\nan Egyptian province on the Upper Nile, and whom Stanley made his\nlast expedition to \u2018rescue,\u2019 chimpanzees sometimes make use of\nfire. He told Stanley that, when a tribe of chimpanzees who resided\nin a forest near his camp came at night to get fruit from the\norchards, they always came bearing torches to light them on their\nway. \u2018If I had not seen it with my own eyes,\u2019 he declares, \u2018I\nnever could have believed that these beings have the power of making\nfire\u2019.[5] This same authority relates that on one occasion a band\nof chimpanzees descended upon his camp and carried off a drum. The\nmarauders went away in great glee, beating the drum as they\nretreated. He says he heard them several times after that, at night,\nbeating their drum, in the forest.\n\nThe monkeys are little inferior to the man-like races in their\nintelligence and in the general similarity of their feelings and\ninstincts to those of men. Monkeys live in tribes, and at the head\nof each tribe is an old male chief who has won his place by his\nstrength, courage, and ability. Monkeys have excellent memories and\nkeen observation, and are able to recognise their friends in a crowd\neven after long absences. They are proverbially imitative, have a\nstrong desire for knowledge, and are exceedingly sensitive and\nsympathetic in their natures. Sympathy and curiosity, the two most\nprominent traits in simian psychology, are, significantly, the two\nmost important facts in the psychology of man. Sympathy and\ncuriosity lie at the foundation of human civilisation, sympathy at\nthe foundation of morals, and curiosity of invention and science.\nThe monkey whose diary appears in the closing pages of Romanes\u2019\n\u2018Animal Intelligence\u2019 was possessed of an almost ravenous desire\nto know. He spent hour after hour in exploration, examining with the\nindomitable patience of a scientist everything that came within the\nbounds of his little horizon. And when he had found out any new\nthing, he was as delighted over it as a boy who has solved a hard\nproblem, repeating the experiment over and over until it was\nthoroughly familiar to him. Among the many things he discovered for\nhimself was the use of the lever and the screw. Monkeys are the most\naffectionate of all animals excepting dogs and men. This affection\nreaches its culmination, as among men, in the love of the mother for\nher child. The mother monkey\u2019s little one is the object of her\nconstant care and affection. She nurses and bathes it, licks it and\ncleans its coat, and folds it in her arms and rocks it as if to lull\nit to sleep, just as human mammas do. She divides every bite with\nher little one, but does not hesitate to chastise it with slaps and\npinches when it is rude. The monkey child is generally very\nobedient, obedient enough for an example to many a human youngster.\n\n\u2018Very touching,\u2019 says Brehm, from whom many of the foregoing\nfacts are gleaned, \u2018is the conduct of the mother when her baby is\nobviously suffering. And if it dies she is in despair. For hours,\nand even for days, she carries the little corpse about with her,\nrefuses all food, sits indifferently in the same spot, and often\nliterally pines to death\u2019.[4]\n\nOrphan monkeys, according to Brehm, are often adopted by the tribe,\nand carefully looked after by the other monkeys, both male and\nfemale. The great mass of human beings, who know about as much about\nthe real emotional life of monkeys as wooden Indians do, are\ninclined to pass over lightly all displays of feeling by these\npeople of the trees. But the poet knows, and the prophet knows, and\nthe world will one day understand, that in the gentle bosoms of\nthese wild woodland mothers glow the antecedents of the same\nimpulses as those that cast that blessed radiance over the lost\nparadise of our own sweet childhood. The mother monkey who gathered\ngreen leaves as she fled from limb to limb, and frantically stuffed\nthem into the wound of her dying baby in order to stanch the cruel\nrush of blood from its side, all the while uttering the most pitiful\ncries and casting reproachful glances at her human enemy, until she\nfell with her darling in her arms and a bullet in her heart, had in\nher simian soul just as genuine mother-love, and love just as\nsacred, as that which burns in the breast of woman.\n\nThe affection of monkeys is not confined to the love of the mother\nfor her child, but exists among the different members of the same\ntribe, and extends even to human beings, especially to those who\nmake any pretensions to do to them as they would themselves be done\nby. The monkey kept by Romanes, already referred to, became so\nattached to his master that he went into the wildest demonstrations\nof joy whenever his master, after an absence, came into the room.\nStanding on his hind-legs at the full length of his chain, and\nreaching out both hands as far as he could reach, he screamed with\nall his might. His joy was so hysterical that it was impossible to\ncarry on any kind of conversation until he had been folded in his\nmaster\u2019s arms, when he immediately grew quiet.\n\n\u2018After I took this monkey back to the Zoological Gardens,\u2019 says\nRomanes, \u2018and up to the time of his death, he remembered me as\nwell as the day he was returned. I visited the monkey-house about\nonce a month, and whenever I approached his cage he saw me with\nastounding quickness\u2014indeed, generally before I saw him\u2014and ran\nto the bars, through which he thrust both hands with every\nexpression of joy. When I went away he always followed me to the\nextreme end of the cage, and stood there watching me as long as I\nremained in sight.\u2019\n\nThe following account of the attachment of a male monkey for his\nmurdered consort is a pitiful tale of human inhumanity and of simian\ntenderness and devotion:\n\n\u2018A member of a shooting-party killed a female monkey, and carried\nher body to his tent under a banyan-tree. The tent was soon\nsurrounded by forty or fifty of the tribe, who made a great noise\nand threatened to attack the aggressor. When he presented his\nfowling-piece, the fearful effects of which they had just witnessed,\nand appeared perfectly to understand, they retreated. The leader of\nthe troop, however, stood his ground, threatening and chattering\nfuriously. At last, finding threats of no avail, the broken-hearted\ncreature came to the door of the tent and began a lamentable\nmoaning, and by the most expressive signs seemed to beg for the dead\nbody of his beloved. It was given to him. He took it sorrowfully in\nhis arms and bore it away to his expecting companions\u2019.[6]\n\nThe chattering of monkeys is not, as is vulgarly supposed,\nmeaningless vocalisation. It is language. It is meaningless to human\nears for the same reason that the chattering of Frenchmen is\nmeaningless to Americans\u2014_because human beings are foreigners_.\nThe conversation of monkeys is to convey thought. Every species that\nthinks and feels has means for conveying its thoughts and feelings,\nand the means for this exchange, whether it be sounds, symbols,\ngestures, or grimaces, is language. As Wundt somewhere says: \u2018If\npsychologists of to-day, ignoring all that an animal can express\nthrough gestures and sounds, limit the possession of language to\nhuman beings, such a conclusion is scarcely less absurd than that of\nmany philosophers of antiquity who regarded the languages of\nbarbarous nations as animal cries.\u2019 Mr. Garner, who has so long\nand so sympathetically associated with monkeys, has been able to\ntranslate a number of their words and to enter into slight\ncommunication with them. Among the words he has been able to\nunderstand are the words for \u2018alarm,\u2019 \u2018good-will,\u2019\n\u2018listen,\u2019 \u2018food,\u2019 \u2018drink,\u2019 \u2018monkey,\u2019 and\n\u2018fruit.\u2019 According to him, the simian tongue has about eight or\nnine sounds which may be changed by modulation into three or four\ntimes that number, and each different species or kind has its own\npeculiar tongue slightly shaded into dialects. There may be more\ndiscriminating students than Garner, but few certainly who have\napproached their favourite problem with more feeling and humanity.\nEvery one should read his beautiful book on \u2018The Speech of\nMonkeys.\u2019 \u2018Among the little captives of the simian race,\u2019 says\nhe tenderly, in closing his chapter on the emotional character of\nthese people, \u2018I have many little friends to whom I am attached,\nand whose devotion to me is as warm and sincere, so far as I can\nsee, as that of any human being. I must confess that I cannot\ndiscern in what intrinsic way the love they have for me differs from\nmy own for them; nor can I see in what respect their love is less\ndivine than is my own.\u2019\n\nDogs are distinguished for their great intelligence, the\npre-eminence of the sense of smell, fidelity to duty, nobleness of\nnature, patience, courage, and affection. In all of these\nparticulars many individual dogs are superior to whole races of men.\nDogs are more sensitive to physical suffering than savages, and will\ncry piteously from slight wounds or other injuries. Dogs of high\nlife have genuine feelings of dignity and self-respect, and are\neasily wounded in their sensibilities. Such dogs have considerable\nsense of propriety, and suffer, like sensitive children, from\ndisapprobation. Romanes had a dog that was so sensitive that he\nresented insult, and so sympathetic that he always fought in defence\nof other dogs when they were punished or attacked. When out driving\nwith his master, this dog always caught hold of his master\u2019s\nsleeve every time the horse was touched with a whip.[6] Romanes also\ntells of a Scotch terrier who, having grown old and useless, and\nbeen supplanted by a younger dog, Jack, became painfully jealous,\nand imitated his rival in everything that he did, even to ridiculous\ndetails, in order to retain the attentions of the household. When\nJack was tenderly caressed, the old dog would watch for a time, and\nthen burst out whining as if in the deepest distress.[6] Dogs\ncommunicate their ideas to each other and to human beings, generally\nby means of sounds and gestures. They growl in anger, yelp in\neagerness, howl in despair, bark in joy or warning, bay in wonder,\nwail in bitterness and pain, whine in supplication, and prostrate\nthemselves in submission or apology. It has been said that there\nnever was a man who possessed the stateliness of a St. Bernard, the\nunerring sagacity of the collie, or the courage and tenacity of the\nbulldog. The vainest dandy is not more delicate in his ways than the\nItalian greyhound, nor more soft and affectionate than the Blenheim.\nMany a deed of heroism has been done by dogs which would, if done by\nmen, have been honoured by the Order of the Victoria Cross. The St.\nBernards belonging to the monks on the passes between Switzerland\nand Italy are especially celebrated for their devotion to the\nbusiness of saving human life. They often lose their own lives in\ntheir efforts to rescue travellers baffled and overcome by storm.\nOne particularly sagacious individual, who lost his life in this way\nsome years ago, wore a medal stating that he had been the means of\nsaving twenty-two human lives. In devotion the dog is superior to\nall other animals, not even excepting man. \u2018How could one get\nrelief from the endless dissimulation, falsity, and malice of\nmankind,\u2019 exclaimed Schopenhauer in one of his inspired moments,\n\u2018if there were no dogs into whose honest faces he could look\nwithout distrust?\u2019 A dog will follow a handful of rags wrapped\naround a homeless beggar, day after day, through heat and cold and\nstorm and starvation, just as faithfully as he will follow the\npurple of a king. The dog who stood over the lifeless body of his\nmaster, grieving for recognition and starting at every flutter of\nhis garments, till he himself died of starvation, had in his\nfaithful breast a nobler heart than that which beats in the bosom of\nmost men. And the devotion of Greyfriars Bobby, who every night for\ntwelve years, in all kinds of weather, slept on his master\u2019s\ngrave, was well worthy the marble tribute which to-day stands in\nEdinburgh to his memory. There has never been recorded in the\nhistory of the world an instance of more extravagant trust and\ndevotion than that told of the canine companion of a certain\nvivisector, which licked the hand of his master while undergoing the\ncrime of being cut to pieces. Such deeds of self-sacrifice remind\none of the tales told of imaginary saints. But they are the deeds of\n_only dogs_\u2014of beings whom half the world look upon with\nindifference and contempt, and whom the other half would feel, if\nthey came within reach, under the strictest obligations to kick.\n\n  \u2018When some proud son of man returns to earth,\n  Unknown to glory but upheld by birth,\n  The sculptor\u2019s art exhausts the pomp of woe,\n  And storied urns record who rests below;\n  When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,\n  Not what he was, but what he should have been;\n  But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,\n  The first to welcome, foremost to defend,\n  Whose honest heart is still his master\u2019s own.\n  Who labours, fights, lives, breathes, for him alone,\n  Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth\u2014\n  Denied in heaven the soul he had on earth.\u2019\n\nI am not one of those who regard the evidence for the post-mortem\nexistence of the human soul as being either abundant or conclusive.\nBut of one thing I am positive, and that is, that there are the same\ngrounds precisely for believing in the immortality of the bird and\nthe quadruped as there are for the belief in human immortality. And\nit is delightful to find great thinkers like Haeckel, great\nbiologists and philosophers, holding the same conviction. Haeckel is\nthe giant of the Germans, and in his brilliant book \u2018The Riddle of\nthe Universe\u2019 appears this rather poetical paragraph: \u2018I once\nknew an old head-forester, who, being left a widower and without\nchildren at an early age, had lived alone for more than thirty years\nin a noble forest of East Prussia. His only companions were one or\ntwo servants, with whom he exchanged merely a few necessary words,\nand a great pack of different kinds of dogs, with whom he lived in\nperfect psychic communion. Through many years of training this keen\nobserver and friend of nature had penetrated deep into the\nindividual souls of his dogs, and he was as convinced of their\npersonal immortality as he was of his own. Some of his most\nintelligent dogs were, in his impartial estimation, at a higher\nstage of psychic development than his old stupid maid and his rough\nand wrinkled man-servant. Any unprejudiced observer who will study\nthe psychic phenomena of a fine dog for a year, and follow\nattentively the processes of its thought, judgment, and reason, will\nhave to admit that it has just as valid a claim to immortality as\nman himself.\u2019\n\nFido was a shaggy terrier who lived years ago in the old home on the\nfarm by the beautiful brook. He was one of the very first\nacquaintances the writer of these lines made on coming into\nexistence. In his earlier years, before age had dimmed his mind and\nrheumatism had fastened upon him, he was an exceedingly agreeable\nand clever canine, active in all the affairs of the farm. He knew\nthe old homestead by heart, and he took about as much interest in\nhaving everything go right as anybody\u2014more, perhaps, even than we\nboys did. He chased the pigs out of the orchard without being asked\nto do so, and guarded the house at night with the vigilance of a\nhired watchman. He seemed to realise the demands of everyday\nsituations about as well as any of us. He could distinguish between\nneighbours who were accustomed to come on the premises and strangers\nwho were not. He always knew when company came, for he invariably\nattempted to profit by the fact. He had been taught early the\npropriety of keeping in the background when his tyrants were\nfeeding, and ordinarily on such occasions he slept dutifully by the\nkitchen stove. But just as sure as a guest sat at table, Fido would\nturn up, and, tapping the visitor gently to get his attention, would\nsit up perfectly straight, with his paws pendent and a peculiar grin\non his face, in expectation of a morsel. Dear old Fido! How much he\nthought of all of us! And how meagerly, as I know now, were his\nmatchless love and services requited; On Sundays sometimes the human\nmembers of the household would go away and stay all day, and Fido\nand the cat would be left alone to get along the best way they\ncould. He knew as well as any of us when these days came around, and\nhe dreaded them. I suppose he had learned from experience to\nassociate cessation of farm work and peculiar preparations with a\nday alone. The long, lonely hours probably affected him somewhat as\nthey do a human being who is compelled to stay alone all day with\nnothing to do. But what a welcome he gave us in the evening when we\ncame back! This was indubitable evidence of his loneliness. The\nfirst familiar object we would see in the evening, on coming in\nsight of home, was faithful Fido, sitting out in the road on the\nhill above the house\u2014sitting straight up in that peculiar way of\nhis\u2014watching and waiting for our home-coming. He knew, or seemed\nto know, the direction from which to expect us, and was able to\nrecognise us a long way off. The years have been many, and Fido\u2019s\ndust has long been scattered by the gusts over the farms of\nnorth-west Missouri; but now, in fancy, I can see this faithful\ncreature bounding down the road in the sunset to meet us, as he used\nto do in the golden long-ago, leaping and smiling and wagging his\ntail, and wriggling and barking in a perfect ecstasy of gladness.\n\nWell, I _know_ Fido could feel and think, that he loved and feared\nand longed and dreaded and dreamed and hated and grieved and\nsympathised and reasoned and rejoiced\u2014in short, that he was moved\nby about the same passions and considerations as human beings\nusually are. He gave the same evidence of it precisely as a human\nbeing does.\n\nThe dog is the oldest of human associates. Long before the\nhistorical period the dog was domesticated in Europe, Asia, and\nAfrica. No race of men is too primitive to be without the dog. The\nbones of the dog are found in the middens of the Baltic, and rude\nrepresentations of it are chiseled on the oldest monuments of Egypt\nand Assyria. The dog was the servant of man away in paleolithic\ntimes, when the mastodon was on earth, and man was a naked\ntroglodyte, and Europe extended westward to the Azores. And he has\nbeen a faithful friend, a tireless ally, and an enthusiastic slave\nof a thankless and inhuman master ever since.\n\nBirds are pre-eminently emotional and artistic. This is shown by\ntheir fondness for singing, their fine dress, their pining for their\ndead, their dainty architecture, their pretty forms and manners of\nlife, their joyousness, and their love for their young. Birds are\nthe most beautiful and engaging of all terrestrial beings. Endowed\nwith the power of flight, eminently active, light-hearted and free,\nattired in all the colours of the rainbow, and with voices of\nunrivalled richness and melody, birds are the admiration and envy of\nall of those that dwell on the earth. Birds possess naturally and in\nmarvellous perfection that power of locomotion which has been so\nlong sought for by slow-shuffling man. Birds are also incomparable\nmusicians, no other animals, not even men, approaching them in the\nsurpassing brilliancy and sweetness of their song. No human musician\nin high-sounding hall can equal the artless lay of the wild bird\nringing melodiously through the leafy colonnades of the woods. Like\nmen, birds sing chiefly of love; but they also sing for pastime or\npleasure. Their singing is sweetest during the season of courtship,\nand attains its highest development in the males. Birds are ardent\nlovers. To win their brides, the males contend with each other, and\ndisplay their charms of plumage and song with the wildness of human\nRomeos.\n\nThe song of birds is generally acquired by inheritance from the\nspecies, but is sometimes borrowed by imitation from other birds, or\neven from other animals. Birds taken from their species when young,\nbefore they have heard their native song, sing generally the song of\ntheir kind, but it is likely to be interspersed with notes and\nphrases from the birds around them. Birds thus isolated have been\nknown to adopt entirely the song of their surroundings. Olive Thorne\nMiller vouches for the fact that an English sparrow she once knew\ngrew up in company with a canary, and came in time to sing the song\nof its more talented companion to perfection. It must have been a\nShakspere of a bird, however, to have soared so high above the\nexcruciating accomplishments of the generality of its species.\n\nThe songs of birds can be set to music just as the melodies of men\ncan. The songs of several birds were published in the _American\nNaturalist_ a few years ago. And Winchell, the well-known English\nstudent of birds, has written a clever book on the \u2018Cries and\nCall-notes of Wild Birds,\u2019 in which he prints the calls and songs\nof most of the native birds of England. According to this writer,\nwho has perhaps studied the music of birds more critically than\nanyone else, the song of the nightingale, when printed in the\nnotation of ordinary human music, is like a piano solo. It is made\nup of a score or so of different strains, with trills and\ncrescendos, and all executed in so inimitable a manner that it is\nunrecognisable when repeated on a musical instrument or the human\nvoice. One of these strains, curiously enough, is identical with the\nsong of a certain bush-warbler of western Canada\u2014as if the English\nvocalist had plagiarised the song of its humbler cousin in compiling\nits incomparable repertoire. The song of the mocking-bird is a\nmagnificent medley, made up of the calls, trills, twitters, warbles,\nwarnings, and love-songs, of a score or more of other birds. I have\nheard this bird along the Solomon and Arkansas valleys repeat in the\nmost perfect manner the notes and songs of the pewee, purple martin,\nkingbird, flicker, blue jay, catbird, canary, crow, English sparrow,\nred-headed woodpecker, quail, cardinal, cuckoo, robin, red-wings,\ngrackle, meadowlark, night-hawk, whip-poor-will, besides many other\ncalls and notes, perhaps of birds I did not know. In the case of\nsome of these birds the mocker made all of the different sounds of\neach bird. The song of the mocking-bird is delivered at any time,\nday or night, and generally in a state of high ecstasy and\nexcitement, the performer flying from tree to tree and from\nhouse-top to barn-top, occasionally throwing himself into the air in\nthe most absurd manner, and all the time pouring forth such a stream\nof melody that one would think all the birds in the neighbourhood\nhad suddenly come together and let loose in a grand festival of song.\n\nAccording to Chapman, many of the notes of birds are language notes\nrather than sounds expressive of sentiment. Of the robin this\nwell-known student of birds says: \u2018The song and call-notes of this\nbird, while familiar to everyone, are in reality understood by no\none, and offer excellent subjects for the student of bird language.\nIts notes express interrogation, suspicion, alarm, and caution, and\nit signals to its companions to take wing. Indeed, few of our birds\nhave a more extended vocabulary.\u2019 Winchell says that the common\nEnglish sparrow has as many as seven different notes, which it uses\nto express the thoughts and feelings passing through its rather\nactive but not very highly honoured head: (1) The common note of\naddress of the male to the female; (2) a note of alarm used by both\nmale and female adults, but never by the young; (3) an emphatic\nalarm note, always uttered by sentinels when a hawk is near or when\na man approaches with a gun; (4) the note of the female when\nsurrounded by several noisy and contending male rivals; (5) an\nautumn cry uttered by the first one of the company perceiving danger\nand flying up from the hedges and fields\u2014never uttered by young,\nbut by adults of both sexes; (6) the love note of both male and\nfemale, used mostly by the female, and generally with a fluttering\nor shaking accompaniment of her wings; (7) a curious note sometimes\nheard in London\u2014meaning not well understood, but supposed to be a\nsort of chuckle or sign of contentment. Each one of these several\ndifferent notes may be used to stand for various ideas depending on\nthe circumstances by being given different emphasis and inflection,\njust as in the languages of many primitive races of men a small\nvocabulary of words is used to stand for a much larger number of\nideas by being pronounced differently. In the Chinese language, for\ninstance, the words are increased to three or four times the\noriginal number by modulation; but the same thing is observed in all\nlanguages, both human and non-human. Verbal poverty is pieced out by\nverbal variation. We say a\u0107-cent or ac-cent\u0301, depending on whether\nwe wish to express the idea of a noun or a verb.\n\nThe memory of birds is well developed. Many of them remember the\nvery grove or meadow, and even the very knot-hole or bush, in which\nthey built their nest the season before, although in the meantime\nthey have journeyed over lands and seas and sojourned thousands of\nmiles away. Every year, for several seasons past, in late summer and\nearly fall, after the nesting-time is over and the young ones are\nall grown, the purple martins have gathered in large numbers about\nthe Field Columbian Museum, in Jackson Park, Chicago. They stay here\nfor a few weeks, foraging the surrounding air for insects by day,\nand sleeping on the great dome of the Museum by night, finally\nflying away to be seen no more in such numbers till next year. These\nbirds, many of them anyway, must remember from one year to another\nthis annual assembly here by the big waters, else why would they\ncome together at this particular spot from all over the country? I\nhave no doubt that some of them, having sojourned here year after\nyear for some time, remember well the great ugly building where they\nmeet, and are more or less familiar with the surrounding locality\nfrom having searched it so often. I wonder what led to the\nestablishing of the custom in the first place. Customs do not fall\nfrom the skies. And what advantage is there in the practice? What\nare they up to as they chirp and wheel in the air, and flutter up\nthe slopes and sail down again, and perch on the pinnacles and\ntwitter? Maybe it is a sort of Saratoga for them, where they all\ncome together ostensibly to dip their bills in the blue waves, but\nwhere sons swell in their new feathers, and sly mammas find\nprospects for unmarketable misses.\n\nA parrot has been known to remember the voice of its mistress after\nan absence of a year and a half\u2014a very remarkable feat even for\nthe grey matter of a bird. A flock of geese mentioned by Romanes\nshowed their knowledge of the arrival of market-day, which came\nevery two weeks, by assembling regularly on such days, early in the\nmorning, in front of the town inn where the market was held, to pick\nup the corn. They never came on the wrong day; and on one occasion,\nwhen the market was omitted on account of a holiday, here came the\nunfailing fowls cackling and shouting as usual in merry anticipation\nof their fortnightly feast, but ignorant of the national necessities\nwhich had doomed them to be disappointed.[6]\n\nParrots remember and call for their absent friends, and mumble\nphrases in their dreams which have been taught to them. These gifted\nbirds learn long poems by heart, and sing songs with considerable\nart. A parrot belonging to the canon of the Cathedral of Salzburg\nwas given instruction regularly two hours every day for ten years,\nfrom 1830 to 1840. The bird became very proficient in speech and\nexceedingly intelligent. It took part in conversations, whistled\ntunes, and was able to sing a number of popular songs, among them an\nentire aria from Flotow\u2019s opera of \u2018Martha\u2019.[7]\n\nEducated birds though, like educated dogs, horses, cats, mice, men,\nand everything else, are very different beings from the uneducated.\nCultivation is a key that unlocks all sorts of miracles. Cats are\ncultivated tigers; and the richest grains that ripen in the fields\nof men, and the loveliest flowers that blow, are only educated\nweeds. Even the flea may be taught to exchange leaping for walking,\nto draw a tiny wagon, to ride on the seat, to fire a toy cannon, and\ndo many other feats.\n\nThere is one family of birds in which the superior size,\ngorgeousness, and vivacity, usual to the males, are found in the\nother sex, the females being the larger and more brightly\ncoloured\u2014the Phalarope family. Indeed, the members of this small\nfamily not only reverse the usual arrangement of the sexual\ncharacters of birds, but completely upset many of the most cherished\ntraditions of the avian household. The female does the wooing, and\ntakes the lead in selecting the nest site. And while she lays the\neggs, the privilege of incubation she hands over magnanimously to\nher dull-coloured mate.\n\nBirds have a keen observation and a good deal of that invaluable\nfaculty known as common-sense. It is wonderful how quickly they\nlearn to avoid telegraph-wires when these invisible but deadly\ngossamers are first stretched across a country, and how unerringly\nthey keep at safe distances when hunted with firearms. An\nexperienced crow can tell a cane from a gun-barrel almost as far as\nhe can see it.\n\nNearly all birds build nests of some kind in which to cradle their\neggs and young. The cow-bird and cuckoo (European), however, are\nexceptions. These birds have the rather human practice of turning\ntheir cares and labours over to somebody else. They are loafers and\nparasites. They lay their eggs secretly in the nests of other birds,\nwhere their eggs are hatched and their young cared for by an alien\nmother. I have seen a mother song-sparrow hustling about among the\nshrubs and grasses for an hour at a time almost, gathering food for\na young cow-bird nearly twice as big as she was, while her foundling\nsat phlegmatically at the foot of a tree chirping and fluttering its\nwings, and acting as a thankless and apparently bottomless\nreceptacle for the morsel after morsel laboriously harvested for it\nby its tireless little foster-mother. Sand-martins and kingfishers\nburrow in the earth and rear their broods in subterranean cradles;\ngulls and gamebirds build on the ground; the flamingoes and\nbarn-swallows build mud nests; the woodpeckers mine holes in trees;\ndoves and eagles make platforms of sticks; the tailor-bird bastes\nliving leaves together; the social weavers construct great straw\nroofs covering the top of a tree, and build their nests on the limbs\nbeneath; most singing birds build daintily-lined baskets, and swing\nthem in trees and bushes.\n\nIt is often said that all the birds of a species build their nests\nin precisely the same way, and that, while men change and improve\ntheir dwelling-places from generation to generation, birds build\ntheir abodes in the same old way, just as their ancestors built\ntheirs centuries and centuries ago. This is a favourite thought with\nthe fogies, with those who change not in their thinking from the\nways hacked out for them centuries and centuries ago. Birds are like\nmen. Some of them\u2014some races and some individuals\u2014are much more\ngiven to initiative than others. There is as wide a difference\nbetween the hang-bird and the auk in the construction of their\ndomiciles as between the millionaire and the savage. And the\nhang-bird has come by her home-making art through centuries of\nimprovement, just as the millionaire has arrived at his. It is\nbelieved by ornithologists that the first nests of birds were the\nniches of rocks or simple hollows scooped in the sand and soil, such\nas are still seen among the more primitive bird races, and that from\nthese aboriginal beginnings have come, through ages of evolution,\nthe elaborate creations of the cotton-bird, weaver-bird, tailorbird,\noven-bird, the baya-sparrow, the finches, and the orioles. The\nsavage who lives unmolested generation after generation in the same\nland and country builds his simple hut in just the same way as his\nancestors built theirs, and thinks the same things his ancestors\nthought a thousand years before him. Sir Samuel Baker, in a paper on\n\u2018The Races of the Nile Basin,\u2019 points out that each tribe of men\nin eastern Africa, like each species of bird, has its own peculiar\nstyle of hut, and that the huts of the various tribes are as\nconstant in their types as are the nests of birds. The same thing is\ntrue of their headdresses as of their huts; and this fixed character\nexists also in their languages, customs, and religions. It is only\nsome races of men that are given to growth and fluidity, and only\nsome men of these special races.\n\nRight in our own country, among the remote mountain recesses of\nAppalachia, surrounded on all sides by the most wonderful\ndevelopment, material and intellectual, the world has ever seen,\nlives a race of rude mountain folk almost as aboriginal in their\nways and views of life, and as unaffected by civilisation, as if\nthey were in the heart of Africa. They live huddled together in\none-room log-cabins without windows or floors, eat bacon and\ncornmeal, carry on almost constant wars, and execute the deputies of\ncivilisation who happen to stray into their illicit dominions, just\nas they have done from the time these mountain silences were first\nbroken by them 150 or 200 years ago.\n\nBirds, as a rule, use a great deal of care and thought in the\nlocation of their nests. After they have selected a certain grove or\nfield as the one best suited to their purposes, or as the one around\nwhich cluster the happiest memories, it usually requires several\ndays of flying and peeping about, of spying and exploration, before\nthe exact spot for the precious domicile is finally settled upon. It\nis a delicate matter for many birds, for security from sun, storm,\nand enemies must all be taken into account. Old birds, as has been\nfrequently observed, build better nests and select more clever\nlocations for their nests than the young and inexperienced. The\nnest-building habits of many birds are known to have changed during\nthe past few hundred years. The American house-swallow did most\ncertainly not build under the eaves of human houses 300 years ago,\nnor did the hair-bird in her nest with horsehair as she invariably\ndoes now. The fact that wrens, swifts, and martins now build almost\naltogether in boxes and chimneys shows that birds are able and\nwilling to adapt themselves to new conditions. The chimney-swift and\npurple martin, it is said, still cling to their aboriginal custom of\nrearing their young in hollow trees in the unsettled parts of\nAmerica. The indomitable house-sparrow builds its nest almost\nanywhere, from knot-holes and tin cans to electric-light globes and\ntree-tops. Its original dwelling was probably an arboreal affair,\nlike that of other sparrows, and different nesting-places have been\nadopted as a result of its association with man. Not only in its\narchitecture, but in several other ways, this bird has departed from\nthe traditions of its tribe. The Fringillidae (the sparrow family of\nbirds) are seed-eaters, both in structure and practice. But the\nhouse-sparrow, since it left the fields and groves to become a gamin\non human streets, has learned to eat almost anything, and one thing,\ntoo, about as cheerfully as another. The varied habits of this bird\nare probably due to its natural elasticity in the first place,\nsupplemented by the unsettling influences of its rather\nkaleidoscopic experiences during the past few hundred years.\n\nThe fear of birds for man is an acquired trait due to ages of\npersecution. If man would treat birds kindly, they would act toward\nhim as they do toward any other friendly animal. When unfrequented\nislands are first visited by man, the birds are found to be\nperfectly fearless of him, flying about him, feeding from his hand,\nand manifesting no more timidity than if he were a big-hearted bird\nhimself. Darwin states that, when he stopped at the Galapagos\nIslands on his famous trip around the world in the _Beagle_, he\nfound the birds there so tame that he could push them from the\nbranches of the trees with his gun-barrel. Professor Cutting, of the\nState University of Iowa, in an article in the _Popular Science\nMonthly_ for August, 1903, tells of the almost absolute fearlessness\nof the birds on the island of Laysan, an isolated atoll in the\nPacific west of the Hawaian Islands, which he visited during that\nsummer. The island swarms with bird life\u2014petrels, albatrosses, and\ntropical birds of various kinds\u2014and these birds betray no more\nfear in the presence of man than if he were a cow. The albatrosses\nwere so numerous and so indifferent to the presence of man that it\nwas necessary to shove them aside with one\u2019s foot to keep from\nstepping on them when one went for a walk along the sand-stretches\nof the shore. Professor Cutting took photographs of birds which\nliterally posed for him in all sorts of positions, and half-savage\njackies amused themselves by going about and pulling the pretty tail\nfeathers from the tropical birds as they sat on their nests. I have\nknown of two cases where persons, by going to the same place day\nafter day with food and kindness, have in the course of a few weeks\ntaught robins, sparrows, and other birds, to lose all fear of them,\nso much so as to sit on their shoulders and arms and eat out of\ntheir hands. This is the spirit all birds would show all the time\ntoward their featherless lords if these featherless ones would only\ntreat them with half the consideration they merit.\n\nThe love of a bird for the treasures of her nest is one of the most\nbeautiful things of this world. Mother-like, the parent bird will do\nanything almost for the sake of her little ones. Who has not seen\nthe kildeer strive with all the tact of her clever little soul to\nallure some big giant of a human being, who has wandered into her\nneighbourhood, away from her nest of precious young? Many a time as\na boy on the farm I have followed one of these birds limping and\ntumbling and fluttering along on the ground a few feet ahead of me,\nutterly disabled, as I supposed, but always managing to keep just a\nlittle beyond the reach of my eager hands. And when the artful\nmother has led me far from the sacred spot where lay all there was\nin this world to her, how triumphantly she has lifted herself on her\nunharmed wings and, to my utter astonishment, sailed away. The\npartridge and the mourning-dove are, if possible, even more artful\nin their acting than the kildeer. After I became a large boy and had\nbeen told the meaning of these exhibitions by parent birds, I often\nfollowed the mourning-dove, thinking the bird must be really wounded\nafter all, so perfectly did it pretend. But the cunning of the\nkildeer is not confined to luring one away from the nest. If by some\naccident one finds her nest (and the nest is so cleverly concealed\nthat, if it is discovered at all, it will be by pure accident), the\nresourceful mother is ready with other expedients to outwit you. She\nwatches you all the time from the proper distance, and knows by your\nconduct the moment you have found her nest. And before you have even\nhad time to admire the skill displayed by the mother in blending so\nperfectly her abode with its surroundings, a single peculiar note\nfrom her has caused the whole nestful of cuddling young ones to dart\nout of their cradle and disappear among the surrounding clods as if\nby magic. No amount of searching can find one of them. They have\nvanished as effectually as if they had evaporated. And it is enough\nto touch the heart of the most indifferent to see the anxious mother\nbird, as I have seen her from the cranny of a neighbouring\nrock-pile, come back to her nest and call her scattered children\ntogether again after they have once dispersed at her command.\nCircling around the nest two or three times to assure herself that\nno one is nigh, she alights and begins a low clucking sound like\nthat of a hen calling her brood. The little ones come out of their\nhiding-places one after another as mysteriously as they vanished.\nYou can\u2019t see for the life of you where they come from. They seem\nto just _emanate_. And if one of them fails to come at her\ncall\u2014for the devoted mother knows very well just how many she\nhas\u2014she extends her search farther out from her nest, looking all\naround and keeping up that peculiar little cluck, until the\nhalf-scared-to-death little slyboots finally comes creeping out from\nhis improvised snuggery somewhere. If a kildeer\u2019s nest has once\nbeen found, and the mother feels that it is in danger of future\nvisits, she will move her family at night to some other locality,\nand it is practically impossible ever to find it again. The family\nrelations of the ring-dotterels are said to be \u2018so charming and\ntouching that even hunters recoil from shooting a female surrounded\nby her young ones.\u2019\n\nHuman beings, true to their instinct never to call into action their\nability to think if they can employ their faculty for nonsense\ninstead, call this love of the mother bird \u2018machinery.\u2019 But\nthere are some of us (and our numbers are increasing) who are\ndisposed to put off the adoption of this conclusion until we go mad.\nThe bird builds her nest, weaving it of the rarest fibres. She hides\nit in the copse or prudently hangs it far out on some inaccessible\nbough. She lays her beautiful eggs, and hatches them with the warmth\nand life of her own breast. She tends her young, bringing them food\nand drink, and watching over them with a tender and tireless\nvigilance. She protects them in storm with her own little body,\nworries about them when danger lurks, and dreams of them, no doubt,\nas she rocks and sleeps under the silent stars. She sings to them in\nthe overflow of her gladness and hope, and risks her very existence\nto shield them from harm. She teaches them to fly, to find their\nfood, and to detect their enemies. She is true to her mate, and her\nmate is true and kind to her. As the days of summer shorten, and the\ncool, long nights warn of approaching autumn, she leads her children\naway from the old place, she and her faithful mate, out into the\nwide old world. And I say there is love in the heart of that mother\nas truly as in the heart of woman, and there are joy and genuineness\nand sorrow and fidelity in that sylvan home more sacred than may\nsometimes bloom in the cold mansions of men.\n\nConjugal love is also very strong in many of the feathered races,\nespecially among those in which the wedding is for successive\nseasons or for life. The pining of love-birds for their dead\nsweethearts is well known. The mandarin duck is proverbial for its\nmarital faithfulness, and a pair of these fowls is carried by the\nChinese in their marriage processions as an emblem of constancy.\nMany instances are recorded of birds, after having been deprived of\ntheir mates, refusing steadfastly the attentions of other birds, and\neven sometimes separating themselves entirely from the society of\ntheir kind. The following account of the devotion of a widowed\npigeon for her deceased consort sounds like a tale of human woe:\n\n\u2018A man set to watch a field much patronised by pigeons shot an old\nmale pigeon who had long been an inhabitant of the farm. His mate,\naround whom he had for many a year cooed, whom he had nourished with\nhis own crop and had assisted in rearing numerous young ones\nimmediately settled on the ground by his side She refused to leave\nhim, and manifested her grief in the most expressive manner. The\nlabourer took up the dead bird and hung it on a stake. The widow\nstill refused to forsake her husband, and continued day after day\nslowly walking around the stake on which his body hung. The\nkind-hearted wife of the farmer heard of the matter, and went to the\nrelief of the stricken bird. On arriving at the spot, she found the\npoor bird still watching at the side of her dead, and making an\noccasional effort to get to him. She was much spent with her long\nfasting and grief. She had made a circular beaten path around the\ncorpse of her companion\u2019.[8]\n\nAnd these are the beings whose bones men jest over at their feasts,\nand brutes shoot for pastime on human holidays. Much has been said\nof the sorrow of birds for their deceased mates, but not too much.\nFor the avian soul may be smothered by the gloom and loneliness that\ncome upon the heart, when the great light of love and companionship\nhas gone out, quite as completely as the soul of a bereaved human.\nIn not many human homes where loved ones lie sick and dying are felt\nthe pangs of more genuine grief than those sometimes suffered by\nbirds when their friends and companions are stricken in death. The\nfollowing incident, vouched for by Dr. Franklin, who observed it, is\nonly one among many such instances recorded in the literature on\nbirds:\n\nA pair of parrots had lived together on the most loving terms for\nfour years, when the female was taken with a serious attack of gout.\nShe grew rapidly worse, and was soon so weak as to be unable to\nleave her perch for food, when the male, faithful and tender as a\nhuman spouse, took it upon himself to carry food to her regularly in\nhis beak. \u2018He continued feeding her in this way for four months,\nbut the infirmities of his companion increased day by day, until at\nlast she was no longer able to support herself on the perch. She\nremained cowering down in the bottom of the cage, making from time\nto time ineffectual efforts to regain her perch. The male was always\nnear her, and did everything in his power to aid the feeble efforts\nof his dear better-half. Seizing the poor invalid by the beak or the\nupper part of her wing, he tried his best to enable her to rise, and\nrepeated his efforts several times. His constancy, his gestures, and\nhis continued solicitude, all showed in this affectionate bird the\nmost ardent desire to relieve the sufferings and assist the weakness\nof his sinking companion. But the scene became still more affecting\nwhen the female was dying. Her unhappy consort moved about her\nincessantly, his attentions and tender cares redoubled. He even\ntried to open her beak to give some nourishment. He ran to her, and\nthen returned with a troubled and agitated look. At intervals he\nuttered the most plaintive cries; then, with his eyes fixed on her,\nkept a mournful silence. At length his companion breathed her last.\nFrom that moment he pined away, and in the course of a few weeks\ndied\u2019.[6]\n\nEven the rough-looking ostrich has sensibility enough to die of a\nbroken heart, as was the case in the Jardin des Plantes at Paris a\nfew years ago. There is many a heart with a slabless grave far from\nthe haunts of men, and many a tear in secret brews that never wets\nthe eye.\n\nThe individual who has never acquired the enthusiasm for a knowledge\nof the birds and a love for their presence and association has\nomitted some of the richest emotions of life. \u2018The sight of a bird\nor the sound of its voice is at all times an event of such\nsignificance to me,\u2019 says Chapman, \u2018a source of such unfailing\npleasure, that when I go afield with those to whom birds are\nstrangers I am deeply impressed by the comparative barrenness of\ntheir world, for they live in ignorance of a great store of\nenjoyment that might be theirs for the asking.\u2019\n\n  \u2018I cannot love the man who does not love, As men love light, the\n  song of happy birds.\u2019\n\nI have seen a mother mouse in a moment of peril flee from her home\namong the falling pieces of a cord-wood pile, and disappear under\nthe roots of a neighbouring oak. I have seen her a little later,\nrecovered from her initial dismay, making her way back again,\nclambering along among the tangled timbers, stopping now and then to\nlook and listen, her eyes wild and anxious, and her whole little\nbody quaking with excitement. I have seen her go among the ruins of\nher dwelling, take a poor little squeaking young one in her mouth,\nand hurry away with it to the gloomy refuge in the roots of the oak.\nI have watched her return again and again, each time taking in her\ncareful teeth the tiny body of a babe, until five mouthfuls of\nprecious pink were safely lodged within the fortress of the oak. And\nI could as soon believe that woman, when she saves her children from\nsome fearful harm, is a soulless machine as think that that brave\nlittle wood-mother, out there alone under the trees, snatching her\ndarlings from the jaws of death, was a heroine without sense or\nfeeling. That little hairy mother with four feet and bead-like eyes\nloved her young ones in just the same way and for just the same\nreason as a human mother loves her young ones. She looked upon her\nbabies, in all probability, with the same mother-love and tenderness\nas a human mother looks upon hers, and felt in miniature, with evil\nhovering above them, the same consternation a woman feels when\ndestruction reaches out after those that are nearest and dearest.\nAnd when it was all over, when the good angel of deliverance had\nfinally spread its healing white wings over that afflicted family,\nthe heart of that little rodent was doubtless soothed by the same\njoy as that which, in the hour of deliverance, calms the hearts of\nhumankind.\n\nAnts tend their fields, gather their harvests, domesticate other\ninsects, and keep slaves. They help each other bear heavy burdens,\nextricate each other from misfortune, speak to each other when they\nmeet, and bury their dead. They build roads and bridges, and\nmanifest wonderful engineering skill in their construction. They\neven tunnel under rivers. They go far from home, and find their way\nback again. They inhabit towns, and build splendid and spacious\npalaces. Each ant knows every other citizen of its own town, and an\nant from any other town is immediately recognised as a foreigner.\nAnts have their overseers of industrial enterprises, and regular\nhours for work and sleep. The ant is the most pugnacious of all\nanimals, and the most muscular compared with its size. It will\nboldly attack the biggest creature that walks if this creature\ninvades its home. It will fasten its mandibles into an enemy, and\nallow itself to be torn to pieces without relaxing its hold. Among\nsome savage tribes, certain species of ants are said to be used as\nsurgeons. Infuriated ants are allowed to fasten their mandibles on\nthe opposite edges of a gash, and in this way the wound is closed.\nThe ants are decapitated, and their bodiless heads with their\nrelentless jaws serve as stitches to the wound. Ants have holidays\nand athletic festivals. On such occasions they romp and chase each\nother and play hide-and-seek like children. They stand on their\nhind-legs, embrace each other with their fore-limbs, grasp each\nother by the feet or antennae, pull each other down the entrances to\ntheir towns, wrestle and roll over on the sand, and so on\u2014all in\nthe friendliest manner. It is greatly to the credit of these little\npeople that no observer has ever yet known them to become so\ninventively helpless or so athletically hard up as to play\nslug-ball. Ants educate their young, and practise the fundamental\nprinciples of human states and societies. Forel, the great Swiss\nstudent of ants, says that several hundred nests are sometimes\nunited into a single confederation. Each ant knows every other ant\nof the entire confederation, and they all take part in the common\ndefence. Haeckel says, speaking of social evolution in ants, that\nthe aboriginal ants of the Chalk Age had as little idea of the\ndivision of labour and organisation of modern ant states as\npaleolithic flint-chippers had of the complexity and organisation of\ntwentieth-century civilisation. \u2018If we take an ant\u2019s nest, we\nnot only see that work of every description\u2014rearing of progeny,\nforaging, building, rearing of aphides, and so on\u2014is performed\naccording to the principles of voluntary mutual aid, but we must\nalso recognise, with Forel, that the fundamental feature of the life\nof many species of ants is the obligation of every ant to share its\nfood, already swallowed and partly digested, with every member of\nthe community which may apply for it. Two ants belonging to the same\nnest or to the same confederation of nests will approach each other,\nexchange a few movements with the antennae, and if one of them is\nhungry or thirsty\u2014and especially if the other has its crop\nfull\u2014it immediately asks for food. The individual thus requested\nnever refuses. It sets apart its mandibles, takes a proper position,\nand regurgitates a drop of transparent fluid, which is licked up by\nthe hungry ant. Regurgitating food for others is so prominent a\nfeature in the life of the ants, and it so constantly recurs both\nfor feeding hungry comrades and for feeding larvae, that Forel\nconsiders the digestive tube of ants to consist of two different\nparts, one of which\u2014the posterior\u2014is for the special use of the\nindividual, and the other\u2014the anterior part\u2014is chiefly for the\nuse of the community. If an ant which has its crop full has been\nselfish enough to refuse to feed a comrade, it will be treated as an\nenemy. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolks were\nfighting with some other species, they will fall upon the greedy\nindividual with greater vehemence even than upon the enemies\nthemselves. All this has been confirmed by the most accurate\nobservations and experiments\u2019.[9]\n\nAnts keep slaves. And the slaves, in some instances, carry their\nmasters about, feed them, groom them, and attend to their every\nwant, just as human lackeys do helpless aristocrats. In some species\nthe institution of slavery is so old that the physical structures of\nthe masters have been modified until the masters are physically\nunable to feed themselves, and will perish from hunger, though\nsurrounded by food, if they are left to themselves. The brain of the\nant, as Darwin says, is one of the most wonderful bits of matter in\nthe universe. It is scarcely one-fourth the size of the head of a\npin, yet it is the seat of the most astonishing wisdom and activity.\nIf human intelligence were as great, compared with the mass of the\nhuman brain, as is the ant\u2019s, man would be several hundred times\nas wise as he is now, and would then probably not fall far short of\nthat state of erudition which the average man imagines he already\nrepresents. Ants remember, and a fact becomes impressed by\nrepetition, showing that the faculty of memory in ants is governed\nby the same laws as is this faculty in man. Sir John Lubbock found\nit necessary to teach his ants the way by repeating the lesson where\nthe way was long or unusual. \u2018Sensation, perception, and\nassociation follow in the social insects, on the whole, the same\nfundamental laws as in the vertebrates, including ourselves.\nFurthermore, attention is surprisingly developed in insects\u2019\n(Forel). Ants keep standing armies, make alliances, and maraud\nneighbouring states. They have their wars, civil and foreign, and\ntheir massacres and enslavements of the conquered. But they have\nnever got so low yet, so far as anyone knows, as to hypocritically\nprosecute their conquests in the name of God and humanity. The\nbattlefields of ants resemble the carnage-plains of men, strewn with\nghastly corpses and covered with the headless and dying. And the\naccounts of their expeditions\u2014their going forth in regular\ncolumns, with captains, scouts, and skirmish lines, their battles,\nand their return laden with plunder and captives\u2014read like the\ngrisly tales of human history. Ants perform, in short, about all the\nantics of civilised man, except maltreating the females and drinking\ngin. And shall we say their civilisation is less real because it is\nminiature and because it is carried on far below the Brobdingnagian\ncontemplations of man? \u2018When we see an ant-hill tenanted by\nthousands of industrious inhabitants, excavating chambers, forming\ntunnels, making roads, guarding their home, gathering food, feeding\nthe young, tending their domestic animals, each one fulfilling its\nduties industriously and without confusion, it is difficult\naltogether to deny them the gift of reason or to escape the\nconviction that their mental powers differ from those of men not so\nmuch in kind as in degree\u2019 (Lubbock).\n\nThe industrious and gifted bee, with its wonderful social system, in\nadvance even of that of the most enlightened societies of men; the\ngenerous horse, who thinks and feels so much more than the clowns\nwho maul him ever suspect; the artful spider, that confirmed\nwaylayer lurking in his lair of silk; the soft and predaceous cat;\nthe timid-hearted hare, poor hounded little dweller of the fields\nand stream-sides; the beautiful and vivacious squirrel; the lowly\nlady-bug; the cautious fox; the irascible serpent, so cruelly\nmisunderstood by men; the patient camel; the scornful peafowl; the\nindomitable goat; the grave and vindictive elephant; the ingenious\nbeaver, the woodman of the primeval wilderness; the lordly and\npolygamous cock; the maternal hen; the wary trout, beset everywhere\nby the villainous traps of impostors; the bride-like butterfly; the\ndelicate antelope and deer; and the sturdy, incorruptible ox\u2014all\nof these beings have within them souls composed primarily of the\nsame elements as those that compose the souls of men.\n\nGround-wasps have been observed to use tiny stones as hammers in\npacking the dirt firmly over their nests\u2014a very remarkable act of\nintelligence, since the use of tools is not common even among the\nhigher mammals.[10]\n\nFishes have been taught to assemble at the ringing of a bell, and\ntoads and tortoises to come at the call of their favourite friends.\nAn alligator which was kept tame for several years became so much\nattached to its master that \u2018it followed him about the house like\na dog, scrambling up the stairs after him, and showing much\naffection and docility.\u2019 The favourite friend and companion of\nthis alligator was the cat; and, whenever the cat stretched herself\non the floor in front of the fire, the alligator would lie down\nbeside her, with its head on the cat, and go to sleep. \u2018When the\ncat was absent, the alligator was restless, but it always appeared\nhappy when the cat was near it\u2019.[8]\n\nWolves and foxes sometimes cooperate with each other in their\nhunting expeditions, somewhat as men do in theirs. One of their\nnumber will crouch in ambush by the side of a road known to be used\nby hares or other small animals, and leap on the unsuspecting\nfugitives when driven that way by others of the hunting band. Many\nanimals post sentinels when they eat or sleep or engage in other\nhazardous undertakings, and these sentinels show a good deal of\ndiscrimination in distinguishing between animals that are friendly\nand those that are not. Beavers not only build lodges to live in,\nbut also construct dams to keep the water in which the villages are\nlocated at a certain height. The outlet of these dams is carefully\nregulated, being regularly lessened and enlarged to suit the supply\nof water in the stream. The trees used by the beavers in their\nenterprises are felled by them along the margins of the stream, and\nfloated to the place where they are used. In old communities, where\nthe supply of timber near the stream has been exhausted, artificial\ncanals are cut by these indomitable engineers for use in the\ntransportation of their materials. These excavations are made at a\ngreat cost of labour and for the deliberate purpose of enabling the\nbuilders to accomplish that which they could not accomplish in any\nother way. \u2018In executing this purpose,\u2019 says Romanes, \u2018there\nis sometimes displayed a depth of engineering forethought over\ndetails of structure required by the circumstances of special\nlocalities which is even more astonishing than the execution of the\ngeneral idea\u2019.[6] When, for instance, a canal has been carried so\nfar from the original water-supply that, owing to the rising ground,\nit cannot be continued without a very great expenditure of effort in\ndigging, a second dam is built higher up-stream, and with water\ndrawn from this the canal is continued on at a higher level.\nSometimes a third dam is built above the second, and the canal again\ncontinued at a still higher level before the valuable timber of the\nhigher grounds is reached. These enterprising rodents also carve\nsometimes enormous channels across the necks of land formed by\nwinding rivers, to serve as cut-offs in travel and transportation.\nAnd yet all of these things\u2014all of the intelligence, feeling, and\ningenuity displayed by the non-human races\u2014are still lumped\ntogether by belated psychologists under the head of \u2018instinct,\u2019\nby which is meant a blind, unconscious knack of doing the right\nthing without in any way realising what is being done or what it is\nbeing done for! The principle in accordance with which mind is\ndenied to non-human beings would, if carried to its legitimate\nconclusions, make machines out of all of us, and limit the\npossession of conscious intelligence to the individual who\npromulgates the theory. The attitude assumed by many psychologists\ntoward the mental faculties of inferior races reminds one of\nHeine\u2019s interview with the old lizard at Lucca. In the discussion\nwhich ensued between the poet and the reptile, the poet dropped the\nwords, \u2018I think.\u2019 \u2018Think!\u2019 snapped the lizard with a sharp,\naristocratic tone of profound contempt\u2014\u2018think! Which of you\nthinks? For 3,000 years, wise sir, I have investigated the spiritual\nfunctions of animals, and I have made men and apes the special\nobjects of my study. I have devoted myself to these queer creatures\nwith as great zeal and diligence as Lyonnet to his caterpillars. And\nas the result of my researches, I can assure you no man thinks. Now\nand then something occurs to him, and these accidentally occurring\nsomethings he calls thoughts, and the stringing of them together he\ncalls thinking. But you can take my word for it, no man thinks\u2014no\nphilosopher thinks. And, so far as philosophy is concerned, it is\nmere air and water, like pure vapours in the sky. There is, in\nreality, only one true philosophy, and that is engraven in eternal\nhieroglyphics on my own tail\u2019.[7]\n\nThis attitude of the lordly saurian toward the human race is a\nstinging burlesque on the anthropocentric conceit which perverts all\nof man\u2019s views of the other orders of life.\n\nIt is not contended that non-human beings are psychically identical\nwith human beings. The races of men are not psychically identical\nwith each other. The difference between the intellectual splendours\nof a Spencer evolving volumes of the profoundest philosophy and the\nmind of an Australian who cannot count six, or between the\nunderstanding of an Edison, the wizard of the electrical world, and\nthat of the South Sea islanders, who, when Captain Cook gave them\nsome English nails, planted them in the hope of raising a new crop,\nis almost infinite. The lowest races of men have neither\nsuperstition nor the power of abstract thought as have the higher\nraces. They have a word for black stone, white stone, and brown\nstone, but no word for stone; for elm-tree, oak-tree, and the like,\nbut no word for tree. As Kingsley says, \u2018It is difficult to\nbelieve that a dog does not form as clear an abstract idea of a tree\nas these people do.\u2019 There are human beings living in the forests\nof Asia, Africa, and Australasia that wander about from place to\nplace in herds without chief, law, weapons, or fixed habitations.\nThey go naked, mate by chance, and climb trees like monkeys. Some of\nthese races know nothing of fire, religion, or a moral world,\nchatter to each other like apes, and live on such natural products\nas roots, fruits, serpents, mice, ants, and honey. One of these\ncreatures, we are told, will lie flat on his front for an hour by\nthe runway of a field-mouse, waiting for a chance to snatch up the\nlittle creature when it comes along and eat it. Dozens of such\ndegraded races are mentioned by Blichner in his \u2018Man: Past,\nPresent, and Future,\u2019 and by Sir John Lubbock in his \u2018Origin of\nCivilisation.\u2019\n\nNon-human beings have, as a rule, neither the psychic variety nor\nthe intensity of higher humans. And it is not contended that in\nlanguage, science, and superstition they are capable of being\ncompared with the foremost few of civilised societies, any more than\nsavages, especially the lowest savages, are capable of such\ncomparison. But it is maintained that the non-human races of the\nearth are _not_ the metallic and soulless lot of fixtures they are\nvulgarly supposed to be; that they are just as real living beings,\nwith just as precious nerves and just as genuine feelings, rights,\nheartaches, capabilities, and waywardnesses, as we ourselves: and\nthat, since they are our own kith and kindred, we have no right\nwhatever, higher than the right of main strength (which is the right\nof devils), to assume them to be, and to treat them as if they were,\nour natural and legitimate prey.\n\n1. Darwin: _Expression of Emotions in Men and Animals_; New York,\n1899.\n2. Starr: _Human Progress_; Pennsylvania, 1895.\n3. Hartmann: _Anthropoid Apes_; New York, 1901.\n4. Brehm: _From North Pole to Equator_; London, 1896.\n5. Stanley: _In Darkest Africa_, vol i.; New York, 1890.\n6. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899.\n7. Evans: _Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology_; New York, 1898.\n8. Jesse: _Gleanings in Natural History_, vol. i.; London, 1832.\n9. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902.\n10. Peckham and Peckham: _Instincts and Habits of the Solitary\nWasps_; Madison, Wisconsin, 1898.\n\nIV. The Elements of Human and Non-human Mind Compared.\n\nThe analysis of human mind and the comparison of its elements or\npowers with the powers of non-human mind corroborate the conclusions\nalready arrived at through observation and deductive inference. The\nchief powers of the mind of man are _sensation_, _memory_,\n_emotion_, _imagination_, _volition_, _instinct_, and _reason_. All\nof these faculties are found in non-human beings, some of them\ndeveloped to a much higher degree than they are in man, and some of\nthem to a much lower.\n\n_Sensation_ is the effect produced on the mind when a sense organ is\naffected in some way by external stimuli. Sensation is the lumber of\nthe mind, the raw material out of which are elaborated all other\nforms of consciousness. The chief species of sensation are those of\nsight, sound, smell, taste, and feeling. The original sense was\nfeeling, and out of this sense were evolved the other four. The\norgans of seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting are therefore\nmodifications of the skin, which is the organ of original sense. The\nfact that in all animals, down almost to the very beginnings of\nlife, sense organs exist, suggests that sensation may be almost, if\nnot quite, coextensive with animal life. All mammals, birds,\nreptiles, amphibians, and fishes have the same special sense organs\nas man, and the organs of sight, sound, taste, and smell occupy in\nall vertebrates the same relative positions in the head. Birds see\nbetter than any other animals, and carnivora smell better. Ruminants\nsee, hear, and smell with great acuteness. Fishes also see and hear\nwell; and the wings of the bat are so exceedingly sensitive that it\nwill move about blindfolded and with ears stopped with cotton almost\nas unerringly as when aided by sight and sound. Insects have smell,\nsight, and taste well developed, as is shown by their keen\nappreciation of the colours, perfumes, and flavours of flowers. They\nalso hear. Stridulation proves this. Worms have eyes and ears, and\nland-leeches scent the approach of their prey at a long distance.\nThe starfish and the medusa respond to all the five classes of\nstimuli which affect the five senses of man, and nervous substance\nis found in all animals above the sponge.\n\n_Memory_ is the power of retaining or recognising past states of\nconsciousness. The power to retain impressions follows in origin\nclose upon the power to receive impressions. Memory is the historic\nfaculty of the mind\u2014the power of the mind to store up its\nexperiences\u2014and is found in nearly all animals. The lowly limpet,\nwhose world is a seaside rock, will come back from its little\nroamings time after time to the same rude lodge from which it set\nout. Bees remember where they get honey or sugar months afterwards,\nand when it is necessary will sometimes go back to the old home hive\nwhich they left the year before. Ants retrace their steps after\nmaking long journeys from their nest, and are able in some way to\nrecognise their friends after months of separation. The stickleback\n(fish) knows the way back to his nest, although he has been absent\nseveral hours. Fishes return and hatch their young year after year\nin the same waters; birds come back to their old nesting-places; and\nhorses remember their way along devious roads over which they have\nnot been for years. Horses used in the delivery of milk, or in other\noccupations in which they are accustomed to travel daily over about\nthe same route, come in time to remember every alley, street, and\nstopping-place of the whole round almost as accurately as their\ndrivers. Darwin\u2019s dog remembered and obeyed him after an absence\nof five years. The power of dogs, squirrels, and other animals of\nremembering where they have long before cached food is indeed\nwonderful. A squirrel will come down out of a tree when the earth is\ncovered to a depth of several inches with lately fallen snow and hop\naway, without the slightest hesitancy or mistake, to the exact spot\nwhere it has months before stored its mid-winter acorns. A lion has\nbeen known to recognise its keeper after seven years of separation,\nand an elephant obeyed all his old words of command on being\nrecaptured after fifteen years of jungle life. The similarity of\nmemory in other animals to the same faculty in man is shown by the\nfact that memory everywhere is governed by the same laws. In all\nanimals, including man, memory is strengthened by repetition\u2014that\nis, impressions are always deepened and confirmed by being made over\nand over. A parrot or a raven masters a new sentence by working at\nit and saying it over and over again, just as a boy memorises his\nrules and catechisms.\n\n_Imagination_ is the picturing power of the mind. In its lowest\nstages of manifestation it is akin to memory. Imagination, however,\nin its higher reaches, not only reimages previous impressions, but\ncombines them in new and original relations. Imagination is\ndisplayed in dreams, images, delusions, anticipation, and sympathy.\nIt also furnishes wings for speculation and reason. Spiders, when\nthey attach stones to their webs to steady them during anticipated\ngales, probably exercise imagination. The tame serpent which was\ncarried away from its master\u2019s house and found its way back again,\nthough the distance was one hundred miles, no doubt carried in its\nimagination vivid pictures of its old home.[1] Cats, dogs, horses,\nand other animals dream, and parrots talk in their sleep. Horses and\ncattle sometimes stampede at imaginary objects, and often distort\nreal objects into imaginary monsters. When a horse at night takes\nfright at a big black stump by the roadside, he no doubt imagines it\nto be some terrible creature ready to eat him up if he should go\nnear it, just as a timid child does in the same circumstances. There\nis a great difference in horses in this respect, just as there is\namong children and men, some of them taking fright at every unusual\nthing, while others are more bold or stolid. The cat playing with a\nball of yarn converts it by means of its imagination into an object\nof prey, just as a girl converts a doll into a baby, or a boy\nchanges a stick into a steed. Sympathy is the putting or picturing\nof one\u2019s self in the place of another, and by means of the\nimagination sharing or simulating the psychic conditions of that\nother. This high and holy exercise of the imagination is exhibited\nby horses, cattle, dogs, deer, elephants, monkeys, and birds\u2014in\nfact, by nearly all animals as far down as the fishes and insects.\n\n_Emotion_ is the stirring of the sensibilities by way of the\nintellect or the imagination. The following emotions are found in\nnon-human beings: fear, surprise, affection, pugnacity, play, pride,\nanger, jealousy, curiosity, sympathy, emulation, resentment,\nappreciation of the beautiful, grief, hate, cruelty, joy,\nbenevolence, revenge, shame, remorse, and appreciation of the\nludicrous. Excepting the emotions of conscience and religion, which\nare really compounds, with fear as the main ingredient, this list of\nnon-human emotions is coextensive with the list of human emotions.\nMany of these emotions germinate low down in the animal kingdom,\nfear, anger, sexuality, and jealousy all being found in fishes and\nin the higher invertebrates. In the higher vertebrates many of these\nemotions are almost as strong as they are in men. Does anyone who\nhas felt the throbbing sides of a frightened puppy or hare have any\ndoubt that these creatures suffer the keenest agony of fear? Apes\nhave been known to fall down and faint when suddenly confronted by a\nsnake, so great is their instinctive horror of serpents; and gray\nparrots, which are extremely nervous birds, have been known to drop\nfrom their perch unconscious under the influence of great fear.[2]\n\nThe horse is, perhaps, of all animals, the one which occasionally\ngives itself over most completely to the emotion of fear, as\neveryone who has witnessed the terrible abandon of a runaway team\ncan testify. Ants, fishes, birds, cats, dogs, horses, monkeys,\nporpoises, and many other animals play. Young kittens, colts, and\npuppies enjoy a scuffle about as well as boys do. Pugnacity\noriginates among the spiders and insects, and is highly developed in\nthe ant, cock, and bulldog. This emotion is strong in the males of\nnearly all vertebrates. Anyone who has observed the vigilance\ndisplayed by fishes in protecting their nests can have little doubt\nthat these comparatively primitive beings possess pugnacity. I was\none evening floating in a boat by the edge of a Long Island pond\njust over a village of perches. Each nest was guarded by an\nassiduous male, who hovered over it vigilantly, or darted this way\nand that to drive off the piscatorial _hoi polloi_ hanging about the\nneighbourhood, ready to slip in at the first opportunity and eat the\neggs. Just to see what would happen, I put my hand down into the\nwater and moved it slowly toward one of the nests. To my surprise,\nthe guardian of the nest, instead of fleeing in alarm, proceeded to\nshow fight. It chased my hand away time after time, and when the\nhand was not removed it would nip it vigorously, not once simply,\nbut two or three times if necessary, and each time with increasing\nenergy. It contended with the courage of a little hero. I pushed it\nand jostled it about, and even took it in my hand and lifted it\nclear out of the water. To my amazement, on getting back into the\nwater, it returned promptly to the attack. It fought until it was\nreally fagged, for its onsets were at last much feebler than at\nfirst. I came away after twenty minutes, leaving the little hero in\ntriumphant possession of his charge.\n\nAmong some species of monkeys several individuals will join together\nin overturning a stone for the possible ants\u2019 eggs under it; and,\nwhen a burying beetle has found a dead mouse or bird, it goes and\ngets its companions to help it in the interment.[3] Crows show\nbenevolence by feeding their blind and helpless companions, and\nmonkeys adopt the orphans of deceased members of their tribe. Brehm\nsaw two crows feeding in a hollow tree a third crow which was\nwounded. They had evidently been doing this for some time, for the\nwound was several weeks old. Darwin tells of a blind pelican which\nwas fed upon fishes, which were brought to it by its friends from a\ndistance of thirty miles.[4] The devotion of cedar-birds to each\nother and their kindness to all birds in distress are well known to\nevery student of ornithology. Olive Thorne Miller tells of a\ncedar-bird that raised a brood of young robins that had been left\norphans by the accidental killing of the parents. Weddell saw more\nthan once during his journey to Bolivia that when a herd of vicunas\nwere closely pursued the strong males covered the retreat of the\nweaker and less swift members of the herd by lagging behind and\nprotecting them.[3]\n\nA remarkable instance of altruism which he once saw exhibited by the\nking-crabs in a London aquarium is mentioned by Kropotkin in his\nwork on \u2018Mutual Aid a Factor in Evolution.\u2019 One of these crabs\nhad fallen on its back in a corner of the tank. And for one of these\ngreat creatures, with its saucepan carapace, to get on its back is,\neven in favourable circumstances, a serious matter. The seriousness\nwas increased in this instance by an iron bar, which hindered the\nnormal activities of the unfortunate crustacean. \u2018Its comrades\ncame to the rescue, and for one hour\u2019s time I watched how they\nendeavoured to help their fellow-prisoner. They came two at once,\npushed their friend from beneath, and after strenuous efforts\nsucceeded in lifting it upright. But then the iron bar prevented\nthem from achieving the work of rescue, and the crab again fell\nheavily on its back. After many attempts, one of the helpers went\ninto the depth of the tank and brought two other crabs, who began\nwith fresh forces the same pushing and lifting of their helpless\ncomrade. We stayed in the aquarium for more than two hours, and,\nwhen leaving, came to cast a glance upon the tank. The work of\nattempted rescue still continued. Since I saw that I cannot refuse\ncredit to the observation quoted by Dr. Erasmus Darwin that the\ncommon crab during the moulting season stations a sentinel, an\nunmolted or hard-shelled individual, to prevent marine enemies from\ninjuring moulted individuals in their unprotected state.\u2019 Walruses\ngo to the defence of a wounded comrade when summoned by its cries\nfor help. Romanes tells of a gander who acted as a guardian to his\nblind consort, taking her neck gently in his mouth and leading her\nto the water when she wanted to take a swim, and after allowing her\nto cruise for a time under his guidance and care, conducting her\nback home again in the same thoughtful manner. When goslings were\nhatched, this remarkable gander seemed to realise the inability of\nthe mother to look after them, for he took charge of them as if they\nwere his own, convoying them to the waterside, and lifting them\ncarefully out of the ruts and pits with his bill whenever they got\ninto difficulty.[1]\n\nThe disposition to go to the aid of a fellow in trouble is one of\nthe most characteristic traits in the psychology of the swine. A\nsingle squeal of distress from even the scrawniest member of a swine\nherd will bring down on the one who causes this distress the\nhair-raising wrath of every porker within hearing. This trait has\nbeen considerably reduced by domestication, and in those varieties\nin which degeneracy has gone farthest it scarcely exists. But it is\nexceedingly strong in all wild hogs. Animals as low in the scale of\ndevelopment and as proverbially cold as snakes have been known, when\neducated and treated with kindness, to manifest considerable\naffection for their friends and masters. Nearly all domestic animals\ndisplay a good deal of affection, not only to their young, but to\nadult members of their own kind and to their human masters. The\ndevotion of the dog to man is without a parallel anywhere. It has\nbeen said that \u2018the dog is the only thing on this earth that loves\nyou more than he loves himself.\u2019 When dogs become so much attached\nto their masters or mistresses that they pine and die on being\nseparated from them, they show beyond any question that they have\nfeelings which, in intensity, are not inferior to those possessed by\nthe more highly developed men and women. And this has happened time\nafter time.\n\nA pathetic story of love and of its tragic close came last year out\nof the Maine woods. Two moose, who had been tracked all day by a\ncouple of human tigers, were finally overtaken, when one of them\nfell pierced by two rifle-balls. The remaining moose, instead of\ndashing off into the forest, stood still, lowered its head, and\nsniffed at its fallen companion. Then, raising its antlers high into\nthe air, it bellowed loudly. As the cry of the great creature echoed\nthrough the forest, it also fell at the discharge of the rifles. It\nwas found on examination afterwards that the first moose was blind,\nand that the second one, which had neglected to leave it for safety,\nwas its pilot.\n\nMy father once owned a cow who contracted a strong affection for my\nsister. This cow, who showed on many occasions and in many ways her\nhighly developed emotional nature, would scarcely allow anyone else\nthan my sister to milk her. She always presented herself to my\nsister as soon as she was let into the lot in order to be milked\nfirst, and she was so jealous of this privilege that if it were not\naccorded to her she would stand with her head down and give vent to\nher unhappiness in low moans. After she was milked she would follow\nher human friend around from one cow to another, in order to be as\nnear her as possible. She knew my sister\u2019s voice from that of\neveryone else, and would always low a response and come to her when\ncalled by name, even though she were a quarter of a mile away in the\npasture. Romanes tells somewhere of a band of apes that were being\npursued by dogs when a young ape was cut off from the rest and was\nabout to be killed by the dogs. The chief of the band, seeing the\nperil of the young one, went deliberately back and rescued it.\n\nMany animals show that they possess a rudimentary sense of humour by\nthe pranks and tricks which they play on each other and on human\nbeings. The monkey is the prince of nonhuman jokers, but dogs, cats,\nhorses, elephants, and other animals have enough of this sense to\nhave books written about it. A monkey has been observed to slyly\npass his hand back of a second monkey and tweak the tail of a third\none, and then composedly enjoy himself while the resentment of the\ninjured monkey expended itself on the innocent middle one. Many\nmonkeys enjoy entertaining their friends with grimaces, by carrying\na cane, putting a tin dish on their heads, or other droll antics.\nThese intelligent animals have a sufficiently high appreciation of\nthe ludicrous to dislike ridicule. Like human beings, they can\u2019t\nendure being laughed at, and get mad if they are made the victims of\na joke. Romanes\u2019 monkey was one day asked to crack a nut for the\namusement of a visitor. The nut turned out to be a bad one, and the\nmelancholy look of disappointment on the monkey\u2019s face caused the\nvisitor to laugh. The insulted monkey flew into a rage, and hurled\nthe nut at the offending scoffer, then the hammer, and finally the\ncoffee-pot which simmered on the grate fire.[1] Darwin tells of a\nbaboon in the Zoological Gardens of London who always became\ninfuriated every time his keeper took out a letter or book and read\naloud to him. On one occasion when Darwin was present the baboon\nbecame so furious that he bit his own leg until it bled.[4]\n\nThe emotion variously known as shame, regret, repentance, and\nremorse, is not common among the non-human races. It is found\nsometimes in dogs and monkeys, and especially in educated\nanthropoids. But this emotion is exceedingly rare among savages, and\nis not at all universal even among civilised societies of men. Some\nanimals manifest self-restraint, which is an exceedingly elite\nquality of mind, and one not so common as it might be even among the\nhigher breeds of mankind. By restraint is meant the inhibition of a\ndesire or instinct in the presence of circumstances tending to\nrender the desire or instinct active\u2014and this is obedience, and\nthe beginning of morality. A dog that will not chase a hare in the\npresence of his master may do so in his absence. I taught my\nguinea-pigs to abstain from certain food in their presence which\nthey wanted very much, and which they would have eaten if they had\nnot been educated to let it alone. Sympathy is the most beautiful of\nall terrestrial emotions. It is manifested, sometimes to an\nexceedingly touching degree, by all the highest races of animals. No\nother instances than those already given can be mentioned here. It\nis sufficient to say that the difference between the savage\u2014whose\nsympathies are so feeble that he has been known to knock his own\nchild\u2019s brains out for dropping a basket, and who puts his aged\nparents to death in order to avoid the burden of maintaining them,\nand whose sympathies seldom extend beyond his family or tribe\u2014and\ncivilised men and women, who feel actual pain when in the presence\nof those who suffer, and whose sympathies sometimes include all\nsentient creation, is much greater than that between the savage and\nmany nonhuman animals. The frail, narrow, fantastic character of\nhuman sympathy is the most mournful fact in human nature. \u2018Man\u2019s\ninhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn,\u2019 and his\ninhumanity to not-men makes the planet a ball of pain and terror.\n\n_Volition_ is the power of the mind to act executively. Or, perhaps,\nit is the resultant of the impulses actuating a mind at any\nparticular instant. Whatever volition is, it is the same thing in\nthe insect as in the man. Non-human beings have been observed to\npause and deliberate and to make wise and momentous decisions in the\ntwinkling of an eye. A chased hare will decide to squat, to go\nstraight ahead, or to do something else which the emergency demands,\njust as unmistakably as a human fugitive. In the sense of being the\npower to act differently from the manner in which a being actually\ndoes act, there is no such thing as freewill. The will of the worm\nis just as free as the will of the judge\u2014not in the sense that it\nis as varied in the directions of its activity, but in the sense\nthat the character of its activities is determined inevitably by the\ncharacter of its antecedents. All will, whether human or non-human,\ninvariably acts in the direction of the strongest motive, just as a\nstone or a river invariably moves, if it moves at all, in the\ndirection of the strongest tendency or force. It is impossible that\nthis should be otherwise. For, if the will in any case elects to\noverthrow this fact by arbitrarily discarding a stronger motive for\na feebler, in the very motive of the election are concealed elements\nwhich transform the feebler motive into the stronger. All motion,\nvoluntary and involuntary\u2014the motion of bullets, beings,\nsocieties, and suns\u2014takes place along the lines of least arrest.\nEvery being is compelled to decide as he does decide and to act as\nhe does act by the inherited tendencies of his own nature and the\ntendencies of the environment in which he exists. And if any being,\nafter having passed through life, were again placed back at the\nbeginning of life and endowed with the same nature as before, and\nwere acted upon through life by surroundings identical with those he\nhad previously met, he would act\u2014that is, he would exercise his\nwill\u2014in precisely the same way in every particular as he had\npreviously done. To deny these things is to assert that the conduct\nof living beings is without law, and that psychology and sociology\nare not sciences.\n\nNon-human beings, all of the higher ones, have the same brain and\nnervous apparatus as man, and in their involuntary phenomena they\nclosely resemble human beings. Aim a pretended blow near the eyes of\na dog or a horse and it will wink involuntarily, just as a human\nbeing does. Sever the spinal cord of a man or a frog, and irritate\nthe feet of each, and they will each manifest the same phenomena of\nreflex action, drawing their feet away each time from the stimulus.\n\n_Instinct_ and _reason_ are forms of intelligence. Intelligence is\nthe adaptation of acts to ends. Intelligence is manifested by all\norganisms, both plants and animals, and may be either conscious or\nunconscious. Plant intelligence and reflex action are forms of\n_unconscious_ intelligence. Plant intelligence, or the adaptation of\nacts to ends by plants, is manifested by plants in the shifting of\ntheir positions when in need of light in order to obtain as large a\nsupply as possible of the essential sunshine; in devices, such as\ntraps and flowers, for utilising the juices and services of insects;\nin germinating and growing away from, instead of toward, the centre\nof the earth; in discriminating between this and that kind of food;\nand in a thousand other ways. Plant intelligence is all explicable\nin terms of chemistry and physics, and is, so far as is known,\nunaccompanied by consciousness. Reflex action is chemical affinity\naided by the co-ordinating powers of nerve tissue. The vital\nprocesses of all animals, from the lowest to the highest, and many\nother highly habitual and highly essential operations, are carried\non by reflex action. Reflex action in animals, like plant\nintelligence, is unconscious.\n\nInstinct and reason are _conscious_. Instinct is inherited\nintelligence\u2014intelligence manifested independently of, and prior\nto, experience and instruction. \u2018Instinct,\u2019 says Romanes, \u2018is\nreflex action into which has been imported the element of\nconsciousness\u2019.[5] It is exhibited by the babe when it nurses the\nmother\u2019s breast; by the chick when it pecks its way out through\nthe shell of the egg; by animals generally, including man, in their\nsolicitude for their young; by the parent bird in incubation; and by\nall beings when they seek food in obedience to the impulse of\nhunger. Our conception of the mental processes of non-humans is as\nyet very primitive, owing to our limited means of information and\nthe erroneous influence on our judgments of traditional ways of\nthinking; and much that is attributed by us to instinct is not\ninstinct at all, but is acquired by the young through education\nimparted by the elders. Parent birds have often been seen teaching\ntheir young ones to fly, and no doubt a good deal of the migratory\nacumen manifested by birds is nothing but custom and tradition\nhanded down to each younger generation by the old and experienced. A\nlarge part of the knowledge of mankind (or what passes for\nknowledge) consists of habits and hobbies, customs and traditions,\nimpressed upon each new generation by the generation which produced\nit. Each generation of men seems to feel that whenever it creates a\nnew generation it has got to pile on to this new generation all of\nthe fool notions which have been acquired from the past, amplified\nby its own inventions. And when we come to know other animals\nbetter, there is practically no doubt that we shall find that a\nlarge part of what we now call instinct and look upon as congenital\nwill, on closer and more rational examination, be found to be\nnothing but the pedagogical effects of early environment. Professor\nPoulton, of Oxford, who has made many experiments on just-born\nbirds, says that young chicks learn to fear the hawk and to\ninterpret the oral warnings of the mother. Cats teach their young to\nplay with their prey in that cruel manner so characteristic of all\nthe Felidae, as I have myself observed more than once. A mother cat\nwill carry a live mouse into the presence of her kittens and lie\ndown and play with it, tossing it playfully into the air, poking it\nwith her paw when it does not move, and arresting it when it starts\nto run away, the kittens all the time looking on, but never once\nattempting to take the mouse. After awhile the mother hands the\ncaptive over to the kittens, who go through the same performance one\nafter another. After they have practised on it until the unfortunate\ncreature is almost dead, the old cat will probably walk over to\nwhere the mouse is and eat it up. The whole thing is a _school_. The\nmouse is obviously not intended as food for the young, but to be\nused simply to impart instruction to them.\n\n\u2018In popular writings and lectures some or all of the following\nactivities of ant-life are commonly ascribed to instinct: The\nrecognition of members of the same nest; powers of communication;\nkeeping aphides for the sake of their sweet secretions; collection\nof aphid eggs in October, hatching them out in the nest, and taking\nthem in the spring to the daisies on which they feed, for pasture;\nslave-making and slave-keeping, which, in some cases, is so ancient\na habit that the enslavers are unable even to feed themselves;\nkeeping insects as beasts of burden\u2014_e.g._ a kind of plant-bug to\ncarry leaves; keeping beetles, etc., as domestic pets; habits of\npersonal cleanliness\u2014one ant giving another a brush-up, and being,\nbrushed up in return; habits of play and recreation; habits of\nburying their dead; the storage of grain and nipping the budding\nrootlet to prevent further germination; the habit of Texan ants of\npreparing a clearing around their nest, and, six months later,\nharvesting the ant-rice\u2014a kind of grass of which they are\nparticularly fond\u2014even seeking and sowing the grain which shall\nyield the harvest; the collection by other ants of grass to manure\nthe soil, on which there grows a species of fungus upon which they\nfeed; the military organisation of the ecitons of Central America;\nand so forth. But to class all of these activities of the ant as\nillustrations of instinct is a survival of an old-fashioned method\nof treatment.\n\n\u2018Suppose that the intelligent ant were to make observations on\nhuman behaviour as displayed in one of our great cities or in an\nagricultural district. Seeing so great an amount of routine work\ngoing on around him, might he not be in danger of regarding all this\nas evidence of hereditary instinct? Might he not find it difficult\nto obtain satisfactory evidence of the fact that this routine work\nhas to some extent to be learned? Might he not say (perhaps not\nwholly without truth), \u201cI can see nothing whatever in the training\nof these beings to fit them for their life-work. The training of\ntheir children has no more apparent bearing upon the activities of\ntheir after-life than the feeding of our grubs has on the duties of\nant-life. They seem to fall into the routine of life with little or\nno preparatory training as the periods for the manifestation of the\nvarious instincts arrive. If learning thereof there be, it has so\nfar escaped our observation. And such intelligence as their\nactivities evince (and many of them do show remarkable adaptations\nto uniform conditions of life) would seem to be rather ancestral\nthan of the present time, as is shown by the fact that many of the\nadaptations are directed rather to past conditions of life than to\nthose which now hold good. In the presence of new emergencies to\nwhich their instincts have not fitted them, these poor creatures are\noften completely at a loss. We cannot but conclude, therefore, that,\nalthough acting under somewhat different and less favourable\nconditions, instinct occupies fully as large a space in the\npsychology of man as it does in that of the ant, while human\nintelligence is far less unerring and hence markedly inferior to our\nown.\u201d\n\n\u2018Are these views much more absurd than the views of those who, on\nthe evidence which we at present possess, attribute all the\nactivities of ant-life to instinct?\u2019[6]\n\n_Reason_ is the power of adapting means to ends which is acquired\nfrom experience or instruction. All animals that profit by\nexperience, therefore, or that learn from instruction\u2014that is, are\nteachable\u2014exercise reason.\n\nThe line of demarkation between instinct and reason is a mezzotint,\nreason being often instinctive, and instinct being as frequently\nflavoured with judgment, \u2018Instinct is usually regarded as a\nspecial property of the lower animals, and contrasted with the\nconscious reason of man. But just as reason may be looked upon as a\nhigher form of the understanding or intellect, and not as something\nessentially distinct from them, so a closer examination shows that\ninstinct and the conscious understanding do not stand in absolute\ncontrast, but rather in a complex relation, and cannot be sharply\nmarked off from each other.\u2019 It is instinct that urges the bird to\nbuild its nest; but when birds whose habit it is to build on the\nground learn, on the introduction of cats into the neighbourhood, to\nchange their nesting-places to the tree-tops, intelligence and\nthought are necessary. The first time Cavy (one of my guinea-pigs)\nsmelled a cat, she was almost scared to death. She jumped back from\nit as if she had come in contact with a red-hot stove, and screamed\nand kept on screaming, and shot down under my coat as if she were\nabout to be crucified. After a little while I tried to pull her out,\nbut she refused, and kept hiding. The second time the kitten was\npresented to her the result was the same. But after two or three\ndays of association, she paid little more attention to it than to\nthe other guinea-pigs. She had never seen a cat before. _It was the\nodour of the carnivore_ that terrified her, and the effect was\npurely instinctive. But instinct was soon modified by intelligent\nexperience. (_Poor dear little Cavy! I wonder where she is now!_)\n\nBoth instinct and reason (and one, too, just as much as the other)\nare absolutely dependent upon processes that are purely\nmechanical\u2014that is, upon brain processes; and brain processes\ndepend upon brain structure, which is inherited. Hence, reason is,\nin a certain sense, as truly inherited as instinct is. A being must\nbe born with the particular nervous apparatus by means of which\nreasoning is carried on, or with the power or disposition to develop\nthis apparatus, or he will never reason. The genius of the partridge\nin cajoling the passer-by from her nest is called instinct, but it\nis not more inherited than was the genius of Shakspere. Experience\nsimply calls into being that, whatever it is in each particular\nbeing, which is inherited. Sir Isaac Newton took to philosophy and\nOle Bull to music not less inevitably than the duck takes to water\nor the hound to hunting. Reason is, hence, inherited by every man,\nwho has it as truly as his erect posture and plantigrade feet. There\nis something in the past of all of us and of everything which has\ndetermined, and which may be used to account for, everything that\nto-day exists or happens, even to the style and behaviour of every\nleaf that flutters in the forest, and to the eccentricities of our\nopinions and handwritings.\n\nReason, in the sense in which it is here used, is found feebly in\nthe oyster. Oysters taken from a depth never uncovered by the sea\nopen their shells, lose their water, and quickly perish. But oysters\ntaken from the same depths, if kept where they are occasionally left\nuncovered for short intervals, learn to keep their shells closed and\nto live a much longer period out of the water. On the coast of\nFrance \u2018oyster schools\u2019 exist, where oysters intended for inland\ncities are educated to keep their shells closed when out of the\nwater in order to enable them to survive the desiccating exposures\nof the overland journey.[1] This act of the bivalve is probably the\nresult of something like a vague form of reason. It is an act\nadapted to the accomplishment of a definite end, and the adapting\npower is acquired from experience. It is, moreover, reason which in\nits final analysis does not differ from the reason displayed by the\nwisest being that thinks. Judgment, forethought, common-sense,\ninference, ingenuity, genius, reason, and abstract thought, are all\nexercises of the cognitive or perceptive power of mind, and consist,\nall of them, in nothing more nor less than the discerning of\nrelations among stimuli. The dog who adopts a cut-off in order to\nintercept a fleeing hare performs exactly the same kind of\nintellectual process as the mechanic who erects a windmill in order\nto divert the energies of the breeze, or the politician who adopts a\nparticular platform to catch votes. \u2018A perception is always in its\nessential nature what logicians term a _conclusion_, whether it has\nreference to the simplest memory of the past sensation or to the\nhighest product of abstract thought. For, when the highest product\nof abstract thought is analysed, the ultimate elements must always\nbe found to consist in material given directly by the senses; and\nevery stage in the symbolic construction of ideas, in which the\nprocess of abstraction consists, depends on acts of perception\ntaking place in the lower stages\u2019.[5]\n\nThe difference among the perceptive acts of different individuals\nconsists, not in the different kinds of intellectual exercise, but\nin differences among the _materials_ with which the perceptive\nfaculty deals. There are perceptions of simple sensations, and there\nare perceptions of composite sensations, or concepts\u2014perceptions\nof elementary relations, and perceptions of compound and elaborate\nrelations. But all displays of rational faculty, from the simple\njudgment of distance by the dimness and distinctness of definition\nand the size of the visual angle, which all higher animals are\ncompelled to make, to the labyrinthic abstractions of the logician,\nconsist in nothing in addition to discriminations among stimuli.\n\nBrehm one day gave one of his apes a paper bag with a lump of sugar\nand a wasp in it. The ape in getting the sugar was stung by the\nwasp. From that day, whenever Brehm gave that ape, or any other ape\nin that cage, a paper package, the animal, before opening it, took\nthe precaution to shake the package at his ear and listen to find\nout whether or not there was a wasp inside.[7]\n\nNow, such an act of intelligence implies several inferences. A train\nof thoughts something like this must have passed through this\nape\u2019s mind: \u2018Now, if one wasp can sting, so can another; and, if\na man can deceive me once by wrapping a wasp in a paper with a lump\nof sugar, he may try it again; and, if one man will attempt such a\nthing, so may another; and, if men will attempt it on me, they may\nattempt it on my friends; so I will warn my friends to look out for\nthose villainous chaps outside.\u2019 These inferences of the ape are\nthe same kind of generalisations exactly as are made by men\neverywhere in their daily lives. And the common-sense inferences\nmade by ordinary people in their every-day affairs are precisely the\nsame processes of reasoning as those used by scientists and\nphilosophers. Many people, like the character in Moliere\u2019s plays\nwho was surprised and delighted to learn that he had been talking\nprose all his life, are surprised on hearing for the first time that\nthey use _induction_ and _deduction_ every hour almost of their\nwaking lives. They imagine that philosophers must have some secret\nand superior way of acquiring their conclusions, different from what\nordinary mortals have. \u2018But there is no more difference,\u2019 says\nHuxley, \u2018between the mental operations of a man of science and\nthose of an ordinary person than there is between the operations and\nmethods of a grocer weighing out his goods in common scales and the\noperations of a chemist in performing a difficult and complex\nanalysis by means of his balance and finely graduated weights. It is\nnot that the scales in the one case and the balances in the other\ndiffer in the principles of their construction or manner of working;\nbut the beam of the one is set on an infinitely finer axis than the\nother, and, of course, turns by the addition of a much smaller\nweight\u2019.[8] And the difference in mental method between the man of\nlearning and the ordinary man or woman is the same as the difference\nbetween mature men and children and between men generally and other\nanimals. It is one of _degree_, _not_ of _kind_. The philosopher,\nthe clodhopper, and the ape, all use precisely the same methods of\nreasoning, differing only in exactness and in the materials of\nconsciousness dealt with.\n\nNearly all animals, from mollusks to men, reason\u2014not once or twice\nin a lifetime, but the most of them every day and every hour of\ntheir existence. In fact, it would be impossible for any animal\naddicted to moving about, and with a delicate and easily wrecked\norganism, to long survive in a world like this without that\nelasticity of action which reason alone can impart. Since they live\nin the same world-conditions as human beings, and are seeking\nprovidence for substantially the same wants, non-human beings\nmanifest reason in the same general directions as human beings\ndo\u2014in the location and construction of their homes and fortresses,\nin the arrest of their prey, in circumventing their enemies, in\novercoming obstacles and surmounting dangers, in protecting and\neducating their young, in meeting the emergencies of food and\nclimate, in the wooing of mates and the waging of wars, and in the\nthousand other cases where they are called upon in their daily\nwanderings and doings to deal with novel and unprecedented\nsituations.\n\nWhen wild geese are feeding there is said to be always one of them\nthat acts as sentinel. This one never takes a grain of corn while on\nduty. When it has acted awhile it gives the bird next to it a sharp\npeck and utters a querulous kind of cry, and the second one takes\nits turn. This is prudence, or forethought, which is a form of\nreason. When swans are diving there is generally one that stays\nabove the water and watches. Sentinels have alarm sounds of various\nkinds, which they give to signify \u2018enemy.\u2019 \u2018Ibex, marmots, and\nmountain-sheep whistle; prariedogs bark; elephants trumpet; wild\ngeese and swans have a kind of bugle call; rabbits and sheep stamp\non the ground; crows caw: and wild ducks utter a low, warning\nquack.\u2019\n\nIn the _Popular Science Monthly_ for March, 1901, is an account of a\nseries of experiments on the intelligence of the turtle made by\nProfessor Yerkes, of Harvard. The turtle was placed in a labyrinth,\nat the farther end of which was a comfortable bed of sand. It took\njust thirty-five minutes of wandering for the turtle to reach the\nnest the first time. But in the second trial the nest was reached in\nfifteen minutes, and by the tenth trip the turtle was familiar\nenough with the route to go through in three and one-half minutes,\nmaking but two mistakes. The turtle was afterwards placed in a more\ncomplex labyrinth, containing, among other features, a blind alley\nand two inclines. The inclines were puzzles, and it took one hour\nand thirty-five minutes of aimless rambling for the wanderer to\nreach its nest the first time. But the fifth trip was made in\nsixteen minutes, and the tenth in four minutes, which was not far\nfrom direct.\n\nThese experiments show that animals of almost proverbial density may\nlearn with surprising quickness. English sparrows and other avian\ninhabitants of the city learn to live tranquilly along the busiest\nthoroughfares, exposed to all sorts of dangers, and subjected to\nwhat would be to many birds the most terrifying circumstances.\nWhizzing trolleys, tramping multitudes, and screaming engines have\nno terrors for them. They simply exercise the caution necessary to\nkeep from being run over. They boldly build their nests right under\npassing elevated cars, where the roar is sufficient to scare the\nlife out of an ordinary country bird. I have seen these testy little\nchaps sit and feed and jabber to each other in a perfectly\nunconcerned way within ten or fifteen feet of a thundering express\ntrain. They do not do these things from instinct: they _learn_ to do\nthem. They know that a diabolical-looking locomotive is harmless,\nbecause they have seen it before; and they know that an\ninsignificant urchin with a savage heart and a sling is not\nharmless, and they know it simply because they have previously had\ndealings with him. English sparrows will disappear completely from a\nneighborhood if a few of them are killed. Cats, dogs, horses\u2014all\nanimals, in fact\u2014acquire during life a fund of information as to\nhow to act in order to avoid harm and extinction. If they did not,\nthey would not live long. And they do it just as man does it, by\nmemory and discrimination, by retaining impressions made upon them,\nand acting differently when an impression is made a second, third,\nor thirteenth time.\n\nAnimals of experience (including men) are more skilful in adjusting\nthemselves to environmental exigencies than the young and\ninexperienced, because of their store of initial impressions. It is\na matter of common observation that young animals are more easily\ncaught or killed or otherwise victimised than the old and\nexperienced. Many animals, however, (and a good many men) are able\nto profit by a single impression. One dose of tartar emetic is\ngenerally sufficient to cure an egg-sucking dog, and it is a very\nstupid canine indeed that does not understand perfectly after one or\ntwo experiences with a porcupine or an unsavory skunk. \u2018The burnt\nchild dreads the fire,\u2019 but so does the burnt puppy. Rengger\nstates that his Paraguay monkeys, after cutting themselves only once\nwith any sharp tool, would not touch it again, or would handle it\nwith the greatest caution.[1] Older trout are more wary than young\nones, and fishes that have been much hunted and deceived become\nsuspicious of traps. Rats, martins, and other animals cannot long be\ntrapped in the same way, and partridges and other birds seldom fly\nagainst telegraph-wires the second season after the wires are put\nup. These animals, however, cannot learn to avoid these dangers from\nexperience, for only a few of them are ever caught or struck. They\nmust learn it from observing their unfortunate companions. Everyone\nwho has read the story of Lobo, the big gray wolf of the Carrumpaw,\ncannot but wonder at the remarkable shrewdness shown by this old\nleader in baffling for years the tigers that hung upon his\ntracks.[9] Nansen states that the seals, before man invaded the\nArctics, occupied the inner ice-floes to avoid the polar bear, but\nafter man came they took to living on the outer floes in order to\nescape the persecutions of this new and more fearful enemy. Domestic\nanimals, when first turned out in new regions, often die from eating\npoisonous weeds, but in some way soon learn to avoid them. Many\nanimals, when pursuing other animals, or when being pursued, display\na knowledge of facts very little understood by the majority of\nmankind, such as of places where scent lies or is obliterated, and\nthe effects of wind in carrying evidence of their presence to their\nenemies. The hunted roebuck or hare will make circles, double on its\nown tracks, take to water, and fling itself for considerable\ndistances through the air as cleverly as if it had read up all the\ntheory of scent in a book. According to the London _Spectator_ one\nof the large African elephants in the Zoological Gardens of that\ncity restores to its entertainers all the bits of food which on\nbeing thrown to him fall alike out of his reach and theirs. He\npoints his proboscis straight at the food, and blows it along the\nfloor to the feet of those who have thrown it. He clearly knows what\nhe is about, for if he does not blow hard enough to land the food\nthe first time, he blows harder and harder until he does. The\ncacadoos (parrots) of Australia, before descending upon a field or\norchard in search of food, send out a scouting party to reconnoitre\nthe region and see that \u2018all is well.\u2019 Sometimes a second party\nis sent. If the report is favourable, the whole band advance and\nplunder the field in short order. These birds are exceedingly wary\nand intelligent, and seldom make mistakes. But \u2018if man once\nsucceeds in killing one of them, they become so prudent and watchful\nthat they henceforward baffle all stratagems\u2019.[3] A short time ago\na parrot at Washington, New Jersey, saved the life of its owner by\nsummoning the neighbours to his relief. Cries of \u2018Murder!\u2019\n\u2018Help!\u2019 \u2018Come quick!\u2019 coming from the home of the parrot,\nattracted the attention of neighbours, who ran to the house to find\nout the cause. \u2018They found the owner of the parrot lying on the\nfloor unconscious, bleeding from a great gash in his neck. He had\nbeen repairing the ceiling, and had fallen and struck his head\nagainst the stove. It required six stitches to close the wound, and\nthe surgeon said that in only a few minutes the injured man would\nhave been dead. A few years ago this parrot\u2019s screams awakened its\nowner in time to arouse his neighbours and save them from a fire\nwhich started in the house next door.\u2019\n\nA friend of mine, who is thoroughly reliable, tells me that when he\nwas a student at the University of Michigan a few years ago one of\nthe professors of zoology there had a dog who was used by the\ndepartment for experiments in digestion. The dog was compelled to\nwear a tube opening downward out of his stomach, and soon grew very\nweak and emaciated from the constant loss of food, which leaked out\nthrough this tube. After a time, however, the dog was observed to be\ngrowing unaccountably hale and strong. He was watched, and the poor\ncreature was found to have struck upon an ingenious expedient to\nsave his life. On eating his meal, he would go out to the barn, and,\nin order to prevent the artificial escape of the contents of his\nstomach, would lie down flat on his back between two boxes and\nremain there until his digested food had passed safely beyond the\npylorus.\n\nA few months ago, John, one of the monkeys at Lincoln Park, Chicago,\nwas suffering from a terrible abscess on the cheek, and an operation\nbecame necessary in order to save the little fellow\u2019s life. It was\na pathetic sight to see the look of trust in the monkey\u2019s eyes\nwhen the surgeon was ready to begin the operation, and the courage\nand fortitude displayed by the sufferer were almost human. At the\nfirst touch of the knife the monkey pressed his head hard against\nthe knee of the assistant and grabbed the forefinger of each of the\nassistant\u2019s hands, just as a person does who is about to undergo a\npainful operation. The swelling was first cut open and washed with\nantiseptic, when the cheek-bone was scraped and a small piece of it\nremoved. After being again washed in antiseptic, the wound was sewed\nup, and John was lifted gently back into his cage\u2014not, however,\nuntil he had licked the hands of the surgeon and kissed his face in\ngratitude. The little hero never uttered a sound from the time the\nknife first touched his face until he was put back into his cage. A\nsimilar act of intelligence is recorded of an orang. Having been\nonce bled on account of illness, and not feeling well some time\nafterward, this orang went from one person to another, and, pointing\nto the vein in his arm, signified his desire to have the operation\nrepeated. Both of these instances are examples of reason of a very\nhigh order\u2014of a higher order, indeed, than many children and some\ngrown people exhibit in similar circumstances. The chimpanzee,\nMafuca, learned how to unlock her cage, and stole the key and hid it\nunder her arm for future use. After watching the carpenter boring\nholes with his brad-awl, she took the brad-awl and bored holes in\nher table. She poured out milk for herself at meals, and always\ncarefully stopped pouring before the cup ran over.\n\nWhen baboons go on marauding expeditions, they show that they\nrealise perfectly what they are doing by moving with great stealth.\nNot a sound is uttered. If any thoughtless youngster so far forgets\nthe necessities of the occasion as to utter a single chatter, he is\ngiven a reminder in the shape of a box on the ear. \u2018A certain Mr.\nCops, who had a young orang, gave it half an orange one day, and put\nthe other half away out of its sight on a high press, and lay down\nhimself on the sofa. But the ape\u2019s movements, attracting his\nattention, he only pretended to go to sleep. The creature came\ncautiously and satisfied himself that his master was asleep, then\nclimbed up the press, ate the rest of the orange, carefully hid the\npeel among the shavings in the grate, examined the pretended sleeper\nagain, and then went and lay down on his own bed.\u2019 This incident\nis recorded by Tylor in his \u2018Anthropology.\u2019 \u2018And such\nbehaviour,\u2019 he adds, \u2018is to be explained only by supposing a\ntrain of thought to pass through the brain of the ape somewhat\nsimilar to what we ourselves call reason.\u2019 These instances of\nundoubted intelligence and thought might be added to almost without\nnumber if there was room. Every person nearly who has been in the\nworld any length of time, and has had occasion to associate with\nthese so-called \u2018machines,\u2019 has seen for himself, often\nunexpectedly, many flashes of brightness among them.\n\nIt has been said that man differs from other animals, and is\nsuperior to them in the fact that he modifies his environment while\nother animals do not, but are modified by environment. Mr. Lester F.\nWard makes this distinction in his \u2018Pure Sociology.\u2019 The\ndistinction is no nearer the truth than other distinctions of like\ncharacter that have from time to time been drawn between men and\nother animals. It is not much more than half true, if it is that,\nand does not by any means deserve the italics awarded to it by this\nwriter. Many races of non-human beings have a far greater influence\non their environment than many races of men have. Many tribes of men\nwander about naked, build no habitations, make no weapons, and feed\nupon the fruits, roots, insects, and such other chance morsels as\nthey can pick up from day to day in their wanderings. Such races are\nfar inferior in constructive activity to the birds, who build\nelaborate houses, and to the beavers, who not only construct\nsubstantial dwellings, but dam rivers, and cut down trees and\ntransport them long distances, and dig artificial waterways, to be\nused as aids in their engineering enterprises. Compare the elaborate\ncompartments of the Australian bower-birds, surrounded with\nornamented and carefully-kept grounds, with the lean-to of many\nsavage tribes, made by sticking two or three palm-leaves in the\nground and leaning them against a pole. Even ants plant crops, make\nclearings, build roads and tunnels, etc. It must be remembered, too,\nthat, however affirmative and masterful a race of men may become, it\nnever succeeds, and never can succeed, in emancipating itself from\nthe influences of environment. It is true that with the growth of\nintelligence among organic forms there has been a constant transfer\nof influence from the environment to the organism; but this transfer\nbegan, not with man by any means, but low down in the scale of\nanimal life.\n\nIt has been said that man is the only animal that uses tools. But\nthis is not true either, for animals as low in the scale of\ndevelopment as insects have been known to use tools. At least two\ndifferent observers testify to having seen ground-wasps use small\nstones as hammers in packing the dirt firmly over their nests.\nSpiders use stones as weights to steady their webs in times of\nstorm. Orangs throw sticks and stones at their pursuers, and certain\ntribes of Abyssinian baboons, when they go to battle with each\nother, carry stones as missiles. Monkeys often use stones to crack\nnuts with, and tame monkeys know very well how to use a hammer when\nit is given to them. In the London Zoological Gardens a monkey with\npoor teeth kept a stone hidden in the straw of its cage to crack its\nnuts with, and it would not allow any other monkey to touch the\nstone. \u2018Here,\u2019 says Darwin, in speaking of this case, \u2018is the\nidea of property.\u2019 Monkeys also use sticks as levers in prying\nopen chests and lifting heavy objects. Cuvier\u2019s orang used to\ncarry a chair across the room and stand on it to lift the\ndoor-latch. Chimpanzees, who are very fond of making a noise, have\nbeen seen standing around a hollow log in the forest, beating it\nwith sticks; and if we are to believe Emin Pasha, these ingenious\nparodies of men sometimes carry torches when they go at night on\nforaging expeditions. The Indian elephant, when travelling, will\nsometimes turn aside and break off a leafy branch from a roadside\ntree and carry it along in its trunk to sweep off the flies. As Dr.\nWesley Mills says in his work on \u2018The Nature and Development of\nAnimal Intelligence,\u2019 \u2018It was formerly believed that animals\ncannot reason, but only those persons who do not themselves reason\nabout the subject, with the facts before them, can any longer occupy\nsuch a position.\u2019\n\n1. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899.\n2. Cornish: _Animals of To-day_; London, 1898.\n3. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902.\n4. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874.\n5. Romanes: _Mental Evolution in Animals_; New York, 1898.\n6. Morgan: _Animal Behaviour_; London, 1900.\n7. Brehm: _Thierleben_; Leipzig, 1880.\n8. Huxley: _On the Origin of Species_, lecture iii.\n9. Thompson: Wild Animals I have Known; New York, 1900.\n\nV. Conclusion.\n\nIt is enough. The ancient gulf scooped by human conceit between man\nand the other animals has been effectually and forever filled up.\nThe human species constitutes but one branch in the gigantic arbour\nof life. And all the merit and all the feeling and all the\nrighteousness of the world are not, as we have been accustomed to\naver, congested into this one branch. And all of the weakness and\ndeformity are not, as we have also been anxious to believe, found\nelsewhere. The reluctance of wrinkles and deformities to appear in\nthe pictures of men, and of strength and beauty to appear in the\nrepresentations of the other races of the earth, is to be accounted\nfor by the highly elucidative fact that man is the universal\nportrait-painter. There is no one to tell man what he is and how he\nstrikes others, and hence he is the \u2018paragon of creation\u2019\u2014the\ninter-stellar pet, half clay and half halo\u2014the image and pride of\nthe gods\u2014the flower and gem of the eternal spheres. Man is the\nonly professional linguist in the universe. And it is fortunate for\nhim that he is. For, if he were not, his auditories would be\ncompelled to carry to his perceptive centres a great many sentiments\nhe now never hears. He would be likely to hear a good deal said, and\nsaid with a good deal of feeling, about perpendicular\nbrigand\u2014grandiloquent kakistocrat swelling with\nself-righteousness\u2014rhetorical hideful wrapped in pillage and\ngorged with decomposition\u2014a voluble and sanctimonious squash with\ntwo sticks in it. The definition of man as it appears in the\ndictionary of the donkey probably runs something like this: \u2018_Man_\nis an animal that walks on its hind-legs, invents adjectives with\nwhich to praise itself, and displays its greatest utility in proving\nthat all sharks are not aquatic.\u2019 We know what a lion looks like\nwhen painted by a man, but human eyes have never yet been allumined\nby the sardonic lineaments of a man painted by a lion. Being boiled\nalive in order to look well as corpses in store-windows, and having\nwooden pegs thrust into our muscles and left there to rot for a week\nor two to keep us in our agony from doing something desperate\u2014we\nknow what these experiences are like when they are delegated to\nlobsters, and we take no more serious part in them than to insure\ntheir infliction, but we are too fervent barbarians to bother our\nheads about what they are like from the crustacean point of view.\n\nLet us be candid. Men are not all gentle men and humane, and not-men\nare not all inhuman. There are reptiles in broadcloth, and there are\nwarm and generous hearts among those peoples who have so long\nsuffered from human prejudice and ferocity. Let us label beings by\nwhat they are\u2014by the souls that are in them and the deeds they\ndo\u2014not by their colour, which is pigment, nor by their\ncomposition, which is clay. There are philanthropists in feathers\nand patricians in fur, just as there are cannibals in the pulpit and\nsaurians among the money-changers. The golden rule may sometimes be\nmore religiously observed in the hearts and homes of outcast\nquadrupeds than in the palatial lairs of bipeds. The horse, who\nsuffers and serves and starves in silence, who endures daily wrongs\nof scanty and irregular meals, excessive burdens and mangled flanks,\nwho forgets cruelty and ingratitude, and does good to them that\nspitefully use him, and submits to crime without resistance,\nmisunderstanding without murmur, and insult without resentment, is a\nbetter Christian, a better exemplar of the Sermon on the Mount, than\nmany church-goers, in spite of the creeds and interdictions of men.\nAnd the animal who goes to church on Sundays, wearing the twitching\nskins and plundered plumage of others, and wails long prayers and\nmumbles meaningless rituals, and gives unearned guineas to the\nmissionary, and on week-days cheats and impoverishes his neighbours,\nglorifies war, and tramples under foot the most sacred principles of\nmorality in his treatment of his non-human kindred, is a cold,\nhard-hearted _brute_, in spite of the fact that he is cunning and\nvainglorious, and towers about on his hinders.\n\nThere are lessons that may be learned from the uncorrupted children\nof Nature\u2014lessons in simplicity of life, straightforwardness,\nhumility, art, economy, brotherly love, and cheerfulness\u2014more\nbeautiful, perhaps, and more true than may sometimes be learned from\nthe stilted and Machiavellian ways of men. Would you learn\nforgiveness? Go to the dog. The dog can stand more abuse and forgive\ngreater accumulations of wrong than any other animal, not even\nexcepting a wife. About the only thing in the universe superior to\nthe dog in willingness to undergo outrage is the human stomach.\nWould you learn wisdom and industry? Go to the ant, that tireless\ntoiler of the dust. The ant can do that which no man can do\u2014keep\ngrain in a warm, moist atmosphere without sprouting. Would you learn\nart? Go to the bee or to the wild bird\u2019s lodge. The art of the\nhoneycomb and of the hang-bird\u2019s nest surpasses that of the cranny\nof the savage as the Cathedral of St. Peter exceeds the cottage.\nWould you learn socialism, that dream of poets and the hope and\nexpectation of wise men? It is actualised around you in thousands of\ninsect communities. The social and economic relations existing in\nthe most highly wrought societies of bees and wasps are\nfundamentally the ideal relations of living beings to each other,\nbut it will require millenniums of struggle and bloodshed for men to\ncome up to them. Would you learn curiosity\u2014not the curiosity that\ngossips and backbites, but the curiosity of the explorer and\nsearcher after knowledge? Go to the monkey. The monkey has been\nknown to work two hours, without pause, utterly unconscious of\neverything but its purposes, trying to open a fettered trunk\nlock.[1] Would you learn sobriety? Go not to the gilded hells of\ncities, where men die like flies in gin\u2019s vile miasma. Go to the\nspring where the antelope drinks. Would you learn chastity? Go not\nto the foul dens and fiery chambers of men. Go to the boudoir of the\nbower-bird, or to the subterranean hollow where the wild wolf rears\nher litter.\n\nMan is not the surpassingly pre-eminent individual he so actively\nadvertises himself to be. Indeed, in many particulars he is\nexcelled, and excelled seriously, by those whom he calls\n\u2018lower.\u2019 The locomotion of the bird is far superior in ease and\nexpedition to the shuffling locomotion of man. The horse has a sense\nwhich guides it through darkness in which human eyes are blind; and\nthe manner in which a cat, who has been carried in a bag and put\ndown miles away, will turn up at the back-door of the old home next\nmorning dumfounds science. The eye of the vulture is a telescope.\nThe hound will track his master along a frequented street an hour\nbehind his footsteps, by the imponderable odour of his soles. The\ncatbird, without atlas or geographic manuals, will find her way back\nover hundreds of trackless leagues, season after season, to the same\nold nesting-place in the thicket. Birds, thousands of them, journey\nfrom Mexico to Arctic America, from Algiers and Italy to\nSpitzbergen, from Egypt to Siberia, and from Australia and the\nPolynesian Islands to New Zealand, and build their nests and rear\ntheir young, year after year, in the same vale, grove, or tundra.\nThe nightingale, who pours out his incomparable lovesong in the\ntwilight of English lanes during May and June, winters in the heart\nof Africa; and some birds nest within the Arctic Circle and winter\nin Argentina. Some of the plovers travel the entire length of the\nAmerican land mass every summer, from Patagonia to the Arctic\nCircle, in order to lay three or four pale-green eggs, and see them\nturn to birdlings by the shores of the Hudson Sea. Many animals have\nthe power to foretell storms, and man, though he can weigh worlds,\nis ever glad to profit by their superior sense. When herons fly high\nabove the clouds, when sea-birds dip and sport in the water and the\nbittern booms from the marshes, when swallows fly low and the sow\nrepairs her bed, when horses scamper and cattle sniff the air, when\nravens beat the air with their wings, make noises, and flock\ntogether, when the swan raises her eggs by additions to her nest and\nthe prairie-dog scratches the dirt up around its hole, when beetles\nare not found in the air and caterpillars mass in their webs, when\nbees remain near their hives and ants carry their eggs to their\ninnermost abodes, when frogs croak more loudly from their watery\nretreats and fishes seek the safety of the unharried deeps\u2014look\nout for foul weather! Man has not the sweetness of the song-sparrow,\nthe innocence of the fawn, nor the high relative brain capacity of\nthe tomtit and the fice.\n\nMany animals have powers by which they are able to act in concert at\ntimes, vast numbers of them moving in unison over immense areas by\nsignals or intuitions which man can neither imitate nor understand.\nSuch are the mysterious migrations of the Norway lemming and of many\nbirds and insects, and such were the memorable stampedes of the\nbison hordes on the American plains in years gone by. Kropotkin saw\non the Siberian steppes one autumn \u2018thousands and thousands\u2019 of\nfallow deer come together from an area as large as Great Britain at\na point on the Amur River in an unprecedented exodus to the lowlands\non the other side.[2] How these scattered thousands knew when to\nstart so as to arrive at the river at the same time, and how they\nknew the direction to travel and found their way so well, are\nmysteries which man can as yet only wonder at. More marvellous\nyet\u2014more marvellous, perhaps, than the concurrent action of any\nother animal, for it implies the most accurate time-keeping\nextending over many years\u2014are the annual festivals of the\n_palolo_, an annelid living among the interstices of the coral reefs\nof some of the islands of the South Pacific. About three o\u2019clock\non the morning following the third quarter of the October moon,\nthese worms invariably appear on the surface of the sea, swarming in\ngreat numbers. Just after sunrise their bodies begin to break to\npieces, and by nine o\u2019clock no trace of them is left. On the\nmorning following the third quarter of the November moon they appear\nagain, but usually in smaller numbers. After that they are seen no\nmore till the next October. This annual swarming is a phenomenon\nconnected with reproduction, the ova escaping from the broken bodies\nof the females and, after being fertilised by the free-floating\nsperms, sinking down among the coral reefs and hatching into a new\ngeneration. \u2018Year after year these creatures appear according to\nlunar time. And yet in the long-run they keep solar time. They keep\ntwo cycles, one of three and one of twenty-nine years. In the\nthree-year cycle there are two intervals of twelve lunations and one\nof thirteen lunations. These thirty-seven lunations bring lunar time\nsomewhat near to solar time. But in twenty-nine years there is\nenough difference to require the addition of another lunation; the\ntwenty-ninth year is therefore one of thirteen instead of twelve\nlunations. In this way they do not change their season in an entire\ncentury. So unfailing is their appearance that in Samoa they have\ngiven their name to the spring season, which is called \u201cthe time\nof the palolo.\u201d\u2019\n\nInstead of the highest, man is in some respects the lowest, of the\nanimal kingdom. Man is the most unchaste, the most drunken, the most\nselfish and conceited, the most miserly, the most hypocritical, and\nthe most bloodthirsty of terrestrial creatures. Almost no animals,\nexcept man, kill for the mere sake of killing. For one being to take\nthe life of another for purposes of selfish utility is bad enough.\nBut the indiscriminate massacre of defenceless innocents by armed\nand organised packs, _just_ _for pastime_, is beyond\ncharacterisation. The human species is the only species of animals\nthat plunges to such depths of atrocity. Even vipers and hyenas do\nnot exterminate for recreation. No animal, except man, habitually\nseeks wealth purely out of an insane impulse to accumulate. And no\nanimal, except man, gloats over accumulations that are of no\npossible use to him, that are an injury and an abomination, and in\nwhose acquisition he may have committed irreparable crimes upon\nothers. There are no millionaires\u2014no professional, legalised,\nlifelong kleptomaniacs\u2014among the birds and quadrupeds. No animal,\nexcept man, spends so large a part of his energies striving for\nsuperiority\u2014not superiority in usefulness, but that superiority\nwhich consists in simply getting on the heads of one\u2019s fellows.\nAnd no animal practises common, ordinary morality to the other\nbeings of the world in which he lives so little, compared with the\namount he preaches it, as man.\n\nLet us be honest. Honour to whom honour is due. It will not emaciate\nour own glory to recognise the excellence and reality of others, or\nto come face to face with our own frailties. We _are_ our\nbrother\u2019s keeper. Our brethren are they that feel. Let us\nuniversalise. Our thoughts and sympathies have been too long\nwingless. _The Universe is our Country_, and our Kindred are the\nPopulations that Mount. _It is well_\u2014it is eminently well, for it\nis godlike\u2014_to send our Magnanimity to the Dusts and the Deeps_,\n_our Sunrises to the Uttermost Isles_, _and our_ _Charity to the\nStars_.\n\n1. Romanes: _Animal Intelligence_; New York, 1899.\n2. Kropotkin: _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_; New York, 1902.\n\n\nTHE ETHICAL KINSHIP\n\n  I. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle\n  II. Egoism and Altruism\n  III. The Ethics of the Savage\n  IV. The Ethics of the Ancient\n  V. Modern Ethics\n  VI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings\n  VII. The Origin of Provincialism\n  VIII. Universal Ethics\n  IX. The Psychology of Altruism\n  X. Anthropocentric Ethics\n  XI. Ethical Implications of Evolution\n  XII. Conclusion\n\nTHE ETHICAL KINSHIP\n\n\n  One of the wisest things ever said by one of the profoundest\n  philosophers of all time was the warning to the seeker after truth\n  to beware of the influence of the \u2018idols (or illusions) of the\n  tribe\u2019 by which he meant that body of traditional prejudices which\n  every sect, family, nation, and neighbourhood has clinging to it,\n  and in the midst of which and at the mercy of which every human\n  being grows up.\n\n\nI. Human Nature a Product of the Jungle.\n\nThe Golden Rule is not exemplified by the conduct of any\nconsiderable number of the inhabitants of the earth. To be civilised\nor even half-civilised is, to the children of this world, neither\ninstinctive nor easy. To preserve a certain pretence or appearance\nof virtue, especially when encouraged to do so by an uplifted cudgel\nin the hands of the community, is a possible and not uncommon\naccomplishment. But to be at heart and in reality as considerate of\nothers as we are of ourselves is, unfortunately, not natural. Human\nbeings are not children of the sun, sojourning for a season on this\nspheroid of clay, and needing only pinions to be angels. Human\nnature did not come, pure and shining, down from the glittering\ngods. It came out of the jungle. Civilised peoples are the not very\nremote posterity of savages, and savages are the posterity of\nindividuals who laid eggs and had literally cold blood in their\nveins. Civilised men and women are troglodytes with a veneering of\nvirtue. In the heart of every \u2018civilised\u2019 man and woman is an\nunconverted core, large or small, of barbarism. Humanity is only a\nhabit. Against it, and tending ever to weaken and subvert it, are\nthe powerful inertias of animalism. Like the ship in Ibsen\u2019s\n\u2018Rhymed Epistle,\u2019 civilisation carries a corpse in its\ncargo\u2014the elemental appetites and passions which have been\nimplanted in all sentient nature by the laws in accordance with\nwhich organic forms have been fashioned. Moral progress is simply\nthe sloughing off of this inherited animality.\n\nTo the initiated, therefore, it is not strange that we civilised\nfolk in our conduct display so freely the phenomena of the savage.\nThere is nothing more inevitable in the life of the convert than the\nhaunting inclination to give way to original impulses. It is not\nstrange that we are powerless to be as good and beautiful and true\nas we would like to be, that our divine efforts are our half-hearted\nefforts, and that the only time we get terribly in earnest and put\nforth really titanic energies is when we are dominated directly or\nindirectly by the instincts of the pack. Human aspiration is\nfettered by the fearful facts of human origin. It is not strange\nthat we are continually conscious of being torn by contending\ntendencies, conscious of ghastly masteries, and of horrible goings\non in our innermost beings. The human heart is the gladiatorial\nmeeting-place of gods and beasts.\n\nII. Egoism and Altruism.\n\nEverything has been evolved\u2014_everything_\u2014from daffodils to\nstates and from ticks to religion. Every organic thing is the result\nof long and incessant survival of the advantageous\u2014advantageous\nfrom the standpoint of the organism itself or from the standpoint of\nits kind, not necessarily so from the standpoint of the universe.\nThat which is true of everything is true also of egoism and\naltruism. Egoism and altruism exist as facts in the natures of human\nand other beings for the same reason that the various physical facts\nexist in the structures of human and other beings, because they have\nbeen advantageous in the struggle for life. There is just as\ndefinite an explanation for the existence of egoism and altruism in\nthis world, and for their existence in the particular form and ratio\nin which they do exist, as there is for the fact that the human hand\nhas five fingers, the rose odour, and the eggs of the kildeer the\nmottled markings of the clods among which they lie.\n\nEgoism is preference for self, partiality toward that part of the\nuniverse bounded by one\u2019s own skin. It may consist simply of\nregard for self, but with regard for self is usually associated\nenmity toward others. Egoism manifests itself in such qualities of\nmind as selfishness, cruelty, intolerance, hate, hardheartedness,\nsavagery, rudeness, injustice, narrowness, and the like. It is the\nprimal impulse of the living heart. Enmity is older and more\nuniversal than love. Enmity constituted the very loins from which\nlong ago came the original miscreants of this world.\n\n  \u2018I saw the fishes playing there;\n  I saw all that was in the whole world round;\n  In wood, and bower, and marsh, and mead, and field,\n  All things which creep and fly, And put a foot to earth.\n  All these I saw, and say to you,\n  That nothing lives among them without hate.\u2019\n\nLife has been developed through selection. This selection has been\nbrought about largely through war\u2014war between individuals and\nbetween groups of individuals. War and competition are struggle\nbetween living beings, and the soul of competition is selfishness.\nEgoism is the primal and most powerful of terrestrial impulses,\nbecause beings hated and exterminated each other before they\ntolerated and loved, and because struggle has far overshadowed\ncooperation as a factor in life evolution.\n\nThere are those who believe that mutual aid has been a more dynamic\nfactor in the development of terrestrial life than competition.\nCooperation has been an important element in the evolution of animal\nlife, and it has operated among nearly all animals, from the\nhumblest to the highest. Far down near the beginning of organic\nexistence we find the one-celled forms huddling together in\ncolonies, giving rise in the course of time to the many-celled\nanimals. But to conclude that cooperation is the chief factor in\nanimal development is to shut one\u2019s eyes to one of the most\nobvious and overwhelming facts of organic evolution. Individualism\nantedates mutualism, both among the one-celled forms and among the\nmany-celled metazoa. Cooperation everywhere is the sequence of a\nlong preliminary of individual contention. And cooperation does not\nmean cessation of struggle, either among those co-operating or among\nthe groups themselves, as Kropotkin and other exaggerators of the\nmutual aid factor seem to assume. It usually does little more than\ntransfer the struggle from individuals to groups. When a lot of\npelicans or wolves get together and work together in order that they\nmay thereby the better defend themselves or slay others it is hard\nto see how such facts can be placed to the credit of cooperation any\nmore than to that of competition. Then, too, excepting in a few\nsocieties of insects, cooperation has not gone so far as to do more\nthan slightly alleviate the competition even among the members of a\nco-operating group. Competition is a much more common and\ninfluential fact in the phenomena of life than cooperation, for it\ninvolves a large part of the activity of individual life, and is\nalso prominent in all social activities.\n\nThe preponderance of egoism in the natures of living beings is the\nmost mournful and immense fact in the phenomena of conscious life.\nIt has made the world the kind of world it would have been had the\ngods actually emptied their wrath vials upon it. Brotherhood is\nanomalous, and, even in its highest manifestations, is but the\nexpression of a veiled and calculating egoism. Inhumanity is\neverywhere. The whole planet is steeped in it. Every creature faces\nan inhospitable universeful, and every life is a campaign. It has\nall come about as a result of the mindless and inhuman manner in\nwhich life has been developed on the earth. It has been said that an\nindividual of unlimited faculties and infinite goodness and power\nmade this world and endowed it with ways of acting, and that this\nindividual, as the world\u2019s executive, continues to determine its\nphenomena by inspiring the order of its events. But one cannot help\nthinking sometimes, when, in his more daring and vivid moments, he\ncomes to comprehend the real character and condition of the world,\nwhat a discrepancy exists between the reputation of this builder and\nhis works, and cannot help wondering whether an ordinary human being\nwith only common-sense and insight and an average concern for the\nwelfare of the world would not make a great improvement in\nterrestrial affairs if he only had the opportunity for a while.\n\nAltruism is the recognition of, and regard for, others. It shows\nitself in feelings of justice, goodwill, tenderness, charity, pity,\npublic spirit, sympathy, fraternity and love, and in acts of\nkindness, humanity, mercy, generosity, politeness, philanthropy and\nthe like. Altruism is a graft. The stock is selfishness and\nbrutality. Altruism (the form of altruism to which I here refer:\nthere are several distinct species of altruism) has come into the\nworld as a result of cooperation and consanguinity. It has grown out\nof the cooperation of individuals in families and tribes against\ntheir cooperating enemies. Altruism\u2014at least, in its initial\nstages\u2014is a sort of tribal egoism. Men and other animals have\nlearned to stand by each other and help each other against their\ncommon foes because it was the only way in which they were able to\nstand. Those aggregates that have had strongest this feeling of\nfraternity have prospered and prevailed, while the less fraternal\nhave gone down.\n\nThe altruism manifested by men in their relations with each other is\nnot different in kind from the altruism and cooperation displayed by\nother social animals. Human gregariousness\u2014the gathering together\nof human beings into tribes and communities for purposes of\ncompanionship and defence\u2014is a part of the phenomena of animal\ngregariousness in general. The inhabitants of a human town, however\nmuch they may think so, are not impelled to associate with each\nother and to cooperate with each other in the affairs of life by\ncauses or considerations different from those which actuate a\nsociety of ants or apes, of wasps or wolves, who do the same things.\nThe antecedents of human ethics and society are, therefore, to be\nlooked for in the ant-hill and the jungle.\n\nThe fact that altruism has been evolved by the cooperation of\nindividuals _with each other_ and _against others_ is a significant\nfact in the analysis and understanding of the ethical phenomena of\nthe earth. _To this fact is due the restricted and illogical\ncharacter of all altruism_. The ethical systems of all peoples are,\nand have always been, to a greater or less extent, provincial and\ncontradictory. Ethical feeling and practice are not extended\nuniversally\u2014that is, to all beings\u2014but are maintained only among\nthose associating more or less closely as a group, and having\ninterests that are more or less nearly the same. Among men of\nprimitive mind, morality is a thing to be practised toward only a\nfew thousand or even a few hundred individuals, and then in a very\nhalf-awake and half-hearted manner. But as the perceptions sharpen\nand vivify and the horizon of knowledge widens\u2014as commerce and\nimagination cause the mind to overflow the narrow bounds of the\ncommunity into larger dimensions of time and space\u2014as the myriad\ninfluences operating as race experience and race selection enable\nmen to realise the wider and wider oneness of their origin, natures,\ninterests, and destiny\u2014an increasing consistency characterises the\nconduct among the members of the group, and an increasingly larger\nnumber of individuals are admitted to ethical consideration and\nkinship.\n\nIII. The Ethics of the Savage.\n\u2202\nThe ethics of the savage is, almost without exception, purely tribal\nin its extent. A marked distinction is everywhere made by primitive\npeoples between injuries to persons _inside_ the tribe and injuries\nto those _outside_ the tribe. Crimes which are looked upon as\nfelonious when committed by a savage against the members of his own\ntribe may be regarded as harmless, or even highly commendable, when\nperpetrated on those outside the tribe. Acts are not judged\naccording to their intrinsic natures or results, but wholly as to\nwhether they are performed on outsiders or on insiders. The Balantis\n(Africa) punish with death a theft committed against a\nfellow-tribesman, but encourage and reward thieving from other\ntribes. The Afridi (Afghanistan) mother prays that her son may be a\nsuccessful robber\u2014not a robber of her own people, but of other\npeoples\u2014and in order that he may become proficient in crime\nteaches him to creep stealthily through a hole in the wall. By\ncertain Bedouin tribes the \u2018strenuous life\u2019 is held in such high\nhonour that \u2018it is considered a disgrace to die in bed\u2019; and\namong the man-eating Fijians \u2018men who have not slain an enemy\nsuffer the most degrading of all punishments\u2019.[1] In the paradise\nof the Kukis (India) the cut-throats who have in life killed the\nlargest number of aliens not only inherit the highest places, but\nthese adepts of the knife are supposed to be attended in their\ncelestial comings and goings by their victims as slaves.[1] In his\ndealings with the other members of his tribe, the savage observes a\ncertain rude code of morals, this code being usually, as in the case\nof the civilised code, an inglorious mixture of equity and\nbrutality, superstition and sanity, honesty and hypocrisy. But the\nsavage recognises no moral obligations to any being outside of his\ntribe, clan, or family. Anthropology teaches nothing more positively\nthan this. Consanguinity and self-interest are the only bases of\nsavage friendship. Outsiders are outlaws. They may be attacked,\nrobbed, deceived, murdered, eaten, or enslaved, with perfect\npropriety. It was this general hostility of foreigners that Cain\nfeared when he was turned out from his countrymen after his crime\nupon Abel. He knew that he was liable to be set upon by the first\nstranger that came upon him. So the Lord is said to have set a mark\nupon him, \u2018lest any finding him should kill him.\u2019\n\n\u2018There was no brotherhood recognised by our savage forefathers,\u2019\nsays Sir Henry Maine, in speaking of the ancestors of the Aryan and\nSemitic races, \u2018except actual consanguinity regarded as a fact. If\na man was not of kin to another, there was nothing between them. He\nwas an enemy to be hated, slain, or despoiled as much as the wild\nbeasts upon which the tribe made war, as belonging, indeed, to the\ncraftiest and cruelest of wild animals. It would scarcely be too\nstrong to assert that the dogs which followed the camp had more in\ncommon with it than the tribesmen of an alien and unrelated\ntribe\u2019.[2] Among some tribes of savage men the ethical code is\nreversed in dealing with outsiders, and enmity toward aliens is\nconsidered a duty.\n\nThis same senseless hostility toward every one from abroad, so\nspitefully exhibited by primitive men, is also manifested by ants,\nwho immediately recognise and pounce upon an individual introduced\nfrom a foreign colony, but welcome with every demonstration of joy,\neven after a lapse of weeks or months, a returning member of their\nown society. The same spirit of exclusiveness is found also in\nelephants. If by accident an elephant becomes separated from his\nherd, he becomes an outcast and a fugitive, never being permitted in\nany circumstances to attach himself to another herd.[3]\n\nThat the savage should entertain feelings of friendship for those\nbelonging to the same social unit as himself is, considering the\ncircumstances in which it takes place, a perfectly natural\nphenomenon. The members of his tribe are, to the savage, the beings\namong whom he has come into existence, and in the midst of whom he\nhas grown up. He knows and understands them, and is known and\nunderstood by them. They speak the same language as himself, and\ncherish the same customs and traditions. They have the same sacred\ntrees, the same gods, the same experiences day after day, and the\nsame memories, as he himself. They are his associates in the chase,\nhis allies in war, and his comrades in sorrow and success. They are\nthe only beings into whose lives he has ever entered. They\nconstitute his world, and are to him the only real beings in the\nuniverse.\n\nThe members of his tribe are, moreover, to the savage, for the most\npart, his kinspeople. If they are not actually related to him by\nblood, they are usually conceived by him to be so related. The\nco-villagers of an Indian community call each other brothers. It is\na characteristic of all the Aryan and Semitic races when in the\ntribal state to conceive that the tribes themselves, and all\nsubdivisions of them, are descended each from a single male\nancestor. The savage sees the living family of which he forms a part\ndescended from a single living man and his wife or wives. This\nfamily group with which he is familiar and other similar groups make\nup the tribe. And the process by which each family has been brought\nabout is in his mind identical with the process by which the\ncommunity as a whole has been formed.[2] It is a conception of this\nkind, handed down as a tradition from ancient tribal times, which\ncauses the Jews even to-day to regard themselves as the \u2018seed\u2019\nof that venerable sheik who, so many centuries ago, led them as a\nband of nomads in their memorable migration westward from the plains\nof Mesopotamia. It is not strange, therefore, considering all of the\ncircumstances in the midst of which the savage lives and moves, that\nhe should look upon his fellow-tribesmen as beings to be\ndistinguished by him from all other beings in the universe.\n\nNor is it strange, when we consider the mental sterility of the\nsavage, his lack of travel and imagination, the meagerness of his\nexperiences, and his utter ignorance of the world beyond the\ncommunity in which he lives, that he should look upon and treat all\noutsiders as nobodies\u2014as beings without any claims whatever upon\nhis humanity or mercy. The imagination is the picturing power of the\nmind, the power by which beings are able to get out of themselves\nand into the places of others, the power which enables us to view\nthe world comparatively\u2014that is, from different points of view.\nThis power of mind, which imparts to the higher types of\nintelligence their mobility and sympathy, is rudimentary in the\nsavage. This has been proved by Tylor in his study of the\ncomparative mythology of savages. It is this lack of imagination in\nthe savage, combined with his ignorance and his simplicity of life,\nwhich gives to him his ferocity, and which renders him inaccessible\nto those higher sentiments of justice and righteousness which\nare\u2014well, which are, at least, dreamed about and theorised about\nby the more evolved savages of the \u2018civilised world.\u2019 The world,\nto the simple mind of the savage, is, as it is to the mind of the\nchild, the world in which he lives and moves\u2014the world which he\nfeels, hears, tastes, and sees. The horizon is the boundary of the\nuniverse. Beings beyond his tribe are outside of the world. If they\nexist at all, it is as a very different order of beings from him and\nhis people. They are not of kin to him, speak a strange tongue, and\nhave monstrous customs and superstitions. How could they be in any\nway related to him? They are his enemies\u2014vague villainous\napparitions who appear to him only in the horrible ordeals of\nbattle. His chief occupation is the waging of war against them, and\nhis keenest gratification is felt in laying them low. The accounts\nof all travellers testify that the intertribal relations of savages\nare, with few exceptions, those of chronic feud and hostility. The\nirreconcilable antagonism between the savage and those around him\nbegets in the savage nature its dominating impulse\u2014hate, hatred\nand hostility toward other men, as well as toward all other beings.\nIn fact, the savage makes no moral distinction between man and the\nother animals, but regards them all indiscriminately as his foes,\nwhom he must either use or remove from the face of the earth. The\nsavage hunts men about as he hunts other animals, and for a like\npurpose. The Troglodytes hunted the Ethiopians in four-horse\nchariots with as little compunction as Americans hunt antelopes\nto-day.\n\n1. Spencer: _Principles of Ethics_, vol. i.; New York, 1893..\n2. Maine: _Early History of Institutions_; New York, 1869.\n3. Tennent: _Natural History of Ceylon_; London, 1861.\n\nIV. The Ethics of the Ancient.\u2202\n\nBut the doctrine that each petty tribe is the centre of the world\nand the only real and important people in the universe, and that all\nothers are mere nobodies, is not peculiar to primitive peoples.\nEthnocentric ethics\u2014the ethics of amity toward their own tribe or\nstate, their own clique or kind, and the ethics of enmity toward\noutsiders\u2014has been manifested to a greater or less extent by the\npeoples of all times and of all degrees of enlightenment. Every\npeople that has ever existed has had its own particular point of\nview, its own bias, its own knot-hole, large or small, through which\nit has looked at life and the world. This is inevitable. It arises\nas a necessary sequence out of the fact that all peoples above\nsavages are the descendants of savages, and as such have inherited\nthe limitations, mental and environmental, of those from whom they\nhave evolved.\n\nAliens had no legal rights in ancient times\u2014none whatever.\nInternational cooperation, such as exists among the political\nsocieties of Europe and America to-day, was absolutely unknown.\nInternational relations were everywhere those of hostility. States\nand races looked upon each other as foes, as objects of plunder and\nvictimisation, not as friends.\n\nCaesar says of the ancient Germans that depredations committed\nbeyond the boundaries of each state bore no infamy, and that\nstealing from aliens was even encouraged as a means of teaching\ntheir young men adroitness.\n\nThe ancient Jews are an excellent illustration of a narrow and\nself-centred people. Notwithstanding their insignificance,\npolitically and intellectually, as compared with the Egyptians,\nGreeks, and Persians, the Jews believed themselves to be the only\npeople of the first class inhabiting the earth. They conceived that\nthey had been selected as favourites by the gods themselves, and\nthat around their little district in half-arid Palestine revolved\nthe interests of the entire world. Their chief city was supposed to\nbe the sacred and central city of the world, and heaven itself only\na new and idealised edition of their metropolis. Every Jew was bound\nto every other Jew by high-wrought ceremony and obligation. But all\nnon-Jews were \u2018Gentiles,\u2019 chaff-like \u2018pagans,\u2019 who possessed\nno rights which a \u2018child of Abraham\u2019 was bound to respect. Their\ntribal god is said to have been so indulgent toward them as his\n\u2018chosen people\u2019 that he allowed them to exact usury from\nforeigners, to sell them diseased meats, and to borrow jewels from\nthem and afterwards run away with them. He even permitted them to\nmake war upon weak peoples and dispossess them of their lands.\n\u2018Whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them\nwill we possess\u2019 (Judg. xi. 24).\n\nThe kings of the ancient Assyrians were so accustomed to cruelties\nupon non-Assyrians, and were so proud of these cruelties, that they\nrecorded them in stone as a claim to immortality among men.\nAssurbanipal, in speaking of the conquered, says: \u2018I pulled out\ntheir tongues and cut off their limbs, and caused them to be eaten\nby dogs, bears, eagles, vultures, birds of heaven.\u2019\nAssur-natsir-pal, another wonderful fellow, boasts similarly: \u2018I\nflayed the nobles and covered the pyramid with their skins, and\ntheir young men and maidens I burned as a holocaust.\u2019 \u2018Their\ncarcasses covered the valleys and the tops of the mountains,\u2019 says\nTiglath-Pileser in his account of the slain Muskayans; and\nSennacherib informs us proudly that he drove his chariot over the\ndead bodies of his victims until \u2018its wheels were clogged with\nflesh and blood.\u2019 \u2018Evidently\u2019 remarks Spencer, in speaking of\nthese monstrous inscriptions, \u2018the expectation was that men of\nafter-times would admire these merciless destructions; for we cannot\nassume that these Assyrian kings intentionally made themselves\neternally infamous\u2019.[1]\n\nTo the ancient Greeks there were two classes of human beings in the\nworld: Greeks and \u2018barbarians.\u2019 The Greeks were the inhabitants\nof Hellas, which was believed to be the central region of the world,\nand the \u2018barbarians\u2019 were the godless denizens of the\nless-favoured and less centrally located remainder of the earth. The\nworld was believed to be flat or shield-shaped, and in its exact\ncentre stood Mount Olympus in northern Thessaly. This mountain,\nwhich is 9,700 feet high, was supposed to be the highest elevation\non the earth, and was the awful abode of the gods. The Greeks called\nthemselves Hellenes. According to their fabled genealogy, they were\nthe descendants of Hellen, son of Deucalion, the Greek Noah. While\nthey were often at war with each other, they spoke a common\nlanguage, and always regarded themselves as members of a single\nfamily. All non-Greeks were \u2018barbarians,\u2019 including the Romans,\nwho were called \u2018barbarians\u2019 down to the time of Augustus. While\nthe Greeks themselves traced their ancestry back to the bright blood\nof the gods, the \u2018barbarians\u2019 were generally supposed to have\noriginated from stones and trees. The \u2018barbarians\u2019 were looked\nupon and treated by the Greeks everywhere as a different order of\nbeings from themselves. Those taken by them in war were regularly\nreduced to slavery. The slave population created in this way was\nincreased by the slave traffic carried on with the East until the\nslave population of Greece was several times as great as the free\npopulation. The whole Hellenic world, in fact, even in the days of\nits greatest magnificence, was one vast pen of slaves. Almost every\nfreeman of Attica was a slave-owner. Out of a population of about\nfive hundred thousand, four hundred thousand were slaves. It was\nconsidered a real hardship by the Greeks to be compelled to get\nalong with less than a half-dozen slaves. In Corinth and Aegina\nthere were ten slaves to one freeman. In Sparta the slaves were the\nvanquished Helots, the original inhabitants of the Peloponnesus,\nwhom the Spartans had conquered and reduced to chains in early\ntimes. Their lot was particularly horrible. They were the property\nof the state, and were distributed to the Spartan lords by lot.\n\u2018They practically had no rights which their masters felt bound to\nrespect. If one of their number displayed unusual powers of either\nbody or mind, he was secretly assassinated, as it was deemed unsafe\nto allow such qualities to be fostered in the servile class. It is\naffirmed [by Thucydides] that, when the Helots grew too numerous for\nthe supposed safety of the state, their numbers were thinned by\ndeliberate massacre of the surplus population\u2019.[2] The conception\nof human slavery entertained by the common mass of Greeks may be\ninferred from the fact that philosophers like Aristotle taught that\n\u2018slaves were simply domestic animals possessed of intelligence.\u2019\nIt is this fact, this utter lack of justice and humanity manifested\nby the Greeks in their treatment of non-Hellenic mankind, which\ngives to Greek \u2018civilisation\u2019 its seamy side. Greek society has\nbeen appropriately likened to a pyramid, its apex gleaming with\nlight and splendour, while its base was sunk in darkness.\n\nNon-Romans were called \u2018barbarians\u2019 also by the Romans, and were\nconsidered by the Romans to be an entirely different order of beings\nfrom themselves. Any splinter of a Roman was, according to the\nRomans, superior to the most illustrious \u2018barbarian.\u2019 Men were\nnot treated nor estimated according to their intrinsic qualities,\nbut wholly as to whether they were or were not \u2018Roman citizens.\u2019\nTo be a \u2018Roman citizen\u2019 was to be entitled to everything; to be\na \u2018barbarian\u2019 was not to be entitled to anything necessarily,\nexcept to serve in some way the all-glorious Romans. The elaborate\nlegal and ethical codes formulated by these masters of the\nMediterranean were reserved religiously for themselves. The business\nof the \u2018barbarians\u2019 was to furnish fields for pillage and\nconquest, to impart magnitude to triumphal pageants, to act as\nslaves, and to die by ignominiously butchering each other for the\namusement of their bloodthirsty masters. \u2018Barbarian\u2019 lands were\nlooked upon simply as game-preserves where ambitious captains from\nthe Tiber went to refresh their reputations by hunting and\nvictimising the inhabitants. The history of Rome is the history of\ninfamy on a colossal, almost world-wide, scale. There has never been\ndisplayed by any people pretending to be civilised such shameless\nsavagery as that displayed by the Romans in their gladiatorial\narenas, where men (generally the captives of war) were \u2018butchered\nto make a Roman holiday.\u2019 These tragedies, in their magnitude and\natrocity, seem almost frightful when we read of them on the pages of\nhistory. They were generally celebrated by victorious captains and\nemperors at the close of some unusual outrage against the\n\u2018barbarians,\u2019 or upon the departure of Roman legions for the\nfield of activity. The celebrations sometimes lasted weeks, or even\nmonths. The Emperor Trajan celebrated his victories over the Dacians\nwith shows that lasted more than a hundred days. During this\nhorrible festival ten thousand men fought upon the arena, and more\nthan ten thousand wild animals were slain. The gladiators in these\nancient combats fought in chariots, on horseback, on foot\u2014in all\nthe ways in which soldiers fought in actual battle. They fought with\nswords, lances, daggers, tridents, and every other manner of weapon.\nSome had nets and lassoes with which they entangled their\nadversaries, and then slew them. The life of a wounded gladiator was\nin the hands of the spectators, who showed their clemency or their\nlack of it by turning their thumbs respectively down or up. The\nthirst of the populace for blood was sometimes such that the dying\nwere aroused and forced on to the fight by burning with a hot iron.\nThe dead bodies were dragged from the arena with hooks, like the\ncarcasses of animals, and the pools of blood soaked up with dry\nsand.[3] There was an occasional Roman, like Seneca, sane enough to\nrealise the real character of these performances, and brave enough\nto denounce them as crimes. But by the great mass of all classes of\nRomans, even by those who pretended to think, they were regarded\nwith perfect moral indifference. The excuse offered by Pliny was\ngenerally concurred in by his countrymen, that these bloody shows\nwere necessary for the cultivation of manliness and for keeping\nawake the strenuous and red-handed instincts in the young.\n\nScarce less revolting than the gladiatorial arena, in its violation\nof every principle of humanity, was the institution of human\nslavery. During the later republic and the earlier empire, one-half\nthe population of the Roman state was slaves. The slave population\nwas recruited chiefly, as in Greece, by war and by slave-hunting.\nSlave-traders and slave-markets flourished both in the capital\nitself and in all the great ports visited by Roman ships. Some of\nthe outlying provinces of Asia and Africa were almost depopulated by\nthe slave-hunters. Greek slaves were the highest-priced, because the\nmost intelligent. Among the wealthy, who, like the illiterate rich\nof every age, dawdled their time in ostentation, there were slaves\nfor each different function in the household. There were the\n_cubicularii_, who acted as housemaids; the _triclinarii_, who\nwaited at table; the _culinarii_, who acted as kitchen drudges; and\nthe _balnearii_, who looked after the baths. Then there were\n_tonsores_ or barbers; _criniflores_, or hair-crimpers;\n_calceatores_, who took care of the feet; and _lectores_, whose\nbusiness it was to read aloud to their masters at meals, in the\nbath, or in bed. The _ostiarius_, who was sometimes chained in the\nvestibule like a dog, was the porter; the _invitator_ summoned the\nguests; and the _servus ab hospitiis_ looked after their lodgment.\nThere was the slave called the _sandalio_, whose sole duty was to\ncare for his master\u2019s sandals; and another, called the\n_nomenclator_, whose exclusive business it was to accompany his\nmaster when he went upon the street, and give him the names of such\npersons as he ought to recognise. The common punishment for a\nrefractory slave was beating. If the runaway were caught, as he\ncould hardly fail to be, since there were extremely heavy penalties\nfor harbouring or assisting him, he was either branded or had an\niron collar like a dog\u2019s welded around his neck, or his legs were\nfettered, or, in exaggerated or repeated cases of offence, he was at\nonce turned into the arena or otherwise put to death. If he\nattempted to take personal vengeance upon his master for any wrong\nwhatsoever, his whole family shared his fate, and the regular form\nof capital punishment for a slave was crucifixion under the most\nignominious and agonising circumstances.[4]\n\n\u2018In many cases, as a measure of precaution, the slaves were forced\nto work in chains and to sleep in subterranean prisons. The feeling\nentertained toward this unfortunate class in the later republican\nperiod is illustrated by Varro\u2019s classification of slaves as\n\u201cvocal agricultural implements,\u201d and by Cato the Elder\u2019s\nrecommendation that old and worn-out slaves be sold, as a matter of\neconomy. Sick and hopelessly infirm slaves were taken to an island\nin the Tiber, and there left to die of starvation and\nexposure\u2019.[3] Slaves were practically without any rights whatever\nto the world in which they lived. A Roman could take the life of his\nGallic slave with as complete impunity as an American can slay his\nbovine servant to-day. Romans, in short, looked upon and treated\nnon-Romans about as human beings to-day look upon and treat\nnon-humans\u2014_as mere prey_.\n\n1. Spencer: _Principles of Ethics_, vol. i.; New York, 1893.\n2. Myers: _Ancient History_, part i.; Boston, 1899.\n3. Myers: _Ancient History_, part ii.; Boston, 1899.\n4. Preston and Dodge: _The Private Life of the Romans_; Boston, 1896.\u2202\n\nV. Modern Ethics.\n\nBut the peoples of the ancient world are not the only human beings\nwho have suffered from the psychological bequests of savages. Modern\nstates and peoples, notwithstanding their far-flung professions of\nrighteousness, manifest, though in a somewhat weakened form, the\nsame ethnic prejudices and the same senseless antipathies as those\ndisplayed by the ancients. Remnants of the primitive tribal morality\nare found in the moral habits and conceptions of every people,\nhowever emancipated they may imagine themselves to be. Many a person\nwho would not think of swindling one of his neighbours will not\nhesitate to swindle a foreigner, especially if the foreigner happens\nto be of a nationality much removed in language, colour, manners, or\ninterests from his own. Morality is genetic. It is not a consistent\nsomething\u2014something reasoned out and framed according to the\nfacts. It has grown up. It is essentially tribal\u2014whether it is\nconfined to a family, as is done by some, to a corporation or trade,\nto a nation, to an artificial fraternity, or to a species. We are,\nin fact, all of us, even the broadest and most illuminated, simply\nsavages more or less leafed out. We all suffer, as men have always\nsuffered, from the over-vividness of the presentative powers of the\nmind (sensation and perception) compared with the representative\npowers (memory and imagination). We all exaggerate out of their\nproper perspective in the phenomena of a universe the things that\nare around us and about us\u2014the events we witness or take part in,\nthe things that are ours, and the affairs of the street, city,\nstate, neighbourhood, world, and time, in which we live. Every human\nbeing (the sage less than the savage, but the sage to some extent)\nis inclined to lump together as foreign to him, and as more or less\nuseless and shadowy in themselves, the things, beings, and events\nthat are distant, and to consider them, of less reality than those\nwith which he is directly concerned, and of which his knowledge is\nimmediate. _The evolution of consciousness in its social and ethical\naspects consists in the evolution of the ability to make real and\nvivid the phenomena that are more and more_ _distant in both space\nand time_.\n\nThe Chinese call their country \u2018the flower of the middle,\u2019 and\nbelieve it to be the central and choicest portion of the earth\u2019s\nsurface. All those beyond the bounds of \u2018The Heavenly Flower\nKingdom\u2019 are, by those on the inside, venomously lumped together\nas \u2018foreign devils.\u2019 The people of Spain look upon themselves in\nmuch the same way as the Chinese look upon themselves, although they\nare in reality the most belated of all peoples to-day pretending to\nbe civilised. There are a few travelled and educated Spaniards who\nrealise the pitiful place held by their country in the family of\nreputable states. \u2018But the great mass of the people are not only\nperfectly satisfied with their condition, but consider themselves\nthe most fortunate of all God\u2019s creatures. They never go outside\nof their country and never read a foreign newspaper or book. Like\nthe Chinese, they consider other nations barbarians, and point to\nMadrid as the centre of civilisation.\u2019 The French, down to the\nnineteenth century, confiscated the property of all aliens who died\nwithin the realm; and the savage practice of punishing one alien for\nthe crimes of another alien was sanctioned by the laws of England\ndown to the middle of the fourteenth century. It has been only a day\nin the history of the world since Caucasians hunted their dusky\nbrothers in Africa like \u2018wild animals,\u2019 and sold and loaned and\nlashed them as we do horses to-day. Men now living can remember when\nit made no difference how exalted in character men might be: if a\ncertain pigment of their bodies was dark, they were \u2018niggers.\u2019\nThey had no \u2018souls\u2019 as pale men had, and no more chance of\nparadise than cattle. At the beginning of the nineteenth century,\nincredible as it may seem, every country of Europe and America held\nslaves, and was engaged in the soulless avocation of man-hunting in\nAfrica. Tens of thousands of Africa\u2019s children were annually\nseized by prowling pirate bands and exported to distant lands to\nwear their lives out in disgrace and drudgery. It was not until the\nlatter part of the nineteenth century that civilised nations,\nfollowing the initiative of England, finally abolished human\nslavery, the United States and Brazil being the last to act. The\nChristian sneers at all who do not bow down to his deities and\nworship according to his ritual, as \u2018heathens\u2019 or\n\u2018freethinkers,\u2019 and to the Moslem all who are not followers of\n\u2018the True Prophet\u2019 are \u2018infidel dogs.\u2019 The history of these\ntwo religions is a chronicle of almost unparalleled crimes upon\ndisbelievers.\n\nBut it is not necessary to go to Arabia or Cathay, nor even\nnecessary to read history, in order to find examples of bigotry and\nprovincialism. It is only necessary to open our eyes. Americans are\nnot a peculiar people\u2014unless it be in the unbridled character of\ntheir conceit. All the barbarism is not behind us nor around us.\nHistory looks dark and discouraging to us, as we turn its terrible\npages, but we would see something just as discouraging if we would\nlook into a mirror. The old savage spirit still circulates in our\nveins. The \u2018foreigner\u2019 is not an enemy, but he is still an\nindividual whose chief significance is in his \u2018fleece.\u2019 If the\n\u2018foreigner\u2019 did not ease our economic theories by benevolently\n\u2018paying the tax,\u2019 it would be hard to tell what would become of\nhim. Those who suffer from a different government, speak a different\nlanguage, or laud other gods are regarded by us as distinctly\ninferior to ourselves. Millions of dollars are annually squandered\nby self-righteous societies in sending missionaries to the other\nside of the planet to peoples who need evangels of mercy and\nhumanity far less than we do ourselves. In these times of\necclesiastical enterprise, however, missionaries are being\nsuperseded, as agents of evangelisation, by the more effective\ninventions of Messrs. Maxim and Krupp. \u2018American\u2019 is regarded by\nus as the synonym of perfection, and to be \u2018patriotic\u2019 is to\ngive unthinking enthusiasm to every scheme incubated by wolfish\nspoilsmen. Crimes of conquest carried on by others become, when\nundertaken by us, shining masterpieces of \u2018benevolent\nassimilation.\u2019 We are not so far from the naked and unkempt\ncontemporaries of the cave-bear and sabre-toothed lion as we imagine\nwe are. To carry a bayonet, and especially to redden it with an\nalien\u2019s blood, is here in this degenerate land of Jefferson, more\nglorious than to create a book. Captains particularly competent as\nbutchers, though their characters be as coarse as a savage\nchief\u2019s, are hailed as heroes by thousands besides silly women,\nand held up, like the cutthroats of the Kukis, as the highest\nexemplars of right-doing. Old Rameses, holding by their hair a\nhalf-dozen dwarfs, and ostentatiously cutting off their heads with a\nsingle sweep of his sword, finds his modern counterpart in miserable\nAmericans pompously gloating over the offhand slaughter of the\nchildren of distant archipelagoes.\n\nVI. The Ethics of Human Beings Toward Non-human Beings.\u2202\n\nBut the most mournful instance of provincial ethics afforded by the\ninhabitants of the earth is not that furnished by the varieties of\nthe human species in their conduct toward each other, but that\nafforded by the human race as a whole in its treatment of the\nnon-human races. Human nature is nowhere so hideous, and human\nconscience is nowhere so profoundly inoperative, as in their\ndisregard for the life and happiness of the non-human animal world.\nWith the development of the representative powers of the mind, the\nwidening and mutualising of human activities, and the consequent\nenlargement of the human horizon, the feeling of amity has spread\nand intensified, until to-day, notwithstanding all that is true of\nhuman sectionalism, the ethical systems of civilised peoples\ninclude, theoretically at least, and more or less seriously, all\nhuman beings whatsoever. Ethical consciousness has extended from\nindividual to family, from family to clan, from clan to tribe, from\ntribe to confederacy, from confederacy to kingdom, from kingdom to\nrace, from race to species, until, in the case of many millions of\nmen, ethical feeling has reached, with greater or less vividness and\nconsistency, the anthropocentric stage of evolution. The fact that\nan individual is a _man_\u2014that is, that he belongs to the human\nspecies of animals\u2014entitles him in all civilised lands to the\nfundamental rights and privileges of existence. The rights to life,\nliberty, and the pursuit of happiness are believed to-day, by all\nexalted minds, to be the inalienable properties of every _human_\nbeing who comes into the world.\n\nBut, except by occasional individuals here and there whose emotions\nare more civilised than the rest, or whose conceptions are more\nample and clear, ethical relations are not extended by human beings\nbeyond the bounds of their own species. Non-human millions are\n_outsiders_. They are looked upon and treated by human beings as if\nthey were an entirely different order of existences, with entirely\ndifferent purposes and susceptibilities, from human beings. They are\nnot considered to be living beings at all, as human beings are, who\nare here in the world to enjoy life and all that life holds that is\ndear to a living being. They belong to the same class of existences\nas the waves of the sea and the weeds of the field. They are looked\nupon as mere _things_\u2014mere moving, multiplying objects, without\nthe slightest equity in the world in which they find themselves.\nThey may be set upon, beaten, maimed, starved, assassinated, eaten,\ninsulted, deceived, imprisoned, robbed, tormented, skinned alive,\nshot down for pastime, cut to pieces out of curiosity, or compelled\nto undergo any other enormity or victimisation anybody can think of\nor is disposed to visit upon them. It is enough almost to make\nknaves shudder, the cold-blooded and business-like manner in which\nwe cut their throats, dash out their brains, and discuss their\nflavour at our cannibalistic feasts. As Plutarch says, \u2018Lions,\ntigers, and serpents we call savage and ferocious, yet we ourselves\ncome behind them in no species of barbarity.\u2019 Accustomed from our\ncradle up to look upon violence and assassination, we have become so\nhabituated and hardened to these things that we perpetrate them and\nsee them perpetrated with the same indifference as that with which\nwe watch waves die on the beach. Human beings are, in fact\n(\u2018paragons\u2019 though they pretend to be), the most predatory and\nbrutal of all animals\u2014the great bone-breakers and bone-pickers of\nthe planet.\n\nIt is scarcely possible, astounding as it is, to commit crimes upon\nany beings in this world, except men. There are no beings in the\nuniverse, according to human beings, except themselves. All others\nare commodities. They are of consequence only because they have\nthighs and can fill up the unoccupied places of the human\nalimentary. Human beings are \u2018persons,\u2019 and have souls and gods\nand places to go to when they die. But the hundreds of thousands of\nother races of terrestrial inhabitants are mere \u2018animals,\u2019 mere\n\u2018brutes,\u2019 and \u2018beasts of the field,\u2019 \u2018livestock\u2019 and\n\u2018vermin.\u2019 Every crime capable of being perpetrated by one being\nupon another is day after day rained upon them, and with an\nequanimity that would do honour to the managers of an inferno. Human\nbeings preach as the cardinal rule of morality\u2014and they seem never\nto tire of its reiteration\u2014that they should do unto others as they\nwould that others would do unto them; but they hypocritically\nconfine its application to the members of their own crowd,\nnotwithstanding there are the same reasons identically for extending\nit to all creatures. The happiness of the human species is assumed\nto be so much more precious than that of others that the most sacred\ninterests of others are unhesitatingly sacrificed in order that\nhuman desires may all be fastidiously catered to. Even for a tooth\nor a feather or a piece of skin to wear on human vanity, forests are\ndepopulated and the land filled with the dead and dying.\nAssassination is the commonest and most fashionable of human\npastimes. Jaded systems are regularly recuperated by massacre. Men\narm themselves\u2014men who roar about \u2018rights,\u2019 and even ministers\nof mercy\u2014and go out on killing expeditions with as little\ncompunction as savages put on war-paint. They come back from their\ncampaigns of crime like the cut-throats of old Rome, trailing their\nvictims as trophies, and expecting to be hailed as heroes for the\nhells they have established. Barbarians preponderate, and morality\nis turned inside out. Cruelty is lionised, and broad-mindedness is\nrewarded with a sneer. Compassion is a disease, and to be\nfashionable is to be a fiend. If non-human peoples had no nerves and\nno choice of emotions, and were utterly indifferent to life, they\ncould scarcely be treated more completely as personal nonentities.\n\nThe denial by human animals of ethical relations to the rest of the\nanimal world is a phenomenon not differing either in character or\ncause from the denial of ethical relations by a tribe, people, or\nrace of human beings to the rest of the human world. The\nprovincialism of Jews toward non-Jews, of Greeks toward non-Greeks,\nof Romans toward non-Romans, of Moslems toward non-Moslems, and of\nCaucasians toward non-Caucasians, is not one thing and the\nprovincialism of human beings toward non-human beings another. They\nare all manifestations of the same thing. The fact that these\nvarious acts are performed by different individuals and _upon_\ndifferent individuals, and are performed at different times and\nplaces, does not invalidate the essential sameness of their natures.\nCrimes are not classified (except by savages or their immediate\nderivatives) according to the similarity of those who do them or\nthose who suffer from them, but by grouping them according to the\nsimilarity of their intrinsic qualities. All acts of provincialism\nconsist essentially in the disinclination or inability to be\nuniversal, and they belong in reality, all of them, to the same\nspecies of conduct. There is, in fact, but one great crime in the\nuniverse, and most of the instances of terrestrial wrong-doing are\ninstances of this crime. It is the crime of _exploitation_\u2014the\nconsidering by some beings of themselves as _ends_ and of others as\ntheir _means_\u2014the refusal to recognise the equal, or the\napproximately equal, rights of all to life and its legitimate\nrewards\u2014the crime of acting toward others as one would that others\nwould _not_ act toward him. For millions of years, almost ever since\nlife began, this crime has been committed, in every nook and quarter\nof the inhabited globe.\n\n_Every being_ is an _end_. In other words, every being is to be taken\ninto account in determining the ends of conduct. This is the only\nconsistent outcome of the ethical process which is in course of\nevolution on the earth. This world was not made and presented to any\nparticular clique for its exclusive use or enjoyment. The earth\nbelongs, if it belongs to anybody, to the beings who inhabit it\u2014to\n_all_ of them. And when one being or set of beings sets itself up as\nthe sole end for which the universe exists, and looks upon and acts\ntoward others as mere means to this end, it is usurpation, nothing\nelse and never can be anything else, it matters not by whom or upon\nwhom the usurpation is practised. A tyrant who puts his own welfare\nand aggrandisement in the place of the welfare of a people, and\ncompels the whole people to act as a means to his own personal ends,\nis not more certainly a usurper than is a species or variety which\nputs its welfare in the place of the welfare of all the inhabitants\nof a world. The refusal to put one\u2019s self in the place of others\nand to act toward them as one would that they would act toward him\ndoes not depend for its wrongfulness upon who makes the refusal or\nupon whether the refusal falls upon this or that individual or set.\nDeeds are right and wrong in themselves; and whether they are right\nor wrong, good or evil, proper or improper, whether they should be\ndone or should not be done, _depends upon their effects upon the\nwelfare of the inhabitants of the universe_. The basic mistake that\nhas ever been made in this egoistic world in the judging and\nclassifying of acts has been the mistake of judging and classifying\nthem with reference to their effects upon some particular fraction\nof the inhabitants of the universe. In pure egoism conduct is judged\nas good or bad solely with reference to the results, immediate or\nremote, which that conduct produces, or is calculated to produce, on\nthe _self_. To the savage, that is right or wrong which affects\nfavourably or unfavourably _himself_ or his _tribe_. And this\nsectional spirit of the savage has, as has been shown, characterised\nthe moral conceptions of the peoples of all times. The practice\nhuman beings have to-day\u2014the practice of those (relatively) broad\nand emancipated minds who are large enough to rise above the petty\nprejudices and \u2018patriotisms\u2019 of the races and corporations of\nmen, and are able to view \u2018the world as their country\u2019 (the\nworld of _human_ beings, of course)\u2014the practice such minds have of\nestimating conduct solely with reference to its effects upon the\nhuman species of animals is a practice which, while infinitely\nbroader and more nearly ultimate than that of the savage, belongs\nlogically in the same category with it. The partially emancipated\nhuman being who extends his moral sentiments to all the members of\nhis own species, but denies to all other species the justice and\nhumanity he accords to his own, is making on a larger scale the same\nethical mess of it as the savage. The only consistent attitude,\nsince Darwin established the unity of life (and the attitude we\nshall assume, if we ever become really civilised), is the attitude\nof _universal gentleness and humanity_.\n\n\u2018The world is my country,\u2019 said Thomas Paine, and every man,\nwoman, and child capable of appreciating the exalted sentiment\napplauded. But \u2018the world\u2019 of the great freethinker was\ninhabited by _men only_.\n\nThe following lines were written by Robert Whitaker, and first\nprinted in a San Francisco newspaper:\n\n  \u2018My Country is the world! I count\n  No son of man my foe,\n  Whether the warm life currents mount\n  And mantle brows like snow,\n  Or whether yellow, brown, or black,\n  The face that into mine looks back.\n\n  \u2018My Native Land is Mother Earth,\n  And all men are my kin,\n  Whether of rude or gentle birth,\n  However steeped in sin;\n  Or rich or poor, or great or small,\n  I count them brothers one and all.\n\n  \u2018My Flag is the star-spangled sky,\n  Woven without a seam,\n  Where dawn and sunset colours lie,\n  Fair as an angel\u2019s dream,\n  The Flag that still unstained, untorn,\n  Floats over all of mortal born\n\n  \u2018My Party is all humankind,\n  My Platform, brotherhood;\n  I count all men of honest mind\n  Who work for human good,\n  And for the hope that gleams afar.\n  My comrades in the holy war.\n\n  \u2018My Country is the world! I scorn\n  No lesser love than mine,\n  But calmly wait that happy morn\n  When all shall own this sign,\n  And love of country, as of clan,\n  Shall yield to love of Man.\u2019\n\nRobert Whitaker, you are a grand improvement on the \u2018jingo.\u2019 But\nyou are still too small. There are conceptions as much more\nprophetic and exalted than yours as your conception is superior to\nthat of the Figian.\n\nBroad as he is who can look upon all men as his brethren and\ncountrymen\u2014broad as he is compared with those groundlings called\n\u2018patriots,\u2019 who can see nothing clearly beyond the bounds of the\npolitical unit to which they belong\u2014he is not broad enough. He is\nstill a _sectionalist_, a _partialist_. He represents but a _stage_\nin the process of ethical expansion. He is, in fact, small compared\nwith the _universalist_, just as the savage is small compared with\nthe philanthropist. \u2018Mankind,\u2019 \u2018humanity,\u2019 \u2018all men,\u2019\n\u2018the whole human family\u2019\u2014these are big conceptions, too big\nfor the poor little nubbins of brains with which most millions make\nthe effort to think. But they are pitifully small compared with that\ngrand conception of kinship which takes in all the races that live\nand move upon the earth. Smaller yet are these conceptions compared\nwith that sublime and supreme synthesis which embraces not only the\npresent generation of terrestrial inhabitants, but which extends\nlongitudinally as well as laterally, extends in time as well as in\nspace, and embraces the generations which shall grow out of the\nexisting generation and which are yet unborn\u2014_that conception\nwhich recognises earth-life as a single process, world-wide and\nimmortal, every part related and akin to every other party and each\ngeneration linked to an unending posterity_.\n\nEvery individual, therefore, emancipated enough to judge of acts of\nconduct according to their intrinsic natures and consequences rather\nthan according to some local or traditional bias, cannot help\nknowing that the exploitation of birds and quadrupeds for human whim\nor convenience is an offence against the laws of morality, not\ndifferent in kind from the offences denounced in human laws as\nrobbery and murder. The creophagist and the hunter exemplify the\nsame somnambulism, are the authors of the same kind of conduct, and\nbelong literally in the same category of offenders, as the cannibal\nand the slave-driver. To take the life of an ox for his muscles, or\nto kill a sheep for his skin is _murder_, and those who do these\nthings or cause them to be done are _murderers_ just as actually as\nhighwaymen are who blow off the heads of hapless wayfarers for their\nguineas. If these things _seem untrue_ it is not because they _are_\nuntrue, but because those to whom they seem so _are unable to judge\nconduct from the quadrupedal point of view_. If there were in this\nworld beings as much more clever than Caucasians as Caucasians are\nmore clever than cows and sheep, and these beings should regard\nthemselves as the darlings of the gods and should attach a\nfictitious dignity and importance to their own lives, but should\nlook upon Caucasians as simply so much \u2018beef\u2019 and \u2018mutton,\u2019\nthese bleached terrorists of the world would in the course of a few\ngenerations of experience probably become sufficiently illumined to\nrealise that current human conceptions of cows and sheep are not\nonly preposterous, but fiendish.\n\nVII. The Origin of Provincialism.\n\nHuman provincialism, all of it, is the consequence of a common\ncause\u2014_the provincialism of the savage_. Back of the provincialism\nof the savage is, of course, the antecedent fact of primordial\negoism. The savage is the common ancestor of all men, and as such\nhas imparted to all men their general characters of mind and heart.\nEverything that grows, whether it be a tree, a human being, a grass\nblade, or a race, grows from something. This something, this germ or\nembryo from which each thing springs, imparts to the thing its\nfundamental characters. However far anything may evolve, and however\nmuch it may come to differ superficially from its original, it will\nalways remain at heart more or less faithful to the facts of its\ngenesis. This hereditary tendency of everything, this tendency\ntoward invariability, is the conservative, or inertial tendency of\nthe universe. All races, colours, and conditions of men\u2014civilised,\nslightly civilised, and barbarous\u2014extend back to, and take root\nin, savages, just as all savages have probably sprung in some still\nmore remote period of the past from a single stirp of anthropoids.\nThe savage is, therefore, the author of human nature and philosophy.\nJust as the fish, which is the common ancestor of all amphibians,\nreptiles, birds, and mammals, has predetermined the general\nstructural style of all subsequently evolved vertebrates, so the\nsavage, as the original ancestor of mankind, has predetermined the\ngeneral mental and dispositional make-up of all higher men. That\ncivilised and semi-civilised men are naturally narrow and\nrevengeful, selfish and superstitious, and find it next to\nimpossible to feel and act toward others as they would like to have\nothers feel and act toward them, is, therefore, not more mysterious\nthan that vertebrates have red blood, two eyes, two pairs of limbs,\nand a backbone with a bulging brain-box at the hither end of it.\nJust as the habits, beliefs, and conceptions of the child persist,\noften but slightly modified, in the full-grown man or woman, so the\nhabits, beliefs, and conceptions, formed by the race in its\nchildhood, continue, under the influence of the same laws of\ninertia, on into the more mature stages of racial development. Human\nnature changes with great reluctance, and only in its superficial\naspects at that. There are cave-men, men with the primitive ideas\nand practices of the Stone Age, and men in the pastoral and hunting\nstages of mankind, in all the highest societies of men. There is\nscarcely a habit, vice, occupation, amusement, crime, or trait of\ncharacter, found among men of the past but may be seen still among\nour contemporaries.\n\nAltruism (other-love) is just as natural as egoism (self-love) is.\nThere is not so much of it in the world as there is of egoism. But\nthat is simply the misfortune of our place of existence. There is no\nreason why there might not have been as much, or even more, under\ndifferent conditions. With the same antecedents, nothing can, of\ncourse, happen differently from what does happen. But with different\nantecedents, different causes, the results are bound to be\ndifferent. Civilised men are not beings of altruism, because they\nare not the _effects_ of that kind of _causes_. But there is no\nreason why there might not be a world\u2014several of them, in fact, or\neven a universeful\u2014where the inhabitants have never known or heard\nof such an indelicate thing as of beings preferring themselves to\nothers\u2014where it is as natural for them to act toward each other\naccording to what we call the Golden Rule as it is for us\nterrestrial heathens to violate it. It is possible to conceive of\nbeings with even too much altruism. The ideal condition is one of\nbalanced egoism and altruism\u2014one in which each thinks as much of\nothers as he does of himself, no more and no less. And if beings\nwere endowed with natures rendering them not only willing but\n_determined_ to act primarily in the interests of others, and this\ncondition of things were universal, there would be about as much\ndiscord and strife as if everyone acted in the interest of himself.\nThe Golden Rule among a lot of hypothetical otherists like this\nwould be the opposite of ours, for, instead of emphasising the\nimportance of others as we do, they would need to encourage regard\nfor self. Wouldn\u2019t it seem original to live in a world where men\nwere sent to gaol for over-benevolence, and where sermons had to be\npreached on such texts as, \u2018Love thyself as thy neighbour\u2019;\n\u2018It is more blessed to receive than to give\u2019; \u2018Avoid doing to\nyourself that which you do not like when done to others\u2019; \u2018The\nLord loves a cheerful taker\u2019; and the like?\n\nThe persistence with which savage ideas and instincts continue to\ninfluence men long after those ideas and instincts have really\nbecome anachronistic and vestigial is well illustrated by civilised\nmen and women everywhere. The sun continues to \u2018rise\u2019 and\n\u2018set\u2019 in all civilised lands just as it used to do to the\nsavage, although men have long since learned that it does not do\neither. Hell, as originally conceived, was an actual subterranean\nregion, and heaven was an abode located a few hours\u2019 journey above\nthe supposedly flat earth. To-day we continue to say \u2018_up_ to\nheaven,\u2019 and \u2018_down_ to hell\u2019 (never \u2018down to heaven\u2019 and\n\u2018up to hell\u2019), and always think of these places as being thus\nrelatively located, although it is extremely doubtful whether any\nreally sane mind continues to believe that hell is on the inside of\nthe earth (or any place else, for that matter), and although _up_\nmeans simply away from the centre of the earth, and away from the\ncentre of a ball means literally every possible direction. The\ntheological theories of the origin, nature, and destiny of man and\nof the universe in general, all of which originated in savage or\nsemi-savage minds, and all of which bear the unmistakable traces of\ntheir origin, continue to cling to the minds of the masses of\ncivilised men, notwithstanding the inherent absurdity of these\ntheories, and notwithstanding the fact that their unsoundness is\nvouched for by the most positive and unanimous assurances from the\nscientific world. Why should civilised men and women, any of them,\nbe indifferent to the sufferings of others, or find delight in such\nloathsome avocations as the fishing and hunting of their\nfellow-creatures? Because their ancestors were savages, and they are\nnot yet sufficiently evolved to be independent of the instincts of\ntheir savage sires. There is no other explanation. No human being\ncould enjoy seeing a pack of hounds hunt down and rend to pieces a\npoor harmless hare\u2014unless he were a savage. No human being could\ngo out to the abodes of the squirrel and quail, and shoot murderous\nballs into their beautiful bodies for food or fun\u2014unless he were a\nsavage. No human being would lounge all day about the margins of a\nbrook, blind to the beauties of the stream and the glories of forest\nand sky, in order to thrust brutal hooks into the lips of those whom\nhe deceives, and drag them from their waters to suffocate in the\nsun\u2014unless he were a savage. No human being would have palaces and\nparks and yachts and equipages, townships of lands, packs of hounds,\nand studs of horses, troops of lackeys and nothing to do, when all\naround him are the men and women who made this wealth, half clad and\nhalf starved, suffocating in shanties and working like wretches from\nmorning till night\u2014unless he were a savage. All of these deeds are\nsavage deeds, deeds of exceeding thoughtlessness and brutality, and,\ninstead of being enjoyable, are to every emancipated mind positively\npainful.\n\nHunting, fishing, and fighting are the chief occupations of savage\nlife. Back of the activities displayed in these occupations are\npowerful instincts prompting and sustaining them. Civilised peoples\nare devoted primarily to the arts of industry and peace. But there\nare enough savages in every civilised society, and enough of the\nsavage spirit in those who pretend to approximate the civilised\nstate, to give to civilised life a decidedly barbaric aspect. War is\na more or less regular exercise, and killing and competing and\ntorturing enter largely into the pastimes of all peoples. Next to\neating, fighting, in one form or another, is the favourite pursuit\nof men nearly everywhere on holy days and days of leisure. Whenever\nhuman beings have any energy or time left over from what they are\nrequired to spend in maintaining their existence, they use it in\nfighting somebody or in watching somebody else fight. And generally\nthe more brutal and sanguinary the conflict, the more popular and\nsatisfying it is. Witness the bull-fights and cock-fights of Spain\nand Mexico, the fisticuffs of Anglo-Saxons, and the baseball and\nslugball battles of the Americans, where eager thousands gather and\nroar for hours like hysterical idiots simply to see one animal or\nset of animals punish or discredit another. If there are no pigeons\nto shoot, or if the community is ruled by men and women who are too\nemancipated to allow such things, we make glass birds and heroically\nbang away at them, supplying by our imaginations the blood and agony\nof real carnage. And if we can\u2019t do anything else, we take some\npoor pig, that never did anyone any harm in the world, and grease it\nand turn it loose, and then take after it with knives, as Chicago\nbutchers do on vacation days, and see who can cut its throat the\nquickest. This amusement, in pure barbarity, certainly stands pretty\nnear the top in the list of human pastimes so far invented. Maybe it\nis outclassed by that other contest sometimes advertised as a\nfeature of butchers\u2019 barbecues, in which a band of professional\ncutthroats compete to see who can kill, skin, and eviscerate the\nlargest number of their fellow-beings in a given time.\n\nGames and other performances in which interest is aroused by\ncontending or killing are all of them entertainments gotten up\nprimarily for the amusement of the under-exercised savage within us.\nThe bloody carnivals of the ancient Romans, which seem so\nincomprehensible to the people of to-day, find their diabolical\nparallels right here in our high-sniffing civilisation. The\nbull-pen, where poor quadrupeds are baited by gorgeous assassins for\nthe amusement of Castilian communities, and the cockpit and the\nprize-ring, where irate fowls and naked thugs peck and pound each\nother to insensibility for the entertainment of blood-loving mobs,\nare the legitimate successors of the gladiatorial arena of the\nRomans. The gladiatorial horror is not changed, either in its nature\nor functions, by changing the combatants to cocks and bulls. The\nringside roars that rise to-day beside the Tagus and the Hudson over\nthe fatal thrust of the matador or the knockout lunge of the\npugilist are howls of barbaric elation arising from the satisfaction\nof the same instincts as those which seventeen centuries ago made\namphitheatres thunder at the spectacle of gutted Gauls. The ability\nto enjoy strife and suffering in one form is not different in kind\nfrom the ability to be entertained by strife and suffering in any\nother form. Beings who can follow in riotous glee the terrified form\nof a fleeing stag, or shout ecstatically at sight of the\ndeath-stagger of a mangled ox, are psychologically equipped to go\ninto raptures over the blood-curdling combustions of a literal hell.\n\nFew pastimes indulged in by civilised peoples are more horrible to\nan emancipated mind than that of bull-fighting. It is the national\namusement of Spain, and is carried on among all peoples who have\nacquired their natures and institutions from the Spanish. \u2018Every\nSunday afternoon, whenever the weather permits, 14,000 or 15,000 men\nand women, representing every class of society, mothers and\ngrandmothers, priests and monks, assemble at the Plaza de Toros in\nMadrid to witness the most brutal spectacle the human taste\napproves. Six bulls are tortured and worried until they are\nexhausted. Then they are killed by the thrusts of the sword of a\nmatador, who is the most popular person in the community and makes\nmore money than any other man. Often as many as twelve horses are\nripped open by the horns of the infuriated bulls, and are allowed to\ndie in the presence of the audience, with blood gushing from their\nwounds and their entrails dragging upon the ground. This sort of\nthing is carried on not only in Madrid, but is a regular weekly\nfestival in all the cities of Spain. The horses are blindfolded, so\nthey cannot even see what attacks them. The men who torture the\nbulls have wooden screens behind which they can dodge when pursued,\nand if one of the baited creatures crowds too closely upon any of\nits tormentors, the other matadors throw a blanket over its head. It\nis not sport, for the poor bulls have no chance whatever to escape\nor to fight back. It is simply slow butchery, an exhibition of\nunmitigated cowardice and cruelty. And yet, although the Spanish\npeople are the most religious people of Europe, 95 per cent, of the\npopulation approve this atrocious barbarism\u2014not only approve it,\nbut demand that the King shall appear in the royal box at every\nbull-fight, or have his throne upset.\u2019\n\nThe notorious \u2018Juke\u2019 family of criminals, who sprang from a\nsingle ruffian who lived in 1720, has cost the State of New York\nmillions of dollars in money and incalculable misery and crime. But\nthe initial savage progenitors of the human species have stocked the\nearth with the most stupendous array of wrong-doers\u2014knaves,\nfelons, kings, warriors, barbarians, butchers, brutalitarians,\nkleptomaniacs, and thugs\u2014that has ever (let us hope) brought\ndamnation to a world.\n\nVIII. Universal Ethics.\u2202\n\nThere are the same reasons for the recognition by human beings of\nethical relations to non-human beings as there are for the\nrecognition by human beings of ethical relations among themselves\nAnalyse the reasons for being considerate toward men, any variety of\nmen, and you will find the same reasons to exist for being\nconsiderate toward all men. And analyse the reasons for being\naltruistic toward men\u2014for being kind and sympathetic toward\nthem\u2014and you will find the same reasons to exist for being\naltruistic toward those who are not men. The doctrine that we human\nbeings may perform upon the other inhabitants of the earth all sorts\nof injurious acts, and that these acts when so performed by us are\nperfectly right and proper, but that these same things when done by\nothers to us are crimes, is the logic of pure brutalitarianism. It\nis a doctrine utterly without intelligence, at variance with every\nsentiment of justice and humanity, and has no legitimate existence\noutside the fibrous brains of ruffians.\n\n_Right_ and _wrong_ are qualities belonging to two diverse kinds of\nconduct. They are the qualities which render conduct respectively\nproper and improper. All terrestrial races (unless the very lowest)\nhave the power of experiencing two kinds of conscious states\u2014the\ndesirable (pleasurable) and the undesirable (painful). Now, if\nbeings were indifferent as to what sort of conscious states entered\ninto and made up their experiences, there would manifestly be no\nsuch thing as propriety and impropriety in the causing of these\nstates. But they are not indifferent. The pleasurable experiences\nare the experiences all beings are seeking, and the painful ones are\nthe ones they are all seeking to avoid. Those acts which help or\ntend to help beings to those experiences for which they are striving\nare, therefore, right and proper, and are, they and their authors,\ncalled _good_. While those acts which compel beings to undergo that\nwhich they are striving to avoid are improper and wrong, and are,\nthey and their authors, called _bad_. Kindness, courtesy, justice,\nmercy, generosity, sympathy, love, and the like, are good, and\nselfishness, cruelty, deceit, pillage, injustice, and murder, are\nbad, because they are respectively the promoters and destroyers of\nwellbeing and happiness in the world.\n\nBut these two kinds of conduct produce the same respective effects\nupon non-human beings as they do upon human beings. The emotion of a\nmangled sensory\u2014is it not the same terrible thing whether the\nsensory hang to the brain of a quadruped or a man? Do shelter and\nfood not affect shivering and empty cattle, horses, and fowls,\nprecisely as they do human beings? Thunder harsh words at your dog.\nWill he not shrink and suffer, just as your child or hired hand will\nunder like acts of terrorisation? Speak kindly to him, love him, and\naccord to him a quarter of the consideration you claim for yourself.\nIs he not caused to be one of the happiest and most devoted of\nassociates? To take squirrels or song-birds, the most active of\nanimals, and shut them up in narrow cages, and keep them there shut\noff from their companions and their own green world their whole\nlives long; to take an animal as sensitive and high-minded as the\nhorse and put a pack on his back and a bit in his mouth, and then\nstrike him dozens of times a day with a lash whose touch is like\nfire; to shoot off the legs and wings of birds and fill their vitals\nwith lead, and leave them to flounder out a lingering death in the\nreeds and grasses\u2014do these things not cause misery and desolation\nin the world? To place temptations in the way of fur-bearing animals\nand induce them to enter carefully concealed traps, and then allow\nthem to remain in the villainous clutches of these devices, not\nminutes, but hours, perhaps days, until it suits the convenience of\nthe ensnarer to knock out their brains, or until, crazed by pain,\nthe poor wretches eat off their own limbs and escape\u2014is not this a\n_monstrous_ thing to do?\n\nOh that men everywhere were moved by the deep tenderness and the\nall-embracing sympathy of poor Robert Burns, who could apologise\nwith real feeling to a frightened field-mouse whom he had\naccidentally upturned with his plough.\n\n  \u2018Wee, sleekit, cow\u2019rin\u2019, tim\u2019rous beastie,\n  O, what a panic\u2019s in thy breastie!\n  Thou needna start awa\u2019 sae hasty,\n  Wi\u2019 bick\u2019ring brattle!\n  I had be laith to rin and chase thee,\n  Wi\u2019 murd\u2019rous pattle!\n  \u2018I\u2019m truly sorry man\u2019s dominion\n  Has broken nature\u2019s social union,\n  And justifies that ill opinion\n  Which makes thee startle\n  At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,\n  And fellow-mortal.\u2019\n\nLong ago it was said, and truthfully, that the merciful man is\nmerciful to his ox. The truly kind man, the truly honest and the\ntruly humane man, is not kind and honest and humane to men only, but\nto _all_ beings\u2014to the humble and lowly as well as to the proud\nand powerful\u2014_to all that have the misfortune to feel and mourn_.\nBenevolence is the same beautiful thing whether it pour sunshine\ninto the dark and saddened souls of men or into the dark and\nsaddened souls of other beings. John Howard never hearkened to a\nnobler duty when he lifted the darkness that hung over English gaols\nthan will some inflamed soul some day who hears the cry of the\nlonely captives who to-day languish in menagerial dungeons to\nsatisfy human curiosity. He who will emancipate horses from the hell\nin which they pass their lives\u2014make them the associates of men\ninstead of their slaves\u2014will deserve to stand in the constellation\nof the world\u2019s redeemers beside Garrison and Garibaldi. Is there\nhe who holds in his heart-cups the love and compassion of Buddha?\nLet him go where the dagger drips and the heartless pole-axe\ncrashes, and the meek-eyed millions of the meadows pour out their\ninnocent existences in the soulless houses of slaughter. Let him\nlift from off the races the hounding incubus of fear, give back to\nthem their birthright\u2014the right to a free, unhunted life\u2014and\nmake the great monster (man) to be their high-priest and friend.\n\n  \u2018Among the noblest in the land,\n  Though he may count himself the least,\n  That man I honour and revere\n  Who, without favour, without fear,\n  In the great city dares to stand\n  The friend of every friendless beast,\n  And tames with his unflinching hand\n  The brutes that wear our form and face,\n  The were-wolves of the human race.\u2019\n\nIf to do good is to generate welfare, then to cause welfare to a\nhorse, a bird, a butterfly, or a fish, is to do good just as truly\nas to cause welfare to men. And if to do evil is to cause\nunhappiness and illfare, then to cause these things to one\nindividual or race is evil just as certainly as to cause them to any\nother individual or race. And if to put one\u2019s self in the place of\nothers, and to act toward them as one would wish them to act toward\nhim, is the one great rule\u2014the Golden Rule\u2014by which men are to\ngauge their conduct when acting toward each other, then this is also\nthe one great rule\u2014the Golden Rule\u2014by which men are to regulate\ntheir conduct toward all beings. There is no escape from these\nconclusions, except for the savage and the fool.[1]\n\n1. The deliberate causing of misery and death to criminals, whether\nthey be human or non-human beings, individuals or species, is not,\nas is sometimes supposed, a violation or reversal of the general\ntheory of ethics. When they are prompted by a spirit of tenderness\nand universal goodness rather than by a spirit of revenge, penalties\nare justifiable by the everyday assumption that it is sometimes wise\nto inflict or undergo a certain amount of illfare in order to avoid\nor forestall a larger amount. The problems of universal penology are\nnot different from those of human penology, practically the same\ncases and perplexities being presented by all delinquents. See\n\u2018Better-World Philosophy,\u2019 by the author, pp. 218-227, for a\ndiscussion of the function of punishment.\n\nIX. The Psychology of Altruism.\u2202\n\nThe growth of altruism in the world has been largely cotemporaneous\nwith the growth of the power of _sympathy_. Sympathy is the emotion\na being has when by means of his imagination he gets so actually\ninto the place of another that his own feelings duplicate more or\nless the feelings of that other. It is the ability or the impulse to\nweep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who are glad.\nSympathy is the substance and the only sure basis of morality\u2014the\nonly tie of sincere and lasting mutualism. Men have always been to a\nconsiderable extent, and are yet, disposed to think about and act\ntoward each other from motives of mutual fear or advantage. But such\nmotives are not the highest nor the most reliable bonds of\nfellowship and unity. True altruism and solidarity\u2014true expansion\nand universalisation of the self\u2014are found in sympathy. It is\nimpossible for one individual to do in his heart to another as he\nwould that another should do to him, unless he is at all times able\nand willing to get into the place of that other, and to realise in\nhis own consciousness the results to the other of his acts. It is\nonly when there is such an intertwining of the consciousnesses that\nthe joys and sorrows of each individual consist to a greater or less\nextent of the reflexes of the joys and sorrows around him that there\nexists true social oneness. The great task of reforming the universe\nis, therefore, since the world is so steeped in selfishness and\nhate, the task of endowing beings, or the task of stocking the\nuniverse with beings, with dispositions to get out of themselves. If\nthe far-away first parents of men and women had been broad-minded\nbeings instead of narrow\u2014had been beings whose most natural\nimpulse was to be kind to others, and whose sympathies were as\nfar-reaching as feeling\u2014terrestrial life would not to-day present\nto the all-seeing understanding the disheartening spectacle it does\npresent, and the long struggle for justice and amelioration would\nnot have been.\n\nThe primary fact prompting and underlying the exploitation of one\nbeing or set of beings by another is, and has always been.\n_Selfishness_. Whenever and wherever one people have exploited\nanother\u2014whether the exploiters have been savages, Jews, Romans,\nCaucasians, or men\u2014they have done so primarily because the act of\nexploitation was a convenience and pleasure to them and in harmony\nwith their natures. This selfishness, in the case of civilised\npeoples, has been acquired by them through inheritance from the\nsavage tribes from whom they have severally evolved; and the\nselfishness of the savage is a legacy from the animal forms from\nwhom the savage has come. Human selfishness is simply an eddy of an\nimpulse that is universal\u2014an impulse that has been implanted in\nthe nature of the life-process of the earth by the manner in which\nlife has been evolved.\n\nBut there is another fact which has generally, if not always,\ncontributed to every act of exploitation in this world, and that is\n_Ignorance_\u2014ignorance on the part of those who have executed the\nexploitation: not ignorance of grammar or geography or any other\nparticular branch of human information or philosophy, but ignorance\nregarding those upon whom they have worked their\nwill\u2014unconsciousness on the part of the exploiters of the\nsimilarity which actually existed between themselves and their\nvictims. However free an individual may be from naturally selfish\nimpulses, he will never act in an altruistic manner toward others\nunless he is able to realise that these others, are similar to\nhimself, and that acts toward them produce results of good and evil,\nof welfare and suffering, similar to what these same acts produce\nwhen done to himself. Altruistic conduct implies not only altruistic\nimpulses, but altruistic conceptions as well. Tyrants hold, and have\nalways held, themselves to be an entirely different order of beings\nfrom their subjects, and far more deserving. Read history\u2014it is a\ntale told over and over. Between those who have ruled and those who\nhave served\u2014between the Ends and the Means\u2014has ever yawned a\nchasm, wide, deep, and impassable. The exploited have always been,\naccording to their masters, a fibrous set, unfavoured and unthought\nof by the gods, endowed with little feeling or intelligence, and\nbrought into existence more or less expressly as adjuncts to their\nmasters. This is the theory of the savage, and it is the theory of\nall those who have inherited his narrow and unfeeling philosophy.\nThe Gentile had no rights because he was a \u2018pagan.\u2019 He was a\nhuman being, it is true, and had come forth from the womb of woman,\njust as the Jew had. But he spoke a different language from the\nJews, had his own ways of life, belonged to a different order of\nthings, and was irritatingly unconcerned about the gods and\ntraditions of the \u2018chosen people.\u2019 The Gaul had no rights that\nwere inconvenient to Romans, because he was a \u2018barbarian.\u2019 The\nfact that he had blood, and brains, and nerves, and love of life,\nand ambitions, and that he suffered when he was subjected to\nhumiliation, hard treatment, and death, just as Romans did, was\nnever really thought of by the arrogant and reckless Romans. Romans\nnever realised in their minds what it meant for non-Romans to be\ntreated as they were treated; and one reason why they never realised\nit was because it was convenient for them not to do so. To kill or\nenslave a Gaul or German we now know, who are able to judge these\nacts from an un-Roman and unprejudiced point of view, was\npractically the same crime as to kill or enslave a Roman. But it was\nnot so to Romans. The most trifling offence against a Roman citizen\nwas enough, according to Roman law, to condemn the offender to\nexecution. But the most horrible outrages, when committed by Romans\nupon non-Romans, were nothing. Romans always thought and felt _from\nthe standpoint of Romans_. They never got over into the world of the\n\u2018barbarians,\u2019 and really pictured to themselves\u2014_really\nfelt_\u2014the misfortunes of their victims. It was the same way with\nthe black man in the eyes of the white man a generation or two ago;\nit is the same way with the brown man to-day. The black man had no\nrights that were inconvenient for the white man to respect, because\nhe was a \u2018nigger,\u2019 and had no \u2018soul,\u2019 and was the offspring\nof Ham. This spirit of unconsciousness, which has been so prominent\nthroughout the history of mankind, still survives in the minds of\ncivilised men and women to-day, as is shown by the conception (or\n_mis_conception) cherished by the Caucasian toward the \u2018nigger,\u2019\nby the Christian toward the \u2018heathen,\u2019 by the Moslem toward the\n\u2018infidel,\u2019 by the Protestant toward the Catholic, and _vice\nvers\u00e2_, by the plutocrat toward the proletarian, by men toward\nwomen, and by the human being toward the \u2018animal.\u2019\n\nThe psychology of the exploitation of nonhuman beings by human\nbeings is not different in kind from the psychology of any other act\nof exploitation. The great first cause of man\u2019s inhumanity to\nnot-men is the same precisely as the great first cause of man\u2019s\ninhumanity to man\u2014_Selfishness_\u2014blind, brutal, unconscionable\negoism. Monopolist-like man thinks and cares only about himself. He\nhas the heart of the bully\u2014deriving from the contemplation of his\nfiendish supremacy a sort of monstrous satisfaction. But there is\nalso present in this case the same half-sincere, half-fostered\nnescience as in all other cases of exploitation. The ox, the hare,\nthe bird, and the fish have no rights in the world in which they\nlive other than those that are convenient for men to allow to them,\nbecause they are \u2018animals.\u2019 They are assumed to belong to an\norder of beings entirely different from that to which human beings\nbelong. They are filled with nerves, and brains, and bloodvessels;\nthey love life, and bleed, and struggle, and cry out when their\nveins are opened, just as human beings do; they have the same\ngeneral form and structure of body, their bodies are composed of the\nsame organs busied with the same functions; and they are descended\nfrom the same ancestors and have been developed in the same world\nthrough the operation of the same great laws as we ourselves have.\nBut all of these things, and dozens of others just as significant,\nare disregarded by us in our hard-hearted determination to exploit\nthem. We have a set of words and phrases which we use in speaking of\nourselves, and another very different set for other beings. The very\nsame things are called by different names with wholly different\nconnotations depending on whether it is a man that is referred to or\nsome other being. It is \u2018murder\u2019 to take the life of a human\nbeing, but to take the life of a sheep or a cow is only \u2018knocking\nit on the head.\u2019 A man may murder squirrels or birds all\nday\u2014that is, he may do that which when done to human beings is\ncalled murder\u2014but it is only \u2018sport\u2019 when done to these humble\ninhabitants of the wilds. The dead body of a man is a \u2018corpse\u2019;\nthe dead body of a quadruped is only a \u2018carcass.\u2019 A race of\nhorses or dogs is a \u2018breed\u2019; but a breed of men and women is\nalways respectfully referred to as a race. We perpetuate our\nblindness by the use of words. We accommodate our consciences by\ninventing ways of looking at things that will bring out our own\nlustre and relieve us from the ghastly faces of our crimes. For the\nhuman race to rob and kill other races is the same kind of activity\nexactly as it is for human beings to rob and kill each other. But it\nis not considered so to-day\u2014except by a few lost-caste\n\u2018visionaries\u2019 scattered here and there over Christendom, and\nsome millions of \u2018heathens\u2019 in Asia.\n\nA short time ago a series of letters came into my hands written from\nBurmah by an American missionary in that country. According to this\nwriter, one of the greatest obstacles the missionaries have to\ncontend with in their work there is the hostility aroused in the\npeople by the killing and flesh-eating habits of the missionaries\nthemselves. The native inhabitants, who are the most compassionate\nof mankind, look upon the Christian missionaries, who kill and eat\ncows and shoot monkeys for pastime, as being little better than\ncannibals. Contemplate the presumption necessary to cause an\nindividual to leave behind him fields white for mission-work, and\ntravel, at great expense, halfway round the earth in order to preach\na narrow, cruel, anthropocentric gospel to a people of so great\ntenderness and humanity as to be kind even to \u2018animals\u2019 and\nenemies!\n\nWe human beings feel at liberty to commit any kind of outrage upon\nother races, and these outrages are looked upon by us as nothing.\nBut the most trifling annoyances of other races are deemed by us of\nsufficient consequence to justify us in visiting upon them the most\nfearful retributions. We can break up the laboriously built home of\na mother mouse in the rubbish-heap of our back yard, scatter the\npink babies of that mother over the ground to die of cold and\nstarvation, and cause the frightened mother to flee at the risk of\nher very life\u2014all to give to the terrier and ourselves a little\nmoment of savage pastime. But if that same mother, some hard\nwinter\u2019s night, when she has failed in her search elsewhere for\nsomething to stay her hunger, comes into our larder and nibbles a\nbit of cheese or a few mouthfuls of crust from our pie, although she\ntakes but a crumb in all, and is as dainty in her feeding as a lady,\nwe immediately get out our traps and poisons and storm around as if\na murder or some other irreparable wrong had been committed. We\nthink of our acts toward non-human peoples, when we think of them at\nall, _entirely from the human point of view_. We never take the time\nto put ourselves in the places of our victims. We never take the\ntrouble to get over into their world, and realise what is happening\nover there as a result of our doings toward them. It is so much more\ncomfortable not to do so\u2014_so much more comfortable to be blind and\ndeaf and insane_. We go on quieting our consciences, as best we can,\nby the fact that everybody else nearly is engaged in the same\nbusiness as we are, and by the fact that so few ever say anything\nabout the matter\u2014anaesthetised, as it were, by the universality of\nour iniquities and the infrequency of disquieting reminders.\n\nMany years ago an eccentric but gifted Englishman had a dream in\nwhich he saw the fortunes of the world reversed. Man was no longer\nmaster, but victim. The earth was ruled by the birds and quadrupeds,\nthe mice and monkeys, who proceeded to inflict upon their erstwhile\ntyrant the same cruelties he had hitherto inflicted upon them.\n\u2018Multitudes of human beings were systematically fattened for the\ncarnivora. They were frequently forwarded to great distances by\ntrain, in trucks, without food or water. Large numbers of infants\nwere constantly boiled down to form broth for invalid animals. In\nover-populous districts babies were given to malicious young cats\nand dogs to be taken away and drowned. Boys were hunted by terriers\nand stoned to death by frogs. Mice were a good deal occupied in\nsetting mantraps, baited with toasted cheese, in poor\nneighbourhoods. Gouty old gentlemen were hitched to night-cabs, and\nforced to totter, on their weak ankles and diseased joints, to\nclubs, where fashionable young colts were picked up, and taken, at\nsuch speed as whipcord could extract, to visit chestnut fillies.\nFlying figures in scarlet coats, buckskins, and top-boots were run\ndown by packs of foxes that had nothing else to do. Old cock-grouse\nstrutted out for a morning\u2019s sport, and came in to talk of how\nmany brace of country gentlemen they had bagged. Gamekeepers lived a\nprecarious life in holes and caves. They were perpetually harried by\ngame and vermin; held fast in steel traps, their toes were nibbled\nby stoats and martens; and finally, their eyes picked out by owls\nand kites, they were gibbeted alive on trees, head downwards, until\nthe termination of their martyrdom. In one especially tragic case, a\nnaturalist in spectacles dodged about painfully among the topmost\nbranches of a wood, while a mias underneath, armed with a gun,\ninflicted on him dreadful wounds. A veterinary surgeon of Alfort was\nstretched on his back, his arms and legs secured to posts, in order\nthat a horse might cut him up alive for the benefit of an equine\naudience; but the generous steed, incapable of vindictive feelings,\nwith one disdainful stamp on the midriff, crushed the wretch\u2019s\nlife out\u2019.[1]\n\nThe following is from the Chinese. The speaker is an ox:\n\n\u2018I request, good people, that you will listen to what I have to\nsay. _In the whole world there is no distress equal to that of the\nox_. In spring and summer, autumn and winter, I diligently put forth\nmy strength; during the four seasons there is no respite to my\nlabours. I drag the plough, a thousand-pound weight fastened to my\nshoulders. Hundreds of thousands of lashes are, by a leather whip,\ninflicted upon me. Curses and abuses, in a thousand forms are poured\nupon me. I am driven, with threatenings, rapidly along, and not\nallowed to stand still. Through the dry ground or the deep water I\nwith difficulty drag the plough, with an empty belly; the tears flow\nfrom both my eyes. I hope in the morning that I shall be early\nreleased, but I am detained until the evening. If, with a hungry\nstomach, I eat the grass in the middle of the field, the whole\nfamily, great and small, insultingly abuse me. I am left to eat any\nspecies of herbs among the hills, but you, my master, yourself\nreceive the grain that is sown in the field. Of the _chen paddy_ you\nmake rice; of the _no paddy_ you make wine. You have cotton, wheat,\nand herbs of a thousand different kinds. Your garden is full of\nvegetables. When your men and women marry, amid all your felicity,\nif there be a want of money, you let me out to others. When pressed\nfor the payment of duties, you devise no plans, but take and sell\nthe ox that ploughs your field. When you see that I am old and weak,\nyou sell me to the butcher to be killed. The butcher conducts me to\nhis home and soon strikes me in the forehead with the head of an\niron hatchet, after which I am left to die in the utmost distress.\nMy skin is peeled off, my bones are scraped, and my skin is taken to\ncover the drum by which the country is alarmed.\u2019\n\n  \u2018Witness the patient ox, with stripes and yells\n  Driven to the slaughter, goaded as he runs\n  To madness, while the savage at his heels\n  Laughs at the frantic sufferer\u2019s fury.\u2019\n\nThe angler brags about his \u2018haul\u2019 and the hunter about his\n\u2018bag\u2019 and his \u2018big game\u2019 with as little realisation of what\nthese things mean as the slave-master boasts of his \u2018niggers.\u2019\nMen talk of \u2018chops\u2019 and \u2018steaks\u2019 and \u2018roasts\u2019 with the\nsame somnambulism, the same profound unconsciousness of what these\nthings really signify in the psychic economies of the world, as the\nconqueror contemplates his \u2018captives,\u2019 the robber his\n\u2018spoil,\u2019 or the savage his \u2018scalps.\u2019 If before the eyes and\nin the mind of each individual who sits unconcernedly down to a\nparsleyed \u2018steak\u2019 could rise the facts in the biography of that\n\u2018steak\u2019\u2014the happy heifer on the far western meadows, the\nfateful day when she is forced by the drover\u2019s whip from her\nhome,[2] the arduous \u2018drive\u2019 to the village and her baffled\nefforts to escape, the crowding into cars and the long, painful\njourney, the silent heartaches and the low, pitiful moans, the\nterrible hunger and thirst and cold, her arrival, bruised and\nbewildered, in the city, her dazed mingling with others, the great\nmurder-house, the prods and bellowings, the treacherous crash of the\nbrain-axe, the death drop and shudder, the butcher\u2019s knife, the\ngush of blood from her pretty throat, and the glassy gaze of her\ndead but beautiful eyes\u2014there would be, in spite of the inherent\nhardness of the human heart, a great drawing back from those acts\nwhich render such fearful things necessary. If human beings _could\nonly realise_ what the hare suffers, or the stag, when it is pursued\nby dogs, horses, and men bent on taking its life, or what the fish\nfeels when it is thrust through and flung into suffocating gases, no\none of them, not even the most recreant, could find pleasure in such\nwork. _How painful_ to a person of tenderness and enlightenment is\n_even the thought_ of rabbit-shootings, duck-slaughterings,\nbear-hunts, quail-killing expeditions, tame pigeon massacres, and\nthe like! And yet with what light-hearted enthusiasm the mindless\nruffians who do these atrocious things enter upon them! One would\nthink that grown men would be ashamed to arm themselves and go out\nwith horses and hounds and engage in such babyish and unequal\ncontests as sportsmen usually rely on for their peculiar\n\u2018glory.\u2019 And they would be if grown men were not so often simply\nable-bodied bullies. _If human beings could only realise what it\nmeans to live in a world and associate day after day with other\nbeings more intelligent and powerful than themselves, and yet be\nregarded by these more intelligent individuals simply as merchandise\nto be bought and sold, or as targets to be shot at, they would hide\ntheir guilty heads in shame and horror_.\n\nThe Being from whose breaking heart gushed these lines of sorrow and\nsympathy on seeing a wounded hare was a god:\n\n  \u2018Inhuman man! curse on thy barbarous art,\n  And blasted be thy murder-aiming eye:\n  May never pity soothe thee with a sigh,\n  Nor ever pleasure glad thy cruel heart!\n\n  \u2018Go, live, poor wanderer of the wood and field\n  The bitter little that of life remains;\n  No more the thickening brakes and verdant plains\n  To thee shall home, or food, or pastime yield.\n\n  \u2018Seek, mangled one, some place of wonted rest,\n  No more of rest, but now thy dying bed;\n  The sheltering rushes whistling o\u2019er thy head.\n  The cold earth with thy bloody bosom pressed.\n\n  \u2018Oft, as by winding Nith I, musing, wait\n  The sober eve or hail the cheerful dawn,\n  I\u2019ll miss thee sporting o\u2019er the dewy lawn.\n  And curse the ruffian\u2019s aim and mourn thy hapless fate.\u2019\n\nWe human beings, in our conduct toward the races of beings\nassociated with us on this planet, are almost pure _savages_. We are\nnot even half civilised. And this fact is certain to bring upon us\nthe criticism and condemnation of the more enlightened generations\nto come. The fact is apparent to-day, however\u2014just as apparent as\nthe barbarity of the Romans\u2014to everyone who will take the trouble\nto rid himself of the prejudices which enslave and blind him, and\nview human phenomena from an un-human, extra-terrestrial point of\nview.\n\nTo most persons\u2014to all except to a few\u2014everything is simply a\nmatter of habit and education. And a majority of persons, too, can\nbecome educated to one thing about as easily and completely as they\ncan to another. In Mr. Huxley\u2019s \u2018Man\u2019s Place in Nature\u2019\nthere is reprinted from an old volume the picture of a butcher\u2019s\nshop as it is said to have existed among the savage Anziques of\nAfrica in the sixteenth century. Mr. Huxley says that the original\nengraving claims to represent an actual fact, and that he has\nhimself no doubt but it does really stand for just what it purports\nto represent, especially since the fact has been corroborated by Du\nChaillu in comparatively recent times. The fact for which this old\npicture stands is a good illustration of the power of custom in\nshaping human ideas. In this savage \u2018market\u2019 pretty much the\nsame line of goods appears as is found in modern \u2018markets,\u2019\nexcept that, instead of the quartered corpses of sheep and bullocks,\nthere hang the shoulders, thighs, and gory heads of men. The butcher\nis represented as standing beside the chopping-block in the act of\ncutting up the leg of a man. A child\u2019s head and other fragments of\nthe human body are piled up on another block, and behind these on\npegs are ranged the more pretentious wares of the establishment.\n\u2018Presently we passed a woman,\u2019 says Du Chaillu, in speaking of\nthe cannibalism of the Fans, who were probably identical with those\nreferred to two centuries earlier as Anziques. \u2018She bore with her\na piece of the thigh of a human body, just as we should go to market\nand carry thence a roast of steak.\u2019 We can easily imagine (by the\nhelp of the sights we see every day) the anthropophagous crowd\nstanding around giving their early morning orders, and the\nenterprising assassin hustling about to wait on them. One of them\nwants an arm, another wants a leg, another a liver, another a\nhalf-dozen nice fat ribs. One fellow wants a tender \u2018cut\u2019 of\nyoung girl\u2019s sirloin, and another would like an old man\u2019s calf\nfor soup. A little naked urchin, who has had to wait a long time in\norder to get a chance to buy anything at all, exchanges a few shells\nfor a section of human bologna. One fellow wants to know the price\nof the boy\u2019s head which lies on the neighbouring block, and a\nwoman complains that the baby\u2019s brains which she bought the day\nbefore, and which were recommended as being especially \u2018fresh and\nnice,\u2019 turned out to be \u2018bad.\u2019 We can see them go home with\ntheir gruesome purchases, cook them, and sit down and eat them,\ndiscussing their flavour or their lack of it, and remarking their\ntenderness, toughness, or juiciness, and finally throwing the bones\nout to the dogs\u2014all with as little thought of the immorality of it\nas \u2018Thanksgiving\u2019 gluttons have to-day at their feasts of blood.\nThere may have been an occasional \u2018visionary\u2019 among these people\nfanatical enough to \u2018refuse to eat meat,\u2019 or even to protest\nagainst the practice. Probably there was. There generally are a few\nsuch discordants in every generation of vipers. But \u2018fanatics\u2019\nin those days were in all likelihood, as they are to-day, too few to\nbe troublesome.\n\nTo anyone familiar with the pliability of the human conscience, or\nwith the soundness and depth of intellectual sleep, these things are\nneither impossible nor strange. There is so little looking into the\nessence of things, so little looking at things as they are, and so\nmuch thinking and doing as we are accustomed or told to think and\ndo\u2014there are, in fact, so few who can really think at all\u2014that\nif we had been accustomed and taught to do so from childhood, and\nthe world were practically unanimous in its conduct and teachings on\nthe matter, very few of us indeed would not sit down to a breakfast\nof scrambled infant\u2019s brains, a luncheon of cold boiled aunt, or a\ndinner of roast uncle, with as little compunction, perhaps with the\nsame horrible merriment, as we to-day attend a \u2018barbecue\u2019 or a\n\u2018turkey.\u2019 Why should we not make hash and sausages out of our\nbroken-down grandfathers and grandmothers just as we do out of our\nworn-out horses, and help out the pigeons at our killing carnivals\nwith a few live peasants? How much more artistic and civilised to\npile our tables on holy days with the gold and crimson of the fields\nand orchards than to load them with the dead! And yet how strangely\nfew are mature enough to care anything at all about the matter.\n\nOh, the helplessness and irresponsibility of the human mind! There\nis no spontaneity, no originality, only the dead level of the\nmachine. How impossible it is for us to think, to discover anything\nunassisted, to perceive anything after it has been pointed out to us\neven, if it is a little different from what we are used to! This, it\nseems to me, is one of the most pathetic things in all this\nworld\u2014this illimitable impotence, this powerlessness to inspect\nthings from any other point of view than the one we inherit when we\ncome into the world; to be a knave or lunatic (or the next thing to\nit), and never have the slightest suspicion of the fact. The human\nmind will certainly not always be this way. It will surely be\ndifferent some time. It seems incredible that the planet will drag\nalong in disgrace this way forever. The men of Europe and America\nare not so primitive as the junglemen, and the junglemen are\nsuperior in some respects to the quadrupeds and reptiles, and this\ngives reason for a little hope. _But when that is the question, when\nwill it be? In what distant time will the Golden Dream of our\nprophetic hours come to this poor darkened larva of a world?_ Ages\nupon ages after our little existences have gone out, and the\ndetritus of our wasted bodies has wandered long in the labyrinths of\nthe sod or been sown by aimless gusts over our native hills.\n\n1. Hamley: _Our Poor Relations_; Boston, 1872.\n2. I have many times seen cows chased all over their native\npremises, round and round, through fields and barnyards, across\nstreams and over fences\u2014chased until the poor things were utterly\nexhausted, and whipped and beaten until their faces and backs were\ncovered with wounds\u2014before they could be compelled to leave for\never the old farm where they had been born and raised.\n\nX. Anthropocentric Ethics.\n\nAnthropocentricism, which drifted down as a tradition from ancient\ntimes, and which for centuries shaped the theories of the Western\nworld, but whose respectability among thinking people has now nearly\npassed away, was, perhaps, the boldest and most revolting expression\nof human provincialism and conceit ever formulated by any people. It\nwas the doctrine that man was the centre about whom revolved all\nfacts and interests whatsoever; and Judaism and its two children,\nChristianity and Mahometanism, were responsible for it. Everything,\naccording to this conception, was interpreted in terms of human\nutility. Everything was made for man\u2014including women. The sun and\nmoon were luminaries, not worlds, hung there by the fatherly\nmanufacturer of things for the convenience and delight of his\nchildren. The stars were perforations in the overarching concave\nthrough which eavesdropping prophets peered into celestial secrets,\nand errand-angels came and went with messages between gods and men.\nNot only the spheres in space, but the earth and all it\ncontained\u2014the rivers, seas, and seasons, all the plants that grow,\nand all the flowers that blow, and all the millions that swim and\nsuffer in the waters and skies\u2014were, according to this remorseless\nnotion, the soulless adjuncts of man. Intrinsically they were\nmeaningless. They had significance only as they served the human\nspecies. The hues and perfumes of flowers, the songs of birds, the\ndews, the breezes, the rains, the rocks, the \u2018beasts of the field\nand the fowls of the air,\u2019 the great forests, the mighty\nmountains, the fearful solitudes, even famine and pestilence, were\nall made for the being with the reinless imagination. Luther\nbelieved that the fly\u2014festive little _Musca domestica_, who\ninhabits our homes, and sometimes unwittingly wanders over our\ntender places\u2014was a pestiferous invention of the devil,\nmaliciously sent to annoy him in his meditations. Garlic grew on the\nswamp brim as a handy antidote for human malaria. Fruits ripened in\nthe summertime because the acids and juices which they contained\nwere believed to be necessary for man\u2019s health and refreshment.\nThe great muscles of the ox were made to provide men with delicacies\nand leisure. The cloak of the ewe was made without any special\nthought, or without any thought at all, of the comforts of the ewe.\nIt was placed there on the ewe by an all-tender creator, to be torn\nby his images from her bleeding back and worn. The fossil forms\nfound in the rocks were not the _bon\u00e2 fide_ remains of creatures\nthat had lived and perished when the calcareous foundations of the\ncontinents were forming in ancient sea-beds. They were counterfeits,\nslyly designed by a suspicious providence, and sandwiched among the\nstrata \u2018to test human faith.\u2019 The rainbow was a phenomenon with\nwhich the laws of reflection and refraction had nothing whatever to\ndo. It was a sign or seal stamped on the retreating storms as a\npledge that submersion would not be again used as a punishment for\nsinners. The universal ruler was conceived to be an individual of\ntranscendent power and respectability, but was supposed to spend the\nmost of his time and a good deal of anxiety on the regulation and\nrepair of his illustrious likenesses.\n\nThe history of intellectual evolution is the history of\ndisillusionment. The stars, we now know, are not hatchways, but\nworlds. They burn because they are fire. They blaze and circle in\nobedience to their own unchangeable inertias, just as the earth\ndoes. They blazed and wheeled when the elemental matters of the\nearth mingled indistinguishably with the vapours of the sun, and\nthey will blaze and wheel when the last inhabitant of this clod has\ndissolved into the everlasting atoms. The earth is not the capital\nof cosmos nor the subject of celestial anxiety. The earth is a\nsatrap of the sun\u2014a subordinate among servants, not a sovereign\nwith a retinue of stars. The earth and its contents were not made\nfor man. They were not made at all. They were evolved. The concaves\nof the sea have been hollowed, the mountains upheaved, and the\ncontinents planted and peopled, by the same tendencies as those that\nhold the universes in their grasp. The primal matters of the earth\ncame out of the substance of the sun, and by the play and activity\nof these elements and the play and activity of their derivatives\nwere evolved all the multitudinous forms of land, fluid, plant,\nanimal, and society. The flowers that \u2018blush unseen\u2019 do not\nnecessarily \u2018waste their sweetness on the desert air,\u2019 as the\npoet so melodiously imagines. The colours and scents of flowers\nserve their purposes\u2014which are to secure the services of insects\nin fertilisation\u2014quite as well when unperceived, as when perceived\nby human senses. The non-human races of beings were not made for\nhuman beings. They were evolved\u2014the higher forms from the lower\nforms, and the lower forms from still lower\u2014just as the higher\nsocieties of men have been evolved, under the eye of history, out of\nbarbarism and savagery. They are our ancestors. They have made human\nlife and civilisation possible. They made their homes on primeval\nland patches when the continents we creep over were sleeping in the\nseas. They lived and loved and suffered and died in order that a\nbeing intelligent enough to analyse himself and recreant enough to\npick their bones might come into the world.\n\nThere are supposed to be something like a million (maybe there are\nseveral million) species of inhabitants living on the earth. The\nhuman species is one of these. Not more than a few thousand of these\nspecies are seriously advantageous to men. The harmful and useless\nspecies are many times more numerous than the helpful. Now, if the\n999,999 non-human species were made for the human species, why were\nthe hundreds of thousands of species made that are of no possible\nhuman importance, and the hundreds of thousands of other species\nthat are a positive injury? And if by some miraculous stretch of\nimagination the 999,999 species now living on the earth are\nconceived to have been made for man, why were the 10,000,000 or\n15,000,000 of species made that lived and passed away before there\nwas a human being in existence. Perhaps the traditionist will\nsay\u2014accustomed as he is to treat syllogisms with contempt\u2014that\nthey were made to invigorate human \u2018faith.\u2019\n\nIf the age of the human species be estimated at 50,000 years and the\nage of the life-process at 100,000,000 years, the time during which\nman has been on the earth is, when compared with the entire period\nduring which the planet has been tenanted, as 1 to 2,000. And the\ntime during which the earth has been inhabited\u2014immense as that\ntime is when compared with the little span of human history\u2014is\nalso insignificant when compared with the enormous lapse of time\nduring which the planet was slowly cooling and solidifying\npreliminary to the existence of life. And the entire life of the\nplanet\u2014inconceivably vast as it is\u2014is as nothing compared with\nthat eternity, that duration without beginning or close, during\nwhich the sidereal millions have undergone, and are destined to\ncontinue to undergo, their countless and immeasurable\ntransformations.\n\nIt is about as profound to suppose that the earth and its contents,\nand the suns, stars, and systems of space, were all made for a\nsingle species inhabiting an obscure ball located in a remote\nquarter of the universe as it is to suppose that the gigantic body\nof the elephant was made for the wisp of hair on the tip of its\ntail. _Man_ is _not_ the _end_, he is but an _incident_, of the\ninfinite elaborations of Time and Space.\n\nXI. Ethical Implications of Evolution.\n\nThe doctrine of organic evolution, which forever established the\ncommon genesis of all animals, sealed the doom of\nanthropocentricism. Whatever the inhabitants of this world were or\nwere thought to be before the publication of \u2018The Origin of\nSpecies,\u2019 they never could be anything since then but a _family_.\nThe doctrine of evolution is probably the most important revelation\nthat has come to the world since the illuminations of Galileo and\nCopernicus. The authors of the Copernican theory enlarged and\ncorrected human understanding by disclosing to man the comparative\nlittleness of his world\u2014by discovering that the earth, which had\nup to that time been supposed to be the centre and capital of\ncosmos, is in reality a satellite of the sun. This heliocentric\ndiscovery was hard on human conceit, for it was the first broad hint\nman had thus far received of his true dimensions. The doctrine of\nevolution has had, and is having, and is destined to continue to\nhave, a similarly correcting effect on the naturally narrow\nconceptions of men. It tends to fry the conceit out of us. It has\nbeen impossible since Darwin for any sane and honest man to go\naround bragging about having been \u2018made in the image of his\nmaker,\u2019 or to successfully lay claim to a more honourable origin\nthan the rest of the creatures of the earth. And if men had accepted\nthe logical consequences of Darwin\u2019s teachings, the world would\nnot to-day\u2014a half-century after his revelation\u2014be filled with\npractices which find their only support and justification in\nout-of-date traditions. But logical consequences, as Huxley\nobserves, are the official scarecrows of that large and prolific\nclass of defectives usually known as fools. The doctrine of\nevolution is accepted in one form or another by practically all who\nthink. It is taught even in school primers. But while the _biology_\nof evolution is scarcely any longer questioned, the _psychology_ and\n_ethics_ of the Darwinian revelation, though following from the same\npremises, and almost as inevitably, are yet to be generally\nrealised. Darwin\u2019s revelation, like every other revelation that\nhas come to the world, is perceived most tardily by those working in\ndepartments where the phenomena are the most intangible and\ncomplicated.\n\nDarwin himself called \u2018the love for all living creatures the most\nnoble attribute of man.\u2019 Giant as he was, he perceived more\nclearly than any of his contemporaries, more clearly even than his\nsuccessors, the ultimate goal of evolving altruism. For he says:\n\u2018As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into\nlarger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual\nthat he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all\nmembers of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. There\nis, then, only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies\nextending to the men of all nations and races. Experience, however,\nshows us how long it is, if such men are separated from him by great\ndifferences of appearance or habits, before he looks upon them as\nhis fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man is one of\nthe latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages,\nexcept for their pets. The very idea of humanity, so far as I could\nobserve, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue\nseems to arise from our sympathies becoming more tender and more\nwidely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient\nbeings.\u2019[1]\n\nThe influences of a doctrine old enough and precious enough to have\nbecome embodied in the life and institutions of a race persist\ngenerally, through mere momentum, long after the substance of the\ndoctrine has passed away. This is eminently true of that\nmisconception which has come down to us regarding the nature and\norigin of man and his relations to the rest of the universe. Darwin\nhas lived, shed his light over the world, and passed back to the\ndust whence he came. Men no longer believe that other races and\nother worlds were really made for them. But they continue to _act_\nin about the same manner as they did when; they _did_ believe it.\nThis assertion applies not simply to those half-baked intelligences\nwho have only the rudest and most antiquated notions about anything\nbut also to thousands of men and women who pretend to have\nup-to-date conceptions of themselves and the universe\u2014men and\nwomen noted even for their activity in reminding others of their\ninconsistency\u2014men and women who\n\n  \u2018Compound for sins they are inclined to,\n  By damning those they have no mind to.\u2019\n\nThe doctrine of Universal Kinship is not a new doctrine, born from\nthe more brilliant loins of modern understanding. It is as old\nalmost as human philosophy. It was taught by Buddha twenty-four\nhundred years ago. And the teachings of this divine soul, spreading\nover the plains and peninsulas of Asia, have made unnumbered\nmillions mild. It was taught also by Pythagoras and all his school\nof philosophers, and rigidly practised in their daily lives.\nPlutarch, one of the grandest characters of antiquity, wrote several\nessays in advocacy of it. In these essays, as well as in many\npassages of his writings generally, he demonstrates that he was far\nahead of his contemporaries in the breadth and intensity of his\nmoral nature, and in advance even of all except a very few of those\nliving to-day, 2,000 years after him. Shelley among the poets of\nmodern times, and Tolstoy in these latter days, are others among the\neminent adherents of this holy cause.\n\nWherever Buddhism prevails, there will be found in greater or less\npurity, as one of the cardinal principles of its founder, the\ndoctrine of the sacredness of all Sentient Life. But the Aryan race\nof the West has remained steadfastly deaf to the pleadings of its\nShelleys and Tolstoys, owing to the overmastering influence of its\nanthropocentric religions. Not till the coming of Darwin and his\nschool of thinkers was there a basis for hope of a reformed world.\nTo-day the planet is _ripe_ for the old-new doctrine. Tradition is\nlosing its power over men\u2019s conduct and conceptions as never\nbefore, and Science is growing more and more influential. A central\ntruth of the Darwinian philosophy is the unity and consanguinity of\nall organic life. And during the next century or two the ethical\ncorollary of this truth is going to receive unprecedented\nrecognition in all departments of human thought. Ignorance and\nInertia are fearful facts. They endure like granite in the human\nmind. But the tireless chisels of evolution are invincible. And the\ntime will come when the anthropocentric customs and conceptions,\nwhich are to-day fashionable enough to be \u2018divine,\u2019 will have\nnothing but a historic existence. The movement to put Science and\nHumanitarianism in place of Tradition and Savagery, which is so\nweak, languishing, and neglected to-day, is a movement which has for\nits ultimate destiny the conquest of the Human Species.\n\n1. Darwin: _Descent of Man_, 2nd edit.; London, 1874.\n\nXII. Conclusion.\n\n_All beings are ends;_ _no_ creatures are _means_. All beings have\nnot equal rights, neither have all men; but _all have rights_. The\n_Life Process_ is the _End_\u2014_not man_, nor any other animal\ntemporarily privileged to weave a world\u2019s philosophy. Nonhuman\nbeings were not made for human beings any more than human beings\nwere made for nonhuman beings. Just as the sidereal spheres were\nonce supposed by the childish mind of man to be unsubstantial\nsatellites of the earth, but are known by man\u2019s riper\nunderstanding to be worlds with missions and materialities of their\nown, and of such magnitude and number as to render terrestrial\ninsignificance frightful, so the billions that dwell in the seas,\nfields, and atmospheres of the earth were in like manner imagined by\nthe illiterate children of the race to be the mere trinkets of men,\nbut are now known by all who can interpret the new revelation to be\nbeings with substantially the same origin, the same natures,\nstructures, and occupations, and the same general rights to life and\nhappiness, as we ourselves.\n\nIn their phenomena of life the inhabitants of the earth display\nendless variety. They swim in the waters, soar in the skies, squeeze\namong the rocks, clamber among the trees, scamper over the plains,\nand glide among the grounds and grasses. Some are born for a summer,\nsome for a century, and some flutter their little lives out in a\nday. They are black, white, blue, golden, all the colours of the\nspectrum. Some are wise and some are simple; some are large and some\nare microscopic; some live in castles and some in bluebells; some\nroam over continents and seas, and some doze their little day-dream\naway on a single dancing leaf. But they are all the children of a\ncommon mother and the co-tenants of a common world. Why they are\nhere in this world rather than some place else; why the world in\nwhich they find themselves is so full of the undesirable; and\nwhether it would not have been better if the ball on which they ride\nand riot had been in the beginning sterilised, are problems too deep\nand baffling for the most of them. But since they are here, and\nsince they are too proud or too superstitious to die, and are\nsurrounded by such cold and wolfish immensities, what would seem\nmore proper than for them to be kind to each other, and helpful, and\ndwell together as loving and forbearing members of One Great Family?\n\nAct toward others as you would act toward a part of your own self.\n\nThis is _The Great Law_, the all-inclusive gospel of social\nsalvation. It is the rule of social rectitude and perfection which\nhas been held up in greater or less perfection in all ages by the\nsages and prophets of the human species.\n\nHear Confucius, the giant of Mongolia, and the idol and law-giver of\none-third of mankind:\n\n\u2018What you do not like when done to yourself do not do to others.\u2019\n\nAnd again he says:\n\n\u2018Do not let a man practise to those beneath him that which he\ndislikes in those above him.\u2019\n\nOver and over again the illustrious master repeats these precepts to\nhis disciples and countrymen.\n\nIn the Mahabharata, the great epic of the Sanskrit, written by\nIndian moralists in various ages, and representing the accumulated\nwisdom of one of the most marvellous of all peoples, we find these\nwords:\n\n\u2018Treat others as thou wouldst thyself be treated.\u2019\n\n\u2018Do nothing to thy neighbour which thou wouldst not hereafter have\nthy neighbour do to thee.\u2019\n\n\u2018A man obtains a rule of action by looking upon his neighbour as\nhimself.\u2019\n\nThese same truths were also taught by Jesus, that godlike Galilean,\nthe great teacher and saviour of the Western world:\n\n\u2018Love thy neighbour as thyself.\u2019\n\n\u2018Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.\u2019\n\nOh that these words were etched in fire, and stamped in scorching\ncharacters on the dull, cold hearts of this world!\n\nAct toward others as you would act toward a part of your own self.\n\nLook upon and treat others as you do your own hands, your own eyes,\nyour very heart and soul\u2014with infinite care and compassion\u2014as\nsuffering and enjoying members of the same Great Being with\nyourself. This is the spirit of the ideal universe\u2014the spirit of\nyour own being. It is this alone that can redeem this world, and\ngive to it the peace and harmony for which it longs. Yes,\n\n  \u2018So many gods, so many creeds,\n  So many paths that wind and wind,\n  While just the art of being kind\n  Is all the sad world needs.\u2019\n\nOh the madness, and sorrow, and unbrotherliness of this mal-wrought\nworld! Oh the poor, weak, poisoned, monstrous natures of its\nchildren! Who can look upon it all without pain, and sympathy, and\nconsternation, and tears? What an opportunity for philanthropy, if\nthe \u2018All-mighty One\u2019 of our traditions would only set about it!\n\nYes, do as you would be done by\u2014and _not_ to the dark man and the\nwhite woman alone, but to the sorrel horse and the gray squirrel as\nwell; _not_ to creatures of your own anatomy only, but to all\ncreatures. You cannot go high enough nor low enough nor far enough\nto find those whose bowed and broken beings will not rise up at the\ncoming of the kindly heart, or whose souls will not shrink and\ndarken at the touch of inhumanity. Live and let live. Do more. Live\nand _help_ live. _Do to beings below you as you would be done by\nbeings above you_. Pity the tortoise, the katydid, the wild-bird,\nand the ox. Poor, undeveloped, untaught creatures! Into their dim\nand lowly lives strays of sunshine little enough, though the fell\nhand of man be never against them. They are our fellow-mortals. They\ncame out of the same mysterious womb of the past, are passing\nthrough the same dream, and are destined to the same melancholy end,\nas we ourselves. Let us be kind and merciful to them.\n\n  \u2018Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods?\n  Draw near them, then, in being merciful;\n  Sweet mercy is nobility\u2019s true badge.\u2019\n\nLet us be true to our ideals, true to the spirit of Universal\nCompassion\u2014whether we walk with the lone worm wandering in the\ntwilight of consciousness, the feathered forms of the fields and\nforests, the kine of the meadows, the simple savage on the banks of\nthe gladed river, the political blanks whom men call wives, or the\noutcasts of human industry.\n\nOh this poor world, this poor, suffering, ignorant, fear-filled\nworld! How can men be blind or deranged enough to think it is a good\nworld? How can they be cold and satanic enough to be unmoved by the\ngroans and anguish, the writhing and tears, that come up from its\nunparalleled afflictions?\n\nBut _the world is growing better_. And in the Future\u2014in the long,\nlong ages to come\u2014it will be redeemed! The same spirit of sympathy\nand fraternity that broke the black man\u2019s manacles and is to-day\nmelting the white woman\u2019s chains will to-morrow emancipate the\nworking man and the ox; and, as the ages bloom and the great wheels\nof the centuries grind on, the same spirit shall banish Selfishness\nfrom the earth, and convert the planet finally into one unbroken and\nunparalleled spectacle of Peace, Justice, and Solidarity.","title":"The Universal Kinship","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":82844}