CHAPTER XII.

MEN.

"THE question of questions for mankind," says Prof. Huxley, "the problem which underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any other is the ascertainment of the place which Man occupies in nature, and of his relations to the universe of things." For the most part indeed, men are unreflecting as well as uninquiring; “But in every age, one or two restless spirits, blessed with that constructive genius which can only build on a seeure foundation," have adopted sound principles, and proceeded by sure methods, such as those which have now led the Professor to perceive that "though the quaint forms of Centaurs and Satyrs have an existence only in the realms of art, creatures approaching man more nearly than they in essential structure, and yet as thoroughly brutal as the goat's or horse's half of the

1 "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature,” p. 57.

Ibid.

mythical compound, are now not only known but notorious." 1

Of these "creatures approaching man in essential structure," yet "thoroughly brutal," the gorilla was once supposed to be the chief. But the day of De Chaillu is over; "because, in my opinion, so long as his narrative remains in its present state of unexplained and apparently inexplicable confusion, it has no claim to original authority respecting any subject whatsoever. It may be truth, but it is not evidence."

"2

The comforting opinion that we had, as men, a cerebral distinction, is also now (alas!) no more. For we are now assured by Prof. Huxley, in direct contradiction to the reiterated declarations of Prof. Owen, that "so far from the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu, and the hippocampus minor being structures peculiar to and characteristic of man, as they have been over and over again asserted to be, even after the publication of the clearest demonstration of the reverse, it is precisely these structures which are the most marked cerebral characters common to man with the apes. They are amongst the most distinctly Simian peculiarities which 1 "Man's Place in Nature,” p. г.

2 Ibid., p. 54.

the human organism exhibits." Thus, then, it appears that while Owen and Huxley differ, apes and men do not. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the more we are developed from apes, the more we differ from each other.

But are we then "developed from apes" after all? Is this so certain ? This "question of questions for mankind "-how shall we answer it? Shall we accept the dictum of Prof. Huxley, and say that " man is in substance and in structure one with the brutes"? Or shall we pronounce that dictum a mere "theoretic conception," "unverified by observation and experiment"? In either case, what are the facts?

1. And first, as to cerebral structure.

"It is clear," says Prof. Huxley, “that man differs less from the chimpanzee or the orang than these do even from the monkeys; and that the difference between the brains of the chimpanzee and of man is almost insignificant, when compared with that between the chimpanzee brain and that of a lemur."

2. As to cerebral weight, however, on the other hand, "It must not be overlooked that there is a very striking difference in absolute mass and weight between the lowest human brain and that of the highest ape, a difference which is all the more remarkable when we recol

lect that a full-grown Gorilla is probably pretty nearly twice as heavy as a Bosjesman, or as many an European woman.” "It may be doubted," adds the Professor, "whether a healthy human adult brain ever weighed less than 31 or 32 ounces, or that the heaviest Gorilla brain has exceeded 20 ounces."1

3. "This is a very noteworthy circumstance, and doubtless will one day help to furnish an explanation of the great gulf which intervenes between the lowest man and the highest ape in intellectual power, but it has little systematic value" [Why?] "for the simple reason that Regarded systematically, the cerebral differences of man and apes are not of more than generic value, his Family distinction resting chiefly on his dentition, his pelvis, and his lower limbs." 2

4. On this latter topic, however, Mr. Huxley had previously said, "The pelvis, or bony girdle of the hips, of man is a strikingly human part of his organization." Adding, "But now let us turn to a nobler and more characteristic organ— that by which the human frame seems to be, and indeed is, so strangely distinguished from

1 "Man's Place in Nature," p. 102.

2 Ibid., p. 103.

• Ibid., p. 76.

all others-I mean the skull." And then, after giving the cubical capacity of the smallest human cranium, and of "the most capacious Gorilla skull yet measured," he says, "Let us assume, for simplicity's sake, that the lowest man's skull has twice the capacity of that of the highest Gorilla." 1

5. The sum of the statements already quoted, then, is this:-The "Family distinction" of the genus Homo is to be found not in his higher, but in his lower, qualities; "resting chiefly," not on the size of his skull, nor on the weight of his brain, but " on his dentition, his pelvis, and his lower limbs." And yet, notwithstanding this,

6. "That by which the human frame is so strongly distinguished from all others" is not the baser structure, but the nobler substance; not his lower limbs, but "a nobler and more characteristic organ the skull." 7. Prof. Huxley need not think it strange if, in despair of reconciling the conflicting members of this duplex thesis-that Man's "family distinction" is not cranial, and yet that by which he is "so strongly distinguished from all others" is cranial; that "the great gulf in intellectual power which intervenes between the lowest man and the highest ape" is of little moment, and 1 "Man's Place in Nature," p. 77.