yet that the organ which indicates that gulf is 8. But "quâ-quâ versal" as it is, it does not stand alone. For after we have learned that even when regarded on the lowest grounds, " the pelvis, or bony girdle of the hips, of man is a strikingly human part of his organization," and that his Brain is strikingly human in a much higher degree, since it is his Brain, and not his pelvis, which is "to furnish an explanation of the great gulf which intervenes between the lowest man and the highest ape in intellectual power;" we are told-as if to neutralize this concurrent testimony from "structure" and from "substance," that "the difference in weight of brain between the highest and lowest man is far greater, both relatively and absolutely, than that between the lowest man and the highest ape." And, in a word, "whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison of their modifications in the ape series leads to one 1 Man's Place in Nature," p. 106. and the same result-that the structural differences which separate man from the gorilla and the chimpanzee, are not so great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes." 9. Even this latest dictum, if it had been allowed to stand alone, would have been so far definite as to redeem it from the character of "quâ-quâ-versal." But it is not thus allowed. No sooner has it been submissively accepted; no sooner have we brought ourselves with due docility to admit that "the structural differences between man and even the highest apes are small and insignificant," than Prof. Huxley protests he has been misunderstood. "Let me take this opportunity then," says he, "of distinctly asserting, on the contrary, that they are great and significant; that every bone of a Gorilla bears marks by which it might be distinguished from the corresponding bone of a man; and that in the present creation, at any rate, no intermediate link bridges over the gap between Homo and Troglodytes." 1 10. This would be conclusive, if only it were final. But it is not final. It is neutralized in the next sentence but one :-"Remember, if you will, that there is no existing link between man and the gorilla; but do not forget that there is a 1 "Man's Place in Nature," p. 104. no less sharp line of demarcation, a no less complete absence of any transitional form, between the gorilla and the orang, or the orang and the gibbon. I say not less sharp, though it is somewhat narrower.' 99 1 II. Can anything be plainer? Prof. Huxley anticipates the result. "On all sides I shall, hear the cry-'We are men and women, not a mere better sort of apes, a little longer in the legs more compact in the foot, and bigger in brain than your brutal chimpanzees and gorillas. The power of knowledge, the conscience of good and evil, the pitiful tenderness of human affections, raise us out of all real fellowship with the brutes, however closely they may seem to approximate us.'" And what is his answer to the objurgation he thus anticipates ? Here it is:-"I have endeavoured to show that no absolute structural line of demarcation, wider than that between the animals which immediately succeed us in the scale, can be drawn between the animal world and ourselves, and I may add the expression of my belief that the attempt to draw a psychical distinction is equally futile, and that even the highest faculties of feeling and of intellect begin to germinate in lower forms of life." 2 1 "Man's Place in Nature." 2 Ibid., p. 109. 12. Add to this the further declaration that our reverence for the ability of manhood will not be lessened by the knowledge that man is, in substance and in structure, one with the brutes."1 And then contrast with both the words that follow. First, there is no physical distinction: "no absolute structural line of demarcation." Second, there is no psychical distinction: for "the attempt to draw a psychical distinction is equally futile." And third, "even the highest faculties of feeling and of intellect begin to germinate in lower forms of life." And yet, the very next sentence is in these words : 13. "At the same time no one is more strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of the gulf between civilized man and the brutes : or is more certain that whether from them or not, he is assuredly not of them." To harmonize discordant and conflicting assertions like these would be not merely to reconcile the irreconcilable; it would be to show that opposites are identical. Yet until that is done, what else can we say of them but that which their author has already said so wittily of his opponents? They are merely “quâ-quâversal propositions which may be 1 "Man's Place in Nature,” p. 112. read backwards, forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same amount of signification." 1 14. We revert then to our first enquiry: What are the facts? Prof. Huxley's facts are opposed to his conclusions. When he has admitted that between the lowest man and the highest ape there is a general, a particular, and a wide distinction; a distinction which has left its marks on "every bone"; he then proceeds to lay great stress on the fact that, between one family of man and another the difference is greater than between the lowest man and the highest ape." But when he has done this, he proceeds in each case to show that there is a far greater difference between this same ape, and the apes of some other remaining class. But these two statements furnish the important corollary that "there is the same, or an analogous kind of distinction between one family of man and another, and between one family of ape and another." The idea thus suggested is subversive of his theory: viz., that the families of men are sprung from one type, and the families of apes from another; in other words, there is a generic as well as a specific difference between men and apes." 15. Prof. Huxley apart, it is allowed on all 1 "Man's Place in Nature," p. 78. |