Man and Ape--Their Physical Relations--Their Mental
Relations--Evolution was the Means--Who was the Progenitor of
the Ape?--The Scale of Life.
If we could free our hands from the manacles of tradition and stand
aloof from our prejudices, and look the stern facts in the face, we
should be compelled to admit that between man and ape there is such a
unity of design, structure and function, that we dare not in the light
of reason deny to the ape that rank in Nature to which he is assigned by
virtue of these facts. Physiologically, there is no hiatus between man
and ape which may not be spanned by such evidence as would be admitted
under the strictest rules of interpretation. We may briefly compare
these two creatures in a broad and general way, so that the
unscientific and casual reader may comprehend.
[Sidenote: MAN AND APE]
The skeleton of man is only the polished structure of which that of the
ape is the rough model. The identity of the two, part by part, is as
much the same as the light sulky is the outgrowth of the massive
framework of the old-time cart. Whether man and ape are related by any
ties of blood or not, it is evident that they were modelled on the same
plan, provided with the same means, and designed for like purposes,
whatever they may be. The organs of sensation and the functions which
they discharge are the same in both, and the same external forces
addressing themselves thereto produce the same results. I do not mean to
say that the same organ in each is developed in the same degree as that
in the other, for this is not the case even in different individuals of
the same kind. In the muscular system of the one is found an exact
duplicate of the other, except in such slight changes of model as will
better adapt the parts to those conditions of life under which the
animal having them may be placed, and through the whole physical
structure of both we find that unity of part and purpose in structure
and function, in bone, muscle, nerve, and brain. It has been shown
beyond a reasonable doubt that the brain in the higher races of mankind
has reached its present form through a series of changes which are
constant and definite; and this organ in the lower types of man
resembles more that of the ape than does the same organ in the higher
types of man; and by a method of deduction, such as we use to determine
the height of a tree or the width of a stream by the length of a shadow,
we find that the fiducial lines which bound the planes in the
perspective of man's cerebral growth, likewise embrace those of the ape.
While it is a fact that the mind of man so far transcends that of the
ape, it is also a fact that in reaching this condition it has passed
through such planes as those now occupied by the ape. The physical
changes of man's brain do not appear to keep pace with the growth of his
mind. This may be a paradox, but the evidence upon which it rests is
ample to sustain it.
[Sidenote: MAN AND APE]
I do not pretend to know whether man was evolved from ape, or ape from
man; whether they are congenetic products of a common authorship, or the
masterpieces of two rival authors; but I cannot see in what respect
man's identity would be affected, whatever may be the case. If it be
shown that man descended from the ape, it does not change the facts
which have existed from the beginning, nor does it change the destiny to
which he is assigned. If it can be shown that apes descended from man,
it does not leave upon man the censure for this degeneracy. If man has
risen from the low plane of brutehood which the ape now occupies, has
scaled the barriers which now separate him from apes, and has climbed to
the divine heights of mental and moral manhood, the ape deserves no
praise for this. On the other hand, if apes have fallen from the state
of man, have wandered so far from the gates of light, and are now
wandering in the twilight of intellect and degradation, it is no
reproach to man; and while I shall not sit in judgment in the cause, nor
testify on either side, I am willing to accept whatever verdict may be
founded on the real facts, and I shall not appeal therefrom. But I shall
not allow my prejudice to conceal the truth, whenever it is shown to me.
It is always acceptable to my mind, and, stripped of all sophistry and
oblique conditions, it would appear the same to every mind.
That evolution is the mode by which the world was peopled, there is
little doubt, but there are many details yet unsettled as to the manner
in which this was effected. I cannot regard the matter as proven beyond
appeal that man has come from any antecedent type that was not man, nor
yet do I deny that such may be the case; but I do deny that the broad
chasm which separates man from other primates cannot be crossed on the
bridge of speech; and while this does not prove their identity or common
origin, it does show that Nature did not intend that either one should
monopolise any gift which she had to bestow. It is as reasonable to
believe that man has always occupied a sphere of life apart from that of
apes, as to believe that apes have occupied a sphere of life apart from
birds, except that the distance from centre to centre is greater between
birds and apes than that distance between apes and man. So far as any
fossil proofs contribute to our knowledge, we find no point at which the
line is crossed in either case; and the earliest traces of man's
physiological history find him distinctly man, and this history reaches
back on meagre evidence many, many centuries before historic time. Among
these earlier remains of man, we find no fossils of the Simian type to
show that he existed at that time; but at a somewhat later period we
find some remnants of the Simian type in deposits of Southern Europe;
but they are of the smaller tribes, and have been assigned to the
_Macacus_. We cannot trace the history of this genus from that to the
present time to ascertain whether they were the progenitors of apes or
not; but between this type and that of apes the hiatus is as broad as
that which intervenes between the ape and man.
That somewhere in the lapse of time all genera began, admits of no
debate; and by inversion it is plain that all generic outlines must
focus at the point from which they first diverged, and such an operation
does not indicate that man and Simian have ever been more closely allied
than they are at the present time; but the evidence is clear that man
has been evolved from a lower plane than he now occupies. The inference
may be safely applied to apes, as progress is the universal law of life.
The question has been asked, "Who is the progenitor of man?" The
solution of this problem has engaged the most profound minds of modern
time. If it be said in reply that apes were the progenitors of man, the
question then arises, "Who was the progenitor of the ape?" If it be said
that man and ape had a common progenitor, a like question arises, and it
becomes necessary to connect all types allied to each other as these two
types are physically allied. If man is the climax of a great scheme in
Nature by which one type is gradually transformed into another, we must
descend the scale of life by crossing the chasm which lies between
mankind and apes, another lying between the apes and monkeys, another
between the monkeys and baboons, another between the baboons and lemurs,
and yet another between the lemurs and the lemuroids, and thus from form
to form like islands in the great sea of life. From man to infinity the
question constantly recurs, and over each hiatus must be built a
separate bridge.
[Sidenote: DARWIN'S PROFOUND WORK]
Darwin has given to the world the most profound and conscientious work,
and from the chaos and confusion of human ignorance and bigotry has
erected the most sublime monuments of thought and truth. It does not
detract from his character and honesty, nor lessen the value of his
labours, to admit that he may have been mistaken in some conclusions
which he deduced from the great store of facts at his command.
It is not the purpose of this work, however, to enter into a discussion
of any theory aside from speech and its possible origin and growth, but
all subjects pertaining to life, thought, and the modes of living and
thinking, must contribute in some degree to a clear understanding of the
subject in hand.
[Sidenote: DARWIN'S SIN OF OMISSION]
It has been a matter of surprise to me that so careful and observant a
man as Mr. Darwin should have so nearly omitted the question of speech
from a work of such ample scope, such minute detail, and such infinite
care as characterises the "Descent of Man," and such like works. But
science will cheerfully forgive an error, and pardon the sin of omission
in one who has given to the world so much good.