# Evolution of Life/Anthropology

ANTHROPOLOGY.
If it be admitted that the different kinds of existing animals are the modified descendants of pre-existing animals, then it follows necessarily that if man is an animal he must have descended from some pre-existing animal. Supposing the theory of the Evolution of Life to be true, the important question to be decided is not whether there are any transitional forms or links between man and this or that kind of animal,—though of course the discovery of such links would be weighty additional evidence,—but whether man is an animal, whether the difference between man and the members of the animal kingdom is one of kind or only of degree. Since man has a backbone, he is a vertebrate, and, as he is suckled when young, he is a mammal. Thus far naturalists are agreed as to man's place in Nature. The question, however, of determining the particular order of mammals to which man belongs, has given rise to much discussion. Linnaeus united in one group the half Monkeys (Lemurs), the Bats, the true Monkeys, and Man, calling them Primates. Blumenbach, however, joined the true Monkeys with the half Monkeys, calling them Quadrumana, or the four-handed order, while he regarded Man as the
​considered the higher apes to be more nearly allied to man than to the lower monkeys. The untenability of Blum enbach's classification becomes at once evident, on reflecting that no one would argue that the Chinese boatmen and Bengalese artisans are four-handed because they can row and weave with their feet. We would only say these people use their feet as hands. No one regards the hands of the Colopus and Ateles as feet because in these monkeys the thumb is so rudimentary (or absent) that its opposability to the hand is impossible. We see, therefore, that if the mobility of the thumb or big toe be accepted as a test of an extremity being a hand or a foot, we should have to admit the existence of four-handed people, and of monkeys having feet where their hands usually are, and vice versa. Prof. Huxley has, however, shown that there is as much difference anatomically between the foot and hand of the monkeys as between the foot and hand of man. The essential difference of a hand, as compared with a foot, consists in the characteristic arrangement of the bones in the two members, and the presence or absence of certain muscles. Accepting this test as the correct one, monkeys as well as men are two-handed and two-footed. Prof. Huxley has also demonstrated "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." This is at once seen on comparing Figs. 182 to 193, representing the skull, teeth, hand, pelvis, and foot of a Man, of a Gorilla, and of some other monkey. While it is admitted that there are gaps between Man and the Gorilla, between the Gorilla and the Orang, between the Orang and lower monkeys, the differences, however, are not sufficiently great to admit of making distinct orders: hence Man and the Gorilla, etc. must be considered as members of the order of Monkeys.
We concluded our chapter on Zoology by noticing the ​half monkeys, represented by the Galeopithecus, Cheiromys, and Lemurs, stating of this group that the Loris seemed to furnish the transition to the true monkeys. Let us now consider these a little. The true monkeys are usually divided into the Catarhines, or the monkeys of the Old World, including the Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Orang, Gibbon, Magots, Macaques, Baboons, etc., and the Platy rhines, or those of the New World (confined to South America), among which are found the Howlers, Spiders, Capuchins, and Marmosets. The terms Catarhine and Platyrhine refer to the nostrils, which in the Catarhine look downward, but in the Platyrhine are flattened. In the peculiarity of the downward nostrils Man agrees with the Catarhine monkeys. Further, all Catarhines have thirty-two teeth, which is also the dental formula of Man; whereas the Platyrhines have thirty-six, the Marmosets excepted, in which the third true molar is rudimentary. These little monkeys offer also the peculiarity of having claws on their fingers and toes. We see, therefore, of the two groups of monkeys that Man, from the position of his nostrils and, the number of his teeth, belongs to the Catarhine.
Having briefly called attention to some of the peculiarities of the human skeleton, etc., as compared with that of the Gorilla and other monkeys, let us now compare the brain and mental powers of Man with those of the lower animals. While no one understands how the physical impression of an external object conveyed to the brain through the senses gives rise to an idea, or becomes thought, every one admits that without the brain there can be no thought; and by a comparison of the mental powers in different kinds of animals, we conclude that the relative perfection of mind depends on the relative perfection of brain. Thus, in Bees and Ants, which have long been famous for their intelligence, the nervous system is more highly developed than in any other members of the Articulata. In speaking of ​Ants, Mr. Darwin says they "communicate information to each other, and several unite for the same work, or games of play. They recognize their fellow-ants after months of absence. They build great edifices, keep them clean, close the doors in the evening, and post sentries. They make roads, and even tunnels under rivers. They collect food for the community, and when an object too large for entrance is brought to the nest they enlarge the door, and afterwards build it up again. They go out to battle in regular bands, and freely sacrifice their lives for the common weal. They emigrate in accordance with a preconcerted plan. They capture slaves. They keep aphides as milch cows. They move the eggs of their aphides, as well as their own eggs and cocoons, into warm parts of the nest, in order that they may be quickly hatched; and endless similar facts could be given." It is incredible to suppose that animals could accomplish such feats without mind of some kind.
The brain of the Fish is small compared to the spinal cord of which it is the continuation, and the parts of which it is composed are so arranged that no one part obscures the other. In Reptiles the brain is larger, and the Cerebral Hemispheres, the seat of the higher mental activities, slightly predominate over the other parts of the brain. This peculiarity becomes more marked in the Birds; while the Cerebral Hemispheres of the lower mammalia, like the Ornithorhynchus and the Opossum, quite overlap parts perfectly visible in the Fish. Ascending through the orders of the Mammalia, the Cerebral Hemispheres continue to overlap the other parts of the brain, until finally in the higher Apes and Man they entirely cover the Cerebellum, Medulla Oblongata, etc. By comparing the mental powers of the different Vertebrata, we see that the gradual development of the brain is accompanied by a corresponding development of mind. The low grade of intelligence of the ​Fish depends on its low cerebral organization, the mental activity of the Dog is due to its comparatively highly complex brain. Every sportsman can give numerous illustrations of dogs reasoning. Mr. Darwin quotes Colonel Hutchinson as his authority for the following example: "Mr. Colquhoun winged two wild ducks, which fell on the opposite side of a stream; his retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not succeed. She then, though never before known to ruffle a feather, deliberately killed one, brought over the other, and returned for the dead bird." The every-day fact of a dog hiding a bone implies Prudence, Anticipation, and Memory. According to Mr. Darwin, the muleteers in South America say, "I will not give you the mule whose step is easiest, but la mas racional, the one that reasons best." Those who are familiar with the habits of Monkeys are always impressed by their intelligence. Buchner, quoting many reliable authorities, says of the Orangs, living tame on board ship, that they will wear clothes, uncork bottles, assist the sailors in fixing the sails and unloading cargoes, will sew with them, dust the furniture, and even light the fire and help cook. It seems impossible that these Apes could learn through imitation, or be taught so much, without having reasoning powers. That the Orang should be so intelligent is not at all extraordinary when we remember that his brain is so much like that of Man. A glance at the brain of the Orang, the Hottentot Venus, and Gauss the mathematician (Figs. 194, 195, 196) demonstrates that the brain of the Hottentot was more like the Orang's than that of the mathematician. According to Vulpian, "the real differences which exist between the brain of Man and that of the superior monkeys are very small. One must not have any illusions in this respect. Man is much nearer the Anthropoid Apes in the anatomical character of his brain than these are, not only
​the Guenons and Macaques." Prof. Huxley calls attention to the differences between the cranial capacity of different races of mankind being far greater than between the lowest Man and the highest Ape. Thus, the highest human skull measured by Morton, containing one hundred and fourteen cubic inches, compared with the lowest, containing only sixty-three cubic inches, gives us a difference of fifty-one cubic inches; while a Gorilla's skull, containing thirty-four and a half inches, compared with the lowest human skull just mentioned, gives us a difference of only twenty-nine and a half cubic inches.
Let us consider now briefly the habits and mental powers of some of the barbarous races of mankind. Among these probably stand lowest the Australians and the inhabitants of the adjoining islands, the Bushmen, the Hottentots, and some of the Negro races. The languages of these races are among the poorest known, they having no abstract words, like animal, plant, color, sound, each animal and each plant being designated by a particular name. The mind of these people is so little developed that there are no abstract ideas of which such abstract words are the corresponding expression. As quoted by Buchner, De la Gironniere says of the Ayetas of the Philippine Islands, "that they gave him the impression of being a great family of monkeys: their voice recalled the short cry of these animals, and their movements strengthened the analogy." According to Buchner, "the language of the savages of Borneo is rather a kind of warbling or croaking than a truly human mode of expression;" and Sir Emerson Tennent relates of the Veddahs of Ceylon "that they communicate among themselves almost entirely by means of signs, grimaces, guttural sounds, resembling generally very little, true words, or true language." Some of these races, as the Australians, for example, cannot count over four or five. Many barbarous
​savages. If we now compare the mental powers of the higher animals, such as those of the Horse, Dog, Elephant, Monkeys, with those of such savages as we have mentioned, and these with the most cultivated of men, we come to the conclusion that the difference is certainly much less between the higher animals and the lower races of mankind than between these and men like Shakspeare, Newton, Hunter, Voltaire, La Place, Cuvier, Goethe, Gauss, Müller.
We hope now to have shown that the difference between Man and the other members of the animal kingdom is not one of kind, but only one of degree. Notwithstanding the great differences exhibited by the races of mankind in color, hair, skin, skull, teeth, mental and moral powers, every one admits that the civilized have descended from the barbarous races; the Australian of the present day, for example, representing pretty well the ancient Briton. But we hope to have shown that the difference between a Newton and an Australian is much greater than that between an Australian and the higher Apes. It follows, therefore, that if a Newton could be developed from an ancient Briton, or his living representative an Australian, an Australian could be developed from an Ape.
We began this chapter by stating that supposing the theory of the Evolution of Life to be true, the animal descent of man was a necessary consequence, and therefore the absence or presence of transitional forms was comparatively unimportant. In trying, however, to show that man differs from animals only in degree, not in kind, we hope to have made out a series of transitional forms, beginning with the lower monkeys and ascending from them, through the higher apes and the lower races of mankind, to the higher. Thus, the skulls of the Chimpanzee, Idiot, Negro, and Calmuck, offer a series of ascending forms. By comparing Figs. 197, 198, 199, 200, it will be seen that the receding forehead, which is a striking feature in the skulls of Negroes ​and of the lower races, is still more marked in the Idiot and Chimpanzee. This type of skull is known as the long head, or dolichocephalic; that of the Calmuck, in which the forehead is developed, as the short head, or brachycephalic. Further, in the Negro the teeth are not set straight (orthognathous) as in the Calmuck, but the teeth of the upper jaw make an acute angle with those of the lower jaw (prognathous). The receding of the forehead and the angular arrangement of the teeth are accompanied by a receding of the lower jaw (see Figs. 201, 203, 204), and great development of jaws. In these peculiarities, the lower races resemble the apes, and differ from the higher races of mankind. The beastly and ferocious appearance of some savages and apes is principally due to this excessive development of the jaws. The large size of the canine teeth is also a striking feature in the skull of apes; but, as Prof. Haeckel observes, in comparing many human skulls, one always notices that the canine teeth project in some more than others; and Mr. Darwin aptly says, "he who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his own canines, and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our early progenitors having been provided with these formidable weapons, will probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his descent; for, though he no longer intends, nor has the power, to use these teeth as weapons, he will unconsciously retract his 'snarling muscles' (thus named by Sir C. Bell) so as to expose them ready for action, like a dog prepared to fight." The different size of the molar teeth, according to Buchner, is also important: in civilized men, of the three last teeth or molars the first is the largest, whereas in the Chimpanzee the last is the largest; the lower races o^ mankind are intermediate in this respect, the three molars being equally developed. Now, it is an interesting fact that, in the milk teeth, the last molar is the largest, as
​occasion so often to mention, that the lower animals retain permanently forms that are only transitory in the higher. We see further examples of this principle in the receding of the forehead and jaws, which are only exhibited by the skulls of the higher races in their embryonic or undeveloped condition, in the learning of the child to walk, and in the development of speech. The erect position of man is often regarded as an objection to his having descended from a lower animal. But as it is evidently an advantage for man to use his hands for grasping, etc., but his feet to stand and walk upon, we can understand how, through the Struggle for Existence, etc., this division of labor was brought about. The view of the erect position having been gradually assumed by man is confirmed by such facts as the creeping on all-fours of the baby and the shuffling unsteady gait of the young child. The baby, at the first month, uses its foot like a hand, and it is well, known that some savage people retain the mobility of the big toe, using it as a thumb and the other toes as fingers; further, the unsteady sidelong step of the child learning to walk is seen in the semi-erect gait sometimes assumed by the Gibbon and Gorilla. The young Chimpanzee, walking along hand-in-hand with his keeper, resembles so strongly a little negro learning to walk, that it is impossible not to recognize their distant cousinship. In a word, the transitory stages through which an individual man passes in learning to walk represent the stages through which man in general has passed in assuming the erect position, the transitory stages being permanently retained in the lower animals.
It is admitted by all that articulate speech is peculiar to Man. The possession of this faculty, however, does not seem to be inconsistent with the view of his animal descent. It is well known that animals communicate their ideas by means of touch, sounds, etc.: thus, the Dog barks in different ways, expressive of pain, anger, joy, despair, entreaty. ​Cows, cats, pigeons, chickens, give vent to their feelings by sounds. Language, or the expression of one's thoughts, is therefore common to man and the lower animals. Let us see now what light is thrown on the origin of articulate speech, or the peculiar language of Man, by comparing its development in the child with the languages of different races. It must be remembered that intelligent speech depends as much on the development of the brain as of the vocal organs, for Parrots and Ravens can talk. Naturally, then, words are wanting if there are no ideas to give rise to them. Hence the poorness of the languages of savage races, and the simple talk of the child. Further, one hears few verbs, prepositions, or conjunctions, in listening to the prattle of young children: their expressions are almost entirely composed of nouns and adjectives,—thus, "sugar good," "toy nice," and so on. The language of savage nations is equally simple, often not rivaling even that of the children of the civilized. Hence celebrated philologists, like Grimm, Schleicher, Bleek, regard language as progressive, considering the most ancient languages as much more simple than the modern ones. They maintain that language is not an art, but a natural growth arising from the necessity felt by man of having some means of communicating his ideas. According to Schleicher, the most simply constructed languages have been slowly developed out of the natural cries that Man has in common with animals. He considers that, in the lapse of ages, languages experience great modifications, some, indeed, altogether dying out, others becoming so changed that their origin cannot be certainly determined; that, comparatively speaking, language is a recently acquired faculty depending on development of brain and vocal organs; primitive Man having no language excepting the natural cries inherited from his Ape ancestors. Accepting this theory, we have an explanation of the fact that the roots in
​sounds made by monkeys. Indeed, according to some authorities, the language of the Papuans is much more like that of the Monkeys than that of Shakspeare. Philological facts like those here only briefly mentioned lead us to the conclusion that the development of language in an individual of the higher races is the history of the development of language in general. It is sometimes said that the faculty of speech entirely separates Man from the Monkeys. But this difference, like all others, is only one of degree, not one of kind. The vocal organs are well developed in Apes, the Gibbons shouting to each other as they swing through the woods. To take Mr. Darwin's example, one might as well argue that the Crow is not a bird, because it croaks, whereas the Nightingale sings. Having mentioned some of the peculiarities of the structure and development of man in reference to his animal descent, let us now call attention to the importance of certain human remains in this respect. Through modern discoveries made in France, Belgium, Germany, etc., the remains of races of men have been brought to light, which without doubt have long since been extinct. Now, it is a very significant fact that the skulls of these primitive races exhibit a very low type of organization. According to Prof. Schaffhausen, "the form of the forehead of the Neanderthal skull (Fig. 205), the dentition and form of the jaw of La Naulette (Fig. 202), the prognathism of some infantile jaws of the stone period of Western Europe, exceed, as regards their animal form, that observed in living savages." Further, according to the same high authority, "these characters must not be considered as accidental exceptions from the normal form, which was the common theory on meeting with such finds; for these peculiarities in the organization of the pre-historic man do not occur as exceptions, but as a rule; and what is decisive is the circumstance that they mostly present a foetal character, and thus exhibit an early ​stage of development. They also frequently stand in reciprocal dependence; one character determines the other, according to the law of harmony or coexistence which governs the form of all living bodies. With the flying forehead, we find, as a rule, a projecting jaw, large teeth, a high temporal line, a strongly developed occipital ridge, simple cranial sutures, small cranial capacity." Mr. Carter Blake, in describing the jaw of La Naulette (Fig. 202), so called from being found in the hole of the same name, says, " Its undoubted resemblance to the jaw of a young ape I shall not venture to deny." In speaking of the molar teeth we stated that they were of equal size in the lower races of man, but that the last molar was the largest in the milk teeth of man and in the adult Chimpanzee. In reference to these facts, the jaw of La Naulette is extremely interesting, since its last molar is the largest, agreeing in this respect with that of the Chimpanzee and milk teeth of Man; the tooth also exhibits the remarkable peculiarity of having five roots, as is the case with the last molar of the Gorilla and Orang. Further, in the great size of the canine teeth, and the absence of the chin, the jaw of La Naulette resembles in a marked degree that of the Chimpanzee. An important distinction between the molar and premolar teeth in man is that the molar teeth have three roots, while the premolars have only two; but a very ancient human skull found at Olmutz exhibits, according to Schaffhausen, the peculiarity of the second premolar having three roots, as is the case in the premolars of the Apes. According to the same' author, this is also seen in two human skulls belonging to the Göttingen collection. In comparing the human bones and cranium brought from the cave of Neanderthal with other specimens. Prof. Schaffhausen says they "exceed all the rest in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to the conclusion of their belonging to a barbarous and savage race," and at the conclusion of ​his address on the primitive form of the skull, translated in the Anthropological Review, we find "it follows further that we must place the primitive man lower in the scale than the rudest savage. The Neanderthal skull and the La Naulette jaw present characters of a low organization such as we do not find in any living race."
Want of space prevents us from dwelling further on this subject. Suffice it to say that what is known of the remains of primitive man confirms the view of his animal descent. From the transitory stages through which man passes in his development being more or less permanently retained in the lower animals, from his organization exhibiting in a rudimentary condition structures which are fully developed in the lower animals, from abnormal characters such as certain muscles appearing in man which are usually only present in monkeys, we concluded in our chapter on Embryology that man had descended from some animal form. That this animal form, or the remote ancestor of man, was an ape, we have tried to show in this chapter by comparing the higher apes with the barbarous and the civilized races of men, the result of this comparison being that the barbarous races are more nearly allied to the higher apes than to the civilized man.
While accepting the theory that man has descended from an ape, it is impossible, however, to designate any particular ape as his remote ancestor. The apes that most resemble man are the Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Orang, and Gibbon, hence called Anthropoid Apes. Their features are very like those of the lower human races. (See plates of faces of men and monkeys.) No evolutionist, however, so far as we are aware, supposes man to have descended from one of these apes. For while each of these apes has something in common with man, each differs from him very considerably. Thus, the Gibbon resembles man in the
EXPLANATION OF PLATES.
of FACES OF MONKEYS AND MEN.
| | NATIVE COUNTRY. |
| Fig. 01. Baboon | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 02. Pig-faced Baboon | Cape Land. |
| Fig.„ 03. Macaque | Sumatra. |
| Fig.„ 04. Semnopitecus | Java. |
| Fig.„ 05. Nasalis | Borneo. |
| Fig.„ 06. Gibbon | India. |
| Fig.„ 07. Orang, young (female) | Borneo |
| Fig.„ 08. Orang old, female„ | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 09. Chimpanzee, young (female) | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 10. Chimpanzee, old (female)„ | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 11. Gorilla, young (female) | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 12. Gorilla, old (female)„ | Guinea. |
| Fig.„ 13. Papuan (female) | Van Diemen's Land. |
| Fig.„ 14. Hottentot female„ | Cape Land |
| Fig.„ 15. Caffre female„ | Zulu Coast |
| Fig.„ 16. Negro female„ | Soudan |
| Fig.„ 17. Australian male„ | Victoria Land |
| Fig.„ 18. Malay (female) | Polynesia |
| Fig.„ 19. Mongolian (male) | Thibet |
| Fig.„ 20. Arctic (female) | Kamtchatka |
| Fig.„ 21. American (male) | Missisippi. |
| Fig.„ 22. Drave (male)„ | India |
| Fig.„ 23. Nubain (male)„ | Kordofan |
| Fig.„ 24. European (male)„ | Greece |
​skull; the Gorilla, in the hand and foot. Further, these apes have a rudimentary tail, like that of man. (Figs. 206 to 210.) By comparing the skeletons of man and the apes, the differences will be found to be also very striking. (See Figs. 206, etc.) The more probable theory of the relationship of man to the Anthropoid Apes is that they are very distant cousins, the posterity of a common ancestor of some extinct form whose remains have not as yet been discovered.
The birthplace and antiquity of man, like his genealogy, are still involved in obscurity. Many geologists and naturalists, however, suppose that there once existed a continent where the Indian Ocean now rolls, which stretched from the Sunda Islands to Madagascar. This sunken land is called by Sclater, Lemuria, from the half monkeys, the Lemurs and their allies, being so characteristic of Madagascar and the Indian Archipelago. This view of a land of Lemuria having once existed harmonizes very well with the evidences of Ethnology, Philology, etc., which point to some intermediate spot between Southern Asia and Eastern Africa, like Lemuria, as the birthplace of the human .species. As regards the antiquity of man, the data are so imperfect that it is impossible to give an estimate. Some authors think man appeared in the latter period of the Tertiary Age; according to others, still earlier. However this may be, it is certain that immense periods of time must have elapsed since the appearance of man.
Those who are impressed with the poetical idea of a Golden Age, from which man has fallen, no doubt find it difficult to admit that he has descended from an ape. The explorations of the last forty years, however, have proved that so far from there having been a Golden Age, the first age was that of Stone (the implements being made out of stone, hence the name of the age), followed by one ​of Bronze, a further progress being exhibited in the Age of Iron. Ethnologists consider the primitive man to have been lower than the lowest of existing savages, more ape-like even than the extinct human races, whose remains we have briefly noticed. According to philologists, the primitive man was speechless, and the earliest languages babble. All kinds of evidence negative the idea of man having fallen from a high estate, but support the view of his having developed from a lower one. The descent of man is indeed an ascent.
It does not seem out of place to briefly call attention to the probable spreading of the human species over the earth, which, according to Prof. Haeckel, was as follows. Starting in Lemuria (see plate on distribution of races), the posterity of the primitive men diverged towards Africa, Australia, the Indian Archipelago, and Asia; the Hottentots, Caffres, and Negroes being the descendants of those who came to Africa, while the Papuans, Australians, and Malays are equally the posterity of three stems. Diverging from the Malay stem appeared the Drave and Mongolian races. The Draves, peopling India, passed towards Arabia, and divided into the stems of the North African races and Europeans; while the Mongolians, passing through China and spreading over Northern and Eastern Asia, finally crossed over Behring Straits and peopled the Americas. This view of the gradual spreading of the races of men from a common point situated between Asia and Africa seems to be a fair conclusion from what is known of Ethnology and Philology.
While admitting that the different races have descended from a common stock, it does not necessarily follow that the primitive men came from a single pair. Thus, possibly, different apes may have been the ancestors of the Malay and South African races. It is interesting in this respect to observe that the Orang, who is found in the Malay ​Archipelago, is of a yellowish color, and is brachycephalic in the form of the skull, like the Malays, whereas the Chimpanzee, found in Africa, is black and dolichocephalic, like the Negroes. At present it seems to us impossible to say which is the more probable, whether the primitive men came from one pair of apes, or many. In either case, however, they had a common origin, since the apes are the posterity of a common ancestor.
The kindred question of the origin of the different languages from one or many roots depends on the period at which the primitive men first acquired language. For if language was acquired by the primitive men before their posterity had dispersed, then the different languages would have had a common origin; whereas if the races had dispersed before their ancestors had acquired a language, then the languages of these races would have arisen independently.
In conclusion, it seems proper to mention that the descent of man from some ape-like form is perfectly consistent with the development of morality. As we noticed in the last chapter, among barbarous tribes there is no dependence of individuals upon each other, the character of the daily life of savages being such as not to offer much chance of their mutually benefiting each other; while the uniting of barbarians, for the purpose of attacking some other tribe, is unfavorable to the development of sympathy and kind feelings towards mankind, since war encourages murder, robbery, and crime of all kinds. We have shown, however, that in the social state the relations of man to man are so complex that no one is independent of his fellow-men. To such an extent is the division of labor carried out in highly civilized countries that even distant nations have many interests in common. This is so true of some countries that war is dreaded and has been avoided by them, every one knowing that the effects would be very injurious to both the victorious and conquered. Notwithstanding ​that the effect of the social state is the restraining of men's evil passions, nevertheless crimes and outrages are committed even among the most civilized,—simply, in the words of Mr. Spencer, because man "partially retains the characteristics that adapted him for an antecedent state. The respects in which he is not fitted to society are the respects in which he is fitted for his original predatory life. His primitive circumstances required that he should sacrifice the welfare of other beings to his own; his present circumstances require that he should not do so; and in as far as his old attribute still clings to him, in so far is he unfit for the social state. All sins of men against each other, from the cannibalism of the Carib to the crimes and venalities that we see around us, have their causes comprehended under this generalization." The same author then argues that as the gratification of passions increases, whereas the restraining of passions lessens, desire, and that the faculties develop through use, but diminish through disuse, man must improve, as his organization is becoming continually better fitted to his surroundings, "all evil resulting from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions." We see, therefore, that progressive morality is a necessary consequence of the Evolution of Life.
RESUME.
We conclude, from the general theory of the Evolution of Life, from the facts brought forward in this chapter and in the two preceding ones, that man has descended from an animal; that the remote progenitor of man was an ape, resembling the Gorilla and Chimpanzee; that the birthplace of man was situated somewhere between Southern Asia and Eastern Africa, in Lemuria, if such a continent existed; that myriads of years have rolled by since man appeared on the earth; that the primitive men exhibited a grade of ​ organization lower than the lowest of existing savages; that the different races of men have descended from a common stock; and that the physical, mental, and moral improvement of man is the necessary consequence of the Evolution of Life.
The doctrine of the Evolution of Life has this, then, in its favor: that it is a comprehensive theory of Life,—a theory on which can be based a scientific Ethics and a scientific Politics; and as all happiness depends on duty to one's self (Ethics), and therefore duty to one's neighbor (Politics), it follows that a theory which offers a basis for the development of these social sciences must immeasurably benefit mankind.
"To thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; my blessing season this in thee."