Part 3 (1/2)
We may observe, in the first place, that these a.n.a.logies have been very much exaggerated, and that they fail to stand their ground in the face of a thorough examination of the facts. Only look at the skulls which have been found in the tombs belonging to the stone age, the so-called _Borreby skull_ for instance--examine the human jaw-bone from Moulin-Quignon, the Meilen skull, &c., and you will be surprised to see that they differ very little in appearance from the skulls of existing man. One would really imagine, from what is said by the partisans of Lamarck's theory, that primitive man possessed the projecting jaw of the ape, or at least that of the negro. We are astonished, therefore, when we ascertain that, on the contrary, the skull of the man of the stone age is almost entirely similar in appearance to those of the existing Caucasian species. Special study is, indeed, required in order to distinguish one from the other.
If we place side by side the skull of a man belonging to the Stone Age, and the skulls of the princ.i.p.al apes of large size, these dissimilarities cannot fail to be obvious. No other elements of comparison, beyond merely looking at them, seem to be requisite to enable us to refute the doctrine of this debased origin of mankind.
The figure annexed represents the skull of a man belonging to the stone age, found in Denmark; to this skull, which is known by the name of the Borreby skull, we shall have to allude again in the course of the present work; fig. 3 represents the skull of a gorilla; fig. 4 that of an orang-outang; fig. 5 that of the _Cynocephalus_ ape; fig. 6 that of the _Macacus_. Place the representation of the skull found in Denmark in juxtaposition with these ill-favoured animal masks, and then let the reader draw his own inference, without pre-occupying his mind with the allegations of certain anatomists imbued with contrary ideas.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 2.--Skull of a Man belonging to the Stone Age (the _Borreby Skull_).]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 3.--Skull of the Gorilla.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 4.--Skull of the Orang-Outang.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 5.--Skull of the Cynocephalus Ape.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 6.--Skull of the _Macacus_ Baboon.]
Finding themselves beaten as regards the skulls, the advocates of trans.m.u.tation next appeal to the bones. With this aim, they exhibit to us certain similarities of arrangement existing between the skeleton of the ape and that of primitive man. Such, for instance, is the longitudinal ridge which exists on the thigh-bone, which is as prominent in primitive man as in the ape. Such, also, is the fibula, which is very stout in primitive man, just as in the ape, but is rather slender in the man of the present period.
When we are fully aware how the form of the skeleton is modified by the kind of life which is led, in men just as in animals, we cannot be astonished at finding that certain organs a.s.sume a much higher development in those individuals who put them to frequent and violent use, than in others who leave these same organs in a state of comparative repose.
If it be a fact that the man of the epoch of the great bear and the mammoth had a more robust leg, and a more largely developed thigh-bone than most of the races of existing man, the reason simply is, that his savage life, which was spent in the midst of the wild beasts of the forest, compelled him to make violent exertions, which increased the size of these portions of his body.
Thus it is found that great walkers have a bulky calf, and persons leading a sedentary life have slender legs. These variations in the structure of the skeleton are owing, therefore, to nothing but a difference in the mode of life.
Why is it, however, that the skeleton is the only point taken into consideration when a.n.a.logies are sought for between man and any species of animal? If equal investigation were given to other organs, we should arrive at a conclusion which would prove how unreasonable comparisons of this kind are. In fact, if man possesses the osseous structure of the ape, he has also the anatomical structure of many other animals, as far as regards several organs. Are not the viscera of the digestive system the same, and are they not organised on the same plan in man as in the carnivorous animals? As the result of this, would you say that man is derived from the tiger, that he is nothing but an improved and developed lion, a cat trans.m.u.ted into a man? We may, however, just as plausibly draw this inference, unless we content ourselves with devoting our attention to the skeleton alone, which seems, indeed, to be the only part of the individual in which we are to interest ourselves, for what reason we know not.
But, in point of fact, this kind of anatomy is pitiable. Is there nothing in man but bones? Do the skeleton and the viscera make up the entire sum of the human being? What will you say, then, ye blind rhetoricians, about the faculty of intelligence as manifested in the gift of speech? Intelligence and speech, these are really the attributes which const.i.tute man; these are the qualities which make him the most complete being in creation, and the most privileged of G.o.d's creatures.
Show me an ape who can speak, and then I will agree with you in recognising it as a fact that man is nothing but an improved ape! Show me an ape who can make flint hatchets and arrow-heads, who can light a fire and cook his food, who, in short, can act like an intelligent creature--then, and then only, I am ready to confess that I am nothing more than an orang-outang revised and corrected.
It is not, however, our desire to speak of a question which has been the subject of so much controversy as that of the anatomical resemblance between the ape and the man without thoroughly entering into it; we have, indeed, no wish to shun the discussion of the point. On the present occasion, we shall appeal to the opinion of a _savant_ perfectly qualified in such matters; we allude to M. de Quatref.a.ges, Professor of Anthropology in the Museum of Natural History at Paris.
M. de Quatref.a.ges, in his work ent.i.tled 'Rapport sur le Progres de l'Anthropologie,' published in 1868, has entered rather fully into the question whether man is descended from the ape or not. He has summed up the contents of a mult.i.tude of contemporary works on this subject, and has laid down his opinion--the perfect impossibility, in an anatomical point of view, of this strange and repugnant genealogy.
The following extract from his work will be sufficient to make our readers acquainted with the ideas of the learned Professor of Anthropology with regard to the question which we are now considering:
”Man and apes in general,” says M. de Quatref.a.ges, ”present a most striking contrast--a contrast on which Vicq-d'Azyr, Lawrence, and M.
Serres have dwelt in detail for some considerable time past. The former is a _walking animal_, who walks upon his hind legs; all apes are _climbing animals_. The whole of the locomotive system in the two groups bears the stamp of these two very different intentions; the two types, in fact, are perfectly distinct.
”The very remarkable works of Duvernoy on the 'Gorilla,' and of MM.
Gratiolet and Alix on the 'Chimpanzee,' have fully confirmed this result as regards the anthropomorphous apes--a result very important, from whatever point of view it is looked at, but of still greater value to any one who wishes to apply _logically_ Darwin's idea. These recent investigations prove, in fact, that the ape type, however highly it may be developed, loses nothing of its fundamental character, and remains always perfectly distinct from the type of man; the latter, therefore, cannot have taken its rise from the former.
”Darwin's doctrine, when rationally adapted to the fact of the appearance of man, would lead us to the following results:
”We are acquainted with a large number of terms in the Simian series. We see it branching out into secondary series all leading up to anthropomorphous apes, which are not members of one and the same family, but corresponding superior _terms_ of three distinct families (Gratiolet). In spite of the secondary modifications involved by the developments of the same natural qualities, the orang, the gorilla, and the chimpanzee remain none the less fundamentally mere _apes_ and _climbers_ (Duvernoy, Gratiolet, and Alix). Man, consequently, in whom everything shows that he is a _walker_, cannot belong to any one of these series; he can only be the higher term of a distinct series, the other representatives of which have disappeared, or, up to the present time, have evaded our search. Man and the anthropomorphous apes are the final terms of two series, which commence to diverge at the very latest as soon as the lowest of the apes appear upon the earth.
”This is really the way in which a true disciple of Darwin must reason, even if he solely took into account the _external morphological characteristics_ and the _anatomical characteristics_ which are the expression of the former in the adult animal.
”Will it be said that when the degree of organisation manifested in the anthropomorphous apes had been once arrived at, the organism underwent a new impulse and became adapted for walking? This would be, in fact, adding a fresh hypothesis, and its promoters would not be in a position to appeal to the organised gradation presented by the quadrumanous order as a whole on which stress is laid as leading to the conclusion against which I am contending: they would be completely outside _Darwin's theory_, on which these opinions claim to be based.
”Without going beyond these purely morphological considerations, we may place, side by side, for the sake of comparison, as was done by M.