Mr. Darwin On The Descent Of Man.* In theso volumaes, which have been expected With the greatest interest, Mr. Darwin has at once carried to the furthest Dossible exteut his famous hypothesis of Natural gelection, and has developed for the first timo an important supplement to that hypothesis. In his work on the Origin of Species, he navingied the theory that all Species, instead of haviug been independently created, and pos- sessing an independent existence, had been gradu- ally developed out of other forms. This theory in itself was not new, having been previously put forward by Lamarck, besides other naturalists. Bat MIr. Darwin gave it a new character and vitality by his proposedexplanation of the method of develop- ment. Lamrarok had attributed tho gradual varia- tion of Specios to the direct operation on organized beings of the circumnstances and conditions of life in which they were placed. Mr. Darwin added the observation that the individuals wvhlo at any moment happened to develop an adaptation to such circum- stances would bo more likely to succeed ia the struggle for existence, and would thus leave a greater numberof ofspring. Lamarek, for instance, supposesthattth-longneckof thegiraffe was acquired by the original animal having been impelled by cir- cumstances to seek for its food in branches of trees, and thus to have extended its neck by constant use. Mr. Darwin assutmes a similar tendency, but adds that, from the moment it began to operate, tho giraffes wvhich, from the greater length of their necks, were more successful in gathering food, would become more viCorous, would survive in greater nunbers, and, by the ordinary laws of ia- helitance, would transmit their peculiarity to their oflfpring. The offspring would, in turn, carry the development further, and transmit it in a more ex- tended and more permanent form to their succes- sors. Just as man, for his owvn uses or fancies, selects for breeding purposes those particular ani- auals which have the specialities of construction he desires, and is thus able to increase such speciali- ties and render them permanent, so Nature2 by gradually eliminating from time to time the indi- viduals least adapted to the circumstances of the country or period, and proportionately favouring tlho propagation of the better adlapted, has indoti- nitely diversified and improved an original and simple stoclc. Now Lamarek, as is well known, did not hesitate to aply his theory to the case of Man, and asserted that aan had simUlarly been developed by the mere force of circumstances from an ape. Mr. Darwin sutfficiently indliated in his former book that he lwas prepared to make a similar appli- cation of his own enlarged hypothesis. Ho said that by his speculations " light wvould be thrown on the origin of Man and his history." He refrained, however,for the time from publishing the arguiments lIe had prepared on this subject, as he thought he " should thus only add to the prejudices against hiis views." But he thinks that 'with most natu- ralists, and especially tho younger and rising ones among them, his theory has now mnade good its claims to acceptance, and be no longer hesitates to push it to its final conclusion. That conclusion is clear and definite. It is that "at a remote period, Alan, the wonder and glory of the Universe, pro- ceeded " from the stein of Old World Monkeys. This proposition will not, we think, in the minds either of the mass of men or of the learned, lose its first character of enormous and painfiul improbability by any amount of that preparatory exercise in cognato speculations on which Mr. Darwvin relies. Even had it been rendered highly probable, which we doubt, that the animal creation has beon de- veloped into its numerous and widel- different varieties by mere evolution, it would still repquire an independent investigation of overwhelmin!z force and completeness to justify tho presumptioii that I Mlan is but a term in this solf-evolving series. There are seine iustincts which, so far as we can see, are ultimate facts, and an instinct of tills nature, except where it is obscured by the prejudices of speculation, impals us to a profound conviction of the essential difference between man and the rest of tho animate creation. We are inti- mnately sensible of a difference whtich is not one of degree, but of kind. We share their nature in a multitude of points, but we are conscions of an additional nature, which not only distinguishes us from them, but practically places us in auother world from theni. Our characteristic objects and motives are invisible, mental, and ulti- mate; theirs are visible, corporeal, and immediate. For this reason, though we often become abtached to them, it is impossible for us to feel sympathv with them. WVe cannot conceive even the lowest savage having any real companionship with the highest possible brute. A huge chaslm separates the two, over which no sentiments of union could pass. Robinson Crusoe could make a friend of his man Friday, and was no longer quite alone as soon as lie had found him; but he woutld have been in the mnost absolute solitude, thouah tho scene of the shipwreck had been the tronical island of which Mr. Darwin dreams peopled 1by the most intelligent anthropomorphous apes. If tho instinc- tive sense of diversity thua indicated is ever to be overth rown, it can only be by a process which amounts almost to demonstration. Mr. Darwin says truly that the opinions of philosophers, however antagonistic to popular conceptions, ultimately at- tain general acceptance. But this is only when by detailed and minute application thoy are found to harmonize vrith the facts of daily experience. Diffi- cult as the investigation of the theory of gravita- tion may be, the theory lives in the ordinary mind as much as in that of- the philosopher, because when once realized it falls in wvith our everyday observation and sensation. We own we cannot conceive that IVMr. Darwin's theory of the Descent of Man could ever acquire this harmony with ordinary feelings. Every visit to the Zoological Gardens, every day's observation of dogs and horses, wtould refute it by a kind of direct percep- tioll. Theso are the prejudices, and not, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, mere theological theories, whicht he has to overthrow, and we cannot conceive a task which demands a moro elaborate and close argu- mentation. For this reason we must needs express our dis- appointment with the more important part of 31r. Darwin's book. His discussion of the faculties of Man in comparison with those of animals appears tousutterly inadequate to the subject, independently of its being itnsufficient to sustain his theory. As it seems to us, he has not merely failed, but lie has not dulv grapple'l with the essential difficulties of tho question. He has thought it possible to leap, by tho aid of a few illustrations, over the momentous and arduous questions respecting the mental powers of men and anitmals, and the morai nature of Man is dissected with a nmost rapid and anpenetrating hand. We can only express our .onviction on this point by saying that oll these subjects Mrr. Darwin appears quite out of his ele- ment. As an observer of natural history, on the otlher hand, lie is as admirable as ever, and in this respect his present work will bnhance tlhe great reputation he already enjoys. Qs wo havo said, in addition to liis speculations on hie origin of Man, his present work contains an im- 9ortant investigation in those paths of natural his- tory which ho has made his or;n. Further consi- zeration has led him to perceive an imperfec- tion in his hypothesis of Natural Selection, which he owns with philosophical candour. He had not, he says, "sufficiently considered the existenee of many structures in animals which 'appear to be, as far as wecanjudge, neither beneficialnorinjtriois," and this he believes to be one of the greatest over- I sights yet detected in his work. In othor words, the action of Natural Selection will not, of itself, sustain the theory of the continuous evolution of all organized beings from inferior forms. To take a simiple instance, it will not explain the develop- ment of the peacock'a tail. In reference to the more specialsubjectof this new worlc k r. Darwin finds that lie cannot explain the diflercntiatiou of the lvarious races of man by t,a niere agenev of Natural Selec- tion.' He believc:~, however, tliat lie has fond the requisite explanation in the agency of Sexual Selec- tion. He thinks that females have entertained a preference for males, or mahls for females, possess- ing certain specialities of formn either for uise or orna- ment, and have thus exercised an unconscious hut continuots selection in favour of such peculiarities. To support this theory he passes in review the rhole animal kingdom, and points out wvhat he doems ihe operation of this law in developing mally peculiarities aud beauties of animnal stirutcturo for which Natural Solection cannot account. This part of his work occupies the greater portion of these two volumes, and is fuill of the nmost diversified in- terest. It is one of the most delightful studies in natural history ever written. It possesses, indeed, almost the charm of a new romanice. His grand- father, Erasmus Darwvin, wrote an amusing poem on " The Loves of the Plants," but MIr. Clharles Darwin has written a history of " The Loves of the &nimals" far more enchanting than such a poem. Whother or not his conclusions be valid, at least to the full extent in which he applies them, must be a matter for prolonged dis- cussion among naturalists, and we observe that his brother-philosopher, Mr. Wallace, believes that, in some respects, they are carried too far. But as a record of observation of fact this part of the book ossesses tho greatest possible value. It forns the real substance of tho work, and might, as Mr. Wallace has observed, have been advantageously issued as a separate publi- cation. It rpplies only to a subordinate point in the theory of the descent of Man-namely, as we have said, to the development of varieties in an already existing human race. The actual evolutiou of such a race is ascribed to the more potent agency of natural selection; and the present two volumes woould have afforded none too large a space for the complete investigation of tlis cardiual proposition. As it is, one of the most momentous inquiries ever propounded appeara loosely attaclhed to a great work on Natural History, and receives, as it seems to IIs, only a secondary treatment. We must confine oursolves mainaly to Mr. Darwin's speculations in relationi to Man, and explaii the points of failure to ilich we have referred. Mlr. Darwvin is sensible that any such dilereuce in kind as wva have noticed between the mental facul- ties of men and animals would offer an insuperable obstacle to his conclusions. HLe says:- " If no organic being excepting man bad possessed any mentl pow=r,or if his powers hadl been of awholly differeat nature from those of the lower animals, then we should never have beca able to convicee ourselves that our high facultie,l had bean graduallr developed." But he thinks "it can be clearly shown that there is no fundamental difference of this kind." If this is ever to be clearly shovni, it must be by a much more accurate and philosophical analysis than Mr. Darivin has attempted. His chapter on this subject appears a mere evasioa of its real difficulties. He notices, for iistanice, the objection that " no other animal but *lan has the power of abstraction or possesses general ideas." How does he reply to it ? "It woutld be useless," he says, " to attempt discussing these high faculties, for hardly two authors ayree in their definition." This is merely to avoid the ques- tion. Mr. Darwin does not dispute the fact that an enormous distinction in this respect does exist betwveen MWan and the brutes, and it was his business, if he wished to rebut tho presumnption thus raisod, to enter into a close examination of theso faculties, and if possible afford us a definition of them in consonance witlh his theories. This is the course he always pursues in reference to the physical differences between various species. The excellence of his work as a writer on Natural Elis- tory coilsists in the miuate and close observation with which he defines such difrerences, pursues them into all their gradations, and thus frequently salows how forms apparently very distinct niay have been developed from each other. To decline such an in- quiry because others have been unsuccessful in it is simply a contentptuons abandonment of the task he had set hiimiself. The only observation he vouch- safes on the subject leaves it still moro confiused. " Such faculties could njot have been muore fully developed in Man until his mental powers had ad- vancea to a high standard, and this implies the use of a perfect language." But the development of a perfect language itself implies the use of tuch facul- tios. A language, evein in its least imperfect form, is at once the expression and the instrunment of thought, and no general term would possibly have been used without the presence in the mind of a general uotion to correspond with it. bvIr. Darwin throws us back fromn the development of thought to the development of language, and from this we are of necessity again thrown on the development of tbought. We are not -surprised, indeed, that Mr. Darwin has hastily dismissed this point, for we believe that here, at all events, a distinction is to be discerned between men and brates whlich amounts to an absolute difference in kind. It' is closely connectod witlh the uso of language, which Mr. Darwin admits to be "oue of tSe cbief dis- tinctions betwean man and the lower animals." He urges, however, that the rudimenits of this esseutially humani art may be discerned in the varying sounds and cries by which animals express their emotions, aud sometimes excite similar emo- tions in other animals. Articulate language is, he allowvs, peculiar to man, but manl " uses in common with the lower animals inarticulate cries to express his meaning." This is Another instance of the manner in which, in this part of his work, Mlr. Darwin contintally runs away froin a dificulty ho recoguizes. If articulate language be a peculiarity ini man, how does it remove thle fact of the peculiarity that in anotlher point man is not peculiar? He proceeds to observe with more accuracy that " it is not the mere power of articulation wvhich dis- tinguishes man from other animals, for, as every one knows, parrots can talk; but it is his large power of connecting definite sounds with defiuite ideas; and this obviously depends on the development of the mental faculties." Here it is evident Mlr. Darwin has again landed us in ithat insuperable difficulty which iie declines to encounter. What is the nature of those mental faculties which render delinite ideas possible 7 The chief characteristic of lan- guage is, as Mr. Darwin sees, not the mere power of articulation, but its relation to reasonable thou-ht, and this admission renders the whole of his aiscussion on the growth of the art of giving vent to emotions in sound entirely beside the mark. The cardinal element in speech is not the cx- I pression of a single emotion or idea, btit the ex- pression of a relation between two emot io;IS or ideas. Its essential characteristic, if not its priu ary uit,is not the notin, but the sentence or the verb. Now, lhowvever perfect the vocal utterances of any lowver i animal, there is not the slightest traco of their ap.. proaching to the utterance or to the conception of a proposition. The sentences which a parrot vill learn to utter are, of course, mere imitatiom). for no one supposes that they correspond to intelligible idleas in its brain. This broad distinction in external expres- siou points us at once to that cardinal dillerenco inniental faculty which we havein view. Tiierefren,cee or,in strict language, the attribution of one notion to another, presupposes the possibility of forminin general notions, classes, or abstractions, amid, pcr- ceiving their mutual relations. Mr. Darwin speaks of savages who nse " no abstract terms." But to a certain extent every term is abstract. The savate cannot utter a sentence, however simple, without asserting of one thling that whichvbelonigs to many other tImings. If he calls any one thing by a nanme which applies to other things, he at onceobetrays the notiou of a class of things. This is probably connected with another point of distinction which Mr. Darwvin dismisses with characteristic brevity. The Duke of Argyll has remarked that the fashioning of an implement for a special pur- pose is absolttely peculiar to manl, and lie considers that this forms an immeasurable gulf betwveen him and the brutes. Mr. Darwini admits that it is a very important distinction, but lie thinks there is much truth in Sir J. Lubbock's suggestioii that when prinieval man first used Ilitit stones for any purpose, he would have accidentally splintered them, and would theu have used the sharp fragments. " From this step it would be a smual on1e to intentionally break tho flints, and not a very wide stop to rudely fashion them." This is a good instance of the steps Mr. Darwin is always making on this subject. If the latter step be not avery; wvide one, it is at least singular that not a single| instance can be adduced of itb having beett taken.:d Monkeys htave been observed to break opoen ntts wvith!t a stone,but neverto attempt to fashion thbo stone. The, reason, as it seems to us, may be found in the dis. tiimction justnoticed. To fashion the stone, how- ever rudely, implies thje possession of a general notion of the shape according to which it is to bo formed.- It implies, in othler words, the power of i abstraction, or of forming the niotion of a class of stomies. The case of the bees' cells will not, at least by Mr. Darwin, be adduced as a contrary instance ; for lie has himself attributed these woniderful con- i structions to the operation of Natural Selection, upon a simple primary instinct, wvithout any de- sign on the part of the bee. Whetlher tho instinct has been thus perfected or not, Pro- 1 fessor Haughton, in his Manual of Geology, has I given strong reasons for the belief thiat bees' construct hexagonal cells for the simplest of all rea- sons-because they cannot help it. Given the pri- mary instinct of building cells in the closest possible contiguity to each other, and the sinmple laws of mechanical pressure would force them to assume a hexagonal form. If a number of soheres be con- tained withini a cylinder, and the cylimder is made gradually to close upon the spheres towards its axis, the spheres will al assume the forn of elongated hesagonal prisma. The newrest approach to reasoning wrhich Mr. Dar- 'The D&wescenit of 'Int (nd e fectiCO bt RdZetion to SIX By Charles Darwju, S1.A.. F.R.S., &c. 2 vols. John Mlurry, 1871. win canadduce is furnished in two analogous stories respectingdogs. "Mr.Colqnhoui wing-edtwowild ducks, which fell on the opposite side of a stream; his retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could niot succeed; she then, thongh previously never known to ruffle a feather, deliberately killed one brought over tho other, and returned for the dead bird." The case is certainly remarkable ; but it appears to uis a very hasty conclusion that the act was rational. The retriever possesses the in- stinct of not permittiug a bird to escape as well as the iinstinct of not injuring it, and her act would seem simply an instance of one instinct over- powering anotlher. This interpretation is strongly confirmed by the other story. In that case two partridges were shot, one being killed, the other wrounded. The latter ran away, and was caught by the retriever, who, on her return, came across the dead bird; " she stopped, evidently greatlv puszled, and after oUO or two trials, lindinm shle could not take it up without permitting the escapa of the winged bird, she considered a moment, and then deliberately murdered it by giving it a severe crunc,l and aftervards brought away both toge- ther. This was the only known instance of her ever having wilfully injuired any game." " Here," says Alr. Darwin, " we have reason, though not quite perfect, for the retriever might ha've brought thetl wounded bird first, and theot returued for the dead one, as in the casoof the two vild ducks." Precisely so ; if she had really reasoned she wrould not have killed the duck. But two iustinctive impulses wera working in her-one imp3lling her to bring both birds, the other impel- ling her not to let cither bird escape; and, not being able to raconcile the twvo by means of reason, the latter instinlet overpowered her habit of not injuring the gane. It is not by such instances that the re suilt of a wide induction respectinf the diLferenco betweeii tho faculties of men and brutes can be overthrowvn. Ware should have been, indeed, in no way surprised if Mr. Darwin haLd been able to adduce cases far more difficult of explanation. Nothing is better recognized than that infe- rior faculties, when acting alone, acquire a perfection of development which enables them in many cases to act even more efficiently than higher faculties. A blind man will perceive by the more sense of touch that whichl the philosopber could only observe by the aid of a microscope; and a dog, by his acute sense of smell, will surpass the utmost exertions of human sagacity iu track- ing his prey. Consequently, even if it could be shown that animals perfortn certain actions wvhich Meni could only perform by' tho aitd of reason, it would by no means necessarilyfol- low that animals perform them by its aid. It would be perfectly conceivable that their power was derived from the developmenit of a lower and diverse faculty to an extent of which Alen have no experience. Such a consideration is alone enough to show that thc question needs to be treated witlh infinitely more care and research than Mr. Darwin has tlhought wvorth while to bestow upon it. We fear the truth is that the study of mental philo- sophy, under the disastrous influence of one or two popular writers, has of late years become extremely loose and superficial, and Mr. Darwin does but illus- trate the general vagaeness of thought which pre- vails on sncll subjccts. If Mlr. Darwin has thus failed to show that Maa's! mental powers are similar to those of the lower animnals, his speculations on the Mloral Sense eease to havo any bearing on the question of Mlan's de- velopment from the Brutes3; for,as he observes, this Sense is only possible where human reason exists. Ilis cardinal proposition in his chapter on this subject is, that " any animal whatever, endowed withi well-marked . social instincts, would in- evitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectualpowers hatl become as well developed, or nearly as vwell devoloped, as in Man." Tlho social instincts, he says, lead an animal to takeo pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feell sympathy with them, and to perform services for tlhen, and he give3 some interestin- examples of! such sympathy betweei monrkeys, and even between animnals of diflerer.t kinds, as dogs and cats*. But,l as the words we have just quoted imiply, the inm- pal se to act in a social or moral vay is wholly diverse from a conscious appreciation of the cha- racter of sucll actions, and it is the latter wvhich coIn- stitutes the Moral Senise. Mr. Daywin adds, accor- dingly, that- As soon as the mental faculties had become highly de- veloped, ima;es of all past actions and motives would be constantly passing tbrough the brain * and that feeling of dissatisfaction which invanably re.su sfrom any unsatis- fied instinct would arise, as often as it was perceived that the enduring and always present social instinct liad yielded I to seine other instinct, at thio timio stronger, btht neither enduring iu its nature nor leavinc behind a very vivid itn- pressioen." This influence wvould be augmented by the uise of language and the distinct oxpression thus afforded of the wishes of the community, while habit wvould strengthen the acquired social tendency. It will again be seen that the whole of this process depends on the capacity, not merely for recalling individual past imnpressions, hut of referring them to distinct classes, and observing their generic characturs. But, conisidered merely as an accouniit of the development of the MIoral Sense in man, it nevertheless leaves the essential peculiarity of that sentiment wholly unexplained. Tlhe point to be explained is not that a sense of dissatisfaction arises when the social instinct has been disregarded, but that the dissatisfaction in this' case is wbholly different from that which arises from the disappoint- ment of other instincts. To feel that we have done wvrong is utterly diverse from the feeling that we have made a mistako, however grievous. Con- science is distingulished from other faculties, iuotin its mero strength or permanence, but in its authority. The most complete development of Mr. Darwin's social instinct could only lead to a feeling that it is desiru ble to act in a given way ; but the wlhole pro- blem of the Mloral Sense lies in the distinction be- tween Desire and Duty. The coincidence betwveen the two feelings is the ultimate perfection of virtle ; but to the last they remain distinct ; thoy act together in the mind; though they may lead to the same ends we have a distinct consciousuess of each, and we experience a double gratification in the performance of one and the same act. Mr. Darwin quotes wsith approbation Kant's words, -" Duty I woondrous thought, that workest neither by fond in- siniation, flattery, nor by any threat, but merely by holding nup thy naked law in tho soul, and so oxtorting for thyself alwvays reverence, if uiot always obedience; before whoin all appetites are. dumb, however secretly they robe]." Mr. Dar- vin, however, has described a santiment the very reverse of this. Hiis moral instinct is one which aworlks only by insinuation and by the threat of dissatisfactioni, and acts not as a naked law, but as a law embedded in a most complex mass of cir. cumstances, oxperiences, and inherited tendencies. He has described a highly-developed appetite, but not a suprome and self-asserting-uituiority. Theformer is conceivable in animaLs, of tho latter there is not a trace among them. (ro Ise continued.) MR. DAR WIJ' ON TUB DEscENT OFrMAN.*