Theosophical University Press Online Edition
Geological Facts bearing on the Question of their Relationship.
The data derived from scientific research as to “primeval man” and the ape lend no countenance to theories deriving the former from the latter. “Where, then, must we look for primeval man?” still queries Mr. Huxley, after having vainly searched for him in the very depths of the quaternary strata. “Was the oldest Homo sapiens Pliocene or Miocene, or yet more ancient? In still older strata do the fossilized bones of an ape more anthropoid, or a man more pithecoid than any yet known, await the researches of some unborn palaeontologist? Time will show . . . . ” (“Man’s Place in Nature,” p. 159).
It will — undeniably — and thus vindicate the anthropology of the Occultists. Meanwhile, in his eagerness to vindicate Mr. Darwin’s Descent of Man, Mr. Boyd Dawkins believes he has all but found the “missing link” — in theory. It was due to theologians more than to geologists that, till nearly 1860, man had been considered a relic no older than the Adamic orthodox 6,000 years. As Karma would have it though, it was left to a French Abbe — l’abbe Bourgeois — to give this easy-going theory even a worse blow than had been given to it by the discoveries of Boucher de Perthes. Everyone knows that the Abbe discovered and brought to light good evidence that man already existed during the Miocene period; for flints of undeniably human making were excavated from Miocene strata. In the words of the author of “Modern Science and Modern Thought”: —
“They must either have been chipped by man, or, as Mr. Boyd Dawkins supposes, by the Dryopithecus or some other anthropoid ape which had a dose of intelligence so much superior to the gorilla, or chimpanzee, as to be able to fabricate tools. But in this case the problem would be solved and the missing link discovered, for such an ape might well have been the ancestor of Palaeolithic man.”
Or — the descendant of Eocene Man, which is a variant offered to the theory. Meanwhile, the Dryopithecus with such fine mental endowments is yet to be discovered. On the other hand, Neolithic and even Palaeolithic man having become an absolute certainty, — and, as the same author justly observes: “If 100,000,000 years have elapsed since
the earth became sufficiently solidified to support vegetable and animal life, the Tertiary period may have lasted for 5,000,000; or for 10,000,000 years, if the life-sustaining order of things has lasted, as Lyell supposes, for at least 200,000,000 years” — why should not another theory be tried? Let us carry man, as an hypothesis, to the close of Mesozoic times — admitting argumenti causa that the (much more recent) higher apes then existed! This would allow ample time to man and the modern apes to have diverged from the mythical “ape more anthropoid,” and even for the latter to have degenerated into those that are found mimicking man in using “branches of trees as clubs, and cracking cocoa-nuts with hammer and stones.”* Some savage tribes of hillmen in India build their abodes on trees, just as the gorillas build their dens. The question, which of the two, the beast or the man, has become the imitator of the other, is scarcely an open one, even granting Mr. Boyd Dawkins’ theory. The fanciful character of his hypothesis, is, however, generally admitted. It is argued that while in the Pliocene and Miocene periods there were true apes and baboons, and man was undeniably contemporaneous with the former of those times — though as we see orthodox anthropology still hesitates in the teeth of facts to place him in the era of the Dryopithecus, which latter “has been considered by some anatomists as in some respects superior to the chimpanzee or the gorilla” — yet, in the Eocene there have been no other fossil primates unearthed and no pithecoid stocks found save a few extinct lemurian forms. And we find it also hinted that the Dryopithecus may have been the “missing link,” though the brain of the creature no more warrants the theory than does the brain of the modern gorilla. (Vide also Gaudry’s speculations.)
Now we would ask who among the Scientists is ready to prove that there was no man in existence in the early Tertiary period? What is it that prevented his presence? Hardly thirty years ago his existence any farther back than 6, or 7,000 years was indignantly denied. Now he is refused admission into the Eocene age. Next century it may become a question whether man was not contemporary with the “flying Dragons;” the pterodactyl, the plesiosaurus and iguanodon, etc., etc. Let us listen, however, to the echo of Science.
* This the way primitive man must have acted? We do not know of men, not even of savages, in our age, who are known to have imitated the apes who live side by side with them in the forests of America and the islands. We do know of large apes who, tamed and living in houses, will mimic men to the length of donning hats and coats. The writer had personally a chimpanzee who, without being taught, opened a newspaper and pretended to read in it. It is the descending generations, the children, who mimic their parents — not the reverse.
“Now wherever anthropoid apes lived, it is clear that, whether as a question of anatomical structure, or of climate and surroundings, man, or some creature which was the ancestor of man, might have lived also. Anatomically speaking, apes and monkeys are as much special variations of the mammalian type as man, whom they resemble, bone for bone, and muscle for muscle, and the physical animal man is simply an instance of the quadrumanous type specialised for erect posture and a larger brain* . . . . If he could survive, as we know he did, the adverse conditions and extreme vicissitudes of the Glacial period, there is no reason why he might not have lived in the semi-tropical climate of the Miocene period, when a genial climate extended even to Greenland and Spitzbergen . . .” (“Modern Science and Modern Thought,” p. 152.)
While most of the men of Science, who are uncompromising in their belief in the descent of man from an “extinct anthropoid mammal,” will not accept even the bare tenability of any other theory than an ancestor common to man and the Dryopithecus, it is refreshing to find in a work of real scientific value such a margin for compromise. Indeed, it is as wide as it can be made under the circumstances, i.e., without immediate danger of getting knocked off one’s feet by the tidal wave of “science-adulation.” Believing that the difficulty of accounting “for the development of intellect and morality by evolution is not so great as that presented by the difference as to physical structure† between man and the highest animal,” the same author says: —
“But it is not so easy to see how this difference of physical structure arose, and how a being came into existence which had such a brain and hand, and such undeveloped capabilities for an almost unlimited progress. The difficulty is this: the difference in structure between the lowest existing race of man and the highest existing ape is too great to admit of the possibility of one being the direct descendant of the other. The negro in some respects makes a slight approximation towards the Simian type. His skull is narrower, his brain less capacious, his muzzle more projecting, his arm longer than those of the
* It is asked, whether it would change one iota of the scientific truth and fact contained in the above sentence if it were to read: “the ape is simply an instance of the biped type specialized for going on all fours, generally, and a smaller brain.” Esoterically speaking, this is the real truth, and not the reverse.
† We cannot follow Mr. Laing here. When avowed Darwinists like Huxley point to “the great gulf which intervenes between the lowest ape and the highest man in intellectual power,” the “enormous gulf . . . between them,” the “immeasurable and practically infinite divergence of the Human from the Simian stirps” (Man’s Place in Nature, pp. 102-3); when even the physical basis of mind — the brain — so vastly exceeds in size that of the highest existing apes; when men like Wallace are forced to invoke the agency of extra-terrestrial intelligences in order to explain the rise of such a creature as the Pithecanthropus alalus, or speechless savage of Haeckel, to the level of the large-brained and moral man of to-day — it is idle to dismiss Evolutionist puzzles so lightly. If the structural evidence is so unconvincing and, taken as a whole, so hostile to Darwinism, the difficulties as to the “how” of the Evolution of the human mind by natural selection are tenfold greater.
average European man. Still he is essentially a man, and separated by a wide gulf from the chimpanzee or the gorilla. Even the idiot or cretin, whose brain is no larger and intelligence no greater than that of the chimpanzee, is an arrested man, not an ape.”
“If, therefore, the Darwinian theory holds good in the case of man and ape, we must go back to some common ancestor from whom both may have originated . . . . But to establish this as a fact and not a theory we require to find that ancestral form, or, at any rate, some intermediate forms tending towards it . . . . in other words . . . . the missing link! Now it must be admitted that, hitherto, not only have no such missing links been discovered, but the oldest known human sculls and skeletons which date from the Glacial period, and are probably at least 100,000 years old, show no very decided approximation towards any such pre-human type. On the contrary, one of the oldest types, that of the men of the sepulchral cave of Cro-Magnon,* is that of a fine race, tall in stature, large in brain, and on the whole superior to many of the existing races of mankind. The reply of course is that the time is insufficient, and if man and the ape had a common ancestor, that as a highly developed anthropoid ape, certainly, and man, probably, already existed in the Miocene period, such ancestor must be sought still further back at a distance compared with which the whole Quaternary period sinks into insignificance . . . . It may well make us hesitate before we admit that man . . . is alone an exception. . . . This is more difficult to believe, as the ape family which man (?) so closely resembles . . . . contains numerous branches which graduate into one another, but the extremes of which differ more widely than man does from the highest of the ape series. If a special creation is required for man, must there not have been special creations for the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the orang, and for at least 100 different species of ape and monkeys which are all built on the same lines?” (p. 182, “Modern Science, etc.”)
There was a “special creation” for man, and a “special creation” for the ape, his progeny; only on other lines than ever bargained for by Science. Albert Gaudry and others give some weighty reasons why man cannot be regarded as the crown of an ape-stock. When one finds that not only was the “primeval savage” (?) a reality in the Miocene times, but that, as de Mortillet shows, the flint relics he has left behind him were splintered by fire in that remote epoch; when we learn that the Dryopithecus, alone of the anthropoids, appears in those strata, what is the natural inference? That the Darwinians are in a quandary. The very manlike Gibbon is still in the same low grade of development, as it was when it co-existed with Man at the close of the Glacial Period. It has not appreciably altered since the Pliocene times. Now there is little to choose between the Dryopithecus and the existing anthropoids — gibbon, gorilla, etc. If, then, the Darwinian theory is all-sufficient, how are we to “explain” the evolution of this
* A race which MM. de Quatrefages and Hamy regard as a branch of the same stock whence the Canary Island Guanches sprung — offshoots of the Atlanteans, in short.
ape into Man during the first half of the Miocene? The time is far too short for such a theoretical transformation. The extreme slowness with which variation in species supervenes renders the thing inconceivable — more especially on the Natural Selection hypothesis. The enormous mental and structural gulf between a savage acquainted with fire and the mode of kindling it, and a brutal anthropoid, is too much to bridge even in idea, during so contracted a period. Let the Evolutionists push back the process into the preceding Eocene, if they prefer to do so; let them even trace both Man and Dryopithecus to a common ancestor; the unpleasant consideration has, nevertheless, to be faced that in Eocene strata the anthropoid fossils are as conspicuous by their absence, as is the fabulous pithecanthropus of Haeckel. Is an exit out of this cul de sac to be found by an appeal to the “unknown,” and a reference with Darwin to the “imperfection of the geological record”? So be it; but the same right of appeal must be accorded equally to the Occultists, instead of remaining the monopoly of puzzled materialism. Physical man, we say, existed before the first bed of the Cretaceous rocks was deposited. In the early part of the Tertiary Age, the most brilliant civilization the world has ever known flourished at a period when the Haeckelian man-ape is conceived to have roamed through the primeval forests, and Mr. Grant Allen’s putative ancestor to have swung himself from bough to bough with his hairy mates, the degenerated Liliths of the Third Race Adam. Yet there were no anthropoid apes in the brighter days of the civilization of the Fourth Race; but Karma is a mysterious law, and no respecter of persons. The monsters bred in sin and shame by the Atlantean giants, “blurred copies” of their bestial sires, and hence of modern man (Huxley), now mislead and overwhelm with error the speculative Anthropologist of European Science.
Where did the first men live? Some Darwinists say in Western Africa, some in Southern Asia, others, again, believe in an independent origin of human stocks in Asia and America from a Simian ancestry (Vogt). Haeckel, however, advances gaily to the charge. Starting from his “prosimiae” . . . “the ancestor common to all other catarrhini, including man” — a “link” now, however, disposed of for good by recent anatomical discoveries! — he endeavours to find a habitat for the primeval Pithecanthropus alalus. “In all probability it (the transformation of animal into man) occurred in Southern Asia, in which region many evidences are forthcoming that here was the original home of the different species of men. Probably Southern Asia itself was not the earliest cradle of the human race, but Lemuria, a continent that lay to the south of Asia, and sank later on beneath the surface of the Indian Ocean. (Vide infra, “Scientific and geological proofs of the former existence of several
submerged continents.”) “The period during which the evolution of the anthropoid apes into apelike men took place was probably the last part of the tertiary period, the Pliocene Age, and perhaps the Miocene, its forerunner.” (Pedigree of Man, p. 73.)
Of the above speculations, the only one of any worth is that referring to Lemuria, which was the cradle of mankind — of the physical sexual creature who materialized through long aeons out of the ethereal hermaphrodites. Only, if it is proved that Easter Island is an actual relic of Lemuria, we must believe that according to Haeckel the “dumb ape-men,” just removed from a brutal mammalian monster, built the gigantic portrait-statues, some of which are now in the British Museum. Critics are mistaken in terming Haeckelian doctrines “abominable, revolutionary, immoral” — though materialism is the legitimate outcome of the ape-ancestor myth — they are simply too absurd to demand disproof.
Western Evolutionism: The Comparative Anatomy of Man and the Anthropoid in No Way a Confirmation of Darwinism.
We are told that while every other heresy against modern science may be disregarded, this, our denial of the Darwinian theory as applied to Man, will be the one “unpardonable” sin. The Evolutionists stand firm as rock on the evidence of similarity of structure between the ape and the man. The anatomical evidence, it is urged, is quite overpowering in this case; it is bone for bone, and muscle for muscle, even the brain conformation being very much the same.
Well, what of that? All this was known before King Herod; and the writers of the Ramayana, the poets who sang the prowess and valour of Hanuman, the monkey-God, “whose feats were great and Wisdom never rivalled,” must have known as much about his anatomy and brain as does any Haeckel or Huxley in our modern day. Volumes upon volumes were written upon this similarity, in antiquity as in more modern times. Therefore, there is nothing new whatever given to the world or to philosophy, in such volumes as Mivart’s “Man and Apes,” or Messrs. Fiske and Huxley’s defence of Darwinism. But what are those crucial proofs of man’s descent from a pithecoid ancestor? If the Darwinian theory is not the true one — we are told — if man and ape do not descend from a common ancestor, then we are called upon to explain the reason of: —
(I.) The similarity of structure between the two; the fact that the
higher animal world — man and beast — is physically of one type or pattern.
(II.) The presence of rudimentary organs in man, i.e., traces of former organs now atrophied by disuse. Some of these organs, it is asserted, could not have had any scope for employment, except for a semi-animal, semi-arboreal monster. Why, again, do we find in Man those “rudimentary” organs (as useless as its rudimentary wing is to the Apteryx of Australia), the vermiform appendix of the coecum, the ear muscles,* the “rudimentary tail” (with which children are still sometimes born), etc., etc.?
Such is the war cry; and the cackle of the smaller fry among the Darwinians is louder, if possible, than even that of the scientific Evolutionists themselves!
Furthermore, the latter themselves — with their great leader Mr. Huxley, and such eminent zoologists as Mr. Romanes and others — while defending the Darwinian theory, are the first to confess the almost insuperable difficulties in the way of its final demonstration. And there are as great men of science as the above-named, who deny, most emphatically, the uncalled-for assumption, and loudly denounce the unwarrantable exaggerations on the question of this supposed similarity. It is sufficient to glance at the works of Broca, Gratiolet, of Owen, Pruner-Bey, and finally, at the last great work of de Quatrefages, “Introduction a l’Etude des Races humaines, Questions generales,” to discover the fallacy of the Evolutionists. We may say more: the exaggerations concerning such similarity of structure between man and the anthropomorphous ape have become so glaring and absurd of late, that even Mr. Huxley found himself forced to protest against the too sanguine expectations. It was that great anatomist personally who called the “smaller fry” to order, by declaring in one of his articles that the differences in the structure of the human body and that of the highest anthropomorphous pithecoid, were not only far from being trifling and unimportant, but were, on the contrary, very great and suggestive: “each of the bones of the gorilla has its own specific impress on it that distinguishes it from a similar human bone.” Among the existing creatures there is not one single intermediate form that could fill the gap between man and the ape. To ignore that gap, he added, “was as uncalled-for as it was absurd.”†
* Professor Owen believes that these muscles — the attollens, retrahens, and attrahens aurem — were actively functioning in men of the Stone Age. This may or may not be the case. The question falls under the ordinary “occult” explanation, and involves no postulate of an “animal progenitor” to solve it.
† Quoted in the Review of the “Introduction a l’Etude des Races Humaines,” by de Quatrefages. We have not Mr. Huxley’s work at hand to quote from. Or to cite another good authority: — “We find one of the most man-like apes (gibbon), in the [[Footnote continued on next page]]
Finally, the absurdity of such an unnatural descent of man is so palpable in the face of all the proofs and evidence of the skull of the pithecoid as compared to that of man, that even de Quatrefages resorted unconsciously to our esoteric theory by saying that it is rather the apes that can claim descent from man than vice versa. As proven by Gratiolet, with regard to the cavities of the brain of the anthropoids, in which species that organ develops in an inverse ratio to what would be the case were the corresponding organs in man really the product of the development of the said organs in the apes — the size of the human skull and its brain, as well as the cavities, increase with the individual development of man. His intellect develops and increases with age, while his facial bones and jaws diminish and straighten, thus being more and more spiritualized: whereas with the ape it is the reverse. In its youth the anthropoid is far more intelligent and good-natured, while with age it becomes duller; and, as its skull recedes and seems to diminish as it grows, its facial bones and jaws develop, the brain being finally crushed, and thrown entirely back, to make with every day more room for the animal type. The organ of thought — the brain — recedes and diminishes, entirely conquered and replaced by that of the wild beast — the jaw apparatus.
Thus, as wittily remarked in the French work, a gorilla would have a perfect right to address an Evolutionist, claiming its right of descent from himself. It would say to him, “We, anthropoid apes, form a retrogressive departure from the human type, and therefore our development and evolution are expressed by a transition from a human-like to an animal-like structure of organism; but in what way could you, men, descend from us — how can you form a continuation of our genus? For, to make this possible, your organization would have to differ still more than ours does from the human structure, it would have to approach still closer to that of the beast than ours does; and in such a case justice demands that you should give up to us your place in nature. You are lower than we are, once that you insist on tracing your genealogy from our kind; for the structure of our organization and its development are such that we are unable to generate forms of a higher organization than our own.”
This is where the Occult Sciences agree entirely with de Quatre-
[[Footnote continued from previous page]] tertiary period, and this species is still in the same low grade, and side by side with it at the end of the Ice-period, man is found in the same high grade as to-day, the ape not having approximated more nearly to the man, and modern man not having become further removed from the ape than the first (fossil) man . . . these facts contradict a theory of constant progressive development.” (Pfaff.) When, according to Vogt, the average Australian brain = 99.35 cub. inches; that of the gorilla 30.51 cub. in., and that of the chimpanzee only 25.45, the giant gap to be bridged by the advocate of “Natural” Selection becomes apparent.
fages. Owing to the very type of his development man cannot descend from either an ape or an ancestor common to both, but shows his origin from a type far superior to himself. And this type is the “Heavenly man” — the Dhyan Chohans, or the Pitris so-called, as shown in the first Part of this volume. On the other hand, the pithecoids, the orang-outang, the gorilla, and the chimpanzee can, and, as the Occult Sciences teach, do, descend from the animalized Fourth human Root-Race, being the product of man and an extinct species of mammal — whose remote ancestors were themselves the product of Lemurian bestiality — which lived in the Miocene age. The ancestry of this semi-human monster is explained in the Stanzas as originating in the sin of the “Mind-less” races of the middle Third Race period.
When it is borne in mind that all forms which now people the earth, are so many variations on basic types originally thrown off by the Man of the Third and Fourth Round, such an evolutionist argument as that insisting on the “unity of structural plan” characterising all vertebrates, loses its edge. The basic types referred to were very few in number in comparison with the multitude of organisms to which they ultimately gave rise; but a general unity of type has, nevertheless, been preserved throughout the ages. The economy of Nature does not sanction the co-existence of several utterly opposed “ground plans” of organic evolution on one planet. Once, however, that the general drift of the occult explanation is formulated, inference as to detail may well be left to the intuitive reader.
Similarly with the important question of the “rudimentary” organs discovered by anatomists in the human organism. Doubtless this line of argument, when wielded by Darwin and Haeckel against their European adversaries, proved of great weight. Anthropologists, who ventured to dispute the derivation of man from an animal ancestry, were sorely puzzled how to deal with the presence of gill-clefts, with the “tail” problem, and so on. Here again Occultism comes to our assistance with the necessary data.
The fact is that, as previously stated, the human type is the repertory of all potential organic forms, and the central point from which these latter radiate. In this postulate we find a true “Evolution” or “unfolding” — a sense which cannot be said to belong to the mechanical theory of natural selection. Criticising Darwin’s inference from “rudiments,” an able writer remarks: “Why is it not just as probably a true hypothesis to suppose that Man was created with the rudimentary sketches in his organization, and that they became useful appendages in the lower animals into which man degenerated, as to suppose that these parts existed in full development in the lower animals out of which man was generated?” (“Creation or Evolution?” Geo. T. Curtis, p. 76.)
Read for “into which Man degenerated,” “the prototypes which man shed in the course of his astral developments,” and an aspect of the true esoteric solution is before us. But a wider generalization is now to be formulated.
So far as our present Fourth Round terrestrial period is concerned, the mammalian fauna are alone to be regarded as traceable to prototypes shed by Man. The amphibia, birds, reptiles, fishes, etc., are the resultants of the Third Round, astral fossil forms stored up in the auric envelope of the Earth and projected into physical objectivity subsequent to the deposition of the first Laurentian rocks. “Evolution” has to deal with the progressive modifications, which palaeontology shows to have affected the lower animal and vegetable kingdoms in the course of geological time. It does not, and from the nature of things cannot, touch on the subject of the pre-physical types which served as the basis for future differentiation. Tabulate the general laws controlling the development of physical organisms it certainly may, and to a certain extent it has acquitted itself ably of the task.
To return to the immediate subject of discussion. The mammalia, whose first traces are discovered in the marsupials of the Triassic rocks of the Secondary Period, were evolved from purely astral progenitors contemporary with the Second Race. They are thus post-Human, and, consequently, it is easy to account for the general resemblance between their embryonic stages and those of Man, who necessarily embraces in himself and epitomizes in his development the features of the group he originated. This explanation disposes of a portion of the Darwinist brief. “But how to account for the presence of the gill-clefts in the human foetus, which represent the stage through which the branchiae of the fish are developed;* for the pulsating vessel corresponding to the heart of the lower fishes, which constitutes the foetal heart; for the entire analogy presented by the segmentation of the human ovum, the formation of the blastoderm, and the appearance of the ‘gastrula’ stage, with corresponding stages in lower vertebrate life and even among the sponges; for the various types of lower animal life which the form of the future child shadows forth in the cycle of its growth?” “How comes it to pass that stages in the life of fishes, whose ancestors swam” — aeons before the epoch of the First Root-Race,
* “At this period,” writes Darwin, “the arteries run in arch-like branches, as if to carry the blood to branchiae which are not present in the higher vertebrata, though the slits on the side of the neck still remain, marking their former (?) position.”
It is noteworthy that, though gill-clefts are absolutely useless to all but amphibia and fishes, etc., their appearance is regularly noted in the foetal development of vertebrates. Even children are occasionally born with an opening in the neck corresponding to one of the clefts.
— “in the seas of the Silurian period, as well as stages in that of the later amphibian, reptilian fauna, are mirrored in the ‘epitomized history’ of human foetal development?”
This plausible objection is met by the reply that the Third Round terrestrial animal forms were just as much referable to types thrown off by Third Round man, as that new importation into our planet’s area — the mammalian stock — is to the Fourth Round Humanity of the Second Root-race. The process of human foetal growth epitomizes not only the general characteristics of the Fourth, but of the Third Round terrestrial life. The diapason of type is run through in brief. Occultists are thus at no loss to “account for” the birth of children with an actual caudal appendage, or for the fact that the tail in the human foetus is, at one period, double the length of the nascent legs. The potentiality of every organ useful to animal life is locked up in Man — the microcosm of the Macrocosm — and abnormal conditions may not unfrequently result in the strange phenomena which Darwinists regard as “reversion to ancestral features.”* Reversion, indeed, but scarcely in the sense contemplated by our present-day empiricists!
Darwinism and the Antiquity of Man: The Anthropoids and their Ancestry.
The public has been notified by more than one eminent modern geologist and man of science, that “all estimate of geological duration is not merely impossible, but necessarily imperfect; for we are ignorant of the causes, though they must have existed, which quickened or retarded the progress of the sedimentary deposits.”† And now another man of Science, as well known (Croll), calculating that the tertiary age began either 15 or 2 1/2 million of years ago — the former being a more correct calculation, according to Esoteric doctrine, than the latter — there seems in this case, at least, no very great disagreement. Exact Science, refusing to see in man “a special creation” (to a certain degree the Secret Sciences do the same), is at liberty to ignore the first three, or rather two-and-a-half Races — the Spiritual, the semi-astral, and the
* Those who with Haeckel regard the gill-clefts with their attendant phenomena as illustrative of an active function in our amphibian and piscine ancestors (Vide his XII. and XIII. stages), ought to explain why the “Vegetable with leaflets” (Lefevre) represented in foetal growth, does not appear in his 22 stages through which the monera have passed in their ascent to Man. Haeckel does not postulate a vegetable ancestor. The embryological argument is thus a two-edged sword and here cuts its possessor.
† “Physiology,” Lefevre, p. 480.
semi-human — of our teachings. But it can hardly do the same in the case of the Third at its closing period, the Fourth, and the Fifth Races, since it already divides mankind into Palaeolithic and Neolithic man.* The geologists of France place man in the mid-miocene age (Gabriel de Mortillet), and some even in the Secondary period, as de Quatrefages suggests; while the English savants do not generally accept such antiquity for their species. But they may know better some day. For “If we consider,” says Sir Charles Lyell in “Antiquity of Man,” p. 246 —
“the absence or extreme scarcity of human bones and works of art in all strata, whether marine or fresh water, even in those formed in the immediate proximity of land inhabited by millions of human beings, we shall be prepared for the general dearth of human memorials in glacial formations, whether recent, pleistocene, or of more ancient date. If there were a few wanderers over lands covered with glaciers, or over seas infested with icebergs, and if a few of them left their bones or weapons in moraines or in marine drifts, the chances, after the lapse of thousands of years, of a geologist meeting with one of them must be infinitesimally small.”
The men of Science avoid pinning themselves down to any definite statement concerning the age of man, as indeed they hardly could, and thus leave enormous latitude to bolder speculations. Nevertheless, while the majority of the Anthropologists carry back the existence of man only into the period of the post-glacial drift, or what is called the Quaternary period, those of them who, as Evolutionists, trace man to a common origin with that of the monkey, do not show great consistency in their speculations. The Darwinian hypothesis demands, in reality, a far greater antiquity for man, than is even dimly suspected by superficial thinkers. This is proven by the greatest authorities on the question — Mr. Huxley, for instance. Those, therefore, who accept the Darwinian evolution, ipso facto hold very tenaciously to an antiquity
* We confess to not being able to see any good reasons for Mr. E. Clodd’s certain statement in Knowledge. Speaking of the men of Neolithic times, “concerning whom Mr. Grant Allen has given . . . a vivid and accurate sketch,” and who are “the direct ancestors of peoples of whom remnants yet lurk in out-of-the-way corners of Europe, where they have been squeezed or stranded,” he adds to this: “but the men of Palaeolithic times can be identified with no existing races; they were savages of a more degraded type than any extant; tall, yet barely erect, with short legs and twisted knees, with prognathous, that is, projecting ape-like jaws, and small brains. Whence they come we cannot tell, and their ‘grave knoweth no man to this day.’ ”
Besides the possibility that there may be men who know whence they came and how they perished — it is not true to say that the Palaeolithic men, or their fossils, are all found with “small brains.” The oldest skull of all those hitherto found, the “Neanderthal skull,” is of average capacity, and Mr. Huxley was compelled to confess that it was no real approximation whatever to that of the “missing link.” There are aboriginal tribes in India whose brains are far smaller and nearer to that of the ape than any hitherto found among the skulls of Palaeolithic man.
of man so very great, indeed, that it falls not so far short of the Occultist’s estimate.* The modest thousands of years of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the 100,000 years, to which Anthropology in general limits the age of Humanity, seem quite microscopical when compared with the figures implied in Mr. Huxley’s bold speculations. The former, indeed, makes of the original race of men ape-like cave-dwellers. The great English biologist, in his desire to prove man’s pithecoid origin, insists that the transformation of the primordial ape into a human being must have occurred millions of years back. For in criticising the excellent average cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull, notwithstanding his assertion that it is overlaid with “pithecoid bony walls,” coupled with Mr. Grant Allen’s assurances that this skull “possesses large bosses on the forehead, strikingly (?) suggestive of those which give the gorilla its peculiarly fierce appearance,”† (Fortnightly Review, 1882,) still Mr. Huxley is forced to admit that, in the said skull, his theory is once more defeated by the “completely human proportions of the accompanying limb-bones, together with the fair development of the Engis skull.” In consequence of all this we are notified that those skulls, “clearly indicate that the first traces of the primordial stock whence man has proceeded, need no longer be sought by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive development in the newest Tertiaries; but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the elephas primigenius than that is from us”‡ (Huxley).
* The actual time required for such a theoretical transformation is necessarily enormous. “If,” says Professor Pfaff, “in the hundreds of thousands of years which you (the Evolutionists) accept between the rise of palaeolithic man and our own day, a greater distance of man from the brute is not demonstrable, (the most ancient man was just as far removed from the brute as the now living man), what reasonable ground can be advanced for believing that man has been developed from the brute, and has receded further from it by infinitely small gradations.” . . . . “The longer the interval of time placed between our times and the so-called palaeolithic men, the more ominous and destructive for the theory of the gradual development of man from the animal kingdom is the result stated.” Huxley states (“Man’s Place in Nature,” p. 159) that the most liberal estimates for the antiquity of Man must be still further extended.
† The baselessness of this assertion, as well as that of many other exaggerations of the imaginative Mr. Grant Allen, was ably exposed by the eminent anatomist, Professor R. Owen, in “Longman’s Magazine,” No. 1. Must it be repeated, moreover, that the Cro-Magnon Palaeolithic type is superior to a very large number of existing races?
‡ It thus stands to reason that science would never dream of a pre-tertiary man, and that de Quatrefages’ secondary man makes every Academician and “F.R.S.” faint with horror because, to preserve the ape-theory, science must make man post-secondary. This is just what de Quatrefages has twitted the Darwinists with, adding, that on the whole there were more scientific reasons to trace the ape from man than man from the anthropoid. With this exception science has not one single valid argu- [[Footnote continued on next page]]
An untold antiquity for man is thus, then, the scientific sine qua non in the question of Darwinian Evolution, since the oldest Palaeolithic man shows as yet no appreciable differentiation from his modern descendant. It is only of late that modern Science began to widen with every year the abyss that now separates her from old Science, that of the Plinies and Hippocrateses, none of whom would have derided the archaic teachings with respect to the evolution of the human races and animal species, as the present day Scientist — geologist or anthropologist — is sure to do.
Holding, as we do, that the mammalian type was a post-human Fourth Round product, the following diagram — as the writer understands the teaching — may make the process clear: —
The unnatural union was invariably fertile, because the then mammalian types were not remote enough from their Root-type* — Primeval Astral
[[Footnote continued from previous page]] ment to offer against the antiquity of man. But in this case modern Evolution demands far more than the fifteen million years of Croll for the Tertiary period, for two very simple but good reasons: (a) No anthropoid ape has been found before the Miocene period: (b) man’s flint relics have been traced to the Pliocene and their presence suspected, if not accepted by all, in the Miocene strata. Again, where is the “missing link” in such case? And how could even a Palaeolithic Savage, a “Man of Canstadt,” evolve into thinking men from the brute Dryopithecus of the Miocene in so short a time. One sees now the reason why Darwin rejected the theory that only 60,000,000 years had elapsed since the Cambrian period. “He judges from the small amount of organic changes since the glacial epoch, and adds that the previous 140 million years can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which certainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period.” (Ch. Gould.)
* Let us remember in this connection the esoteric teaching which tells us of Man having had in the Third Round a gigantic ape-like form on the astral plane. And similarly at the close of the Third Race in this Round. Thus it accounts for the human features of the apes, especially of the later anthropoids — apart from the fact that these latter preserve by Heredity a resemblance to their Atlanto-Lemurian sires.
Man — to develop the necessary barrier. Medical science records such cases of monsters, bred from human and animal parents, even in our own day. The possibility is, therefore, only one of degree, not of fact. Thus it is that Occultism solves one of the strangest problems presented to the consideration of the anthropologist.
The pendulum of thought oscillates between extremes. Having now finally emancipated herself from the shackles of theology, Science has embraced the opposite fallacy; and in the attempt to interpret Nature on purely materialistic lines, she has built up that most extravagant theory of the ages — the derivation of man from a ferocious and brutal ape. So rooted has this doctrine, in one form or another, now become, that the most Herculean efforts will be needed to bring about its final rejection. The Darwinian anthropology is the incubus of the ethnologist, a sturdy child of modern Materialism, which has grown up and acquired increasing vigour, as the ineptitude of the theological legend of Man’s “creation” became more and more apparent. It has thriven on account of the strange delusion that — as a scientist of repute puts it — “All hypotheses and theories with respect to the rise of man can be reduced to two (the Evolutionist and the Biblical exoteric account) . . . There is no other hypothesis conceivable . . .” !! The anthropology of the secret volumes is, however, the best possible answer to such a worthless contention.
The anatomical resemblance between Man and the higher Ape, so frequently cited by Darwinists as pointing to some former ancestor common to both, presents an interesting problem, the proper solution of which is to be sought for in the esoteric explanation of the genesis of the pithecoid stocks. We have given it as far as was useful, by stating that the bestiality of the primeval mindless races resulted in the production of huge man-like monsters — the offspring of human and animal parents. As time rolled on, and the still semi-astral forms consolidated into the physical, the descendants of these creatures were modified by external conditions, until the breed, dwindling in size, culminated in the lower apes of the Miocene period. With these the later Atlanteans renewed the sin of the “Mindless” — this time with full responsibility. The resultants of their crime were the species of apes now known as Anthropoid.
It may be useful to compare this very simple theory — and we are willing to offer it even as a hypothesis to the unbelievers — with the Darwinian scheme, so full of insurmountable obstacles, that no sooner is one of these overcome by a more or less ingenious hypothesis, than ten worse difficulties are forthwith discovered behind the one disposed of.