for us. And whence proceeds our spirit? To this question, natural
history has no answer. It is easy to see this, though we grant once
again to natural history, when made the most of by our adversaries, all
that it can pretend to claim. Suppose it proved, that in the historical
development of nature, man has a monkey for his mother. I will grant it,
and grant it quite seriously in order to ascertain what will be the
influence of this hypothesis upon the problem on which we are engaged.

If all monkeys were fossils, and if we had a natural history, also
fossil, setting forth to us the customs and habits of these animals; if
the savages that are said to be the nearest neighbors to monkeys were
all fossils; we should find ourselves in presence of a progressive and
continued development of beings, and, for an inattentive mind, all would
be easily explained by the slow and continued action of time. But this
is not the case. All the elements of nature are before our eyes, from
inorganic matter up to man. We do not see that time suffices for savages
to become civilized, and still less for monkeys to become men. I was,
in the spring of this year, in the _Jardin des plantes_ at Paris, musing
on the question which we are discussing, and I took a good look at the
monkeys. Come now, I said to myself, canst thou recognize them as thine
ancestors? The question was badly put. The monkeys are not our
ancestors, inasmuch as they are living at the same time with us; they
can only be our cousins, and it would seem that they are the eldest
branch, as they have best preserved the primitive type. But let us speak
more seriously. The races of monkeys have lived as long or longer than
we: it is neither time nor climate which has made men of them.
Recollect, I pray you, that the words 'time' and 'progress' explain
nothing. There must have occurred favorable circumstances to transform
the earth's substance into living cellules, and the living cellules into
plants clearly marked, and into animals properly so called; and in the