Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Treatises & Other

A Sketch Concerning Man

Modern English Translation

Saint Nektarios of Aegina

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The modern English translation and the cover design are © 2026 Royal Archives. All rights reserved.

The underlying source text is in the public domain.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Translated by Royal Archives

Source: Ὑποτύπωσις περὶ ἀνθρώπου

Cover: Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich (German, 1774–1840), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:sketch_concerning_man:en:1

Introduction

The Author

Saint Nektarios of Aegina was born Anastasios Kephalas on the first of October, 1846, in the small Thracian town of Selymbria, on the Sea of Marmara not far from Constantinople. His family was poor and pious, and the boy left home young—around the age of fourteen—for Constantinople, where he supported himself by manual work while continuing his schooling and, by his own account, drinking in whatever he could of Scripture and the writings of the Fathers. A teaching post on the island of Chios followed, and there, at the age of thirty, he received the monastic tonsure and the name Nektarios. Ordination to the diaconate came soon after.

His gifts drew the notice of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Ordained priest and attached to the Church of Saint Nicholas in Cairo, he became a celebrated preacher and a trusted administrator, and in 1889 the aged Patriarch Sophronios consecrated him Metropolitan of Pentapolis—an ancient see of Cyrenaica in what is now Libya, held in Nektarios’s day as a titular dignity while he served the Alexandrian church in Egypt. He was then in the fullness of his powers, learned, eloquent, and much loved.

What followed is among the more painful episodes in modern Church history, and it is best told with restraint. The very affection Nektarios inspired seems to have kindled the envy of others near the patriarchal throne. Within about a year he was removed from his office and sent away—by the sources’ consistent testimony, without trial, without charge, and without explanation. He bore the blow in silence, never publicly defending himself or accusing his accusers, and returned to Greece around 1890–91 with his reputation clouded and his means straitened. The injustice was long in being repaired: only in 1998 did the Church of Alexandria formally lift the censure that had been laid upon him and restore his ecclesiastical standing. That vindication, however, merely confirmed in law what his manner of life had already proved.

Back in Greece, Nektarios served as a preacher in Euboea and elsewhere, and in 1894 was appointed director of the Rizareios Ecclesiastical School in Athens, a seminary for the training of clergy, where he remained for some fifteen years. These were his most fruitful years as an author: he wrote copiously on dogmatics, ethics, Church history, the sacraments, and the spiritual life, and continued to publish throughout. In 1904 he founded a women’s monastery, the Holy Trinity Convent, on the island of Aegina, and after resigning the directorship of the Rizareios School in 1908 he withdrew there for the rest of his life, serving as confessor and spiritual father to the community. He died in November 1920, at the age of seventy-four, after an illness. In 1961 the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople formally numbered him among the saints, and he is commemorated on the ninth of November. Widely known today as “the Wonderworker of Aegina,” he has become one of the most beloved of modern Greek saints, and his written legacy—of which the present treatise is a substantial part—has outlived the controversies of his lifetime.

The Work: Occasion & Purpose

A Sketch Concerning Man (Greek Hypotyposis peri anthropou) was published in Athens in 1893, in the years after Nektarios’s return from Egypt, when he was still finding his footing in Greece and was soon to take up the Rizareios directorship. Its origins were, characteristically for him, pastoral and occasional rather than abstract. In the opening address “To the Readers” he explains that the book grew out of an argument with a group of students. They had maintained—prompted, he tells us, by a newspaper story about a dog that rescued a shipwrecked man during a fire at a monastery—that the human soul differs from the soul of an animal only in degree, and not in kind. Nektarios first answered them with a brief study of some ten pages, “On the Relationship and Difference Between the Human Soul and the Animal Soul.” When that essay proved too slight to overcome their objections, he set himself to a far more thorough treatment. “This resistance,” he writes, “kindled our zeal, and we resolved upon a bolder decision.” The larger book is the fruit of that resolve; its preface is signed at Kyme, in Euboea, on the tenth of September, 1893.

The stated aim is deceptively simple: “to demonstrate who man is, and how great is the distinction that separates man from the animal.” But the question was not idle in 1893. The decades on either side of that date were the high tide of scientific naturalism and of the popular reception of evolutionary theory, and one of its sharper edges was precisely the claim that human beings differ from the beasts only by an accident of complexity—that mind is merely more brain. Nektarios took this challenge seriously enough to meet it on its own ground. He read the naturalists, the physiologists, and the comparative psychologists of his age, and he set out to answer them not by retreating into pious assertion but by argument, marshalling anatomy, the study of the senses, the analysis of language and thought, philology, and the history of nations alongside Scripture and the Fathers. The result is a work of natural theology in the patristic key: an attempt to show, from creation itself as well as from revelation, that man is a rational, God-imaging, immortal being, and that between him and the animal there lies not a gap of degree but a chasm of kind.

Within Nektarios’s large and varied corpus, this treatise occupies the place of his fullest statement on Christian anthropology—the doctrine of the human person. Where much of his other writing is dogmatic, historical, or devotional, here he addresses himself to a single great question, the nature and destiny of man, and pursues it with an amplitude he allowed himself nowhere else.

Argument & Structure

Nektarios lays out his plan plainly at the start. The work is divided into four parts, “according to the different perspectives from which we examine the question,” and it is prefaced by the wondering cry of the Psalmist that sets its keynote: “What is man, that you are mindful of him? … You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8). A short, almost lyrical “Preamble” opens the book by reflecting that we habitually underestimate both the world around us and ourselves—that familiarity dulls our sight, so that we walk past the glory of creation, and of the human person, without noticing it. The remedy, Nektarios says, is to become “deep researchers and careful examiners,” to know man “in depth, not on the surface.” The four parts carry out that examination.

Part One studies man in himself, “somatologically and psychologically”—that is, in both body and soul. It follows the arc of a human life through infancy, childhood, manhood, and old age; considers the relation of the spirit to bodily nature and the remarkable harmony of soul and body; and then turns to a sustained comparison of the human being with the animal. Here Nektarios argues, against his students’ thesis, that animals lack a rational soul: he examines their instincts, the proportion of their bodies to their needs, and what he calls “the absolute dissimilarity between the soul of man and the animal.” He then grounds the difference in three human capacities that he takes to be decisive—articulate speech (the “spoken word”), the interior reason behind it (the “innate word”), and the power of forming universal ideas. A long treatment of the bodily senses follows, running through touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight in man and beast alike, before he ascends to the distinctively human faculties of the soul: memory, attention, knowledge, science, and imagination among the cognitive powers; will and desire among the appetitive; and, most tellingly, consciousness and self-consciousness among the affective. It is self-awareness, the mind’s power to take itself as its own object, that for Nektarios seals the case.

Part Two widens the lens from the individual to the species and argues for the unity and nobility of the whole human race. All human beings, he holds, descend from one stock. He takes up the visible varieties among peoples—differences of form, of color, of inherited traits—and explains them as effects of climate, diet, and civilization acting upon a single common nature, rather than as marks of separate origins. He then demonstrates the kinship of all peoples positively, from what they share: common spiritual powers and moral principles, universal religious ideas, and the deep affinities of human language. The argument is at once scientific in its idiom and theological in its point—the biblical teaching that God “made from one blood every nation of men” is defended with the ethnographic and philological learning of the nineteenth century.

Part Three turns directly to the soul—its nature and its origin. Nektarios surveys the ancient philosophers’ many guesses at what the soul is (the Chaldeans thought it fire, others air, or ether, or a compound of the elements; Socrates and Plato held it simple, incorporeal, and therefore immortal; Aristotle called it entelechy), and their equally various theories of its origin—emanation from God, pre-existence, transmigration, inheritance from the parents. Against all of these he sets the teaching of Scripture: that God “breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul,” so that the soul is neither a fragment of the divine substance nor a product of matter, but a distinct creation, made in the image of God. He then gathers the witness of the Fathers, quoting in turn Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Theodoret—and drawing as well on Augustine and Jerome—to show their unanimity: the body is from the earth, the soul from the creating breath of God, and the two together make the composite being that is man. A closing section argues that “spirit” and “soul” name the same reality in the language of the New Testament.

Part Four crowns the whole with the doctrine of the soul’s immortality, argued through a series of eleven distinct proofs. Nektarios reasons from the innate human conviction of immortality; from the desire for a highest good that no earthly thing can satisfy; from the very idea of eternity that the mind is able to form; from the love of the good, the beautiful, and the true; from the testimony of conscience; from God’s inward self-revelation to the soul; from the phenomenon of holy lives; from the universal fact of worship; from the pursuit of knowledge; and from the nature of social life. The last and longest proof reads the destiny of nations as the work of divine providence: surveying the Jewish, Greek, and Roman peoples, Nektarios argues that each was raised up and then withdrawn from the stage of history to serve, knowingly or not, the one purpose of humanity’s regeneration in Christ—a providence so evidently ordered toward man’s perfection that it would be absurd for its object to perish in the grave. The book ends where it began, with the Psalmist’s question now answered: “man is a rational being; he possesses an immortal soul and was formed for immortality.”

Theological & Spiritual Significance

The lasting interest of A Sketch Concerning Man lies in its method as much as its conclusions. Nektarios writes as a bishop and a Father of the Church, yet he chooses to meet the confident naturalism of his century on the terrain the century itself prized—observation, physiology, comparative psychology, the study of language and of history. He does not fear the sciences; he presses them into the service of a Christian account of the person, treating the natural world as a book that, rightly read, testifies to its Author and to the dignity of the creature made to know Him. This is natural theology in an ancient and generous sense, the same impulse that moved Basil in the Hexaemeron or the Psalmist gazing at the heavens, here turned to the specific questions of Nektarios’s own day.

At the heart of the book is a robust doctrine of the image of God. Man is not the highest animal but a being of another order—rational, self-conscious, morally free, capable of contemplating his Creator and destined for union with Him. The soul is a fresh creation, not an emanation and not a mechanism, and its likeness to God is at once its glory and its calling: Nektarios ends the great section on the origin of the soul by noting that God endowed man “with divine attributes, the intellectual and freedom of choice,” breathing into him the grace of the Spirit “so that through virtue he might achieve assimilation to the divine.” The purpose of human life is thus moral and spiritual ascent—the growing likeness to God that the tradition calls deification—and the passions and inattentions that dull our self-knowledge are, precisely, failures to become what we are.

The treatise also displays a quietly ecumenical breadth. In arguing his case Nektarios draws freely on Fathers of both East and West and on the classical philosophers of Greece and Rome, presenting the Christian doctrine of man not as the property of one school but as the truth toward which right reason and revelation together point. His concern is never sectarian; it is to show that the human person, in body and soul, is more than the sum of his physiology—a conviction as pertinent now, when the reduction of mind to mechanism is pressed in new forms, as it was in 1893.

Reception & Influence

Nektarios’s stature has grown steadily since his death. The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s formal recognition of his sanctity in 1961 confirmed a veneration already widespread, and he is today among the most popular of Orthodox saints, honored well beyond the Greek-speaking world and invoked especially by the sick. His written corpus—dogmatic, ethical, historical, and devotional—has been continually reprinted and increasingly translated. A Sketch Concerning Man stands within that corpus as his most developed engagement with Christian anthropology, and it rewards attention both as a document of how a learned churchman answered the intellectual challenges of the late nineteenth century and as a still-living statement of the Christian understanding of the human person.

The Text & This Edition

The present volume offers a fresh, modern English translation of A Sketch Concerning Man, rendered from Nektarios’s own Greek. The basis is the first edition of 1893 — Hypotyposis peri anthropou, published at Athens—whose text survives in a public-domain facsimile preserved on the Internet Archive; that scanned Greek text was transcribed with optical character recognition, corrected by hand against the page images, and translated from the resulting edition. Nektarios wrote in the formal katharevousa Greek of his day, and the translation aims to carry his argument into clear, readable contemporary English while keeping the dignity and momentum of the original.

A few editorial conventions should be noted. The book follows the house practice of traditional attribution: the author is named as the Church receives him, Saint Nektarios, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, with his sainthood recorded as the plain fact it is. Those who prepared and rendered the text are credited as translators and editors, never as authors. Where Nektarios quotes Scripture, it is given in the register in which he himself quotes it, rather than conformed to a standard English version, so that the reader hears the text as he used it. Where he cites the naturalists and philosophers of his century, their names appear as he transliterated them into Greek. Citations of Scripture and of the work’s own internal divisions are given in the modern Arabic style. Nothing has been added to Nektarios’s argument and nothing abridged; the four-part structure of the original, with its prefatory address and preamble, is preserved intact.

Suggestions for Reading

The reader new to Nektarios need not begin at the beginning. Those drawn to the book’s central question may wish to read the address “To the Readers” and the “Preamble” first, for the flavor of the man and the shape of his purpose, and then turn to Part Three, on the nature and origin of the soul, and Part Four, on immortality, where his argument reaches its goal. The long comparisons of man and animal in Part One, and the ethnographic and philological chapters of Part Two, are the scaffolding by which he builds his case; they reward patience, and they show a churchman unafraid of the science of his age, but they can be sampled rather than read straight through on a first encounter. Throughout, it helps to remember the occasion: this is a bishop answering, at length and in earnest, a handful of clever students who doubted that the human soul was anything more than a finer animal instinct—and answering them, finally, with the Psalmist’s wonder that man should be made “a little lower than the angels” and “crowned with glory and honor.”

To the Readers

We undertook the composition of the work at hand out of a discussion with certain students who claimed that the human soul differs from the soul of an animal only in degree. This discussion was prompted by a report in a newspaper concerning the rescue of a shipwrecked man by a dog during the burning of the Monastery. To refute these misguided opinions, we composed a brief study entitled “On the Relationship and Difference Between the Human Soul and the Animal Soul,” consisting of only ten pages, which we published. The work, however, proved inadequate to the subject matter and incomplete, and consequently too weak to persuade our student friends, who brought forward many objections. This resistance kindled our zeal, and we resolved upon a bolder decision: we determined to study the question more thoroughly and to write, as much as possible, with greater completeness. The present work is the fruit of that decision. In the composition of this work, we set as our goal to demonstrate who man is, and how great is the distinction that separates man from the animal. According to this goal, we have developed the subject matter of our writing.

We have divided the work into four parts, according to the different perspectives from which we examine the question. In the first part, we examine man somatologically and psychologically, and demonstrate who man is. In the second part, we demonstrate the nobility of the human race. In the third part, we treat the origin and nature of the soul. And in the fourth part, we demonstrate that this soul is immortal. This is the work we have labored upon. In writing this, we set as our goal to make known to those in ignorance what and how great is the chasm that stands separating man from the animal, and what kind and how great is the nobility of mankind. We shall count ourselves happy if the work is regarded as sufficient and fulfills the purpose for which it was written; for the approval of it will be the only moral recompense for our labors.

Kyme, Euboea, September 10, 1893.

† Nektarios, Metropolitan of Pentapolis

Preamble

If someone from another world were to visit us, being a spiritual being, and were to behold man, the impressions from such contemplation would be such that he would esteem man as either a superior spirit incarnate, coming to reign upon the earth, or a heavenly citizen descended from the heavens to quicken the earth and give it sensation and life, to draw it out from the state of inertia, to grant it movement through his presence, to direct all creation through his intellect and word in order to save it from destruction. He would regard man as the intelligent soul of creation, giving it sensation and reason to understand its Creator. In no way could man be underestimated; for he knows his weaknesses and his deficiencies; for he begets, raises, and develops both physically and spiritually; this first stage of human life gives him grounds for straying and for forming false ideas and opinions about himself and erroneous judgments, on account of which he regards himself so humiliated before his own eyes that he forgets himself and overlooks his own greatness and the power of the word by which he judges himself and proclaims his own worth, yet he is unable to perceive and discover the superiority, worthiness, and divine attributes through which he is more closely related to the heavenly spirits than he is to the other creatures of earth through his weakness to the remaining creation and to the inhabitants of the earth.

Regarding the esteem of man, we suffer from the same difficulty as with the diffused beauty dispersed over the whole face of the earth. All things are adorned with boundless beauties, all things are endowed with such abundant graces that even a single flower in full bloom would have been sufficient to adorn the world; and yet so often do we disdain the peculiar and brilliant image unfolding before our eyes that we do not even deign to look upon it; we pass by without the slightest impression. We bestow the same disregard upon the brilliant radiance of the sun through habit. The Heaven that proclaims the glory of the divine Creator likewise arouses little wonder in us and merits little attention from us. Yet what would we say, we who so greatly underestimate all things, if we were to ascend from the dark recesses of the earth in the prime of our youth and behold humans in their full age and maturity, the earth in its prime splendor, the sea in all its magnificence, the Heaven in the fullness of its glory? The impression would be such as to astonish and strike speechless the young observer, hitherto so eloquent and talkative. He would discover in all things brilliance, beauty, grace, delight, wisdom, understanding, omnipotence, and goodness, and would perceive the divine Artisan of creation, endowed with such abundant virtues; and he would feel himself most honored, able to discover the Creator from the creation; he would believe that he hears the divine voice speaking to him words of immortal life, and his heart, united with the divine and ineffable beauty of the revealed Creator, would be seized with utter devotion to Him, and forgetfulness of his own earthly existence would unite him with the spirits of Heaven. Such would be the result of this first contemplation. And yet habit casts a shadowy veil covering all grace, all brilliance, all magnificence; often it so darkens things that it even effaces all delight, all satisfaction, all joy, and alters things before our eyes to such a degree that even our sensations are transformed, and disagreeable things take the place of agreeable ones; and where joy should fill the soul, we feel instead an inevitable and irresistible sorrow. Such words lead to the underestimation and humiliation of man.

Man has grown accustomed to viewing the external man superficially and paying little attention in his mind to the inner man, and so has underestimated him. Man’s underestimation is analogous to the underestimation of the entire world; for just as the world receives esteem proportional to the attention it merits, so also man; and just as the cause of the world’s underestimation lies not in the world itself, but in superficiality, so also in man; not the ground of humiliation lies in him, but in the mind’s inattentiveness. Yet since things that are underestimated do not lose their worth by being underestimated— for it is incapacity, not lack of endowments, that has humbled them—neither does man cease to be most honored by the superficial underestimation of careless observers, but retains witnessed worth, excellence, and grandeur; for behold, a young researcher, a young investigator discovers what others could not find; behold, a wise and learned scholar, bearing the binoculars of science, sees things with different eyes, wholly other than what things appear; and the botanist stands in ecstasy before a tiny flower, and for an hour marvels at its wonderful attributes and its wonderful Creator; and the astronomer stands with reverence gazing upon the heavenly vault, and the wonderful cosmos of Heaven, which the divine Creator created for His glory and magnificence; and the philosopher who takes man as the object of his study recognizes him as the most noble of beings in creation, the most honorable, and as one who has received peculiar favor from his Maker.

The difference of the conclusions drawn teaches us that we ought to be deep researchers and careful examiners. Just as we examine both the external and internal organism of objects for accurate understanding and esteem of them, so must we study man for a true esteem of him; for a one-sided examination of the body may lead to the most incomplete and erroneous conclusions, which little differ from superficial observation. Man must be known in depth, not on the surface; we must come to know his spiritual powers, his spiritual life, his manner of living, his relations to the world and to his Creator; we must examine the purpose of his appearance upon the earth, so that we may know him worthily, so that concerning him may be restored what is fitting. Those who have already completed this work carefully reveal, arriving at the end, that man is a rational being, having a purpose on the earth, that he has a heavenly soul, and that only in his body does he belong to the earth, connecting it with the heavenly God. The opinion of those who think thus carries such weight that true reason and true science demand that these things be true. We too wish to demonstrate by examining man first externally and then internally.

Chapter 1: Concerning Man—The External Character of Man

And God made man according to the image of God He made him. (Gen. 1:27)

Infancy

The first investigative glance which we shall cast upon man, that we might discern him, must fall upon that point which will be the beginning of his earthly stage; for from this point, as from a secure starting point advancing, we wish to survey securely his entire life, all his ages, and the various aspects under which he appears in his earthly life stage. As such a suitable point for our investigations, we must regard infancy, for

Of the earthly stage of man is the most suitable point, from which setting forth, more securely shall we advance in our investigations.

This age presents an image of a being such as none other of the earthly creatures displays; so beautiful, so exquisite, that the observer cannot but marvel at its artisan and recognize it as the finest of his creations. Grace, beauty, and brilliance are the extremes of earthly beauties’ perfections. In the image you do not find those rough continuous lines of the animal character; in it shine wisdom, harmony, beauty, refinement, and grace. The image expresses through its most delicate lines the nobility, a kinship singular and strange to the nature of other beings, a quality harmoniously fashioned by exquisite artistic skill and the divine Artisan, by whose hand every line of the whole image has been wrought with care, presenting another sort of angel visited to ennoble creation. The creature destined to live as an image, in this image one perceives immortality rather than death, spirit rather than matter. Is it possible, then, that this crown of creatures, fashioned with such exceptional grace, was fashioned to be placed in the fate of irrational animals; that he might not know the divine Creator; that he might remain ignorant of the particular goodness shown to him, so brightly displayed; that he might not give thanks to Him for His rich gifts, and might not glorify Him for the greatness of honor, the particular favor, and such goodness toward him; that he might not seek Him and perceive Him in creation; that he might not long for His beauty and implore His divine omnipotence; never! Never! It is impossible; the denial of all these would be a denial of God’s wisdom and understanding; it would be a denial of His goodness, these divine attributes, so brilliantly displayed in the formation of creation, and especially of man. God’s wisdom is evident in the works of nature, in that man also has a reason for his existence.

Childhood

Childhood is the point of transition from potential being to being in actuality; the unfolding of all the powers of man, his emergence from the world of matter, and his entry into the world of spirit. His cognitive faculty became unknowingly possessor of countless bits of knowledge. The child, before he learns to express his thoughts, already possesses a wealth of knowledge. Every representation has left the traces of its teaching upon the tender tablet of his mind; the intellect worked while the child still was ignorant of what was being accomplished. Who taught him to retain representations? Who gave this guidance to the slumbering intellect of the child; the child, as age progresses, displays such exceptional abilities as to draw the wonder of man, unless he overlooks and underestimates them through habit. If we are unable to contemplate the spiritual movement and activity of the child’s intellect, already lisping, we would be amazed at the movement and at the multitude of impressions, and at the other functioning of his spiritual powers. Man seeks to separate himself from matter and be elevated to the order of spirits toward which he is naturally driven. Lowly childhood is the manifestation of the harmonious union of spirit and matter; it is the miracle of creation, which only the blind do not see; only His hand is able to remove all doubt and give the solution to the question. Truly they are in a body—angels destined for the kingdom of the Heavens. He who denies this has already lost his own rational soul and has become an irrational animal.

Manhood

Directing also our investigative gaze upon this age, let us examine its external appearance, character, and life. This age is characterized by magnificence, beauty, brilliance, leadership, activity, energy, nobility, magnanimity, great deeds, and in general by that abundance of virtues through which man is truly revealed as an image and likeness of God. In it man is introduced into his spiritual life, and the reason for his appearance in the world is revealed. In it are born great and life-filled men, and in it are revealed the demigods; to it ages are adorned with the extraordinary beauty of virtues, whose lamp, forever brilliant, penetrates the depths of ages, so that it appears coming to all generations; its beauty has always inspired mankind. Homer’s songs are nothing but praise of virtue. Homer truly is the wonderful painter who more faithfully than any other depicted the beauty of virtue; virtue itself revealed the divine Homer, because he became a lover of it and praised it worthily. How wonderfully did he describe the magnificence of virtue in manhood! How artfully did he exalt his heroes to the height of that eminence, so that they fall short of the Gods by little! How loftily did he speak of man! With what power of language did he reveal demigods and superior beings destined rather for Heaven than for the world!

The character of each hero is a faithful image of a virtue; the virtue celebrated by Homer is the ideal of the beautiful. The whole of them is a kind of pantheon in which virtues, personified, have assembled in a chorus to describe the moral character of man. Consider the divine Achilles, the elder Agamemnon, the resourceful Odysseus, the godlike Patroclus, the good and noble Diomedes, the noble and fearless Hector, and the whole host of heroes, and you will receive the true image of virtue in manhood; in them man is elevated to the level of the Olympian Gods. The Gods come down to the earth to share with men as with kindred. Gods and men live so together that the Gods differ from men but little, not through the lowering of the Gods, for Zeus always maintained his lofty position and had his many epithets as attributes, and likewise the other gods, but because man has been elevated to the level of the gods. Thus in Homer this age inspired his wonderful epics which will remain immortal, because in them man has been described and depicted as he is, with all possible precision and delicacy; his true relation both to the earth and to Heaven is shown, and the ancient belief concerning a rational and immortal soul is expressed. In this age there shine spirit, talent, keen intelligence, quickness of understanding, and greatness of mind. The cognitive, the emotional, and the volitional—these three powers of the rational soul of man—are revealed full of extraordinary and unknown activity in the material world. He who looks not at the mechanism of the body, but at the results of the operations of the spirit, is convinced that something great and foreign to matter dwells in the body, spirit, and an alien force moves around. Behold, with a single glance he stirs the peoples, a single saying, a single word moves the fullness of all the Earth, and its soil trembles under his footsteps. His will is strong as the will of a god, his desires infinite as one who is eternal, and his counsels are eternal. His whole bearing has such remarkable magnificence as to draw respect to himself before all creatures. All submit to him and creep before his feet; even the wildest beasts are humbled before him; it is consciousness, not force, that has subjected them, for God put all things under his feet; not only the birds of the heaven and the beasts of the sea, but also the cattle of the field, the birds of the heaven, and the beasts of the sea; He has given them this foundation and disposition; and likewise in man, His leader, He has placed consciousness of superiority and dominion. For this reason we see in the elephant humiliation and willing submission, so that it is led by a child like a dog, and through its own willingness raises upon its back the inferior; and lions cast off their fierceness and like innocent lambs lick the hands of their masters. To what creature have such creatures submitted; what creature has recognized another as its lord or superior; none, never. Man’s preeminence is the cause of the submission and obedience of all beasts and animals in general; his preeminence provides the leadership, and this reveals man as king and autocrat of all creation. Manhood is the perfect character of man, raising him above all sensible nature, and presenting the man as superior.

Old Age

As all ages have so also this age has its peculiar character, which the passing years fashion from the present of this stage; this age acquires other qualities, through which old age is characterized; in it shine wisdom, counsel, understanding; serene and fruitful reflection characterizes its thoughts. Its appearance inspires the greatest respect and draws from all who look upon it a glad reverence. Old age is the final stage of man’s earthly life; therefore it carries with it all perfection toward which man strives, and full equipment worthy, not for the extinguished and lost in death and the tomb, but for one who has an immortal soul, perfected upon the earth and prepared for Heaven, for another life endless and eternal. The continual concern for the other life is the beloved occupation and singular study of this age; disregard of the present and desire for the future appear, as it is possible, more clearly; old age seeks a new life, cannot bear that the dwelling and life-giving spirit in it be destroyed; it longs for the eternity which it is aware will be expected, for its soul was created to live, and it awakens now for the future life; it now lives for the future or the present life; the intellect and heart of the old person have turned toward the calling God, and it trusts that it goes toward Him; therefore extreme calm and serenity prevail in his heart, reflecting upon his serene face. Nothing can cause him distress, for the inner conviction which he receives concerning eternal life does not deceive and does not lead him astray; he is convinced of this truth and boldly awaits the end of his earthly stage; he sees death at his door and yet he calmly sets his affairs in order, as if he were immortal; he regards death as a familiar and known fellow traveler for the coming journey; his final wishes express his sincere convictions concerning eternal life; he believes that he is not separating from his relatives, friends, and kindred, never to see them again, but as if he desired to enjoy them every day. Such is the conviction concerning the spiritual soul in old age, such is the thinking about man, and such are the considerations about the future life. Man, thus departing from the world, as he approaches the end of his earthly life stage in old age, gains the advantage of knowing more about the future life than all other ages, and bears an image such as can be encountered nowhere in any creature. Old age is the image of the moral and spiritual being.

Chapter 3: Concerning the Relation of Man’s Spirit to His Nature

Withdrawing from the impression of the observation of the same ages of man, having taken it up, we proceed to the examination of the body, and its relation to the surrounding nature. The human body presents a system, having indeed similarity to the bodies of other animal beings examined under the aspect of organism, development, and advancement, yet differs greatly from them; examined in relation to nature, for while the bodies of all animals are properly suited to nature, only the human body appears to have been fashioned for another world, for another dwelling place. Its external appearance conforms to nature only insofar as it is found in peaceful relation to it; yet insofar as it refers to its abnormal state, resulting from the disturbance of peace and war, then too the human body’s relation to the surrounding nature is altered; for only an apparent relation remains, shown as if a natural relation, yet far from being so, for nothing akin is hostile to kindred things. By nature kindred beings love one another, and nature lovingly sustains and cherishes its own children; that the human being is not cherished by nature, this is evident to all, for not only is man unable to develop through his own power, but requires serious and studied care, for the elements, animals, plants, and even the earth itself plots against his life and undermines the foundation of his existence. This observation leads us in what follows to a dilemma: either to regard a violation of law in creation, or to regard the earth as badly disposed toward man alone. The opposite wisdom of God rejects the first hypothesis, and the lifeless and insensate nature of the earth the second; these hypotheses alone are possible and not at all advance us toward the solution of the question; they leave us in perplexity. We solve the perplexity if we seek the reason not in the conduct of the earth toward man, for it is lifeless and insensate, but in the relation of man to his Creator and all creation; for He is the one who sustains and holds the laws of nature in place and imposes His lofty will upon them. The reason for the earth’s ill will is therefore a reason for the Creator’s ill will toward His own creature; but then why would the divine Creator be disposed ill toward man, His own creature? God, having fashioned man, as good and self-sufficient, fashioned him from His own goodness; his advantages and distinctive attributes testify to the exception of the divine Creator’s favor toward His own creature, and show that he was fashioned to become a partaker of the goodness and blessedness of the Creator. But man suffers on earth; this state, not being the one seemingly ordained for him according to appearances, must be a state coming about from accident; but what accident would alter the relations of the Creator to the creature? This just question compels us, knowing the wisdom and goodness of God, to answer negatively, and the negation compels us to regard man as rational and responsible for his deeds, and to say that man’s misery is the consequence of sin and the result of moral responsibility. Man, therefore, being accountable for what he has done, is a rational, free, self-determining being, superior to the material world, spiritual, destined for a more pleasant dwelling; as for his transgression he was cast out, to pay the penalty for his deeds; the relation, therefore, of his body to the surrounding nature is a clear testimony to the rational soul of man.

On the Harmony of the Body With the Soul

The wonderful harmony reigning in creation and evidently manifested in all things, this preserving power of beings, that declares the wisdom of the all-wise Creator, through which all things are connected and are and are perpetuated, which created the eye to embrace the Sun, the ear to receive the thunders that crack the clouds with their strongholds, the nose to purify the breathed air and distinguish all kinds of odors, and the other senses in proportion to their own purpose, and the body proportioned to the atmosphere surrounding it, and having measured the power of movement to the power of the movement of the planets of the heavenly firmament, and perpetuating animals through plants and these through animals, effacing the distances of the heavenly bodies in their relation to a small sunless thing, and holding all things in their proper order and place, establishing before all things came to be the relation and communion between them, and preserving harmony in all things, placed also the foundations of the mutual communion of soul and body, and joined them in extreme harmony, toward the fulfillment of the great earthly purpose of man. The harmony of the human body with the rational soul is such that the researcher cannot calculate its magnitude, but in wonder sings the highest wisdom of the divine Creator that so harmoniously arranged the whole body to the demands of the soul; so that always and in every time it is suitable and capable of freely and unhinderedly executing every demand of the soul; how necessary was the junction of the body with the rational soul; what inadequacy, what imperfection, if the body did not obey the demands of the spirit through awkwardness; would not then the rationality of the soul be a certain uselessness; would not the imperfection surpass God’s all-wisdom; what is the eye for, if light did not exist; and what is the power of sight, if the eye were not formed in harmony with the power of vision, or were not placed in the suitable position; what are the brilliant ideas of discourse, if through the body’s imperfection they are not externalized or remain unfitted, do not receive a body; The all-wisdom of the Creator is so far from such unwise superfluity, that we see that even the terrestrial, those dwelling in the depths of the oceans or in underground caverns, that they might not have the superfluous and unfitted, He closed the shells of their eyes because of the lack of light; and if such severity was shown in these, and in many others to avoid the superfluous, would not much greater severity have been maintained in more serious circumstances; what is discourse, intellect, spiritual powers, sensations and sensibilities, and the whole spiritual host that distinguishes man from the other irrational animals, if man were an unfortunate creature; what is the self-sufficiency of the body for the ideal world of the spirit; what is the body’s such skill as to satisfy the highest and finest demands of the spirit; why then is there such inadequacy of the animal body to the demands of a rational soul; Irrational animals have a soul; if their soul were like the soul of humans, why would the divine Creator appear so unkind and deprive them of such a benefit, the skill of the body; Would not even the hypothesis alone be absurd, the senselessness of the divine wisdom, that God gave a rational soul to animals, but deprived them of the skill of the body; what would we say about His justice, if the hypothesis is regarded as true; why would He reveal man perfect in all respects, and the animal an incomplete being; is it not true that the animal is found in harmony in all respects, and man in discord; is there not a need to draw man toward the animal, and not the animal toward man; must we not regard man as a degenerate being, departed from his prescribed course; might not intellect, discourse, spirit, powers, sensations, be vital activities, secretions of the brain, without some higher reason; ought not man to return to his course; and such hypotheses might have been acceptable, and as simple hypotheses, if the harmony of the body with the cultivated soul were not in all respects complete, if the finest demands of it did not fully satisfy. The soul in him and the swift-moving intellect seeks to subject all things to itself, has strong powers and energies; the body’s weakness and wretchedness, while deprived of all things, seeks to be master of all; the strength and power of the adversaries does not at all frighten him; he trusts in the invincible spiritual power; it arms his naked hands with weapons terrible to the enemies; it clothes his naked body with impenetrable armor, it devises all means of superiority, and finds the means supporting his lofty aspirations. It is commanded to the body, and it, as a faithful, willing, and most skillful servant, faithfully and accurately fulfills what is commanded. The intellect through the cooperation of the body at last prevails; but hardly are the insatiable desires fulfilled, and behold again new demands arise; he seeks to traverse the seas, to walk upon the waves of the oceans, desires to explore their depths; the great obstacles presented do not turn him away, nothing hinders him from pursuing the execution of his plans; he is not frightened, neither by what is foreign and strange to his nature, nor by the sufferings of the deep, nor by the mass of the waters, nor by the sea monsters; he wishes, and his peculiar aspiration is at last fulfilled; the body has shown itself in all things capable of serving the demands of the spirit; but behold, he seeks to rise to the Heavens, so that he might look down upon the earth from afar, and again descend into the bowels of the earth, so that he might explore its contents; he seeks to raise mountains and level others; he seeks to dry up the seas and dig others at his will, seeks and persists in changing the face of the earth, and subjecting the powers under the earth and upon the earth and above it to his will, and accomplishes all things; the demonic intellect found in the body a demonic servant, therefore nothing is impossible for him; and the animal was deprived of these.

This we wish to say: and other demands of the spirit, with the cooperation of the body, receive full satisfaction. What a strange phenomenon! How did the perverted intellect find in the body a skillful servant; what harmony between them! What an astonishing phenomenon! How can such harmony be the work of mere chance, simple coincidence; how did the degenerate become omnipotent; how did he subject all things to his will; into how many perplexities does this irrational hypothesis cast us; and how naturally are all the perplexities solved when the harmony between soul and body is regarded as the work of the deliberate wisdom of God! How can we humiliate man to the level of the animal, and then degenerate him, so that on the one hand the similarity to them is shown and is attributed to the Creator the divine attribute of justice due for the inadequacy of the irrational animal’s body to the irrational soul, and on the other hand the distinction of man from the animal is explained; The problems remaining unsolved because of such a hypothesis compel the wise to accept the natural harmony between body and soul and the distinction of the soul of man from the animal, for which reason man received a suitable and dexterous body for all demands of his spirit, which we will show in the immediately following chapter by comparing the powers and activities of man’s soul to the activities of the animal’s soul.

Chapter 4: Psychological Investigation of Man and the Animal

The study of the human body leads us to the study of the indwelling soul, in which we find the reason for the skill and appropriateness of the body, and the reason for the works and achievements of man; for no matter how much we examine the powers and activities of man, it is impossible to explain them without the guidance of some rational power. The necessity imposed by the facts compels the researcher to accept a real principle of spiritual life, which, though closely united with the body, nevertheless differs from it and is wholly independent of it. Consciousness, self-consciousness, awareness of oneself, concepts, spiritual desires, love of the good, the beneficial, the true, the useful, aversion to evil, the distinction between good and evil, and all the remaining apparent spiritual activity are testimony to the existence of the soul and its rationality.

These activities of the soul, though most varied, are divided and brought into three general types: cognitions, feelings, and desires, for all that happens in the soul is subsumed under these categories. Since these activities presume active powers, they are reduced to three chief or general powers; the cognitive, the emotional, and the volitional or appetitive. These are the characteristics of the rational soul of man. Since also animals are ascribed a soul, let us also examine the activities of animals and see, advancing the examination of the powers of each, if we can ascribe the same categories to the animal soul.

Investigations Into the Activities of Animals

Examining irrational animals as ensouled beings, we find even in them activities not reducible to animal powers; from this phenomenon some were led to the hypothesis that animals also have rational souls and proceeded to write works to prove the hypothesis as truth. The ancients and the best of the modern naturalists, having studied carefully the apparent spiritual activities of animals, attributed them to a preordained program of the divine Creator, and called these instinct or instincts; others, more recent naturalists, called it culture.

That animals do not have a rational soul and that the apparent spiritual activities in them are instincts, we wish to prove this.

That animals unconsciously display scientific knowledge, this is evident; for they are unteachable, as Hippocrates attests saying “the natures of animals are unteachable,” for all animals of every classification appear and display the same program; the animals of the same classification all alike are born, all display the same wisdom, so an entire classification can be regarded as a single pair, and the latest such one to be perfectly identical to the ancient ancestors, differing in no respect, neither in knowledge, nor in wisdom, nor in science.

This observation leads us to the necessity that irrational animals have an innate program analogous and conformable to the particular needs of each animal, which unfolds like a coil according to the natural development of the animal. This innate program is the preserving and perpetuating power of animals, the force protecting them from extinction. The servile subordination of animals to the impulses of their instincts and the faithful manifestation of the same program guides them unfree, and the distinctive wisdom which each possesses, having as boundaries the limits of the circle of its own preservation and subsistence, necessarily compresses it, as praise and work of the instinctive providence of God for the preservation and perpetuation of the animal’s existence. According to the observations made upon the activities of animals, their activities are not an emanation of the animal’s spiritual soul, but are guided by law and the formulations of an unfolding program, whose fulfillment appears sometimes as science, sometimes as wisdom, sometimes as an inviolable law, and sometimes as foresight, as affection, as conjugal faithfulness and devotion, and sometimes as foresight and providence, and sometimes otherwise, as the necessity of preservation and perpetuation of the animal’s kind will demand; for all the mentioned virtues have a definite united purpose, the self-preservation, so that they fulfill the destiny in them for which they were fashioned.

Every instance in which an exception appears in their activities is that referred to the relations of the animal to man; for sometimes virtues appear in animals having as purpose their usefulness to man, but this reason also is found in the harmonious program so that all creation serves and becomes useful to man.

The typical unfolding of the provisions of the instinctive program is witnessed by the transient dominance and brief duration of the automatically appearing instinctive virtue, whose duration is equal to the time of natural need, after the cessation of which even its trace is erased. Before the conjugal life, animals know only the necessary things according to the first stage of their life; in conjugal life all virtues develop suddenly because of the demands of marriage. Those that create increase during the time of pregnancy, birth, and rearing and begin to diminish after the fulfillment of the obligation to completion.

Who can call wisdom and not nature science appearing periodically from it for the service of a necessity; no one of sound mind.

That Animals Lack a Rational Soul

That animals lack a rational soul is demonstrated by the unreasoning display of their instinctive knowledge, in which its power shows not knowledge but merely the living activity of the animal and the servile fulfillment of an innate programming; we can offer sufficient examples from the order of many animals, which are regarded as wise in their pursuits so long as they remain under those conditions to which they were ordained to live, yet are refuted as foolish when conditions are altered.

The beaver, destined to live by the banks of rivers, is endowed with the advantage of building skill, so that it may raise a barrier to arrest the rushing of the current; for this purpose it also gained skill of body; and this work of the beaver can be observed and regarded as a work of mind and knowledge testifying to the animal’s spiritual capacity; but the wise beaver is proved a fool through the same work, for this creature, whether found in a cage or far removed from streams and rivers, builds the same things; how then does it not perceive its situation? How does it not see the absurdity of its work? Why has it labored so uselessly?

Many animals build their dens in a peculiar way; investigation of the logos in the manner of such divine providence shows knowledge and acquaintance with the climate in which they live and of the hostile enemies from which they seem to seek protection; This providence is also displayed in certain species of fish, which take care of their young, some seeking to protect them as much from the currents of the sea as from their natural enemies; the same is observed also in the kingdom of insects with greater foresight. This parental care of the young and their security we observe generally throughout all creation.

The wisdom displayed in all things awakens the admiration of the observer and compels one to ascribe to them knowledge and understanding, and grant them a rational soul. The notion of the rational soul of the animal is maintained so long as observations are superficial upon their works, but is abandoned once deeper into studies and seeks to test their wisdom and understanding and to know their spiritual capacities; for then wisdom and understanding appear as a continuation of the animal’s automatic energies, which manifest themselves spontaneously, and the animal presents itself as enslaved to higher necessity and to a law dictating to it.

The wisdom of animals was tested also in menageries and bird farms; in them, although they live in such security, they have not lost knowledge of their security, but each as nature ordained worked it out; and how constantly they possessed the same knowledge as their ancestors? They always assume the same enemies; but also the insects—what taught them what should happen? When did the wasp see its natural enemies and guard the opening through which only the most important enemy alone emerges?

Many insects lay their eggs within fruits, always the same ones, shortly after the pollination thereof through some microscopic hole; the one of the olive, for example (Dacus oleae), commonly the olive fly, the most terrible of all insects for the olive, deposits in each olive fruit one single egg, so that the worm that will be hatched finds abundant food and is not destroyed by lack of nourishment; it knows not only what is necessary, but also the location and strength of the fruit and the consequences of nutrition on the divisible food, and displays even affection toward its young, whom it has never seen; how did it become so wise? What knowledge could it have acquired? Truly, a marvel beyond comprehension! But the wisdom of this fly diminishes through carelessness, for it does not examine the fruit to ascertain whether it has already been preyed upon by another, and in this way its young die from lack of food due to the excessive crowding of that food; the microscopic hole becomes visible to the discerning eye of a mite of rot, whose seed as a worm is carnivorous; the fly finds the hole, deposits in it its seed, and secures its life; for the seed of the fly will be nourished from the flesh of the (fly) fly, the heavy one; thus we ask, how did the fly not discover the hole that the rotting fly discovered? But also, how did the fly of rot know the one suitable food placed in the fruit for its seed? Since no one taught it.

Another insect feeds only on the interior of the olive kernel; the seed is deposited near the flower stalk by a mite testing the young fruit, and the nymph of the insect burrows into the kernel before it hardens; the hole is made in that part of the fruit so that the fruit weakens and falls before it dries completely, in order that the insect might emerge from its prison. What wisdom! What knowledge!

Other insects have their dwelling in the skin of animals, others in the abdominal cavity, others in fungi, others in the thin layers of earth, and others in various soils suitable for the generation, development and perpetuation of them; almost never do the same insects in the same soils, wherein no one has ever shown them these.

A curious work is that phenomenon in the plant kingdom. Many species of insects perpetuate their species by depositing their eggs on the surface of a certain leaf, always, however, of the same tree. The leaf gains sensation and awareness of its duty, curves, embraces within it the offspring, and transforms itself into a safe shelter; it receives from the tree new and abundant means for the nourishment of the beloved offspring, which hatch there, from which it is extracted that animals even to the worm are irrational.

Who can deny even to the leaves sensation, awareness, hospitality, friendship, by which nature sustains a plant beyond nature, a living existence; wonderful is also the manner of the perpetuation of the species; this one deposits its eggs on the back of the mother, which immediately adhere, and transform into worms, which drain the entire moisture of the mother’s body, and afterwards transform into a nymph, which after a few days flies to life for an hour for the perpetuation of the species; they produce eggs and deposit them on flowers from which the geometer feeds in its first transformation; who after so many transformations taught them the appropriate flowers for their perpetuation?

Perhaps their rational soul? No. For if we accepted a rational soul and understanding, we would find ourselves facing the following aporia: either all or some are; if all, the rational soul disappears in the unicellular animals and zoophytes; if some, then we cannot find the order of animals that would be indicated as a sign of transition from the animate rational to the animate irrational; for in certain respects we would condemn even the exceptionally rational animals, who have not benefited from the rationality of mankind; irrational animals, yet never have shown themselves ascending to the rank of rational beings; animals are irrational, because they are governed by the inborn.

Lacépède, who above all distinguishes the instinctive actions from those which might be called intelligent and rational, is of the opinion that they do not proceed from memory or experience, that they are always executed in the same manner and in all probability, moreover, that foresight of neither the result nor the benefit precedes them. The rational supposes judgment and choice; instinct, on the contrary, is like a blind impulse, which by nature moves the animal to act in a certain determined manner; the actions of it may sometimes be modified by experience and reasoning, yet never do they depend on them, and the latter powers influence in all the actions of some animal, the less so as the instincts of the latter are the more perfect. In man, understanding substitutes almost wholly for instinct, and in animals the same fulfills more or less entirely and the lack of understanding.

On the Instincts of Animals

The instincts of animals always work toward a final end, and always the same species of animals arouse the same instinctive actions, which do not proceed from learning or experience, yet the rational soul being excluded from them by reason, demonstrates animal knowledge and acquaintance toward the fulfillment of the instinct. This instinctive force produces only the simplest actions; nor does it possess this other thing, if nature gave to various carnivorous animals in order that they might direct the means they use to capture their prey.

Thus the worm of the antlion, a small insect from the genus of the ephemera, is destined to feed on ants and other insects whose juices it sucks, but it moves slowly and with difficulty, so that it could scarcely meet its needs, if nature had not taught it to set traps in order to capture the prey which it could not otherwise pursue. Through the instinct of this creature it is moved to dig within fine sand a hollow in the form of a funnel, then to hide at the bottom of this trap and to remain there patiently until some insect falls within the small abyss which it has formed in this manner; and if its victim seeks to escape, the sand of its fall stops it, paralyzes it, and causes it to roll to the bottom of the hole, hurling upon it an unlimited quantity of grains of sand through its head.

Likewise curious is also the manner in which it digs its hollow.

Spiders set traps even more curious, for the webs which these animals extend in various ways are intended primarily to stop the flies and other insects from which they must make their prey. The arrangement of the threads differs among individuals, and sometimes exhibits no regularity whatever; sometimes, however, it is most elegant, and one wonders that such small animals construct with such perfection such an extensive fabric, such as is for example the web of the Epeira Diadème, the greater ornate spider, which dwells in our gardens. The same one has to observe also of those spiders which do not confine themselves merely to setting similar traps, but also employ the thread to wrap their victim and to prevent it thus from all defense until by their venomous centers they pierce it.

We can also mention certain fish in order to capture their prey exercising no less a curious instinctive mechanism. Such is the Toxotes dwelling in Indian waters, who, destined to feed on insects and unable to pursue them, possesses the art of shooting drops of water at those which sit on the water plants in order to make them fall and thus devour them; he appears to be so suited to this type of hunting that very rarely is observed to miss his aim at a distance of many feet.

Finally, the kinds of those tricks which many quadrupeds use in the hunt must also be referred to instinct, because they are brought about in the same manner in all individuals of the species, often also appearing in those who have not yet had the opportunity to learn either from memory or from example.

In this order of instincts we must classify that innate inclination which moves many animals to gather provisions for future use, which they hide within hiding places; generally this instinct develops in species more or less settled, which for part of the year do not find in the place in which they dwell the substances from which they feed. This further foresight is marvelously prevented in the past, it is not at all possible to be explained from the lack of foods which it brings yet more, it depends on a manifest deliberation of the intelligence, because it appears before experience teaches the animal the benefit of such deposits, and they are found also in individuals living, just as in their parents and in climates where no scarcity of foods is threatened at any time of year.

The squirrels of our forests provide an example of such an inborn inclination to provide for the needs of the future. During the summer these small animals display such an activity, their zeal and the speed with which they gather their provisions and hide them often in warehouses and various hiding places, such that in winter, when cold threatens, they can find them very well, even when covered by snow. Yet this impulse, which is to them so beneficial when the approaching cold interrupts their daily gathering, moves it also to hide the provisions even from those who remain, even when they have never known a season of scarcity, nor do they fear any such thing.

Another rodent mammal, which resembles very much our rabbits and dwells in Siberia, the Lagomys, is endowed with an even more wonderful instinct; for not only does it gather in the fall the grass from which it will need to take for nourishment during the long winter in this inhospitable place, but also dries it exactly as our farmers do. After cutting the stronger and more vigorous grasses for winter, it spreads them to dry in the sun; when the work is completed, it heaps them in mounds which it takes care to protect from rain and snow; thereafter it digs beneath each storehouse an underground gallery opening into the dwelling and arranged so that through it it might be able to visit its supply store at all times. The bee is also impelled to prepare similar provisions for the future and for this purpose executes works still more varied.

Another kind of instinct related, as those mentioned, to the maintenance of the individual is the one that moves certain animals to construct dwellings, teaching them every complex work necessary for this purpose, and causing them to follow invariably in their works the same habit, even if the worker in general has never seen such a thing being executed, nor received a design.

The silkworm constructs from the threads which it makes something similar into which it encloses itself in order to undergo safely the transformations and to direct the soul; the rabbit digs its burrow, and the beaver constructs those huts for which it became famous.

The cricket (Gryllus campestris), a small burrow creature of nature, which is encountered in the plains from Alsace to Russia and brings great damage to agriculture, constructs an underground dwelling always having two exits, of which the one being slanted serves the animal to throw out the earth, while the other perpendicular is the path by which it enters and exits. These paths become in a number of circular chambers communicating with one another through horizontal conduits; one of these cells equipped with a bedding of dry grass is the very dwelling of the cricket, and the others are destined to serve it as stores for the supplies which it gathers in large quantities.

Certain spiders known among zoologists by the name blind execute works analogous indeed to those of the cricket, but multiple, because they not only construct a spacious dwelling with a good bed, but also know to close the entrance by a door equipped with a lock.

At certain times of year are also observed certain curious modes employed instinctively in the construction of dwelling. Certain caterpillars know how to construct shelters by rotating a leaf and uniting it with threads.

Other insects construct cases with pieces of leaves, pieces of cloth or some other substance which they know and combine skillfully. Such is the clothes moth, a small silvery moth which in the caterpillar state digs hollows in the thickest woolen fabrics eating them very rapidly.

Finally we must note that animals certain to spend the entire cold period in a state of torpor have not only the instinct to construct some dwelling or soft nest, but also seal the entrance of their dwelling, when the season of winter sleep approaches, as if they were able to foresee that for a long time they would not need to go out and that if the door remained open, it would provide free entrance of cold and dangerous enemies. Such are the dormice (Loirs), which are found in the Alps.

A third kind of instinctive forces, which sometimes have as their object the maintenance of the individual, at other times are determined to secure in the young helpful conditions of their existence, in both cases are almost always closely connected with the instinct of sociability; they move certain animals to undertake long journeys, and often to change periodically climate, sometimes migratory animals only leave a region when they exhaust all resources, then proceed to feed elsewhere in a country rich in resources. Sometimes also they are driven to migration by the cold of winters and toward the south because of the great heat of the air; in many cases, however, the migrations precede any obvious spherical change capable of explaining them, and guide them not to withdraw gradually from the land which they abandon, but to direct themselves in a straight line and without any hesitation toward the country where they are about to arrive. Almost always when these journeys are undertaken, most of the animals unite in herds in order to proceed in agreement.

The monkeys, which live so numerous in the mountains of the New World, provide examples of this such disorder of changing climate having no apparent purpose. After they have destroyed a region, many are seen acting from branch to branch seeking other places abounding in fruits; and thus to another seeking fortune, with a tumultuous manner.

The journeys even more curious and showing no periodicity are undertaken by the lemmings (Lemmings) without the reasons for their migrations being yet revealed. These animals resembling pigs dwell on the frozen sea and sometimes descend on the banks of the flowing river in numerous herds, proceeding then in dense columns, and always follow a straight line without being stopped even by the greatest obstacles, crossing the rivers by swimming and the hills or rocks which they cannot climb by jumping over.

In general, the journeys of animals occur periodically and coincide with the changes of the seasons. Thus hundreds of regiments of rodent creatures, a certain one with the lemming, which is called also economical, abandon Iceland and direct toward the west. These animals are known by the name they traverse hundreds of leagues and are of such numerous abundance that in 1755, in July, when they reach the banks of the Atlantic and the Pacific, after having traversed a path woven of hours, which often needed many hours to cross beyond two hours, in the month of October they return to Iceland.

In the areas closest to the Cape of Good Hope and in the middle parts of America are encountered likewise in spring and fall countless herds of Antelope and Deer, which depart over great distances. But above all in the history of birds are encountered frequently and abundantly examples of such an instinct of journeys, for a certain number of these animals periodically moves from Europe to Africa and returns subsequently from Africa to Europe and this with such order, that both the arrival and the departure occurs, so to speak, on a determined day. Thus the swallows, which appear to us at the beginning of April, leave us in the fall; then we see these birds unite in countless flocks and direct toward the south, and having reached the banks of the Mediterranean they gather on the peak of some height and having remained for a time depart in agreement, and traverse the sea in countless ranks, although the opposite bank is completely invisible and a great ocean separates the continents. It appears also that they migrate as far as Senegal to pass there the winter. Also famous are the storks for their traveling instinct, and they work also in Africa and Asia Minor to escape the severe winters of our climates, just as many of the northern birds begin in our agricultural lands, when cold prevails in the polar lands, and from there return in spring. Curious are also the migrations of the herons and of many other birds.

Finally the instinct toward migration is found also among fish and insects. The salmon, the tuna, the lawless and speckled (Bombyx) etc., provide us paradoxical examples among the first, and the locusts (Locustidae) among the second.

The instincts which nature gave to animals in order to secure the maintenance of the young are of the most varied and curious, aided by which these beings provide for their own needs. The inner impulse which moves birds to brood upon their eggs, which causes them to remain almost motionless for weeks, which moves them to prepare with such art a dwelling to protect within it the young and moves it to be wakeful for the happiness of the new family, this teaches insects to select the place where it should deposit its eggs, so that the worms born from them find the foods from which they have need nearby; the one which moves certain of these animals to take care of young born from an alien mother; the instinct which guides certain birds and quadrupeds to that kind of rearing which they give to their young; these forces and the phenomena resulting from them, those excite always in our spirit such amazement as wonder, and teach us more eloquently than words, how much the creative power of such exquisite things must be above all that man can imagine and conceive. But the amazement which is aroused in us by these unknown things, which are the cause in animals of such wonderful actions, being surpassed perhaps by that which inspires us the also inborn that passion which in the human species causes the mother to devote and wholly to the happiness of her children, and which is required even at a lower degree by very many animals, who although they possess no knowledge sense about what the young will become, yet often have the curious habit of placing nearby them a deposit of nutritious or raw foods, for the nourishment of the worm to be born, and then even when their diet differs completely from the diet of the young. In this action, nor any kind of reasoning can guide them, for if they possessed the faculty of reasoning, they would lack the things for them to arrive at such conclusions; and necessarily must they act blindly, but their instinct fills the lack of experience and reason, and teaches them to do exactly all that is necessary for them to attain the end which they must set.

On the Irrationality of Animals and the Proportion of Their Bodies to Their Individual Nature

Concerning the irrationality of animals, Nemesios says the following. “I know that God has implanted in each animal not a rational but a natural understanding; and in some he has implanted cunning in order both to avoid present dangers and to guard against future ones; that animals act naturally and not rationally is clear from the fact that each species of animal does the same thing likewise, and do not preserve in their multitude different actions, but according to one impulse the whole species is moved; for every hare is tricked similarly and every wolf craftily deceives, and every ape imitates similarly; which is not seen in man. For myriad are the ways of human actions, for the rational is free and self-determined. Whence not one and the same work to all men, as to each species of other animals. By nature alone are these moved; but those moved by nature are similarly in all. Rational actions are different in different persons, and not of necessity the same in all. The sheep indeed in Scripture

Is inferior, because it does not have its own understanding, so as to find pasture and drink unless someone the shepherd tends it. Many of the animals are also near human understanding; and see the land hedgehog, constructing two passages in its burrow opposing both the south wind and the north; and so the irrational animal is moved by natural reason to such things. Nor are animals self-determined, as also says John of Damascus, because nor are they rational; for truly all rational nature has self-determination inherent in it. For what will the rational possess if its nature does not reason in a self-determined way? The Creator has sown in the irrational animals the natural desire for the maintenance of its own nature, moving them necessarily; for they lacking reason can neither lead, but are led by the natural desire. Whence whenever desire arises, immediately also the impulse toward action. Neither by reason, nor by will, nor by reflection, nor by judgment do they use. Whence neither as pursuing virtue is it praised and blessed, nor as committing vice is it punished. But the rational nature has the natural desire moved, but drawn out from the rational and governed; of which reason the privilege is self-determined will, which we indeed call a natural movement in the rational. Wherefore also as pursuing virtue it is praised and blessed and as committing vice it is punished.”

The virtues of animals are natural, because they are proportionate to the constitution of the body; “to carnivorous animals, says the same author, divine providence fitted sharp teeth; such was their need for the kind of food; but the half-equipped with teeth; with many and various store-chambers of foods prepared; for he gave some to find the food initially and simply to refine it, to swallow again contracted, as the land animal allotted to rumination, to be customary to the one being fed. But also with the very weapons have animals been aroused against one another; according to the kinds of souls, as Aristotle says, God also gives the formations of the bodies and their energies; for instance, to the rabbit and the deer being cowardly in soul, he gave speed, that they might escape the hands of hunters. To the pig, being bestial and voracious, he gave rolling tusks. To the bull he gave horns for safety. To the lion teeth and claws; likewise to the carnivorous birds sharp feathers, a hooked beak and all that contributes to the wholeness of the body toward the needs of the soul.” Did he neglect to grant them the necessary knowledge for the purpose of their existence?

The virtues accorded to animals are so numerous and varied that one marvels at the multitude and the variety. The same amazement is awakened also by the multitude of the virtues of the plant kingdom. Who can deny a proportionate understanding in the plant kingdom to that of animals? There exist plants, just as there exist animals, wise in their kind and prudent; there exist plants and trees carnivorous whose motion and other virtues are common to the carnivorous animals, and in no way are they inferior; some are as sensitive as the most sensitive of animals; some are pleased more in the sun than in shadow, and others turn to water more than to dry land, and others support their existence epicgrow roots from the branches, in order that as columns they may bear the weight of the branches, others direct their roots through the most irregular paths, in order that they find the food suitable to them. Who then, being a careful observer, does not acknowledge that he finds in plants as well as in animals a sense of love and affection; who does not see the sensation which they possess of the changes of the seasons of the year? What shall we say also concerning the divinatory experience by which they know beforehand the dryness or much rain according to the hours of the year, and according to their prognosis they bear fruit? If one carefully examines the plant kingdom, he will not find fewer arguments from the animal kingdom provided to support rationality; of the plant kingdom manifests itself also in its kinship relation to the animal kingdom, by which it is rather supported. Thorough study can persuade every educated investigator about this. Is it therefore possible and rational that in trees and plants, and in general all that has animal or plant existence, all being that dies and is born, are beings rational? Oh! This admission would make the thing much more absurd than wonderful. Reduction to absurdity teaches us that the providence of God, by which the will of God that the world should exist is expressed, this manifests itself in all, under all the various forms of the all-wise understanding, of the various existences ascended to the orders of animals and plants, and sustains all things.

Animals therefore are irrational, and the providence of God, or rather the will of their existence, sustains them in being. How clearly the wisdom of the Creator was shown in the preservation of irrational nature! How plainly did it arrange all things and order all things! What animal could have adorned itself not having the innate instinct unfolding according to the periods of its life? Surely none, for being unsuitable for mutual teaching and training both through the lack of reason and of the necessary time and the unfitness to this of the organs of the body and through the lack of the means for teaching they would be destroyed immediately upon their appearance. Whence animals had need of innate wisdom and this God granted them. So animals are irrational, and no rational force prescribes the wise works of them. A rational being therefore is man alone, because his wisdom is unlimited and has as the object of study the whole world, and develops and advances by its own power and energy.

On the Absolute Dissimilarity Between the Soul of Man and the Animal

Those daring to compare and to compare the instincts for self-preservation of animals to the psychological phenomena of man are shown to be very superficial and short-sighted, for they do not perceive either the general, free, independent and unlimited character of the former, or the partial and exclusive character of the latter.

Man in each step is perfected; his works and thoughts have as their object the whole of nature; he thinks about himself and about humanity. In general man estimates himself and the animals according to the degree of accuracy present in them. The works such as the construction of hives by monkeys, from ancient times unaltered, compared to the varied and all-wise buildings of stone, necessary for the maintenance of life as well as to the elephant through the dexterity of the proboscis and to the other animals according to the proportion of the organs of the body; if it were wonderful that divine providence fitted knowledge to the body for the maintenance, development and flourishing of animals; who can maintain that it would have had the use of stone as an instrument helping in its self-feeding, if not such a construction of the hand felt in itself this.

The construction of the body, so also such invention and knowledge, such as the construction of the body of the animal. The one viewing an animal can define the limits of its knowledge and understanding. The wisdom and understanding of animals are of a particular character; each animal has proportionate wisdom; the wisdom of one animal has no kinship with the wisdom of another of the same order, they are not based on the same foundation, for they do not have a basis of reason, but the nature of the animal; many animals can live in the same lands for ages, but never will one animal benefit from the wisdom and knowledge of another animal; the ape can see the beaver building for ages, but never will it imitate the art of that one; nor the dog, nor another bird of another bird; nor the more nor the less developed animal will imitate the knowledge of the other.

The soul of the animal therefore has not the slightest likeness to that of man; for the animal neither works in knowledge nor has consciousness of the end of its work; whereas man works freely, as a being having a rational soul in awareness and knowledge of the purpose and end, as we shall demonstrate.

Chapter 4: On the Spoken Word and the Innate Word and on Ideas—On the Spoken Word

A distinctive property of man is the spoken word; through it he externalizes his feelings and thoughts and develops all his spiritual powers, which he draws out from the potential state and places into actuality; it lays the foundation of his progress, development and advancement, and reaches the perfection revealing him. The spoken word, the first uttered from the lips of man inscribed with deep writing the first chapter of the history of his life on earth, and was the first impulse forward and the abandonment of the point of his standing, it was the unsealing of the scroll, in which was written the earthly path of man.

The spoken word is an instrument of the soul by which it manifests itself to the world; it is the sensible image of the soul, or its ideal body. The development of the word is the development of the powers of the soul, and the form of the word is the form of the degree of its perfection, for such is the word as the intellect; such the counsels, such also the utterances; in order for the mouth to speak, the intellect must first work; when the intellect is idle the mouth remains mute; therefore in order for the tongue to move toward articulate voice, the soul, or the intellect, must first wish to express its thoughts; in order for water to flow there must first exist a spring gushing forth waters; such a spring is the rational soul, through its intellect and its powers expressing the manifold streams of the word. The first word expressed by the soul as soon as man opened his eyes and gazed upon the nature around him, and perceived his world.

Since sensations accompany life, the first word is recorded from the first perception; Holy Scripture, the most ancient of all books of the world, and if not considered by those denying divine revelation as a book written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ought to be considered as the most philosophical book of the ancient world; it says that God, after having formed man, called upon him to give names to the animals; And God formed still from the earth all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to Adam, to see and to call them; and all which Adam called it a living soul, that is its name. (Gen. 2:19) This most ancient conviction of humanity concerning the language of man is a sufficient argument against those denying reason to the rational soul of man, and considering the spoken word, not as a means of the rational soul inseparable, but as a cause of it; the presentation of the animals and the calling of man through his formation to see and call names to all the animals, what else expresses than the impulse of the rational soul to universalize, judge and reason; How would he give names, if not the soul in all its strength understood the differences distinguishing the animals and the characters of the animal; Those not accepting the revealed truth agree in all things toward right reason, and reason captivated ought to respect the spirit of the most ancient period and acknowledge its authority. If man did not have a rational soul, he would lack also the spoken word, nor would he have the tongue and the phonetic organs so useful for the word; animals unfit for this testify to the lack of the innate word. The wisdom of God made all things in wisdom; the stasis of animals and the lack of the word are witness of their irrationality; what chasm opens between man and animal through the spoken word! What then is the distinction.

The Cuvier, a most wise man, speaking of the language of man says: “the zonked one possesses the faculty of language, which is the natural consequence of the rational, has in the body the phonetic organs, in which it happens automatically, that in the motion of the nerves following irritation from external impressions it becomes. Man has in deliberation the logical intellect, which he follows in the development of language. This is indeed an invention, but a gift of nature. The relation of the spiritual faculty of language presupposes from before the intellect connected and from the beginning joined together and accordingly shaping them. The spiritual therefore of language power, and nature of it; the law of its development is of God’s creation. What we as a gift of nature called, must be viewed only as a work of conscious wisdom, and not as ever it will be of chance fortune. But this gift is also at the same time a task. The idea of language is a divine product, but the actualization and development of this is the proper work of man.”

That the word distinguishes man from the animal more than his bodily character, the great scientist says: “if one were to judge guided only by form, the ape could be considered as a variety of man. The Creator did not wish to form the body of man an absolutely different prototype from the animal; but he embraced the form of him and of the other animals in one general design. To the form of the ape but having given it his divine breath, he breathed into man; if he had given the same breath not to the ape, but to the most imperfect of the animals, that species would have proved as capable as man; governed by the spirit would have exceeded the others, would have thought, would have spoken. Whatsoever similarity may therefore exist between the Hottentot and the ape, the partition dividing them is infinite; for man bears within the rational, outside is adorned by the spoken word.”

Therefore the spoken word is a witness of the innate word of the rational soul, whose powers we shall examine, by comparing the energies of the animals, so that more clearly it may be shown the chasm which stands separating man from the animal.

On the Innate Word

We call innate word the faculty of the energy of the intellect through which it thinks, judges, universalizes and reasons. Therefore innate word is the rational energy of the intellect, that is, the intellect in energy. We call the innate word also intellection through the identity of the energy; for intellection is intellect moved into energy, and word is the power moving the intellect; intellect without word is not intellection, that is, not active power, but a mirror receiving the notions of objects and holding them as long as they stand at the threshold, and discarding them as soon as they fall. The word which constitutes the intellect intellection is the one producing ideas and expressing the categories of things; the intellect takes the notion of the rose, and of the violet and distinguishes the one from the other, but in order to say the rose is red, the violet is blue, in order to categorize them their qualities, it must become intellection through the moving into energy word. In the faculties of the word manifests the divinity of the soul and the divine wisdom expressed through the word having moved the intellect into energy and knowledge of itself, and of the creation around it. The divine wisdom which having moved the intellect into energy through the word, gave it as a garment an organic body of marvelous perfection, manifested not only in the organism, but also in the sensory organs, distinguished among all beings of creation. The intellect through the word and the perfection of the body produces the phenomena of the spiritual life of man, from which it is elevated to the highest prospect in which appears its greatness, and its high dignity in the creation of the world.

The intellectual energy itself furnished from the facts of its existence through the works of invention; this brought forth the words in utmost faculty and energy, and invented differently from itself toward the expression of feelings and thoughts of it.

On Ideas

Ideas are distinguished into sensory and abstract, according to the objects from which they are derived; and these in turn are divided into theoretical, ethical, and emotional; from notions there are generated (1) theoretical ideas, namely those of immortality, holiness, monarchy, etc.; (2) ethical ideas, namely those of justice, virtue, reverence toward God, etc.; and (3) emotional ideas, namely those of the beautiful, the useful, the true, the perfect. The human person regulates his own life according to these ideas. According to these ideas he manifests the practical element that follows from him, that is, the element of desire; and harmony with these is called ideational and practical, or appetitive; and what follows from the appetitive element of the human being is material; hence works and sciences, if they possess the ideational character, are truly spiritual sciences and arts; but if they are deprived of the ideational character of the human person, they become themselves material and lifeless. The human person rises to his proper stations toward the Creator and discovers the Absolute, and attributes to it all absolute properties and all absolute blessedness. Through reason he comprehends his own nature and the nature around him, and hastens toward the worship of the Absolute and toward the wonder which the absolutely ideational inspires; they are truly spiritual sciences, experiences, and living presence of the human person before God. Through the ideational, the human person rising to his own stations toward the Creator, and through reason comprehending his own nature and the nature around him, hastens toward the worship of the Absolute and toward the wonder which the absolutely ideational inspires, ascends to the divine within himself, and God grants him a rational and immortal soul; and God breathed into his face the breath of life, and the human person became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

Michael Psellos speaks the following concerning reason: “Having brought the human person naked into life, he consoled him through the abundance of reason; for in reason he also possesses the power to rule all things; through reason he brings down the birds from the air; through reason he draws the fish up from the depths of the sea; Do not be downhearted, therefore, O human, that you lack visible wings, since God has granted you an intellect far superior to all birds and even to the very winds. Wherever you nod your head, it happens immediately; and bound in flesh you traverse the heavens, and contemplate the beauties there. Why then does the lack of visible wings grieve and trouble you, you who possess such intellectual powers and surpass the winged creatures so readily? Your body is earthbound, yet through wisdom you hunt the air-dwelling birds; you dwell on the earth, yet you draw the fish up from the waters with a small hook and bait; and why should I say much? You can do all the rest whatever pertains to the maintenance of your life—build houses, make clothing and cloaks, forge weapons, and all such things; for it is on account of this that God has given you hands, so that unhindered you might execute the reason that belongs to you and accomplish all that you desire.”

And the great Basil, in his commentary on the prophet Isaiah, speaks the following about this: “To irrational animals he gave to sustain their life spontaneous foods and shelter; and he granted them clothing of hair; the all-governing power secured it. But having brought forth the human naked, he gave him reason in place of all things, through which resourceful arts were established—building, weaving, household management, agriculture, and others—the soul making up through the abundance of reason what the body lacks.”

How much the deprivation of reason debases and humbles the animal! How much the lack of ideas diminishes the circle of the animal’s knowledge! How poor and naked it presents itself! What an incomparable difference distinguishes it from the human person!

Chapter 5: Bodily Articulation of the Human and the Animal—On the Parallelism of Human and Animal

The parallelism is immediately impossible from the outset, because an infinite chaos separates them, and it bewilders the one attempting it. The great wealth and variety of animals, on the one hand, and the abyss of spiritual difference, on the other; one is at a loss as to which comparison to make. Is it to be a comparison by class, or to a single animal? Comparison to all animals together of all co-classes bears within itself three absurdities: first, inequality due to excess and variety; second, unsuitability due to the great distribution of spirit; and third, confusion arising from the absurd conclusion by which, first, all animals would be made equal, and second, what belongs particularly to each would be attributed in common to all. Comparison even to a single class is incomplete, because it excludes other animals, it presents the difficulty of selection, and it excludes the greater part of the spiritual virtues of animals, on account of which the degree of spirit in animals is diminished, which is what those of ape-lineage base their opinions about animal rationality upon. Likewise, comparison to a single animal alone also has deficiencies, because what is attributed to one cannot be attributed to all animals and birds of every similar class, so that all comparison is entirely impossible.

Those who draw parallels between the virtues of animals taken as a whole and the virtues of the human person, and between their works and activities and the works and activities of human intellect, and who draw conclusions about their similarity, err in the very foundations of the comparison; and therefore their conclusions are most absurd. But from this faulty comparison itself there becomes evident the superior position of the human person; for it is demonstrated that only he possesses all the virtues of spirit together, which we find distributed among all animals. Hence the comparison and parallelism of human and animal is impossible; but let us suppose it to be possible. What work of animal intellect testifies to its immanent reason? What animal has ever transformed a notion into knowledge? By what work has it shown this? What idea has it ever had of a single object? Or has it attributed a notion to something? When have we known that some animal has judged, reasoned, or generalized the ideas of things? What animal has ever reflected on the origin of its existence and the end of it, or on life and death? When has it been led to some abstract idea, or known itself, or attributed a notion to something, or been led to the concept of the origin of beings? Or acquired theoretical, ethical, or emotional ideas? None of those who are ape-lovers can prove that such a thing has ever occurred in any animal from eternity. The assertion, therefore, of the claim about the similarity of spirit and difference in quantity alone is entirely absurd and irrational, as we shall clearly demonstrate in investigating the rational faculties of the human person and the activities of the faculties of the animal. The animal is irrational and foreign to the works of human intellect. The animal is ignorant of all things, ignorant of itself, of its Creator, of life and death, and will remain eternally ignorant; but let us see whether, perceiving what falls upon its senses, it acts rationally.

General Sense

We call general sense that faculty through which we receive knowledge not of external objects, but of the various states or needs of the body, those that tend toward its sustenance. Through this we receive knowledge of such and such a condition—the health of the body, cold, heat, pain, pricking, hunger, thirst, satiety, necessity, and other things. This sensation is found common to both humans and animals. But although the form of sensation appears on the whole similar, it differs internally, that is, morally; for while in humans the sensation of aroused feelings is transmitted to the rational soul, in animals the sensation of aroused feelings is referred to an irrational intellect; therefore, while the human person does not do what is necessary, but what he wishes, the animal in acting does what sensation dictates; nor is the will questioned at all; for it does not exist; and it always acts without delay and without postponement, while the human person delays, lingers, and resists. The animal seeking shelter in shade does so by necessity, not by choice, because it finds rest in it, and there is nothing wonderful about this if it is guided by instinct toward this action; for divine providence has granted all animals commonly the sensation of pleasure for the preservation of their life. All animals feel warmth and cold; both arouse irritation in the general sense, and experience guides toward the place where the irritation is relieved. Migratory birds do the same; but what shows this to be instinctive rather than rational action is that they resort to suitable regions before they even know the necessity, the place, or its usefulness. The same is observed in fish; most animals prepare their dwellings suitable for the temperatures of the climates where they find themselves, before they have even recognized them. Insects do the same before atmospheric changes, anticipating them and seeking a safe location. Certainly their activities are not rational, because there are no reasons to support the opposite; therefore instinct is what operates in them, not reason. No similarity therefore exists between the activities of the human person and the animal; let us see now if such a thing exists in the activities of the specific sense.

Specific Sense

Just as general sense, so also specific sense is a faculty through which the soul gains knowledge of objects through the sensory organs, situated on the periphery of the nervous system and united with its central organ, the brain. These sensory organs are touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight. Humans and animals have these senses in common. Just as the human person, so also animals receive sensations of objects that fall upon them. One may ask: does what happens in the human person happen the same in animals? That is, does the notion of an object transform into thought, into idea, into knowledge? Does it stir in them what it stirs in the human person? Does it gain knowledge of them and their properties as the human person does? Does the animal also have awareness of the object, and does it strike the consciousness that it has acquired some knowledge, that it has recognized something which it previously did not know, and that it has stored some knowledge in its storehouse of knowledge, that it has become better than itself? The human person through each sensation becomes more complete, always adding new knowledge to the storehouse of his knowledge, and has awareness of his progress and development. Through the five auxiliary means of the sensory organs functioning, the human person is led to high contemplations and strengthens the faculties of the soul; the human person through the senses gains knowledge of his existence, gains awareness of his subjectivity, and thinks, he exists. Can we say the same thing about animals? Our observations on the results flowing from the senses do not permit us to say the same thing about the animal as we have said about the human person; for no sign appears testifying to the existence of similar cognitive activity; so the animal does not elevate to a rational soul the impressions that it has; we shall demonstrate this truth by investigating the results of sensations from each sense.

Sense of Touch

Touch is called the sensation which conveys to the soul through the body precise information about the existence of approaching bodies and provides a sure means toward self-knowledge; through touch the soul comes into communication with ourselves and with the external world; and touch has its psychological seat in the sensations of the fingers.

Touch follows the higher senses of sight and hearing in its functioning, and supplements what is lacking in those things relating to the activities of the rational soul in their relationship to the knowledge gained through matter. The value of touch is such that this sense alone, without the complete participation of the others, would suffice to provide the human person with the idea of the self; for through it a person feels the nearby individual bodies around him, and through it he grasps the idea of distance and extension and of the measure by which he proceeds in all measurement; through it he acquires the experience of the resistance of bodies, that is, of impenetrability, and of other such things. Sight and hearing supplement these same knowledge. The wise Buffon said about touch: “Through touch we are able to acquire complete and progressive knowledge; for this is the sensory organ that corrects every other sense, whose results would be mere dreams and would produce deception in our spirit, if it did not teach us to judge.”

Through these services this sense can be regarded as more psychological than physiological; through touch the soul finds the measure and the unit by which it proceeds to the precise determination of distances, understands the difference between itself and the other animals, actualizes through skillful invention the grasped ideas, is led through them to higher spheres, and separates itself from the dance of irrational animals. Writing, painting, and all the arts are works of touch.

Animals appear deprived of touch, except for the quadrupeds, in which we might suppose from the structure of the hand the existence of this sensory organ; but what animal has ever been seen to benefit from the advantages of touch? Or what animal has developed to such a degree as to make touch an interpreter of its psychical faculties? How, despite their useful nature, have apes not been able to understand the usefulness and value of touch? Certainly the lack of immanent reason prevented them, and nothing else; this is what makes touch a coarse organ serving only the exclusive needs of the animal’s sustenance.

The touch of the human person has, moreover, the particular quality of being capable of development and perfection far superior to the usual and known; in the blind, touch through practice becomes sharpened so much that through it they can distinguish fine variations of surfaces, the silver scratches of coins, and other objects and various colors of woolen fabrics, etc. How much has the wisdom of God preserved harmony between reason and the most necessary organs of it! How clearly the skill of touch testifies to the rational soul of the human person for which such structure of it has been made! Great, therefore, is the gap between human and animal! Let us see also the differences arising from the specific sense.

Sense of Taste

Through this sense we distinguish flavored substances; the tongue is the organ of this sense, but the discernment is completed in the psychical seat in which the psychical faculties are concentrated; through taste we are guided to the selection of foods, which we discern and distinguish by their humors into different kinds, into sour, into sweet.

Into bitter, salty, and astringent, and we accept what is pleasant and reject what is unpleasant; the wisdom of God through the organ of smell acts to remove all that cannot benefit our life in taste and in the dissolving of its humors. Taste is a sense of great value, for it communicates faithfully and in detail to the soul every kind of flavor whose quality the soul apprehends. The organ of this sense, the tongue, by the manner of its construction is the most skillful servant of the needs of the rational soul; wise divine wisdom has constructed it so that it becomes the testing ground of all earthly substances; it appears that she had in view the entire creation whose humors she measured, and she populated it so abundantly that it not only executes this function but also can distinguish artificially complex medicines and through digestion remove what is harmful, and above all else to serve. But at the same time, as it was necessary to be an auditory organ of voice, sufficient for every requirement of spoken reason; the structure of the mouth in general appears to have been made such as to have all the phonetic sounds at its disposal.

To the organ of this sense she placed a wise servant; that releases all. Divine wisdom had in view all the phonetics in the structure of the mouth; we turn to the ears of the human person, and she placed it in harmony with the sound-bearing world; therefore she connected this organ through an appropriate conductive organ with the ear because of their kinship and because of the necessary readiness for the needs of immanent reason.

Taste, moreover, becomes a source of many pleasures and greatly affects the moral character of humans; because of these qualities of taste and because of its relation to the psychical faculties and its contribution to the development of the human person, its function can be regarded as more spiritual than material; for if

If taste were directed only toward the nourishment and sustenance of the body, any organic body would be sufficient for this function, as is observed in certain classes of animals. But since a spiritual purpose was sought, the organ of this sense, the tongue, received its structure more for that purpose. Hence taste leads us to a positive conclusion, that such perfection of it was created to serve more the needs of the rational soul than the (material) body, and testifies to the wisdom of the divine Creator and the spiritual nature of the human person; let us see now also how the taste of animals and what are their gustatory organs.

The tongue is a common sensory organ; and animals do sense the humors of various substances, but the variety of the structure found in the co-classes of animals in general and its lack in some testifies both to the difference of the function of each and to the specificity of the end.

Just as the human person through the tongue senses the kinds of humors; for which reason it also received form, shape, and configuration, and possesses the elements of its substance.

This difference in the shape and substance of the tongue, which varies according to the variety of animals, generates the difference in taste and consequently the difference in the sensation arising from taste. Whence it is possible to differ not only in kind, degree, quality, and quantity, but also to be entirely lacking, because it is absurd to accept identity where the diversity of things speaks of dissimilarity. The difference of sensation is confirmed also by the kind and manner of food and the manner of the varied construction of the stomachs, and it is observed that the tongue of animals is predetermined more for the function of nourishment than for the functions of higher necessity. If we investigate and seek another purpose in the construction of this organ, we shall find that it was made to remain in harmony with the instinctive impulses of the animal, about which alone it revolves; the artificial training to which some animals are brought through laborious efforts by humans testifies more to the limited circle of these animals than to anything else; for, having escaped the bonds confining them with the help of the human person, they ought to have entered into a new phase, into which the human person once entered without any assistance, and been shown to be rational beings like him; the trained animals ought to have uttered and taught their offspring the learned words, to multiply them and form their own language, even if imperfect; but they did nothing of the sort; artificial imitation, and nothing more than that.

It is wonderful how those of ape-lineage do not bring forth their progenitor ape, but continually bring forth the dog as proof of the rational soul of animals. Even more wonderful is their reasoning through which they arrive at the conclusion of the similarity between human and animal; because they see in each class of animals a virtue and do not regard it as instinctive as has been demonstrated, but as rational. Why has no ape ever succeeded in speaking, while this has been achieved by dogs and birds? How, if they understand many things, have they not managed despite many external forms of reason to move their tongue? Behold, therefore, in the tongue of the animal no other purpose appears than that of nourishment and instinctive virtue.

The incompleteness of taste in animals is also testified to by the hardness of their skin and by the poisoning of many animals, whose taste has not discerned the poisonous humors of plants; besides this, they often eat such wretched foods as they would never have tasted if they had the perfection of human taste; many eat inorganic substances, as birds do; how at all does this enrich the storehouse of animal knowledge? Where is the similarity of sensation among so many varieties and that of the human person?

How then does only human sense respond to universal substances and exist in perfect harmony with the intellect of the human person who seeks knowledge of universal objects? Knowledge of the universal. This harmony of taste with the reason of the human person testifies to his destiny, the understanding of all things, and the superior position of the human person in creation. The human person was created such that from all things he draws knowledge, while the animal is to perpetually unfold the instinctive program; let us see also what conclusion comes from the investigation of the sense of smell.

Sense of Smell

Smell is the third of the senses through which the human person is introduced into another world of ideas, from which he becomes enriched through all kinds of knowledge. The soul through the sense of smell perceives the invisible world of odors and discovers the hidden treasure of perfume poured out; smell is the third sense, and has its seat in the olfactory nerve. Through smell the soul distinguishes odoriferous bodies into pleasant and unpleasant, into fragrant and malodorous, and accepts what is delightful and rejects what is unpleasant. Although smell appears to provide an addition, generously distributing and enriching those of the ether, serving the function of nourishing the human person, it was not created solely for this purpose; from the services it provides to the soul for enrichment from various kinds of knowledge, one can regard it more as an organ functioning for the spirit appointed to complete the knowledge of the human person than as something material appointed for the service of the body; the spiritual character of smell is testified to from two things: on the one hand from its small use in the selection of foods, on the other from its great

Use in the discovery of pleasant and fragrant objects; through smell we receive pleasures or aversions. Hence smell is referred to the soul, for it judges the quality of the odor. The human person through smell receives pleasures which have nothing in common with the body; the function of distinguishing pure from polluted air is indeed a function referred to life, but no less to the soul, for it gives notions. The function of smell was appointed to inform the human person about what happens around him and does not fall upon any of his other senses.

The spiritual character of smell is testified to by the structure of the nose, which, existing in harmony and communion with the organs of taste and hearing, declares its destination to serve the needs of the soul; what grace would a superbly harmonized song have if the ear had a structure similar to that of animals? It would lose all its melody and would stir no sensation of pleasure in the soul, and the human person would lose the idea of melody and harmony and would remain incomplete. How much grace does it not give to the face of one whose proportions it regulates and makes so beautiful as to present the idea of beauty portrayed before our eyes! Smell and the two preceding senses have such a relation to the soul that one can argue that they were created more for the soul than for the body; for their perfection and the structure of their organs have a higher purpose than what appears; they were appointed to serve more the soul than the body.

Such is the sense of smell in the human person; let us now turn to the sense of smell in the animal and see what it is like.

And animals, like the human person, have the sense of smell; some of them indeed have this faculty more acute than the human person.

The dog discovers the tracks of his own master in the forest, and the tracks of the hare and other animals and birds; the wild goat senses from afar the hunter who is many leagues away and his other enemies; this is observed in many other animals as well; tracker dogs have the keenest sense of smell. Birds, especially carnivorous ones, have equally keen sense of smell; from distances of many miles they smell from afar their own peculiar food; the proverb “where the corpse is, there the eagles” reveals the enormous sense of smell of these birds. The serpent apparently has acute sense of smell, for it can find the corpse of its dead mate by traveling long distances, if the body has been dragged into the ground. The power of smell appears also in insects; well-known is the sense of smell of common and flesh-eating flies, which from distant distances perceive the distinctive odor of each; very keen sense of smell have beetles and bees and wasps and most other insects, which from smell distinguish many kinds and types of fruit and leaves designated for them as food. The ant from the depth of its labyrinth receives through smell the sensation of the odor rising from the top of the flowering fig, and climbs upon the branches of the fig tree in order to approach the hole of the odoriferous green fig. Fish also appear to have sense of smell, some indeed a strong one, for they smell the substances scattered upon the sea by fishermen from distant distances. Strong sense of smell is not lacking even in invertebrates, mollusks, arthropods, and radiate animals, which although appear to be deprived of a specific distinct sensory organ of their own; in some of these it appears from observations that they have a very developed sense of smell; but let us examine whether the sense of smell in animals also has this spiritual character of it.

From the observations made it appears that the sense of smell in animals is entirely material and a necessary organ for the nourishment of animals and their preservation; for through smell they discover foods; through smell they distinguish them; through smell they avoid enemies; through smell they recognize what tends to the perpetuation of their species and in general through smell they are preserved, develop, and continue. From the peculiar acuteness of the sense of smell in different animals toward specific odors appears its particular purpose, and from the characteristic indifference toward all other fragrant or malodorous substances appears the material purpose of the sense. By way of example, the dog, while discovering the tracks of its prey and the tracks of its master through its fine sense of smell, finds no pleasure or fragrance in the most fragrant flowers; it passes through fragrant meadows, whose fragrance floods the air, and yet no impression is created in it; fragrance and malodor do not create even a single impression; it has specific and particular sense of smell, proportionate to its instinct; such as the instinct, such also is the sense of smell; the sense of smell can be regarded as the sensory organ of instinct; why does the flesh-eating fly perceive the odor of meat? So that it may perpetuate its species. Why are the eggs of different insects deposited on the same ground, because the sense of smell, guided by instinct, distinguishes them? Does not the ant climb to the top of the fig in order to breathe the fragrance more closely? Not at all, but to grasp its larva emerging from the hole of the fig; instinct guides the sense of smell. That the sense of smell in the animal is entirely material and instinctive is demonstrated by observation of animals in general. The nostrils of fish communicate not with the brain, but with the pharynx, for what else did they need than food? Many animals, birds, and insects act with such an impulse and so very quickly from the impelling odor that not the slightest suspicion remains that they do not proceed with judgment; the specificity toward certain odors and just as the inadequacy toward others is proof of the entirely material function of this sense.

From the entire investigation we draw the positive conclusion that the sense of smell in animals is an organ of the animal’s instinct, is a material sense, that it has no relation to the spirit, that it is imperfect and particular. How different is the sense of smell of the human person! What perfection and what harmony unite it with the soul! What is its purpose! How graciously its organ was situated! The difference of the sense of smell between the human person and the animal is such and so great as is that which distinguishes the circumference of the human person and his particular purpose.

Let us now proceed to the investigation of the sense of hearing.

Sense of Hearing

Hearing is the fourth sense through which the human person receives sensation of the existence of another wonderful work of creation; through it the human person is introduced into the realm of the Muses, into the world of graces, into the mysteries of invisible creation, into the sanctum of spiritual voice. Hearing is a civilizing, formative, and elevating sense; through it the heart is formed; through it is demonstrated the rational being and through it he is elevated to his proper station; through it the human person distinguishes all kinds of sounds; distinguishes them into voices, into thunders, into sounds, etc.; regulates the place and the tuning of his own voice and the sounds produced from the heating of the air.

He perceived musical things; through it he devised musical instruments and discovered melody through which he stirs the soul and heart and inspires the spirits. Hearing with the cooperation of immanent reason hears the voice of living nature, which the eye perceives silent; through hearing he was elevated to the contemplative world; through it, leaving the earth, he ascended to the heavens in order to hear the angelic hymn and divine praise which spiritualizes the human person; hearing moved his tongue to the hymn of his Creator; ordered his song; through hearing the human person obtains all bodily pleasure and is elevated to the sphere of spirits.

This wonderful harmony of this sense and the highest perfection to which through practice it develops, the wonderful skill of both toward mutual satisfaction, the great accomplishments achieved through their common cooperation, and the results in general arising from the cooperation of both, testify to the psychological character of this sense. Its physiological character is equally important for the services it provides to the human person in life; but the difference distinguishing them is such as is the difference of the soul from the body.

Animals also have this sense strongly developed. But just as the other senses have relation only to the body and to the instinctive virtue of the animal, so also this one; and the vocal organs, their function in the preservation of the animal and in the predetermined instinct, and the typical language of animals limited to corresponding sounds and cries, testify to the purpose of this sense; for each animal has received such a sense of hearing as matches both the structure of its body, its diet, and its vocal manner; such is the reception as is the voice. What discord would prevail if the voice of a donkey sounded to the ears of a human being! What incompleteness if hearing were sensibly harmonious but the voice were inflexible! The value of the hearing of an animal is shown from the form of the voice of the animal; such as the form of the voice, such also is the sensory hearing. The exclusively physiological character of the hearing of animals is testified to by: first, the determined type of the organs of expression of animals for the expression of a single need; second, the common type of expression and the common use of the same types; and third, their permanence and the unaltered character from eternity; if the animal could modify its voice, if it could achieve articulate utterance which a spiritualizing tongue shapes into song, it would not be able to do without alteration in expressions; if permanence were flexible and yielded to the instinct of progress and development.

The exclusively physiological character of the sense of hearing; but is it or not? For the organs and voices of those belonging to one class are always the same; the common character, always the same, unaltered from eternity, testifies to the particular and instinctive form of the sense, and to its physiological function. Because of this exclusive function of hearing, animals would find themselves within the narrow physiological circle and would never exit, would never be elevated above the ground upon which they stand, but would remain in the state in which they were found and would be eternally stationary.

Those who maintain the spirituality of the animal also attribute to animals a high sense of music. In a work written to support the spirituality of animals it is related that a certain donkey, charmed by the ἀλειδοκυμβάλα (aulos-cymbal), entered the hall and expressed its pleasure through its sounds. Truly a wonderful example, but unfortunately incomprehensible; for if even civilized humans do not yet delight in foreign music, but each finds pleasure in the national music of his own; if one naturally musical requires time to become familiar with foreign music, how did the donkey understand its height? How did the donkey manage to find it? If that proved impossible for the rational human, it became possible for the donkey! Truly a marvel.

The hearing of animals, although not predetermined for a psychological function, is not entirely deprived of some relation to the soul of the one to be discovered; the harmonious melody of the pipe appears to delight the flocks; the lyre of Apollo is said to have delighted wild beasts, and that of Arion the Corinthian musician the dolphins of the sea. The phenomenon of this spiritual enjoyment of animals is the effect of the harmony of the pipe or lyre upon the hearing of the animal; it is a caressing of the ear through the rhythmic vibration of the air; it is pleasant tickling of the sensation, which however arouses a local sensation insufficient to convey it to the irrational soul; such a phenomenon is observed also in infants who have not yet acquired the power of the activity of reason. Deaf birds appear to perceive the melody of song; for through continuous repetition they learn and sing the song. This phenomenon testifies to a psychological phenomenon of the sense of hearing in birds; but although this appears, psychological investigation greatly lowers the psychological value of the sense of birds; for the bird instructed through persistent repetition of certain song patterns has done nothing other than what it was naturally instinctively taught; the bird is musical by nature, in its passage through the persistent repetition of the human added certain phrases to its song; who can prove or assure that it acquired at the same time also consciousness of the melody of the song? How much is required so that it may acquire consciousness of the quality of the learned melody? The bird delights in its chirping as the donkey in its braying and the frog in its croaking, but their delight is not a sensation of the rational soul of animals externalized and manifested in a musical manner through rational invention on the basis of established acoustic rules, but spontaneous reflection of the internal healthy condition of the animal; it is the reflection of health and the manifestation of the acting life, such as the life of infants; concerning the manner of retaining songs we shall discuss the question about memory; non-vocal birds learn no song.

That hearing was not given to animals for a psychological function is testified to by the varied structure of the auditory organ and the sense of hearing that varies in different animals in their activity and power; for both the structure and the function were placed in harmony with the voices and cries peculiar to each animal and with their vocal organs; hearing was formed in proportion to the vocal organs; it is observed that those deprived of voice are also deprived of hearing, while in others a proportional sensitivity to the sounds of their voice is preserved. Voice is the cause of hearing; therefore fish as well as all imperfectly organized animals, those deprived of voice, are also deprived of hearing; in them there is found neither external nor middle ear; an internal ear exists appropriate only for the perception of what is necessary for its preservation and safety. The same is observed in crustaceans; in the less perfect species of animals there is found not even a trace of the auditory organ, because there is no voice either; the monotonous sound which some insects produce comes from simple friction of their wings or other parts of their covering, not as expression; the hissing of certain reptiles such as a voice; in reptiles the auditory canal is closed; appropriate only for receiving various striking sounds in some is acute, in others is blunted, is part of the general sense of the animal; this leads us to another conclusion that the sense of hearing follows the structure of the vocal organs, in animals functions most purposefully for the preservation and defense of animals living on earth and according to instinct; in others keener and superior, in the finer vibrations of the air does not have a formative character, because it has no psychological character, because it is imperfect and particular, because it is an organ for the preservation of the animal for the perpetuation of the species; the modification of voices, the utterance, executed chiefly through wonderful movements of the tongue, jaws, and lips, testifies to the value of the hearing of the human person.

Sight

Sight is the noblest and most perfect of the five external senses; it contributes not only to the preservation of physical life, but serves the human person much more for the needs of spiritual life. The difference existing between the functions toward the soul and the body is such as is that of the spirit from the flesh, and serving the needs of the practical life; the arts and sciences owe the origin of life to the eye. What is the History of the philosophy of the human person; through sight the human person is introduced into the world of beauty, beautifulfulness, grace, order, harmony, brightness, magnitude, majesty, height, and marvels; he traverses the heights, distances, and intervals, and remaining in one place unmoved surveys like from a high and elevated throne, enters into the heavens as one who scales them, touching above the colossal giants, the countless worlds of the foundations of stones of all creation, and journeys as a citizen through the infinite world. How much time would suffice us for merely descriptive exposition of the virtues of sight? Who? I think no one. Let anyone who seeks to gain experience of the truth of my words once survey all around with his eyes, having once entered into a factory, into a library, into a picture gallery, into an astronomical observatory, and he will have to acknowledge the truth of my words. The divine Creator placed this precious sense in a most precious organ, the eye, worthy truly of the purpose of the creature.

This most wondrous and noble organ on account of its lofty purpose was placed upon the highest part of the body as upon an acropolis in order to survey all. Because of its great nobility and delicacy divine providence has marvelously protected it. Galen (On the Usefulness of Parts, Book III, Ch. 6) says: “With all kinds of eyelids and eyelashes and the bones around it and the skin; the eyelashes like a kind of barrier for small bodies (the Creator) set before, so that they do not easily fall into the open eyes, prevented by these hairs; and the eyelids themselves closing and shutting the eye if something larger was brought against it; and against the impact of even larger things he placed the eyebrows from above, below the cheeks, and at the large canthus the nose, and at the small canthus the projection of the cheekbone; all of which having previously received the impacts of larger bodies, the eye itself placed in a circle suffers nothing, the movement of the skin also contributing not a little to its resistance to injury; for being compressed all around, it contracts the eye into the smallest angle possible; and becoming wrinkled here like eyelids, if anything, exceeding the curvature of the bones, should be brought inward against the eyes, it first receives the impact, first suffers it, and first is endangered and damaged; and second, the eyelids under it are crushed, cut, torn, and in every way affected; like shields placed before the cornea.”

And Socrates to Aristodemus (Xenophon, Memorabilia, Ch. 4) says: “In addition to this, does it not seem to you also a work of providence that, since sight is weak, it has eyelids as doors for it, which when it is necessary to use it are opened, and in sleep are closed; and lest the winds harm it, eyelashes were implanted; and eyebrows were placed above the eyes, so that neither sweat from the head could harm it.” And how could divine providence not have taken special care about the eye of the human person, since it is destined to be a mirror even of the soul? The eyes are the mirror of the soul.

The states of the soul are often revealed; in them are reflected all the desires and passions of the heart; in them are reflected not only the sympathies, desires, and passions of the heart, but also the very most secret thoughts; the psychological character of the eye is more than evident, and its difference from the eyes of animals, whose purpose is proportionate to the needs of life, is obvious; simple examination of the position of the eyes of animals suffices for this; the eyes of animals were placed in order to see the earth, while those of the human person to gaze upon the heavens; the eagle has the keenest sight and flies very high, but its glances are directed toward earthly things and those lying in the depths of the earth; no animal gazes upon the heavens; for its head is not formed for this; the eyes of the animal differ from those of the human person as much as a photographic machine differs from a mirror; for through the eyes the human person receives perceptions and representations and has permanent and lasting impressions, while the animal has only reflections; through the eyes the human person receives the idea of the beautiful, of order, of harmony, etc., while the animal receives none of these ideas; a horse and all herbivorous animals could destroy in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, the most brilliant flower in bloom when they could spare it out of appreciation for its beauty and its perfect order and even if still hungry; sole concern for beauty and harmony, but none; sole concern the filling of the stomach.

How much the eye alone testifies to the nobility and the lofty purpose of the human person! Examine all the classes of animals from quadrupeds and primates to birds and reptiles and insects and fish and mollusks and you will be persuaded that the eyes of all have no other purpose than their preservation; and in each such manner the eyes are attached as necessary for their salvation and have such construction as their diet and such power as the instinct of the co-class. The eye of the human person testifies to his spiritual nature, externalizes the internal human being, and reveals his psychical powers, which he vividly expresses as in an image. Such is the eye of the human person; let us now proceed to the examination of the sensory powers of his soul, in order that we may see manifestly the difference that distinguishes the human person from the animal.

Chapter 6: Psychological Difference Between Human and Animal—On the Sensory Powers of the Human Soul

The sensory powers of the soul are: (1) the Cognitive, from which sensory knowledge is produced. (2) the Affective, through which character and religious worship are shaped; and (3) the Appetitive, through which desires, inclinations, and moral emotions are generated, but also from another source.

These powers, when strengthened through teaching, fortify the soul’s powers and exercise the greatest influence on the moral character of man. Upon his appearance and whole organism of man, because all activity of the human organism is psycho-physically ennobled and makes man the exemplar of living existence. Education and teaching strengthen the soul’s powers and exercise the greatest influence on the moral character of man. The elucidation of this chapter will reveal the chaos separating man from animal and will establish the worth of each.

On the Cognitive—§1. On Memory

The first phenomenon that springs forth from the sensory power of the soul is memory; and memory is the retention of the mark of an impression in the soul for the acquisition of knowledge.

Memory, as sensory knowledge, can be common also to animals through the impressions produced; but the distinguishing difference between them is very great; the aroused impression first lacks rational curiosity, and second does not pertain to a rational soul, but remains isolated; therefore the memory of animals can only be considered a simple and fleeting disposition bearing no analogy to the memory of man; proof that they neither have knowledge nor ideas, but only dispositions, and these often acquired through force or necessity; because if impressions do not yield knowledge in consciousness, then as simple information they fall into oblivion. This occurs in animals, because impressions do not become perceptions; but memory is perception, not impression.

The Darwinists ascribe to animals a living memory, because a dog after a long absence recognizes its master, a camel its enemy, and all animals their lairs and the forms of their habitations, and songbirds repeat the musical pieces taught them by mechanical means, and a dog remembers like a parrot to utter words; but can we truly regard this as an act of memory? Is it a true recollection? Or is it a deep impression engraved with effort by habit in the sensory soul of the animal? Memory presupposes perception and cognition; and recollection without these is impossible, because the impression as transient, being displaced by more vital and successive circumstances, falls into oblivion. Animals cannot possess a memory similar to that of man, because they do not have a rational soul to arouse their curiosity by love of learning toward enrichment of knowledge; an animal will never remember that it saw or that it dwelt in many places, unless it returns to that same place; this recollection is not true recollection, but a representation of the same impression upon the sensory soul. A dog recognizes its master after long absence, but who knows if it remembered him throughout that span of time? That it forgot him is certain, because the impression gradually sank into oblivion through the succession of circumstances; but the presence of its master reproduces the first image, and from the identity of the aroused impression recognizes its master; as also a camel recognizes the one who struck it.

Certainly it was not continuous memory that accomplished this, but the presence of the person provoked the same irritation by reflex action, as a rod that strikes a weasel is a perpetual source of fear; a weasel blinded in the eye by a rooster becomes fierce at its presence and flees; such recollections are sensory and local; otherwise, animals would need some kind of mnemonic faculty proportional to their needs, because its complete lack would have brought about their destruction; how could birds in the midst of a very dense forest recognize the tree where their nest is? And especially migratory birds that change zones and climates? How could the sea turtle forty days after leaving the sea recognize its nest among countless others, so as to lead the hatchlings from the egg to their natural habitat? And bees recognize their hive among many constantly moved by beekeepers, and ants their own? How did the turtle count the days? How did it remember time? How did it recognize its nest? How does the newborn lamb and many other animals recognize their mothers among thousands? What is the distinguishing mark of their mothers? Ants and bees and most gregarious animals know their companions; how do they accomplish this? This phenomenon teaches us nothing other than that divine providence has endowed animals with innate or instinctive memory for their preservation, the continuance of their species, and proportional to each social group according to their natural needs. The difference that exists between the memory of man and that of animals differs both in quantity and quality and admits of no comparison; what analogy can exist between the works

In all languages.

What relation exists between the memory of Hadrian and Themistocles, who knew by name all their fellow citizens, and many younger men who possessed languages like Mezzofante? What relation between the memory of Sachelier who memorized Homer in 20 days and the other poets in 1½ days and the memory of the dog that through lengthy training learned certain words? What proportion of memory between the sea turtle that knows the days of the incubation of her eggs and Manziarly who through memory alone performs mathematical calculations?

Therefore, true memory in its proper sense is the exclusive possession of man, and only he remembers and grows strong, and only he is advanced through it, so that he increases and is perfected. Those who ascribe to animals a memory similar to man’s admit inaccuracy and ignorance of the truth; let us examine whether animals have attention to something; because memory requires attention, from which it is strengthened or repelled.

§ 2: On Attention

Attention is the movement of the mind toward something, stirred by the will; without attention countless objects pass before our eyes without leaving even the slightest impression. Through attention a man receives an image, carves his mind toward perception or understanding, and through reflection discovers its qualities or characteristics.

Through attention the power of the mind is stirred, and according to the degree of its exercise, the cleverness and profundity of each person’s genius is revealed or manifested as great-mindedness or small-mindedness.

Through attention by exercise of the sensory powers, man makes judgments on various objects, compares them and distinguishes them from one another, and pronounces on their quality or characteristics. Through attention he receives accurate information and is conscious that he has recognized something or still remains ignorant of something. Through attention man extracts the concept of unity, which is the basis of knowledge, and understands the indivisible; through it he examines himself, judges his actions, recognizes the identity of his own soul, and establishes the foundations of his progress; attention reveals the scholar, the artist, the wise man, the orator, the judge, the musician, the athlete, the craftsman, and in general every man; through attention man is raised to moral perfection.

Animals lack attention, because they lack will and discerning mind; therefore they are also incurious, without love of learning, and deprived of external knowledge; love of truth and curiosity are inseparable properties of the mind. Since animals lack attention, they lack both mind and memory; because they have nothing to learn so as to remember. Attention like memory is distinctive to man, because only man has a treasury of knowledge which he ought to enrich, and only he has need of memory and attention.

§ 3: On Knowledge

Knowledge is the idea acquired from an impression and the fruit of perception that occurs through attention; it is a work of the mind and an enjoyment. To acquire knowledge of something, we must direct our attention to it; the mind must illuminate its qualities; the images placed must remain in consciousness; knowledge by which man is enriched. Does the same occur in the animal? Do representations become knowledge?

Unfortunately, what we have said about the memory of man we cannot say about the animal; that representations do not change into knowledge; this is evident from the following: (1) from the complete inattention and the lack of curiosity because of which, though full of remarkable and worthy of investigation systems, they remain so; (2) from the lack of internal and external speech, so that it may generalize and reason; (3) from the lack of memory similar to that of man; because how without attention can the representation be impressed? How without perception can the mind and speech attribute its qualities to it? How without impression can it perceive an object, examine it, and attribute it? The attribute drawn is information, idea, knowledge; how can it judge unless it remembers, so that it may compare and parallel it to others and know their differences or relations to previous ones? The animal thus remains passive, not active toward the stimuli from the senses; the representations are wholly sensory, which, since they did not receive a deep impression, neither became knowledge.

Through the discerning mind, as representations examine them as third, therefore the animal cannot acquire such knowledge, nor can it be perfected, nor can it learn any art with genuine knowledge. We will speak about science in the following section.

§ 4: On Science

Science is a creation and possession of the human mind; proceeding from an innate activity toward love of learning, it examines and investigates all objects that come to the senses and desires to know and attribute to them their qualities. The multitude and variety of acquired knowledge compels him to distinguish them into similar and dissimilar kinds and to bring them into order, so that through the intuitive mind he readily grasps the idea of the whole and makes his knowledge complete. The division of these into classes and kinds is the discovery of truth, whose exercise is the goal of science and the accurate and orderly knowledge of beings as they are. Science therefore rises to the knowable, and this is either universal or particular; hence science too can be either universal or particular, because man through the intuitive mind cannot classify the particular among many objects.

Science, as proceeding from the sensory powers of the soul, has always been divided into two classes: the theoretical and the practical; and the theoretical has each time raised him to his proper station, while the practical has gone beyond and exceeded it; because practical knowledge, when not combined with spiritual, that is moral, knowledge, militates against the spirit of the soul’s powers. Knowledge of the soul’s powers has brought about its needs and impelled it toward the extremity of destruction.

Through pure science man is elevated to an incomprehensible height; the human spirit is exalted and becomes luminous. In science appears the understanding and genius of man, which under various forms under the forms of Quickness of mind, Acuity of mind, and Profundity of mind appearing in different circumstances and needs reveal the mathematicians, the artists, the orators, the philosophers, and in a word the great men; this discovers the axioms and theorems of technical sciences; through them the historian narrates truth not merely dryly but seeking the most interesting means finds the way so that he interweaves his judgments in a pleasant narrative and prophesies or pronounces aphoristically about the distant future; what happens to the historian happens to every science. Through science man and the divine gifts of the spirit develop the arts and sciences, he goes forth from the circumscribed circle of the earthly sphere, rises above the heavens and enters the infinite, so that he surveys it and submits it to his calculations. In science his creative spirit takes on flesh and bone and becomes embodied appearing under the form of various magnificent and masterful creations; his wondrous skill under the guidance of science performs marvels through which he attracts admiration and provokes wonder. Through science the human spirit becomes a shining light guiding the seafaring man in his voyages toward the discovery of the earth, toward the finding of salvation, and toward the discovery of truth; through science he weighs the mighty giants of Heaven, discovers the distances and pronounces on their density and solidity, investigates what is under and beneath the earth, discovers the mysterious powers of nature and exploits them for his own benefit. Through science he found the laws of the conservation of the universe and lifted the veil of mystery revealing the hidden truth.

What comparison and contrast can exist between the works of animals and the scientific marvels, the miracles of human science? How deceived is the wretched man through superficial research; What is common between the instinctive and always the same artifices of animals and the scientific achievements of man? How does man wander and lead astray and become blind and not distinguish the difference separating man from animals? How have learned men so strayed from true science as to identify man with the animal? How have they seen the similarity toward the body but not perceived the difference of the spirit? What is common between man and ape? If the reason of the similarity of bodies draws them near, the reason of the dissimilarity of the spirit separates them so much that the boundary of comparison completely vanishes; should not divine Providence have fashioned another type wholly unlike the animal kingdom for the form of man, so that he might breathe into him his divine breath and man become an image of God? No. Because the height of the nobility of the divine breath is such that it was able to reveal a superior being even under a less perfect form.

§ 5: On Imagination

The power of the soul that represents in consciousness images of existing or also non-existing objects is called the imaginative or imagination.

Imagination is a power of the Mind of the soul and therefore rational, insofar as it relates to sensory knowledge, which it attempts to harmonize, or tries to harmonize toward the ideal and perfect; and it is distinguished into iconic, creative, and perfective; and iconic is called what when it forms a true image of a past deed in harmony with the conception of the mind from the connection of the past to the present. Creative is when from careful observation upon the past it forms an original course or creates an original work not in harmony with the past, but always looking toward the perfect. Hence its function aims to produce new ideas or new objects, but more perfect. For this reason it also becomes perfective, when as free creative in its relation to the perfect it works the perfect in sensory activity.

Imagination connects to the sensory powers and determines its activities in action and in sensory activity; but when it only refers to the ideal, it becomes chimerical and does not fulfill its purpose. It produces plastic images and daydreams, through which often weak characters are turned toward reverie and monmania; hence it ought to proceed with judgment. A result of imaginative activity is frenzy, ecstasy, reverie, and monmania.

But frenzy and ecstasy refer to the ideal perfect, through which ideas and instructive precepts were often transported into action, accomplishing the greatest things in the perfection of man’s spiritual powers. But reverie and monmania refer to sensory phenomena that are iconic, and never served to produce anything useful; because they become objects of the appetitive and thus lower the worth of man and make him material and dependent on worldly needs.

Imagination as a power of the mind, as creative, draws from the mind; as iconic and perfective, from the Word. It takes its first starting point for creation from attention and investigation, and that for imaging and completing from memory and knowledge. It is sensory when it refers to art, spiritual when it refers to poetry, and rational when it refers to philosophy and rhetoric. Imagination coming as an aid to art reveals great artists; taking part with science reveals great creators and learned men of science. Imagination lifting the poet and transferring him to unknown lands which it itself created and adorned, supplies as another Pythia to his mouth divine verses adorned with purple and fine linen and shining with celestial beauty. Imagination guided by right reason reveals great philosophers and great orators.

When imagination does not proceed from attention and investigation and its images are not completed by memory and knowledge, it presents tragic images similar to those appearing in high fevers. Hence in order to imagination reshape an image, it requires perceptions, investigation, memory, and knowledge.

We now ask those who ascribe to animals a vivid imagination through which they represent meadows and hunts and such things; what kind of imagination do they have, is it similar to that of men or resembles that of animals? Does imagination inspire them as it does poets, are they seized by ecstasy as Brutus and Socrates and introduced into a spiritual world, or do they ramble as Lucullus or suffer from melancholy from monmania as the love-stricken? What kind of imagination is theirs? Sensory, spiritual, or rational? Why have animals never shown artistic inclinations or poetic tendency or inclination toward philosophy? How can we be assured that animals have such imagination as man, if we do not see the results of such a power? How can we grant that it occurs in animals what is not possible to occur in man? When has the animal attended to something? When has it received perceptions? When has it investigated and distinguished the objects from one another? When has it acquired knowledge? When has it remembered, since it never learned anything? How therefore can it imagine since this is impossible for it? Animals perhaps have some kind of sensory imagination that is reflected, but similar in all respects to their memory; because they never showed any sign of the existence of imagination. How in the construction of their nests do animals ever maintain from the foundation of the world the same unchanging rule? How has their imagination not benefited from the works of others and added not even a line to the design that has existed from all time and is being executed?

One can ascribe many virtues to animals, but ought to prove their existence through examples. The existence of imagination presupposes a rational soul, and the rational soul and a body corresponding to the needs of the rational soul. The existence of imagination in irrational animals would be an inapplicable power and therefore superfluous. But God has made nothing superfluous; he made everything in wisdom. Animals do not have imagination.

Chapter 7: On the Appetitive—§1. On Will and Desire

In man two powers appear representing in the phenomenon the soul; will and desire; and both are emanations of the soul’s self-knowledge, that is, its self-consciousness.

Will has a higher origin, because it springs from both knowing and understanding, whereas desire springs from understanding alone. The different origin of each brings with it as a consequence the different reference of each; therefore will is referred to the thumic part of the soul and becomes a lawgiving power regulating will and the soul’s movement in accord with intellect and reason; desire is referred to the impulse of the soul and attaches more closely to the affections and sensory feeling.

Desire accompanies appetite and impulse, while will imposes itself upon appetite and hence upon desire and thus produces the character of man that reveals man as moral and distinguishes him from irrational animals. Will therefore accompanies the rational activities of the spirit; for this reason it imposes itself upon desire. Often we impose on ourselves deprivations and hardships for a purpose indicated by will; often we resist our natural needs and overlook both hunger and thirst and sleep, and impose on ourselves deprivations contrary to the demands of desire seeking satisfaction in what is deprived. Will is above the soul’s desire and for this reason imposes itself upon desire.

Will in man is the ruling and directing power; desire is the obedient and serving power. Will over desire has the position that the soul has over the body. Will is the operative power of the soul through which it represents itself in its rational activity. He who wills expresses the rational demand of the soul; the “I will according to reason” signifies the will of this personality, which raises the personality itself to the superhuman. He who expresses his desire not according to reason, but according to the impulses of the appetitive, does not express the demand of the soul, but of the body; hence his desire cannot be considered as a request of his personality, as not freely and reasonably presented, but forced by the appetitive.

Will is free, subject to no material bond; desire can be pressed by necessity and yield to it; but will never. Those who deny moral freedom to man ignore man and his spiritual life; for those the answer is difficult, as is the description of the sun to a blind person from birth; he who has not known the spiritual man and his spiritual life is unable to understand what moral freedom is and free will of man. They regard will as unfree as being altered and changed by food which follows its laws and limits; but have they known the free will of the spiritual man? Would it be altered by food? In the spiritual man the voice of the internal word, the voice of will unites with the divine word, and remains there unalterable; but these things are incomprehensible to them; hence they will always remain seeking whether man has free will and is morally free.

Already let us examine also the animal; does the animal also have moral freedom? Does it have free will? Because man has in almost every circumstance knowledge of the end and purpose of his actions, which serve to the rest of the soul. Animals lack will; their motion operates according to desire, which does not exceed sensory self-preservation; for this reason their movements are instinctive; the animal is deprived of this; because the impulse-driven activity, however purposeful, does not occur in knowledge of the end and purpose of the activity, as occurring by natural necessity and through mechanical motion.

The difference between human will and the actions of the animal manifests itself fully in the higher order of will in the appetitive, which is also called spiritual, because its objects are noetic and rational desires; in them the disposition of man toward arts and sciences appears, the inclination toward knowledge of truth, the desire toward development of his spiritual powers, the desire toward great works and new discoveries, the love toward what is spiritual, poetry and worship, the inclination toward beauty, toward goodness, toward truth, and in general the tendency toward what is noble and lofty, the longing for the spiritual world, are things wholly unknown to animals. And how could animals possess spiritual will, since they lack knowledge and intellect, that is, operating nous, internal and external speech, and a body serving the will appropriately? Animals do not have will; they have only desire; because they have only intellect; let us examine whether they have consciousness and self-consciousness.

Chapter 8: On the Affective—§1. On Consciousness and Self-Consciousness

Consciousness is the innermost sensory feeling or the power through which all spiritual activity occurs; without this, neither can sensation from the sensory organs take place, nor comparison of particular notions toward one another to form particular concepts, nor judgment, nor recollection; because the impression made in any of our sensory organs by nature is for man as if non-existent, unless the soul permits attention to the impression and does not receive it into consciousness; and the reception of the impression into consciousness is called perception according to sensation, and the image in the soul produced through sensory perception is called a particular notion or specific concept distinguished from the general concept produced by the discerning mind from particular concepts; but through every sensory perception and through every concept the subject perceiving or understanding receives immediate knowledge of itself and of its own activity, receives that is consciousness of itself as a being distinct from the object or substratum, and the substratum is disposed to feel itself, that it finds itself in some manner, pleasantly that is or displeasantly; through the perception therefore of every impression or every stimulus works also the innermost sensation and consciousness.

Already we ask: does the animal also have this power? Do all these complex and important spiritual operations occur in it? We declare negatively no; because granting such spiritual operation to animals makes the problem more enigmatic than we solve it; because this requires the operation of discerning mind and so many other physical and acquired advantages that animals lack; because animals do not have consciousness. Because the soul through this has immediate knowledge of its own concepts, phantasms, and desires, and all in time alterations of itself and consciousness of consciousness, man has self-consciousness and understands that he exists; the animal as deprived of all these is deprived of consciousness and not even does it have consciousness of itself nor understands that it exists.

Through Self-Consciousness we understand that we are a spiritual existence endowed with spiritual and varied activity which we ought to direct according to reason and under the supervision of consciousness; because as a spiritual principle we understand that our powers are relative and hence we are subject to deception; so that we avoid deception, we appeal to the judgment of consciousness. Through consciousness we understand the principles of virtue, such as prudence, wisdom, justice, courage, holiness, love, magnificence, charity, and the rest.

Consciousness as intellectual and as sensory activity judges whether something ought to proceed or not proceed, or whether something was done or was not done as it ought to be done.

Consciousness in the first circumstance represents the know thyself, self-knowledge; in the second according to know thyself according to reason it applies. From know thyself flows every principle of which consciousness is guardian. Hence consciousness is not a sensation; because sensation is called the sensory utterance of our self about external objects, hence it represents no moral principle or only knowledge. Consciousness however represents a moral principle; as such it is simple, as goodness is simple; if Consciousness through habits or deception or false teaching and passions is turned from its path in the exercise of its right, it does not follow that it is good or evil. The savage eating his enemy is at peace as acting according to the law that prevails, as also the European mutilating his like in battles; similarly also the man-slayer sacrificing his child on the altar of idols, because he thinks his sacrifice is pleasing to the divine; the executioner feels no reproach of conscience as also the judge condemning his neighbor and brother to death; the one fulfills the law, the other his duty.

This phenomenon does not overturn the idea we have of conscience that it becomes the judge and accuser of our good and evil actions; because we know that man is subject to deception, and conscience accompanies him in his deception; yet it always acts for the moral principle of goodness, although it sometimes cannot distinguish it from evil. The judge who sends the condemned to the gates of death from erring judgment does not have an evil conscience; he has acted according to conscience, but the erring judgment has also deceived his conscience; hence it is demonstrated that there is no evil but erring conscience. Conscience confirms and ratifies in moral activity the actions proceeded from free will. Hence the remorse of conscience is always a true judge and accuser of man’s actions, regardless whether it judges erring or not, and thus it is always the guardian of the moral principles of reason.

Those who do not accept conscience as guardian of the moral principles, but regard it as movement turned toward itself or as a function of the brain are greatly deceived and ignore the true man. The true man has received the law written in his heart, and this is the divine will toward which he ought to identify his will, and toward which he ought to regulate his thoughts, his dianoeta, his actions, and his activities; the slightest deviation provokes protest; in order to fulfill the law precisely, one ought to have complete knowledge of it, and perfect consciousness of his spirit, consciousness of himself, and true knowledge of the lawgiver. The lack of these leads conscience astray from erring judgment and gives birth to erring conscience from which so many things that oppose the divine law arise.

Conscience is one, simple, and good, and only man has conscience; it guides him toward observance of the divine law which perfects him and reveals him as an image of God and his likeness upon the earth.

How nobly was man fashioned; how sin has corrupted him, ignorance has debased him; but no; man was fashioned nobly, and shall remain noble. If some have squandered nobility, if some have denied his noble descent, does not his presence contradict them? Does not his spirit refute them; does not all creation recognize him as a superior being, and submit to him? Yes, man is an excellent creation and nothing can be compared to him. Yes, man is an excellent creation and nothing can be compared to him.

This truth is confirmed by all the sober part of the human race; all truly wise men; Fr. Frédéric de Jouvemunt in his most learned work Le peuple primitif, sa religion, son histoire et sa civilisation behold what he says about man: “Therefore man is of noble descent; he was born in paradise and not within forests; the songs of angels and not the voices of tigers and wolves echoed around his cradle. God watches over him before he even recognizes him; and it is not in any way true that he created the idea of divinity by finding a divinity to worship. Humanity proceeds not from unbelief, but from faith, not from deception, but from truth, not from ignorance, but from revelation. This is calumny, it is the same as falsely writing against himself and contrary to all memories of childhood, that humanity guided into its descent the life of savages and of our ancestors. But the corruption of the heart has filled the human spirit with darkness which obscured the light of truth. God was divided into countless false gods; nature was deified into a multitude of primary and secondary divinities, and the souls of the dead were elevated into spirits; yet this very humanity would have perished through the ages, if it had not possessed Christian civilization.” Another philosopher says: Man presents himself as an atomic unit composed of nature and spirit, from external substance and from some internal substance, from necessity and freedom; he is a mystery for the world of spirits and an object of deep reflection.

He is the most perfect work of the omnipotence and all-wisdom and love of God. Full of integrity covered by a physical garment, he beholds God as from a distance and is equally assured of his existence as the heavenly spirits; the son of revelation and hero of faith; weak yet strong; poor yet possessor of the highest kingdom of divine favor.

Such is man; because all men are the same, that from one stock all and from one descent, that varieties are accidents and variations of one and the same kind, and that all descend from Adam, we will prove this in the following part.

Part 2—Chapter 1: On the Human Race—§1. That All Men Are From One Race

And all the earth was one lip and one voice to all (Genesis 11).

Concerning the single race of men and their one descent, the Holy Scripture speaks with us, which also speaks of the manner of the multiplication of languages and of the distinction of races. The testimony of the Holy Scripture for all believers is divinely inspired testimony and faithful and beyond all doubt; but for those who reject faith and seek empirical testimonies and proofs and persuasions, the testimony of the Holy Scripture is insufficient. Therefore to satisfy those spirits rejecting faith and persuaded by science and knowledge, we will occupy ourselves with the scientific development of the question, so that we may prove the validity of the truth of Sacred Scripture, and lift all doubt about it, by removing the foundation of deception upon which they rest.

§ 2: On the Varieties in the Human Race

The varieties of colors, of statures, of shapes of the construction of the head and the whole body, of the characteristics of the face, the hairy and smooth of the skin, the spiritual development, the moral formation, the religious principles, the customs, the habits, the diet, the drives, the tendencies, the inclinations, the desires, and in general the life of the different races of the human race provide occasion for those who have taken man as the subject of study to express many and different opinions; and some of the naturalists, French ones under the influence of skepticism and materialist theories, regarded the human race as constituting various independent races from one another. Voltaire was one of the first to pronounce an opinion on the complete distinction of races. He in his work Histoire de l'empire de la Russie, le Grand, ch. I. says: “there is none but a blind man who can doubt that Whites, Blacks, Albinos, Hottentots, Chinese, and Americans are races completely distinct.” Pescheur also in a treatise of his supported the existence of eleven independent families in the human race. Histoire naturelle des races humaines another naturalist, M. Bory de Saint-Vincent, goes further, increases the number of families to fifteen independent races from one another, which he further subdivides significantly. Thus the Adamic Family, that is, the descendants of Adam consisted only of the second subdivision of the Arabian kind of man (Homo arabicus), while the English belonged to the Teutonic variety of the Germanic race, which was only the fourth creation of the Octava kind (Homo scythicus) of the Japhetic Family. From the same School (Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, tom. VI, Paris 1824, pp. 90 et 451). The Japhetic man is not even this a subdivision (les Japetous) the race with short hair. Vogt belongs to the same School, but his works arouse indignation for the light and frivolous manner in which he discusses from one extreme to the other the most subtle points of morality and religion. He is not content to ascribe to Ethiopians a moderate origin different from that of Europeans, he proceeds forward, goes to the point of supposing a real kinship between Hottentots and bipedal dog-headed apes. (Lectures ch. II, p. 191). But on this subject Lamarck proceeds more boldly, and claims to prove even traces of the promotion of nature, which in earlier times produced through wonderful evolution one order from another earlier one; he seeks to establish a chain gradually not through simultaneous links, but through successive ones, and thus to produce in the end the human species through a transformation opposite to the truth and hence less wondrous than that known in the tales of myths.

The two volumes of his work Philosophie Zoologique are entirely destined to support this degrading theory; the first so as to prove how the physical organism of man underwent a modification from chance circumstances, albeit natural, from the ape, and the second so as to prove that the privileges of the human spirit are nothing but an extension of the power that animals also possess, different in quantity through the power of judgment. After weak and badly laid bases Lamarck appropriates to himself the right to say that, because we see in nature a gradual increase of organic beings, necessarily they also had a successive evolution through which animals of one order were unable to

Pass into another new one, much more so, so that one animal whatever, forced by necessities, acquires through habit in new and private conditions like the modification of its organism toward fulfilling them. Thus for example a bird forced by necessity to enter the waters to swim, or to walk only in shallow waters, and its offspring do the same, in the passage of many generations the effort exerted to extend the toes of its feet contributes to the increase of some membrane; and behold, there came forth a water bird throughout all generations. Pushed by the same necessity into deeper waters it acquired longer shins, as the crane and the flamingo. These two acts united with new necessities, and the tendency of nature toward fulfillment concurred so as man should come forth from the ape.

Possibly one generation ago the ape of Angola in western and southern Africa for certain reasons whose memory it did not preserve lost the habit of climbing trees and grasping with the lower hands as well as the upper. After passage of several generations in which it walked on the ground, the lower hands thus were modified into a shape more suitable for the new habit and feet appeared, and through them the animals gradually acquired the habit of walking upright. They no longer had much need of their jaws for gathering fruits or fighting one another; he was able to employ for this the feet and his hands as they had become after upright walking; and hence gradually its snout shrank and the face became more rectangular. Going even further he says that “its grimaces were transformed into a pleasant smile, its guttural cries into articulate speech”. As if however he himself greatly doubted what he said, he adds: “Such will be the thoughts which one can abandon, if man was not distinguished from the animal, either by the character of his organism, and if the principle of man was not different in degree from the principle of animals”.

In modern times man was also considered a perfected ape. Darwinian theories imagined that they had brought to the solution of the anthropological question accepting the mode of evolution.

Through these theories each attempted to solve the proposed problem, whence man, and to give the true reason for such variety appearing in the human race. But these theories as not founded on healthy bases instead of solving the problem made it more enigmatic; because they denied the validity of the revealed truth, regarded man as co-ranking with animals, broke the bond of his unified race, promoted as acceptable from cells. They denied his spiritual descent and gave him a most vile origin. Their failure had as principal reason the denial of his noble descent and of his spiritual nature wholly foreign to matter and the world; in general without acceptance of the revealed truth man will be an unsolved problem.

The acceptance of this principle is the firm and safe foundation upon which every researcher of man ought to rest; from it he ought to set out so as to correctly solve the various parts of the question and know the truth through true science. And in scientific investigation faith in the revealed truth ought first to exist, so that this may reach knowledge of the truth; because without this man from ignorance wanders, and science follows the wanderings of the spirit. He who ignores the spiritual man ignores the question which he deals with; he ignores that moral degradation and spiritual fall and apostasy can so adhere to both the external character of man and bring about external alterations such that to those who do not know the history of these men they appear wholly inexplicable, and those seeking the solution without the light of revelation err and lead to conclusions far from the truth. To the true descent of the human race were led only those who laid as foundation the revealed truth, as they built upon the history of nations; these found both the reasons for the varieties and differences, and in general every reason distinguishing the races of the human race from one another; without revelation and history the anthropological question they vainly strove to solve. The kinship of spirit and body exerts such influence as to bring about such alterations wholly inexplicable. From the mutual interaction and from the influence of climates as well as from diet, civilization, etc., are born all the varieties distinguishing the human race into races, whose reason for alteration and variation would be unknown if the investigations were limited to anatomy alone. We, having before us the works of men who have studied man under both aspects, of the spirit and of the body, will prove that all the races of the earth lead back to one race, to one single stock, and we will bring the most persuasive testimonies.

§ 3: On the Varieties of Colors in the Human Race

The great problem requiring solution is this: in what manner did the varieties unfold in the human race from a single primordial color? Did they arise from chance alterations in the members of the vast human family from which another variant form was shaped, or ought we to suppose a gradual darkening, according to the naturalists, by which reason certain nations or families passed gradually by successive compromises from one extreme to the other? We must confess that the present state of science, as the wise Cardinal Wiseman says, does not authorize us to assert with confidence either the one hypothesis or the other. But independently of these, science has advanced sufficiently so that it need not logically leave any room for doubt whatever regarding the common origin of each race. For I believe that, casting our eyes over all the evidences of its development, we can say that they enclose all the elements of the problem in a manner that is wholly satisfactory. Let us examine first whether chance or accidental alterations—what some call sporadic variations—can develop in a generation tending to produce from itself the characters of another kind; second, whether these varieties can be successive; and third, whether climate, diet, civilization, etc., can powerfully act upon the presence of similar varieties, or at least make them stable, characteristic, and perpetual.

I believe all the elements of the problem are contained in what precedes, which is this: “Can the varieties of colors which we see today in the human race have received their origin from a single stock?” For if this can be proved, we shall remove the foundation upon which superficial researchers, relying upon it, deny the unity of the human race and the primitive oneness of the nations.

§ 4: On Sporadic Variations Appearing in a Generation and on Their Successive Transmission

Concerning sporadic variations observed from the earliest times, much has been written by both ancient and modern scholars. The change of color and the structure of hair is customary and remarkable in Guinea, according to Boetheim. All birds and dogs are equally black as the inhabitants. The cattle of the countryside of Rome are invariably light-colored; whereas in certain districts of Italy, the livestock are generally reddish. The swine and sheep of the country are almost all black, whereas in England white is the predominant color. In Corsica, the horses, dogs, and other animals turn out pleasingly spotted. Many authors have attributed to certain rivers the property of giving color to the birds grazing along their banks. Thus Galen notes that the rivers of Boeotia and the Xanthus near Troy give a yellowish color to their flocks, from which the Xanthus itself took its name.

Rose, in his letters concerning northern Italy, says that even today such a quality is attributed to the river (Ticino). The idea of the inhabitants is that not only the cattle of the country are white because of the river (to be precise, they have a milk-colored hue), but likewise the oxen in other places drinking the water of that river have the same color. This narrative perhaps reminds us of the white flocks on the banks of the beautiful river Clitumnus, of which Virgil speaks; which makes the flocks and cattle white, worthy victims that they might be offered by the Romans during their triumphs to the altars of the gods; and perhaps this explains it.

The structure of hair undergoes analogous alteration. In vain did they try to produce wool in the Antilles islands; for the flocks brought there cast off their wool and are covered with hair. The same thing happens in other hot climates. “The sheep in Guinea,” says Swan, “bear so little resemblance to those of Europe that a foreigner, if he does not hear them bleating, could ask what species of animals they are, since they are covered with a brownish-gray and black hair like that of dogs”; thus a certain imaginative author observed that “here the world seems to have been turned upside down; for the sheep have hair and men have wool”.

A similar phenomenon presents itself in the regions around Ankara, where almost all animals—sheep, goats, hares, and weasels—are covered with a silky and long hair much sought after in the handicrafts of the East. Similarly, other animals are subject to these changes; for the bishop Heber informs us that dogs and horses brought from India to the mountains immediately become covered with hair like the goat of those climates, with woolly fur.

But if we examine the general form and structure of animals, we shall see that these two subjects undergo greater alterations. No animal exhibits this more clearly than the ox; for in no other animal has art and work applied so many ways. What a contrast does not exist between the bulkier, slower, and heavier animals passing through the streets of Rome and the smaller cattle with small heads and flexible limbs which English landowners prize highly! According to Boetheim, “European dogs alter very rapidly to a singular degree. In Guinea, in Odum ean. (Beside the Grove, page 555): their ears become broad and thin like those of a fox, to which body they likewise attach themselves. In this way they change so much that within three or four years they become very ugly, and after so many years they cease to bark, and nothing is heard from them but growls similar to those of a fox”. Boetheim also says that “the dogs of the country are very ugly, resembling greatly other foxes with their ears; their tails are small, thin, and pointed at the end; without any hair they have only bare, smooth skin, spotted or plain; without any hair they have only bare, smooth skin, spotted or plain; they never bark but howl. The natives call it ouari do passio, which in Portuguese means a kind of wild animal; they eat them and esteem their meat more than that of sheep”.

Hence it appears that climate or other local causes contribute to this circumstance, so that a species of animal brought from another country to the same conditions as the native generations presents within a few generations a form brought to the same conditions as the native generations exhibits within a few generations such an appearance as to drop all resemblance to the parent race and become entirely different in all respects. The camel likewise presents an example of extraordinary transformation. “In certain caravans we encountered,” says a traveler, “there were two camels much larger than any other kind I had ever seen, and so different from the camels of Arabia in their form and in the proportion of their body’s limbs” as different as the shepherd dog is from the hunting dog. These camels had large heads and an equally thick neck, from which hung hair of a deep to black color, coarse and long; their legs were short, and at the middle very thick; the body and haunches were round and fleshy; yet the height from the ground was a foot higher than the camels of the Arabian desert.

Since we are speaking of camels, we can observe that their great characteristic shape, the hump on their back, which appears double in the Bactrian camels, is considered by some naturalists as a sporadic division of the primitive type. They suppose it to originate from a fatty substance deposited in the fibrous strands of their back as a result of the continuous action of heat, precisely in the same way that the camel-like humps appear on the zebu of Indian cattle, and the tails of the sheep of Padaria and Syria, as well as the analogous form appearing above the buttocks of the women of the Hottentots.

These examples demonstrate that sporadic and chance variations not only can appear by themselves, but what is particularly relevant to the subject of our discussion, they can multiply among animals, and it will not be difficult to multiply the examples on this latter point; for the great prevalence of albino animals, such as white rabbits or milk-colored horses, which probably originated initially from weakness, demonstrates how easy it is for these varieties to arise. But Doctor Prichard gives a very remarkable example, that of short-legged sheep known by the name Acon, or the otter breed, developed many years ago in England. This arose from a sporadic or chance occurrence, or more precisely, from an animal uniquely formed, which communicated all its peculiarities to its offspring to such a degree that it promises to become permanent. It is also well known that the breed producing the enormous Hereford cattle arose technically through a combination with those bearing the greatest elements of perfection. The basis was the Rylow breed, or a small family of Heslash; and all cattle having exceptional dimensions of the body are allied to this breed.

These phenomena, confirmed by facts, present a foundation analogous to application to human types; nor is it easy to say that such large variations could not have arisen and been transmitted through descendants among men as well as among inferior animals; for we have seen that similar variations distinguished by the shape of the skull, the color, and the structure of the hair of the head and the general stature of the body arise among animals from a single genus; furthermore, it appears to be shown that differences in a kind can arise originally from some sporadic variety, which by particular circumstances becomes stable and characteristic and transmissible through descendants. Hence from these facts, we cannot say it is very probable that in the human race the same causes, acting in similar manner, could have produced results no less stable than the varieties in the animal kingdom, which appear also in our kind, and do not differ in any way from one another; thus they do not demand that we be forced to resort to a forced cause or another exceptional thing.

We can consider the varieties distinguishing the human race into races as sporadic phenomena that appeared in certain families and through successive transmission have become stable and characteristic of that family.

Such sporadic phenomena are observed even today in very many families among all known races. For example, blond hair is a privileged characteristic of the Caucasian race; and yet there are people among all known races having hair of this color. Chircol found it among the Eskimos; Sommerats among the Papua (savages of Australia); Nalis among the Nubians; and Horpaz among the blacks; this phenomenon is no more remarkable than what we observe among us, where woolly-haired people are found; but I think what makes an impression here is that in the woolly-haired peoples a tendency is observed, and that as to other characteristics of their face, they tend toward the Ethiopian race, such as a more brownish coloring and thick lips.

In the published specimens of skulls displayed by Blumenbach in his museum there is a skull of a Dithmaran which, when seen from the side, could be taken for that of an Ethiopian. But the most curious example of such sporadic alterations is the approach of one race to another. As a recent investigator of the Hauran, that is a region beyond the Jordan, writes the following: “The family inhabiting here (at abra-el Boday) had the characteristics of the Ethiopian race, a dark black color, and woolly hair.” Initially I thought this might be due to descent from an Ethiopian mother, as such women are sometimes found as wives or concubines even among the Arabs; but at the same time I could not doubt my own observations, that the father of the family was an Arab of white color and mixed blood; and they assured me that neither the men nor the women of the present generation nor of those preceding were all legitimate nobles by birth and by marriage, and that in the family’s history they had never known as wife or concubine an Ethiopian woman. This is truly a very remarkable case observed among the Arabs dwelling in the basin of the Jordan, having broader facial characteristics, a dark complexion, and woolly hair, than which no other race shows such a resemblance; a quality which ought to be attributed, I believe, rather to the continuous and intense heat of this region than to any other cause.

If all these events and cases found here are considered as sufficiently proved, we have assuredly a remarkable example of a human being of one race approaching another in the distinguishing characteristics which are transmitted through succession of the kind.

There are truly examples of variations much more deeply marked, much more paradoxical appearing among men and distinguishing one race from another, transmitted from father to son. Certain variations would make the solution of the problem occupying us much more difficult if they appeared in some distant country and through the succession of the kind were perpetuated and shaped a remarkable people. Without doubt the most remarkable variety is that transmitted through three generations in the family of Lambert, known generally by the name of the porcupine man. The leader of this strange generation, when still young, was shown by his father around 1731 and came from neighboring countries; from Addison Hull in Britain. Dr. Martin in the same year described him in his work Philosophical Transactions. He described him as having his whole body covered with horny growths (fleshy protrusions) with coarse hair of the thickness of twine and length of one and a half fingers.

Around 1700 he was shown again under the same title; he was described by M. Scory in a note as an appendix presented by the foregoing M. Martin. But what is most interesting is that, having already reached his fortieth year, he had six children who at the same age—all seven weeks from their birth—presented the same peculiarity, and the only one of his children who survived was shown with his father. M. Bedsort gave a description of the hand of the son, as M. Martin gave one of the hand of the father.

Around 1802 the children of this boy were displayed throughout Germany by a certain Mr. Zohar, who claimed that these boys belonged to a race found in New Holland or within other very distant countries. But Doctor Tilesius examined them very carefully and published the most accurate description we have of this peculiar family, with illustrations on both brothers, John aged 41 and Elsmar aged 13.

Their father, the boy of M. Bedsort’s account, was still living and was a hunter for Lord Walpole-Headall in Britain. When shown the illustration of their father’s hand, both recognized it from a unique button of particular shape that he had on the button of his undershirt.

Tilesius’s description from page 80 to the end is very detailed and exactly matches those previously given. The entire body, except the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and the face, was covered with keratin-like growths of reddish-brown color, hard, elastic, approximately one and a half fingers in length. From manual rubbing a sound arose because of their mutual collision. Each year these keratin growths fell off, and their shedding was always accompanied by some degree of discomfort; they fell off also with the application of mercury, but in both cases they grew again within a short space of time. The conclusions drawn by Mr. Bedsort from this phenomenon are very correct and carry moreover great weight, since they came to another generation and under two different circumstances. “It appears, therefore,” he says, “beyond all doubt that a generation could be multiplied from this man having a shrunk or covered body like his own, and if this happened and the original occasion was forgotten, it would not be difficult to regard this generation as a wholly different species of humans.” This observation will lead us almost to conclude that the species of humans originated from a single stock. The black skin of the Ethiopians and many other variations of the same nature can likewise in full likelihood owe their existence to some sporadic occurrence multiplied through hereditary succession.

Another, more common, variety that prevailed throughout a family consisted of an excessive number of fingers. In ancient Rome they were distinguished by a particular name; the six-fingered are mentioned by Pliny and by other important writers. Ben A. de la Vio carefully traced the history of such a family through four generations. This one was named Colburn, and this peculiarity was transmitted in the family from the grandfather to the younger descendant whom he examined; this was not regular and was observed only in certain children in each generation. Maupertuis speaks of another example in Germany, and one famous surgeon in Berlin, James Eso, belonged to a family which had this peculiarity on the mother’s side.

Another curious phenomenon is presented by horned men. A portrait of a horned man is preserved in the Library of Paris bearing this inscription. “Portrait of the horned man found in the province of Maine in France”.

“Nature at all times and in all places has produced strange and terrible monsters. France, however, appears that beyond all other places it produced more such creatures, both on land and in the sea, and in its forests; not long ago in Maine there was discovered a human being bearing on his forehead a true horn, visible and tangible. Behold his portrait accompanied with all the information and circumstances which the man himself acknowledged with his own mouth. This man, named François Trouvillain, having the limbs of his body formed like all men, of moderate stature, well-nourished, with a bald forehead except a few hairs in back, otherwise of rustic manners and appearance and gait, and wearing the skin of a wolf on his body; he was born in the village of Thersière, which is the property of General Laberdine; from childhood he spent time in the forest and in the fields, and until his seventh year of age he had neither horn nor any trace of such a thing; around that time it began to grow, and seven more years passed and the horn was barely a finger’s size, slightly protruding from his head, but after that it grew in such a manner that at the age of thirty-five—for that is how long he lived—it very much resembled in size, thickness, and shape the horn of a pig curving upward from his head. Behold also how it was discovered. The general magistrate Laberdine, hunting in the forests, saw from afar some charcoal-workers and took them for thieves. Wherefore he also pursued them with his men; when he overtook them, the man with the horn, seeing that he would inevitably be captured and exposed, wished to hide under the low-hanging branches, but failing to do so, was captured with the charcoal-workers and brought before the general; while all the others were unveiled, he alone resisted and did not wish to be exposed; then a servant approached and tore off his hat and threw it to the ground, thus the monstrous horn was revealed, which all saw not without a little astonishment that forced the poor man not to be exposed; accordingly he was sent by the general to the king at Fontainebleau, and by his order was brought to Paris, to be displayed at the hall of curiosities, which lasted for two months”.

And this indeed is the inscription of the woodcut. In the Journal compiled by Letroilles during the reign of Henry the Fourth, we find the following passage, by which the more sober parts of the narrative of the publisher of the woodcut are confirmed.

“It is a few days since a man named François Trouvillan, thirty-five years old, was shown in a certain house near Saint-Eustache, bearing on his head a horn curved inward, which would have pierced your head if from time to time he had not trimmed it. They say the horn appeared in his seventh year of age, and out of shame for his deformity he fled to the forests and lived there working with the charcoal-workers.

One day the Lord Marquis Laberdine, hunting, encountered the charcoal-workers, whom he took for thieves. The Marquis, taking them for thieves, ordered them to be pursued. Wherefore seizing them, they led them before the general; while all the others were unveiled, he alone resisted and did not wish to be exposed; then a servant approached and snatched his hat and threw it to the ground, thus the horn was revealed. The Marquis seeing it took it with him, and afterwards sent it to the king, who, after displaying it in his court, delivered it to his grooms, so that they should display it to the people and receive money. This man has a bald forehead, has a reddish beard, and the hair behind his head, and is altogether a satyr bereft of shame.

In the same journal we also read the following.

“It should be noted that such growths are not so rare in men as one might suppose from the silence of the ancient writers. Those having such defects are understood to have taken care in every way to hide them from the eyes of men, so far as the size and position of the growth permitted. We saw that in Trouillac the discovery occurred by chance; below we give an image of a horned woman whose horn points downward and is in front of her face. This woman was named Kyriaké and lived some time ago in Paris. At the age of eighty-four she was not afraid to undergo surgery, so as to be freed from this deformity of her body, which daily became more troublesome. The surgery performed by a skilled surgeon was very successful. The image was taken a few days before the horn was cut off by the surgeon. When one sees the paradoxical size of this protrusion, one marvels upon learning that this entire mass was formed within four years, since until the eightieth year the forehead of Kyriaké presented only the wrinkles of age. But when the heterogeneous growth formed on her forehead, shortly afterward similar growths appeared in many places on her skin; a multitude grew on the curved part of her hand, and since they were very troublesome, the old woman accustomed herself to cut them from time to time as we cut our nails; the root and a second horn growing appeared on her forehead; and on her right cheek appeared another horn with a length of nine or ten lines.”

Since the organs secreting the bony substance of the horn are situated deep in the epidermis, it appears that at first the horn was skin and that afterwards the tension which it gave to the skin transformed the underlying thin and cellular tissue into fibrous tissue, and thus gradually the base of the horn solidified into the forehead bones. The same thing happens in animals in which the horn is naturally present but presents much abnormality. The female goats of the sheep bear small horns; but in all domestic species the females completely lack horns.

Even if the development of the bony nucleus of the horn occurs together with the development of the outer layer, there are nevertheless exceptions to this rule. From Aelian we learn that in his times there existed in certain coastal regions of the Red Sea cattle having horns as moveable as their ears.

Certainly in those animals the horns were attached not to the bone but to the skin, for when the bony nucleus was blunted and did not exist, the outer layer nonetheless continued to grow and formed the moveable horns. This phenomenon is very important as it confirms the possibility of the transmission of some variation from parents to children arising from a chance occurrence, whether natural or artificial.

An important sporadic phenomenon is also the scale of human body sizes, of which the highest degree is occupied by giants and the lowest by dwarfs, who isolated would constitute races so contradictory as also varied.

From what has been said so far I believe it has been demonstrated both by analogy and by direct examples, first, that there exists a continuous tendency, or let me say a force in nature tending to produce in our species varieties continuously of a very extraordinary character, now approaching in a remarkable manner, that is through distinctive, special, and unique characters, very different from the race in which these varieties were born, and second, that these can be transmitted, deriving from father to son through the succession of generations.

Such testimony thus stated is of great value, because we reason that the various families or races among men can owe their origins to some sporadic occurrence or to the chance appearance of a variety, which having taken its beginning first in some generation, afterwards under the circumstances favorable to it, such as the isolation of the family in which this variety appeared and intermarriage among themselves, became stable and perpetual.

But, one will ask, do we have examples of entire nations that were altered in this manner? Or otherwise, do we have an example that these alterations were brought through succession to a large scale? The answer to this question will be the removal of all difficulties and the solution of the question through a single point, which at present is not easy; but the investigations being conducted on the question will provide the materials for drawing some positive conclusion.

On the Action of Climate, Diet, Civilization, Etc. Upon the Human Race for Promoting Varieties in Color and Character, and on Their Power to Make These Stable, Characteristic, and Perpetual, and as Distinguishing Signs of Different Races

That climate, diet, and life act upon the human race for promoting varieties both in color and character is one of the usual phenomena striking the eyes of those visiting countries in all the different zones, and is easy to confirm. Those who have traversed the earth along its full breadth and length can testify to this truth; each transition from place to place presents a new variation in color and character; and the farther we depart, the more we differ from the first type and from the color of the inhabitants of that place; stature, hair, eyes, facial features, and the shape of the head present so many variations and so much variety as would be able to distinguish the human race both particularly and independently; and if peoples from the creation of the world had lived isolated in their own countries and there had never been testimony of migration of peoples, and no sign nor proof confirming their kinship was discovered, then we could regard them as autochthonous and of different origin, born from the soil itself and shaped according to the natural forces of the country surrounding them, though this makes the difficulty clear. How indeed did these independent races receive the same rational soul? How do the same methods of education show every human being spiritually similar to all races? And why does the more perfect education show the more perfect human indiscriminately toward all races and kinds? And finally, how do so many varieties and differences come under one stable law of perfection through the cultivation of the intellect and the shaping of the heart? But we can no longer accept this view, because apart from the spiritual similarity proclaiming kinship, there are historical facts of the migration of peoples, civilization, diet, and way of life in general, and the scientific results demonstrating that the races of the earth and the languages derive from one sole race or stock. We shall prove this truth by first bringing the testimonies from the consequences of the migrations, namely climate, civilization, etc., and second the testimonies from the kinship of the languages themselves.

§ 3: That Varieties Can Arise From the Action of Climate, Diet, and Civilization

That climate acts upon the human body and has the power to produce varieties both in color and in the structure of the body, this is demonstrated, first, from the migration of peoples. Who today can distinguish the races that swept over Europe in the Middle Ages? Who can now find the distinctive character of the conquerors of the Eastern Roman Empire? Who can distinguish the Bulgarians who invaded Moesia from the peoples of the surrounding lands? Who can discern the Roman colonists along the Ister from the other colonists? And who does not acknowledge that the Gypsies, or Bohemians, expelled from India by Tamerlane and scattered throughout all Europe, did not assimilate toward the inhabitants of the climates in which they settled? What is the difference that distinguishes the Indo-Germanic or Indo-European races—the Indian, Persian, Roman, Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic—which present unambiguous signs of kinship; various races from all parts of the world invaded Egypt and settled in it. All today bear the same type of the ancient Egyptian, which the same monuments of antiquity preserved.

The Semitic races—namely the Iraqi, Syrian, Median, Arabian, and Abyssinian—although they have their origin, as we will be able to show from linguistics, to such an extent have climate, diet, and civilization changed them that complete dissimilarity distinguishes them from each other; that climate, diet, and civilization act greatly upon the formation of the character and characteristics of a race is testified both by the described characteristics of mountain and plain dwellers of the same and single race, as well as by the distinctive characters of townspeople and country people.

The history of ancient times describes the character, temperament, color, and characteristics of different nations as well as the differences distinguishing the inhabitants of different climates; but who today can recognize these migrating peoples? Who can find their kinship to their kinfolk?

Those who have written against the unity of the human race could not raise the number of independent races above fifteen, and yet we can raise the varieties to the hundreds. From what do we distinguish the various races inhabiting Europe, those belonging to the Caucasian race? How many varieties from the northern to the southern extremity of it! And from the Urals to England and Iceland! And who can assert that the same peoples always inhabited the same countries? And yet the same character always distinguishes the inhabitants of the same country. The peoples of Asia are distinguished from the peoples of Europe, and are also distinguished from each other in both color and other characteristics; these never remained stationary, but turned hither and thither and conquered new territories, and yet the different climates maintained their characteristic and assimilated the conquerors to the character of the place. Many peoples from Asia invaded Europe and Africa, but not even a trace of their character was preserved; very many examples from ancient and modern times confirm this truth. Climate itself is often very peculiar; in some places the changes and variations are diverse and rapid, in others they are simple and the action is weak. Bishop Heber describing his first entry into Calcutta expresses himself thus: “The great variety of colors among the native inhabitants greatly astonished me; in the crowd surrounding us, some were found having color black as Ethiopians; others were copper-colored; others somewhat blacker than the Nubians, whom I saw in Liverpool. M. Blill, the gymnasium director of the Bihar gymnasium, who came to meet me, having seen as many Indians as no European has seen, told me that he could not explain this difference, which is general throughout the country and equally astonishing everywhere. This is not purely simply the action of the sun, for this variety of colors is observed also in the fishermen, who are all equally naked; this does not depend at all on the order of the race, for there exist Brahmans of the highest order who are black, whereas the pariahs are comparatively white.”

Concerning this variety, Prichard and others, starting from the distinction of orders, conclude that India was populated by two distinct nations, one of which conquered the other, bringing it into a lowlier position and dependence; but the hypothesis does not seem true, for if it were true there would be a distinction of colors between the upper and lower orders.

The action of climate appears more vivid in Abyssinia. The inhabitants of it are entirely black, and yet it is certain that by origin they belong to the Semitic family and consequently to the white race. Their language is nothing other than a dialect of the Semitic languages, and the very national name shows that they crossed the Red Sea. From this the Holy Scripture places the borders of the tribe of Cush in Abyssinia and on the opposite shore; and they have not the slightest resemblance to the neighboring Ethiopians, neither in characteristics, nor in skull structure, except for the coloring, but their face is entirely European.

Another more striking example is presented to us by the traveler Burckhardt; the city of Suakin, built on the African shore of the Red Sea, contains a mixed population, initially formed of Bedouins and Arabs, having afterwards included descendants of the ancient Turks. Thus the inhabitants of it derive their descent partly from the Arabs, partly from the Turks. Concerning the inhabitants of this city, behold what M. Burckhardt says: “the first Hadendoa or Bedouins of Suakin have exactly the same characteristics, the same language and clothing of the Bedouins of Nubia. Generally their characteristics are beautiful and expressive; their beard is thin and sparse; their color is a deep brownish-black tending toward black. But in their physiognomy nothing exists that characterizes the Ethiopian. The others who derive their descent from the settlements, coming from Mosoul, Matalinasaf, etc. And from the retinues sent there by Sultan Selim after the conquest of Egypt underwent the same alterations; the present generation, says Burckhardt, in both characteristics and customs, is distinguished in no way from the Bedouins of Nubia.” Thus we have two nations distinguished—the Arabs and the Turks—who in the passage of a few centuries became black in Africa, although white by origin.

The ship’s captain Tuckey, speaking of the natives of Congo, says: “it is evident that they are a mixed nation, not having any ethnic physiognomy, and most have the characteristics of the inhabitants of southern Europe. One can suppose that this arises from kinship to the Portuguese, and yet there are very few descended from mixed marriages.” This last observation refutes the hypotheses of Rauch and others, that the varieties in Calcutta arise from the fusion of two heterogeneous races; for here, even if it is supposed that the similarity of the characters of the natives of Congo to those of southern Europeans arose from miscegenation, the conclusion will be wholly contrary to their hypotheses; for a small number assimilated to itself the entire character of the inhabitants of the country, although this is impossible, and it only shows that this people did not originally belong to the black race.

In the general observations upon the travels of Captain Tuckey it is concluded that “the characteristics of the natives of Congo, although some approximating toward those of the black races, are neither so emphatic nor so black as those of Africans in general; these have not only a more pleasing appearance, but likewise some representation of great simplicity and innocence.”

There are very many nations not only on the coasts of the shores, but also in central Africa of black and glossy color without any characteristic of the Ethiopian; among them are the Felatahs, whom Park describes as “not being black, but of a dark sun-tanned color, rather glossy and rather yellowish; and they have beautiful characteristics and sweet and smooth hair, the lips without the thickness, and the hair not at all kinky as other races have it.” Zobeir depicts them “with a yellowish color with black hair not very long and almost kinky like that of the Ethiopians.” Lieutenant. Moore speaking of the Yolofia says: “these are much blacker and more beautiful than the Mandingoes or the Fulos, not having at all the flat nose and fleshy lips that distinguish the Ethiopian peoples, and that none of the inhabitants of these countries can be compared to the Yolofia for the blackness of the complexion and the beauty of the characteristics.”

From the above examples it appears that color alone cannot be regarded as the characteristic sign of the Ethiopian race; for many can be black without being of Ethiopian descent, and that we can distinguish the Ethiopians into two kinds or two families different from each other, distinguished from each other by the shape of the head, the characteristics of the face, and the whole bearing. D’Avezac distinguished the existence of these two races in Africa—one indiscriminately black with all the characteristics of the race, and one black with entirely beautiful European characteristics; but he calls them indiscriminately Ethiopian.

The distinction into two races of the Ethiopians because of the difference of characteristics and the action of climate toward assimilation of inhabitants leads us to suppose two things, either that they are distinct kinds and that one from prehistoric times belonged to the Caucasian race, or that civilization and moral formation preserved in one race the nobility of character while in the other barbarism and moral degeneration deformed the original character; (for the form of the soul shapes that of the body, and truly said is the statement “such as the soul, so too the form”); for the disposition of the soul, with the cooperation of time, makes permanent the expression upon the face; which, like a mirror, displays the disposition of the soul; (for the intellect and the bones themselves are shaped with such a disposition as the necessity of use imposes).

Both hypotheses are of particular importance, since if either were accepted, it would lead to the solution of the problem; if we accept the first, the problem can be regarded as solved; if we accept the second, which explains the manner of deformation of the character of the different races, corrupted in character through the gradual fall of pride, government, custom, worship, and finally of reason. The third hypothesis—or as the opponents of this view could suppose, that they could be two independent kinds—cannot be supported, as having no foundation, for they have no sufficient argument to support it; and if it were permitted to express hypotheses without strong support, then we could suppose that each variation belongs to and one independent kind; which is most false; for investigations demonstrate the opposite; each region, each corner of the earth should have and one autochthonous, which no theory has yet accepted or supported.

Our hypotheses are supported by documented facts; for it has been observed that the races most corrupted morally are also degenerate in character; and those preserving the form of human nobility have civilization and religion, as much as can be, more perfect, and more temperate customs, etc. “I believe,” says Cardinal Wiseman, “that in general we shall find that the races not having the characteristics of the Ethiopian, but only the color, are elevated in civilization to a degree superior to those surrounding them, and they practice worship showing a revelation, as the Abyssinians a corrupted Christianity, the natives of Congo having adopted some similar ideas, and all others the Mohammedan worship. Whereas those having the characteristics of the Ethiopian throughout their development, as the Dahomeyans, the Kaffirs, or the Hottentots, are in the highest degree of natural and moral degradation, and they practice a miserable system of worship of fetishism or idolatry”. From these observations the positive conclusion is drawn, that climate indeed acts upon color, while government and the rest of spiritual development acts upon characteristics, and that the action of climate can change the color of the race, whereas civilization and spiritual development in general can shape the characters toward the more perfect or the less perfect.

§ 4: On the Effect of Climate and Civilization on the Human Body

Concerning the effect of climate on skin color, Heber writes as follows: “It is noteworthy in these matters that, without exception, all these human races (Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Tartars) acquire, after a small number of generations and without any initial racial intermarriage with the Indians, a deep olive-colored skin approximating closely to that of the Ethiopians, which appears to be natural to the climate.” The Portuguese born in that place do not marry among themselves nor, if they can, with Europeans. Yet these same Portuguese over a period of three hundred years in India became as dark as the Kaffirs.

Abundant examples present striking phenomena due to the effect of climate, civilization, diet, occupation, and way of life in general; Long in his Histoire de la Jamaïque and Bauvart in his Histoire des Antilles both noted that the skulls of European colonists settled on these islands differ noticeably in shape from those in Europe and approach those of the indigenous Americans. Doctor Prichard confirms with great authority that after the third generation, captives in the United States employed in domestic service have a less prominent nose, and mouth and lips less protruding; and at the same time the hair becomes longer in each successive generation. Captives, on the other hand, employed in the field labor, maintain their original appearance over many years. Caldani presented as an example the skeleton of an Ethiopian, who, when a youth trained in Athens, underwent such an alteration in complexion that he was no longer darker than a European of that type; he speaks from his own observation. Rölfius brought an Ethiopian child to Germany, who after two years of residence in Germany changed his complexion, becoming brown-haired from black; similar examples are found in N. Waltz’s Anthropologie. A certain English nobleman, Macnaughten, living in southern India, in Segelande, acquired a dark complexion while living as an indigenous person. Doctor Prichard, through careful investigations, observed that diet and civilization contribute greatly to the alteration of characteristics; this is also acknowledged by Savion, who observed the effects of slavery; he says that “slavery and servile conditions are the most potent causes discovered to date for producing variations among living creatures; and indeed the greatest varieties obtained so far have come about in this way.” Civilization is the medium acting most powerfully among these means on humans, and by its moral effect it can be stronger. It is beyond all doubt that manner of life, food, comfort, prosperity, and the degree of spiritual development and upbringing that some acquire produce powerful and lasting effects on the peoples from the same origin and source.

A young traveler observed in Syria the existing differences between the Bedouins and the Fellaheen of the Houran. The former, the nomadic Arabs, exposed daily to the vicissitudes and toils of a wandering and difficult life, have an upright posture and a well-formed body, a small face and thin beard. The latter, the settled Arabs, are stout and robust; they have a thick beard, but they lack the keen-sightedness in their gaze characteristic of their brothers of the desert. Yet it is certain that these two races descend from one nation alone, speaking the same language and inhabiting the same climate. What then is the cause of the distinction? Undoubtedly, the manner of diet of each; for this careful observer adds that in childhood they distinguish themselves not at all.

Something similar was also observed by Gel among the Bedouins, in whom the Sheikhs, the leaders of the people, were distinguished. The same was observed by Toubias in Uganda, where the workers were darker, their hair more woolly and curly, and their bodies of small stature; whereas quite the opposite occurred among those living in ease.

Very many examples cited by serious writers demonstrate the power of civilization, diet, etc., in producing variations; and in character and in color, the effect on complexions will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, where we develop the question of the different coloration of humans.

§ 5: On the Cause of the Different Skin Colors of Humans

The ancients regarded the sun as the principal cause of coloration. Climate was considered a secondary cause, having an effect on the skin in proportion to solar heat. This is true to the extent that we observe a general correspondence between complexion, climate, and the sun’s heat.

Speaking generally, the lighter races are those living nearer the poles, while the darker ones inhabit the tropical regions; and between these two extremes we can trace the footprints of many intermediate degrees; but this ratio is not observed on all continents; for in the Americas and in the entire Western Hemisphere, diverse complexions are observed with no ratio to those of the Eastern Hemisphere. The various inhabitants of the Americas whom the Spanish found at different geographic latitudes were not only not colored according to the ratios observed in the Old World, but presented such variety inconsistent with ancient theories that either the theory had to be completely abandoned or a different one sought to explain those phenomena.

There are many examples refuting the ancient theories; the Puélche of Argentina are much darker than those of Paraguay, although the former live farther from the equator than the latter. Indeed, they say concerning the Paraguayans that they are so light that women dressed in European clothing would be confused with European women. The Lapps, the Japanese, the Ostiaks, etc., who live in the northernmost regions, are dark-complexioned.

That the sun is not the direct cause of the alteration of complexions is beyond all doubt, both because the examples have shown that the sun’s effect can only act externally, and because observations demonstrate that the varied complexion has its basis not in the colorless epidermis but beneath the skin, and that the darkness is not a contraction and condensation of the original skin color nor the lightness a rarefaction, but a chemical result of the internal organism produced by the climate’s heat, the quality of food, diet, work, and manner of living, as we shall demonstrate. Fr. Oikonomos, writing concerning the coloration of humans, says: “Examining the human skin closely, we find it composed of two parts; of these, the upper is called the epidermis and consists of two layers, of which the upper is transparent and composed of horny substance (stratum corneum) called the horny layer, and the other immediately beneath the horny layer appears to consist of mucous substance (stratum mucosum), under the epidermis composed of these two layers lies the dermis. Examined in this way, both the dark and light races differ only as to the mucous layer or Malpighian network, but in all other respects there is no difference. Only in the mucous layer or in the Malpighian network appear cells in different peoples containing colored matter. If this coloring matter is very small, filling only the lower parts of the mucous layer, then the human complexion is light. But if this matter is abundant and fills the entire mucous layer up to the horny layer, then the human complexion is deep. Here arises the knot of the question; and when science demonstrates what climate, food, or something else contributes to the formation of more coloring cells, then the coloration of races will be explained. For the present we merely say that in certain organs of the human body, for example the liver and lungs, according to different types being cooler or warmer, certain functions are imposed which they must perform according to the demands of the climate. It is known that in cold climates the lungs work much; in warm climates the liver works much. And for this reason humans born and living in warm places where their lungs have become accustomed to little activity are at risk of tuberculosis when they migrate to cold climates. Those migrating from cold to warm places are protected from such death; but they are subject to liver diseases and cholera. Those among Europeans who survive this change lose their rosy complexion. From the above it appears that where more bile is excreted, there too more abundant colored cells accumulate in the mucous layer of the epidermis, there too the complexion becomes darker. Because bad food and uncleanness of body and air become causes of greater bile secretion, it is easily explained why complexions are dark, for example, among the Lapps and Finns, etc., who both feed and live poorly.”

It was recently observed that among those who migrate to Africa or America, the dark-complexioned are not so easily attacked by epidemic diseases as the fair-haired. According to this same principle, if true, it appears that certain places favor a certain complexion, which once established there was perfected and became hereditary. So those who once acquired a dark complexion through physiological causes, favored by the climate which proves inexorable toward those with different coloring, become the founders of races and nations.

From what has been said up to now, it has been demonstrated that the various varieties appearing among different peoples and races are purely accidental, that is, sporadic phenomena resulting from different causes; and that all the races of the earth have one organism, one nature, and are subject to the same alterations; that shape, age, type, color, and other distinctive characteristics of races are in no way able to distinguish them into separate independent kinds. And finally, that a bond of kinship is discovered between different races tending to connect and reduce to one single kind all the dissimilarities and to demonstrate through internal or moral and spiritual similarity the descent of the entire human race from one common root.

Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas

If the different races and varieties scattered throughout the entire earth belonged to different independent kinds separate from one another, they should be distinguished also in their psychical and spiritual powers and in their moral principles and religious ideas; for among heterogeneous beings the complete similarity in the most essential characteristics of rational humans that distinguish them from irrational creatures is incomprehensible; namely, how all races of the earth have the same powers of soul— or the same phenomena— or, if they prefer not to call these powers through which various dispositions are externalized according to body’s requirements, whence comes the similarity of the manifestations of spirit? Whence spiritual kinship? Whence comes the complete transformation of the savage into the civilized through development and free education? Whence the feelings, the dispositions, whence the moral principles and religious ideas? Whence the idea of God, the idea of the world, the idea of beauty and evil, of good and wickedness, of the beautiful and the worthless? Whence conscience? Whence the law written in the hearts of all races by the supreme being? How can peoples so far removed from one another have such complete similarity in all things? How can so many independent kinds separated by oceans, and vast distances preventing mutual communication, be found to be in all respects alike? How did not heterogeneity develop and shape different natives peoples according to different principles? How would all have invented a language for communicating feelings and thoughts? Certainly independent kinds would have had a distinct type as animals falling under one category set by the Creator, which by its exalted authority they would be unable to alter, as is observed in animals; but nothing of the sort is observed, for every race is able to merge with and assimilate itself to another. In humans, therefore, there are no category divisions, no particular types, no distinct instincts, but the same spirit and the same soul; and therefore in all respects all are alike; and those who are alike in all respects are more likely to be kin than strangers and foreigners. While those who are alike in every respect are more probably kindred than strangers and aliens.

The kinship of different races is supported by various curious phenomena appearing among even those peoples most distant from one another, whose appearance cannot be attributed except to common origin; for example, the customs and manners of certain races are the same, although oceans separate them. Forster says, “I cannot forget a unique custom practiced not only on all these islands (New Holland, New Zealand, and the Borneo islands), but also among the Hottentots in Africa, the Guatkaos of Paraguay, and the Californians in America; this is the cutting off of the little finger of one or both hands as a sign of mourning for the death of a relative; a custom so unique that we cannot understand how it appeared spontaneously in places so far apart on the earth.”

The existence of similar customs is observed almost from one end of the terrestrial sphere to the other; the inhabitants of the Philippine islands, New Caledonia, the New Hebrides are connected with one another through similarity of dress, religion, and characteristic features to the inhabitants of New Zealand and other indigenous peoples of Polynesia.

Religion and the manner of worshiping the divine under whatever forms it presents itself is a unique phenomenon and a distinctive characteristic of rational humans; and it demonstrates the close kinship of all races, for this feeling of worship, wherever it appears, has such similarity that it would be impossible not to attribute it to a single race, to one source.

Concerning one source and kind, Darwin himself advocates, saying: “The inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego belong to the most barbaric peoples. I was greatly surprised that three of these indigenous people, having spent some time in England, whom I met aboard the ship ‘Beagle,’ convinced me by my own eyes that these people did not differ from us at all in intellect and in other spiritual qualities.”

The moral principles of even the wildest races do not differ from those of the civilized; in the humble huts of wild cannibals one hears the philosophical principles concerning moral virtue of Plato: “Hope is the pillar of the world; upon patience heaven rests; dust returns to the one who spoke it; evil and wicked men are common as the trampled grass; and the good are more pleasing to the eye.”

Among the wild Bushmen are found most instructive proverbs testifying to the identity of principles concerning good and evil; and to the similarity of human spirit.

The feeling of will and self-denial appears equally strong among the wild as among the civilized; a Kafir girl ignores her wild father’s will in favor of her feeling, desiring to find a place in her heart, and she begs him on her knees to kill her or to abandon her feeling. The traveler Tuckey, in his description of the northern part of the kingdom of Congo and Angola in Africa in 1816, recounting the cannibalism of these wild Africans, says that “a custom exists among many of them, especially among the elders, of offering their own bodies as sacrifice for the food of the starving community in the hope of swifter and more certain immortality of the soul.” This.

Says du Chaillu, shows that the idea of immortality is deeply rooted in their hearts. He speaks about the condition of the wild peoples: “I had the occasion,” he says, “to examine this matter carefully to understand the opinions of the wild concerning atheism; and from this I became convinced of the superficiality and inaccuracy with which someone (Lubbock) is accustomed to judge the wild races.” The missionary Alex. Merénski, who traveled through Africa and spent a decade there for the sake of conversion and civilization, had, perhaps more than anyone else, on account of his exalted calling, the opportunity to study both the language and religion of those wild peoples. This trustworthy author and missionary testifies based on the facts against those who until now have claimed that the wild Kafir tribes not only lack but do not even have the conception of the word “religion.” On the contrary, he insists as an eyewitness, all without exception believe in one personal God, whom they call Moaïmo. He is the one who spins the fate of all, or Fate itself. He is the one who formed the world, the Lord of life and death, from whom all happiness and well-being flow forth. What a similarity of religious ideas! Who does not discover in them the fundamental ideas of the ancient world? Similarly, among the wild peoples of Northern America, the great spirit that created the earth and the universe holds the highest place; among certain wild tribes of the Negro peoples of New Dia and Andria, there remains even to this day the memory of a superior worship and a higher religious sentiment. “The Sky,” they say, “was once near to humans, and the highest God revealed to them His wise teachings, but afterward wholly removed Himself from the people, becoming accessible only to the priests;” among these Negroes there exists the idea of spirits as servants of God. They worship Φοηραμπηαγαα and Νγοπρίο, that is, the living and personified Sky clothed with clouds as a garment, and placing

The stars as ornament upon his face, sending forth spirits as his own children upon the earth to execute his commands; he is glorified as the giver of all good and as the creator of all things; he is omniscient, having the sun as his eye, and present everywhere as ether; he stands in a sphere higher than the human world and sends forth beneath him the spirits for the governance and providence of the world, which became the first worship among the Aborigines. When one of these wild peoples was asked by a foreigner whether the creature to which he offered food as sacrifice eats it, he answered that the creature is not God, the Djibbe, which is an invisible being that partakes only of spiritual food, leaving the sensible and bodily part to us.

Father Soutouï relates that the Atochia (an Indian tribe) at the beginning of French settlement there first and foremost worshiped Heaven as the sole refuge in times of need and affliction, and sacrificing to him, they prayed thus: “Heaven, look favorably upon my sacrifice and be for me a helper and protector.”

Among other tribes, the Algonkian and Sioux, there still prevails the memory that the heavenly God showed Himself more favorably to them in earlier times, and later abandoned them on account of their disobedience.

Concerning the native Mexican religion, here is what Dl. writes: “in all their prayers remarkably mention is made of the most high, all-powerful, and omnipresent God Tzótzitl; there also existed the idea of the most high God, whom they called Tlóke or Naoválthe; he is the one who contains all things in himself, the cause and source of all things, invisible and incorporeal; on his altar no sacrifice nor image was ever offered, as he needed none of these.”

In the religion of the wild Australians it appears more clearly from its present state that once these people were at a certain degree of civilization and more perfect worship, for its details are relics, so to speak, of a better time; it is shown by their mythology, which is a mixture of demonology and superstition, as W. Ellis confirms.

In Polynesia the Tangaroa or Taaatou is worshiped as a heavenly god in various forms. And Tángkia, whose worship was preserved for the longest time, is the god of the sky, appearing as a bird hovering over the earth and the sea, god of gods and of all creatures. According to Tahitian psychology, the sun is his left eye and the seat of his soul; yet not the same one. At the same time he is also a sea god, protector of sailors; then transformed into a god of fish and reptiles, because as it appears the sky is mirrored like a blue mirror in the sea. The general worship of the heavenly spirit, however, transforms itself into polytheistic forms, which also appears in New Zealand, where among certain other tribes of Polynesians the idea of God takes on a pantheistic character. The curious phenomenon in these worships is the similarity of the principle of all religions; the religious principles of the Mexicans and the ideas concerning the heavenly spirit as a bird brooding and giving life to the world, compared to those of the Polynesians, do they not remind us of the Sacred Scripture, “and the Spirit of God was borne above the water”? Which these races have presented in a more sensible manner?

There is no people that does not worship a god; in Central Asia as in Africa and America and New Holland and in all islands, peoples, however wild they may be, have some god and a worship proportionate to their development. I believe that from what has been said it has been demonstrated that the close kinship of all races of the earth, and the chain by which all are bound together through common virtues, common attributes, and that the same spirit characterizes all of them and the same powers that distinguish them from the rest of irrational nature; and from the identity of ideas, that the now very distant peoples in ancient times were in close communication, and that all drew their religious principles from the same source. We wish to prove the existence of that communication and similar origin in the next paragraph from Linguistics.

Kinship of Races Demonstrated From the Kinship of Languages

Linguistics, having determined the kinship of languages, has at the same time determined the kinship of the various races of the human genus; for it has proven that the same language was the mother of all languages, and that peoples separated by the greatest distances all belong to the same family, whose religious and moral principles and the elements of the original language, although distorted and modified according to the moral and spiritual development of the separated members, are nonetheless found as the roots of all moral and religious principles and of the innumerable languages. Linguistics, investigating the relationship of languages, has discovered the history of the human genus, and has been able to trace the various races to a single kind; this science has solved with persuasion and scientific authority the problem of the origin of different races of the earth, and has lifted the mysterious veil covering the truth, which it demonstrated shining and splendid in its original beauty. Linguistics, through many great struggles, has torn down all the walls that from the ages and from the all-changing nature have been erected to separate peoples, races, and nations, and proceeding boldly in its investigative work, discovered the broken link and joined the various links of the small chain of the human genus, proving that all languages had one source, and that there was once on all the earth one lip and one voice for all.

The great work of linguistics has shown that the same spirit dwells in all races, since the communication of ideas was possible to all, and that the internal human is one and the same.

A faint idea of the magnitude of the work of linguistics and of its importance is given by the following numbers. According to the compiled tables and linguistic catalogues, the languages spoken throughout the whole earth are numbered at 8,000, and their dialects at 5,000; such a number of languages and dialects subjected to philological study has given a result in perfect harmony with everything concerning humans mentioned in Holy Scripture. How great should be the authority of the results of such study of such great work? Those who in the last century denied faith in Holy Scripture, as evidence of the division of humanity into different independent kinds, brought the indigenous Americans, whom they considered as autochthonous and never having received communication with the inhabitants of the Old World. Their argument appeared strong and irresistible because it was supported by color, shape of the head, and language, which were all quite different from those of the Old World inhabitants; and as for color and the shape or type of the head, study of these has already shown that the same reasons that produced so many colors and varieties in the Old World could have produced those of the Americans; as for language, until philological study and comparison of languages and dialects, the objection stood immovable; but like every baseless hypothesis, it soon withstood for a short time and then fell, so also with this; comparative linguistics has demonstrated the weakness of the argument and the fallacy of the hypothesis, discovering the close relationship of the languages of the New World to those of the Old. Smith Barton was the first to undertake the great work of studying American languages; and his works were embodied in a very extensive form in a work which Vater first published in 1810 and subsequently reissued in his Mithridates. Here is what a qualified critic says about the results of these men: “From the very accurate investigations I conducted following a method that had not yet been employed in the study of etymology, the existence of six certain families was demonstrated: of the two infinite, in thirty-three (83) American languages examined by Barton and Vater, one hundred and seventy words are found whose roots appear to be the same; and it is easy to see that this correspondence cannot be accidental, for it does not rest purely on the harmony of similarity, but on the analogy of organs that produces almost complete identity with the first articulate sounds of children. Of these one hundred and seventy words which have this correspondence, fifty-three resemble the languages of the Manchus, the Tungus, the Mongols, and the Samoyeds; and fifty-two are found in the Celtic, Basque, Coptic, and the Congo language. These words were found in the comparison of all American languages to the Old World languages, for until now we have known no American idiom that appeared to have an exclusive relationship with any language of Asia, Africa, and Europe.”

Malte-Brun endeavored to advance a step forward and to construct a demonstrative geographic relationship between American and Asiatic languages; and after a very careful investigation, here are what conclusions he drew: That American tribes, related by language to the families (Finoise, Ostiak, portière) and crossing the Caucasus the length of the frozen sea road and crossing the Bering Strait, dispersed in various directions toward Greenland and Chile; and that other tribes belonging to the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Koreans, following the length of the shore, entered Mexico; and that another colony related to the Japanese, the Sambans, the Norwegians, following the mountain ranges of the two continents had the same destination. Beyond these great migrations, he hypothesizes that many small ones crossed to America as well as to the most remote of the oceanic islands, bringing a number of Malayan, Japanese, and African words.

De Humboldt believes that the Toltèques (Aztecs), a Mexican colony, were the Hoanghos, whom the Chinese chronicles mention, and about whom it is said that they migrated under the chief Taao and settled in the northern regions of Siberia.

Others have formed opinions of the same kind, such as Blacker, who sought to connect the Japanese to the Nahuatl, a large American nation between Mexico and Florida. Although these opinions do not have absolute authority, they have much importance, for they express the sentiment of those engaged in philological, linguistic, and ethnographic studies of the peoples of the Old and New Worlds. The authority of these opinions is supported by later other works; there are results derived from ethnographic science that bring more substance to the subject and eliminate all difficulties arising from the multitude of American languages; and they first of all, the examination of the common structure found in all the languages of America, did not permit doubt that they do not all constitute one atomic family, united in all its parts by the most essential bonds of grammatical analogy.

This analogy is not partial, but extends throughout the two great divisions of the New World, giving a family character to the spoken languages, both on the dispersed zone and the arctic pole among the wildest tribes and the most civilized. “This wonderful uniformity,” says one author, “of forming the conjugations of verbs in a particular way from one end of America to the other favors particularly the hypothesis of a primitive people that formed the common descent of all the nations of America.” This analogy is not partial, but extends throughout the two great divisions of the New World and gives a family character to the spoken languages, on the dispersed zone and the arctic pole among the wildest tribes and the most civilized. De Humboldt gave the name family to American languages as forming their conjugations in that way which was called agglutination.

Another observes that the most natural conclusion to which we can arrive, seeing such an exceptional relationship between languages separated by so many hundreds of leagues, is that we must accept a common center of civilization from which all departed.

It is observed that the more American languages are researched, the more they appear to be subject to the laws of other families; in such a way that this great and united family, day by day being subdivided into significant groups, tends to present such closest kinship with one another as it does with the great division of which they form a part. Thus missionaries have happily observed that certain languages can be considered as keys to other dialects, so that when they know them, they quickly understand the others. Thus Balbi in his table of American languages was able to divide them into certain large sections, each containing numerous examined languages.

In this way the hypothesis of the independence of kinds is refuted, and it is demonstrated that these nations can belong to a common origin, to which also the nations of the ancient world belong.

Comparative linguistics discovered many signs of the kinship of American races to the races of the Old World and to the inhabitants of the most remote islands of the ocean.

The division of time among the Americans presents a most characteristic coincidence, resembling that of the inhabitants of Eastern Asia; also divisions into parts with particular names, with fine variations; the zodiac figures have the same animals, the tiger, the rabbit; the tradition concerning the deluge; the particular traditions of the peoples of America that they came as colonists, that they descended from the northern extremity of America; their monuments and symbols bearing Egyptian type and many others, religious, moral, and cultic testimonies demonstrate the kinship of the American people with the inhabitants of the ancient world.

The present study does not permit us to adduce all the testimonies of the kinship of the peoples of the earth; but in order to satisfy the very demanding, we adduce the opinions of those who have the right to speak authoritatively on such questions. The wise Alexandre de Humboldt, says Wiseman, to whom we owe such precious information about the languages and monuments of America, expresses himself as follows concerning the question that interests us: “However isolated and unique certain languages may appear at first, however unique and peculiar their characteristics and rights may be, they always have a correspondence among them; and their numerous references will be more easily apparent in the analogy which the history of the Philosophy of nations and the study of languages will bring to completion.”

And Jules Evariste Parny, who thinks about the deluge what Holy Scripture thinks, hardly is its faithful follower, because he prefers the salvation of certain generations on the lofty peaks, says: “the universal kinship of languages was established in the days of mankind so vividly that everyone ought to regard it as most fully demonstrated.” He adds: “this kinship cannot be explained by any hypothesis except by the assumption that remnants of a primitive language still exist in all the languages of the Old and New Worlds.”

And Herder, who regards the Sacred History of the Tower of Babylon as a poetic piece of Oriental type, says: “as this is accepted, great probability arises that the human race, as also its language, are traced to a common source, to a first human, from whom afterward being born they scattered into the different parts of the world.”

That this first human was born and raised not in wild forests, nor had wild beasts as companions, nor was taught anything by them, nor imitated them in anything, but was born in Paradise and was raised in it, his companions were holy angels, his sole teacher was his Creator, the good and benevolent God, who made him according to His image and likeness and gave him the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he would increase perfecting himself and subject the beasts and rule over the earth in which he lives, behold something is said by another wise man whose opinion has the greatest scientific value.

The wise M. Frédéric de Rougemont in his work on the first peoples says: “Having reached the conclusion of our works, we have before us forty languages or dialects of the first primitive peoples or of the time before the deluge and of the post-deluge world. All these agree in their primitive elements with the others, and all nations’ concerning Genesis (Introduction, page XXVIII) and onward. Our efforts were directed to this: the genealogies of our narrative proceed further from one known source, which is the religion of the primitive people. All nations at the time when they withdrew from the ancient trunk of humanity had the same faith, the same law, the same hope, the same worship, the same sacred rites with some variations, the same symbols. All equally are responsible to God, waged war against each other uninvited and fell before the sword. All knew the creative spirit of Chaos, Eden, Paradise and the Fall, the flame of fire and the deluge. Noble Jewish peoples, civilized, wild tribes, races of the ancient world and races of the New World, all humans under thousands of different languages give the same testimony before the judgment seat of history. They do not communicate with one another at all, and thus are ignorant of the meaning of their own testimonies; but every testimony always helps in

Our researches, from which we gladly guess that which they wish to tell us. In comparison of all, all are explained. We would have had to be Pyrrhonian skeptics not to repeat with Tertullian to the ears of findings so numerous and so harmonious; If languages differ, the tradition is true, ONE.”

The multitude of authors is such that sufficient space would be taken up if we sought to set forth all the testimonies; those desiring more we refer to the study of the works of more recent linguists, in which it is demonstrated more clearly than sunlight that there was once on all the earth one lip and one voice for all. (Genesis.)

Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul

“And God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7.)

Humans, this mysterious being, created by the divine Creator, the head of creation so that it might come to know its Creator, receives according to and proportionate to its great destiny both form and life; and is honored through an altogether supernatural and unique formation, and is given life through the divine breath. Whereas all creation springs from nothing into being through the mere externalization of divine will through one word—and one utterance brought forth the entire world—only man is shaped by the hands of the Creator in body, and only he receives a living soul formed by the divine breath and is fashioned according to the image and likeness of his Maker. What a creation indeed! What honor he was deemed worthy of! How great is his destiny! Yes, great is the destiny, great is the honor, and more marvelous the formation of both soul and body; for he was created according to the image and likeness of God and was fashioned to live immortal, and shared the dwelling of the heavenly spirits.

Humans have not forgotten their great destiny and the great nobility that exalts them to the height of the highest estate, though sin has greatly humbled them. The striking phenomena of obliviousness of his destiny and descent are exceptions and results of the deception of a distorted spirit. All humanity informs itself that it was created noble, that it is called by some power distinguishing humans above the rest of creation, and that this power is not homogeneous with the body. Those who have philosophized about this power have brought forth various opinions by which to define its nature. The Chaldeans regarded it as fiery; Euripides as the finest ether; Diogenes, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaus called it airy, from which came the Latin spiritus, and divine. Xenophanes held the soul to be composite, made from earth and water; Parmenides from earth and fire; Critias from blood; Galen from phlegm and bile. Empedocles believed it to be from all the elements; Zeno and Cleanthes from the same mixture of hot and cold, dry and wet. The Stoics, agreeing on one side with Zeno and Posidonius, on the other with Chrysippus and Apollodorus, regarded it as a part of the fiery substance which they held to be dispersed throughout the entire world, and this heat which we breathe. Passing by many, we mention those brought forth by the leading philosophers. Socrates and Plato held that this power is simple and incorporeal, and consequently immortal. Cicero had the most complete opinion among the ancients about it; and Aristotle called it entelechy, that is, continuous and eternal motion. The Greek philosophers called this power according to their various doctrines about it pneuma or soul, while the Latins used the corresponding spiritus and anima; similarly is the Hebrew as well as the Arabic νέφες. Yet although many opinions concerning the soul have been put forth, no definition indicating its nature has been given. Humans understood that they have a soul but did not know its nature, because it is a substance not falling under his senses and a creation of divine breath.

Just as many opinions concerning the nature of the soul have been brought forth, so also concerning its origin and the manner of its coexistence with the body not a few opinions have been expressed. Many believed the soul to be eternal and regarded it as an emanation from God, or as a part of the divine substance enclosed in the body. The Chaldeans and the Egyptians held this doctrine, from which it appears that Pythagoras and from him Plato received it. The idea of metempsychosis, which Pythagoras and Plato held, was based on this principle. The Stoics likewise believed that souls are parts of God, or of that universal substance animating the world, which they called God. Seneca and Epictetus, while not accepting metempsychosis, believed that after death souls are again united with God. The Chinese and the Indians hold the doctrine of metempsychosis of souls. Against these doctrines Cicero wrote in his work On the Nature of the Gods (Book I, Chapter 14), pointing out the irrationality of these doctrines.

The idea of the pre-existence of souls also had many followers; Origen believed that souls were all created simultaneously at the creation of the angels before the creation of the world.

The Dicannites and Priscillians, as Augustine and Jerome say, believed human souls not as parts of God but as a distinct god present in all.

Tertullian and Apollinarius and others believed that souls are transmitted through transmission from parents to children.

Another opinion, which is also the more probable, is that souls are created by the Creator in a manner which the Creator himself knows.

That the soul is neither air nor fire nor ether nor some other thing from common matter, that it is a simple and pure being and altogether different from all matter, this is taught by Holy Scripture, which also teaches concerning the manner of its formation. “And breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul”; these words of Holy Scripture refute all other doctrines that hold that the soul is a part of God or God or anything else; for they clearly and purely teach that which was impossible for humans to comprehend and what was impossible to give by circumlocution the definition of the soul. Therefore, according to Holy Scripture, humans have a living soul, and consequently rational and immortal, neither composed from the matter of the world nor from the substance of God, but having received existence and form from an unknown to us substance from the divine breath. The soul of humans thus transformed, according to another scriptural passage, God made according to His image. “And God said, Let us make man according to Our image and according to Our likeness. And God made man according to the image of God; He made him.” (Gen. 1:26-27); He endowed him, namely, with divine attributes, the intellectual and freedom of choice, and breathed into him the grace of the divine spirit so that through virtue he might achieve assimilation to the divine.

§ 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers

The holy Church Fathers, following the teaching and spirit of the Sacred Scripture, all held a view in agreement with it. The great Athanasius says: “The soul is spoken of in two ways: one is the irrational soul, which belongs to beasts, the other is the rational soul, which belongs to humans. And the soul of beasts derives its creation from the earth, according to God’s command, as the divine Scripture says. But man has received his soul from the divine breath, and therefore he knows divine things, pursues heavenly things, contemplates the supernal realities, and is rational and intelligent.” And the theologian Gregory versifies the following concerning the soul.

“A fleshly soul, inexplicably arising from without, falls upon the earthly frame. He who mixed them knows—how first He breathed and bound the image of earth.”

The divine Chrysostom says the following: “The body of man receives its being from the earth; his soul God Himself creates and fashions, not drawing it from His own substance, so that when the body dies or the man perishes, we do not despair concerning the soul.” And “Why is it that the body is buried in a tomb? Do not expect the soul to be there as well. For it was not taken from the earth, nor does it go into the earth.” And the great Basil holds that man is composite, made of an earthly body and a heavenly soul. “Man is composite, made of soul and body; his flesh is from the earth, his soul is heavenly.” Cyril the divine, of Alexandria, says: “The Creator of all fashioned man from the earth, that is, the body; and having ensouled it with a living and intellectual soul, in the way He knows, He implanted in it naturally the desire and knowledge of every good thing.”

The philosopher and confessor Maximus says: “The generation of the soul does not come from underlying matter, as do bodies, but by the will of God through living inspiration, in an ineffable and unknowable way, as only its Creator knows.” The most wise Photius says: “Through the spirit—that is, through the breathing—the human soul was directly created.” The holy Gregory Palamas says: “God, creating our forefather Adam according to His image and likeness, placed no evil or fault in him, but along with the soul breathed into him the grace of the divine spirit, which preserved him in newness and maintained him in likeness.” And the sacred Theodoret: “God made man from things that are and things that are not: the body He formed by fashioning dust taken from the earth, but the soul He created from non-being. Indeed, the most divine Moses first wrote that Adam’s body was fashioned, and then God breathed the soul into him. For God took dust from the earth and fashioned man, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. That breath, we do not say, is a part of the divine essence, but through it we understand the nature of the soul to be signified—that the soul is a spiritual and intellectual spirit.” “This doctrine concerning soul and body the Church learned from the divine writings.”

§ 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul

In the New Testament, the words denoting the spiritual nature of man—soul and spirit—are placed side by side as synonymous and equivalent, just as the words flesh and body, which denote his material substance, are placed in parallel; and they are used indifferently for adequate expression of each of the constituent parts of man; many such passages from the New Testament appear, containing one word in place of the other, always signifying the same notion; sometimes a correspondence is observed between the words denoting the spiritual nature and the words signifying the material aspect; whenever the word spirit appears, there follows correspondingly the word flesh; whenever the word soul appears, there follows the word body; as, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” “The flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.” “A spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me having.” “Let us cleanse ourselves, brothers, from every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” “He who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the spirit will from the spirit reap eternal life,” and so on. And in other passages: “Do not worry about your soul what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor about your body what you will wear. Is not the soul more than food and the body more than clothing?” “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” But elsewhere this correspondence is not maintained; as, “Glorify God in your body and in your spirit”; and in another place he says: “One body and one spirit, as you were called in one hope of your calling”; and when, addressing the church in Ephesus, he speaks of one body and one spirit, in addressing the church in Jerusalem, he expresses the same thing with the words, “And the multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul.”

From the foregoing and from many other passages of the New Testament it is evident that the words soul and spirit are taken indifferently and interchangeably, just as the words flesh and body are taken; and just as there is no difference

Between the latter, so there ought to be no distinction between the former.

The word soul, whenever it is referenced in the New Testament except for certain exceptions, in which the soul is taken for the individual person, as in “there were about three thousand souls,” and for salvation from danger; “there shall be no loss of any soul,” everywhere is taken as denoting the spiritual nature of man.

The word spirit in the New Testament is many-significanced, but whenever through it is designated the spiritual substance of man, it is taken for the soul.

The identity of meaning between the word spirit and soul is demonstrated from many passages of the Sacred Scripture; in them the word spirit is placed for the soul and vice versa. For example: in the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, the evangelist Luke reports that “her spirit returned, and she rose at once”; whereas the same evangelist Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, recounting the story of the young man who fell from the third story and was taken up dead, says: “And Paul went down and fell upon him and embraced him and said, “Do not be troubled; for his soul is in him”; it is evident that the same evangelist in the first resurrection uses the word spirit, and in the second uses the word soul. In the resurrection of the Sidonian boy, the prophet Elijah prays to God saying, “O Lord my God, let the soul of this boy return into him. And it came to pass thus… and the soul of the boy returned to within him and he lived.”

The identity of the meanings of the words spirit and soul is further confirmed by the verbs used indifferently and interchangeably—to breathe out and to expire; concerning the Lord Jesus, the evangelists use either the verb “to breathe out” or the periphrasis “he gave up his spirit”; whereas concerning Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod they use “to expire.” A strong witness to the identity of meaning of these words is also the following.

While the Lord was teaching, He said that the good shepherd lays down his soul for the sheep; but in the accomplishment of the divine teaching He said: “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit”; similarly the first martyr Stephen, having sacrificed his soul for Christ and the Gospel, while delivering his soul into the hands of the Creator, said: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” The apostle Peter calls the souls in Hades spirits, saying: “Being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also, having gone to the spirits in prison, he preached,” etc. Yet in the same epistle he uses the word souls, saying: “And those who suffer according to the will of God should commit their souls to a faithful Creator in well-doing.” Those preached to by the apostles, commanding to abstain from fleshly desires, Peter says: “Abstain from fleshly desires, which wage war against the soul”; and Paul, giving the reason, says: “For the flesh desires against the spirit.”

From the parallelism of the various passages of the Sacred Scripture it is evident and demonstrated that spirit and soul—these two words—are synonymous and equivalent, and that both, when spoken with reference to man, signify the spiritual nature of man created according to the image of God through the divine breathing; that is, the soul created according to the image of God, as is clearly shown by the following examples, as the Church expresses it.

“A blessed soul, a simple braid.” (Of Solomon.)

“The destruction of the wicked is evil; by their impiety they deprive themselves of their soul.” (Of the same.)

“Child, receive your soul with gentleness and give it honor according to its worth.” (Sirach 2.)

“A treasure of soul, a poverty of body; when this is rich, that is impoverished; the body receives life from the soul, but the soul shares suffering from the body.” (Of Basil.)

“The soul is sustained by blood and breath; when these fail, the soul too departs.” (Of the same.)

“Not only do the angels see what concerns us, but also the souls of all the saints.” (Of the same.)

“What do you wish to become of me? I beg for my soul: what is great to you, O what is small?” (Gregory the Theologian.)

“The body flourishes when the soul rejoices; the soul thrives and looks upward when pleasures wane and grow weak with the body.”

“The body is nourished through the soul, but the soul partakes of suffering through the body.”

“When the soul withdraws from the body, it becomes aware of the good or evil that is to befall it; and it also senses what is accomplished on its behalf here; the souls of the righteous are able to intercede for us.” (Of the same.)

“I am persuaded by the words of the wise, that every soul, being beautiful and beloved by God, as soon as it is freed from the body bound to it and departs hence, immediately becoming aware of and beholding the good that lies before it—for that which was obscuring it has been removed or laid aside or, I scarcely know what to say—it enjoys a wonderful pleasure and delights, and comes graciously to its own Master, as if having escaped from a harsh prison in this life, shaken off the bonds surrounding it, by which the wing of the mind was being dragged down, and now already through the imagination enjoys the blessedness laid up for it.” (Of the same.)

“God has given us all things in pairs according to nature: two eyes, two ears, two hands, two feet; if either of these is injured, we remedy the need through the other; but He has given us one soul; if we were to lose it, by what means should we live?” (Chrysostom.)

He himself says: “The soul is an incorporeal and immortal substance.” And again.

“The soul is a created substance, a living and intellectual essence.”

“An undisciplined soul is condemned to death.”

Eusebius says: “The soul preserves the image and likeness, as rational, as immortal, and as an impassible intellect in human nature.”

Sirach says: “Do not follow the desires of your soul, and restrain yourself from its cravings.”

“A soul is undone, rolling about in transgression, and does not live in hope when looked upon as a soul.”

“A soul despairingly descends into Hades.”

David says: “You have worn away my soul like a spider.” And again: “Rescue my soul from an impious sword, for my soul is filled with evils and my life with distress; I have drawn near to Hades, etc.”

“Just as a pig, wallowing in mire, delights in it, so too a soul buried in sins from evil habit does not even perceive the stench of the transgressions.” (Chrysostom.)

“The soul that sins shall surely die.” (Ezekiel.)

“One should consider by nature the good of the soul to be good.” (Basil.)

“An adulterer sends his soul to eternal judgment.” (John Climacus.)

“The sins of the soul are the sickness of the soul; when the body is mortified, the soul is renewed.”

“Without incorporeal virtues, neither can the virtues of the soul come into being.” (Damascene.)

“It is hard to paint the soul; but to portray the form is easy as a proof of the soul.” (Chrysostom.)

“Our soul is the image and likeness of God; therefore, according to human capacity, we become similar to God, according to ourselves, I say, and we ought to be made similar to Him with gentleness.” (Chrysostom.)

“Crooked thoughts of a crooked soul separate from God.” (Solomon.)

“The drunkard despised God and destroyed his own soul.” (Basil.)

“I consider these examples to be sufficiently demonstrative of the truth of my words.”

The word spirit sometimes appears in conjunction with the word soul, as for example: in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “May God Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”; as also in Hebrews 4:12. “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart; and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to His eyes, to whom we give account.” But in both passages it is evident that the apostle Paul is not speaking of a third constituent part, but of the spirit of grace, which he received in baptism; concerning which it is said in the preceding verse 19: “Do not quench the spirit”; that is, the spirit of grace or the spiritual charism which you received; therefore he places in the word the whole or undiminished, which, when spoken of a particular constituent part, indicates a division—which would be absurd. The statement that it “pierces as far as the division of soul and spirit” etc. shows from the passage itself that he does not intend to prove that spirit is another constituent part, but the power and holiness of the word of God, which like a two-edged sword penetrates everywhere and knows all things, nor does anything escape Him; but all things are naked and exposed to His eyes; it penetrates as far as the division of soul and spirit (of grace, that is, of the spiritual anointing) or reaches into the deepest thoughts and intentions and reflections of the soul and heart; and in order to enhance the power of the omniscience of the word of God, he says “there is no creation hidden from His sight”; that is, He knows all things, and as omniscient He knows those who walk in the spirit, which corresponds to the verse immediately above (verse 11). “Let us therefore strive to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall in the same example of disobedience.”

The word spirit also appears in the Old Testament, where it is placed plainly either redundantly or instead of the word life. In Hebrew poetry, such redundancies are customary; in it, often the second verse or the second part of a verse unfolds the same idea either through synonymous words or through other equivalent words. From the whole of the Sacred Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, it is evident that man has a rational and intellectual soul, that this soul has its origin from the divine breathing, and that it was fashioned according to the image and likeness of God. That the spirit is not a different constituent part, but either the word of the soul or the soul itself, the Old Testament and the New Testament teach us, the mouth of Truth Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, teaches us, who commanded us to love God “with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your strength and with all your mind”; if the spirit were a distinct constituent part, He would not have omitted it; since He mentioned others like it, therefore the spirit spoken of in the Holy Scriptures is the spirit of God’s grace, which dwells in us, as the apostle Paul says: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16.) And again: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30) and in Acts: “Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (8:17) and in many other passages of the Holy Scriptures.

According to the meaning of the spirit drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the Church has composed all her hymns and chants. In the funeral services the Church chants: “With the spirits of the righteous made perfect, O Savior, grant rest to the souls of Your servants, preserving them in the blessed life that comes from You, O merciful One”; it is evident that the Church does not distinguish between spirit and soul as different from one another, but regards them as one and the same. That the intellectual and God-formed soul fashioned according to the image of God is immortal, we shall prove in the following section.

Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul

And He breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis, Chapter 2, verse 7.)

“I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob; God is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:31.)

This truth revealed to us by Holy Scripture is the first dogma, without the truth revealed to him, man is unable to know himself; for the lack of knowledge of revealed truth drives him into baseness and degradation. Revelation is the lamp that illumines and guides the intellect in its searches into the invisible. Holding this lamp in our hands, we wish dialectically to prove that the soul is immortal.

Man, knowing that he exists, distinguishes himself into intellect and that which is perceived, separates himself into subject and object.

What then is this power that distinguishes itself from the body or that objectifies itself as subject? Is it one and the same substrate and object, or are they different? How does the division of one human being into two opposing parts come about? Does movement not issue forth automatically? That the moving principle is different from what is moved—the intellect was able to understand this. The power that moves the faculties of the brain toward philosophy must be different from the body. But what is it that moves? This only by the light of revelation has he come to know. Therefore revelation must be the foundation for philosophy, so that it will bring true and certain results. The philosopher must believe that he has received from God a living soul so that he might know himself; truly he now understands that within himself there exists something different from matter, but what this is, he does not know. For intellection to yield knowledge, it requires faith in the revealed truth; it must bow before faith. For believers, the existence of a living soul is a solved problem; for those who do not believe, it remains an enigma. Therefore it is even more tossed about when investigated without faith; faith is the eye of the soul that beholds itself and judges hidden and future things. God has revealed to man his noble origin and has made known to him also his immortal nature. The rejection of the revealed truth is a rejection of the purposeful and considered plan of the Creator; for the purpose of the world, that is, its end, the omniscience of the Creator has foreseen and established. The perfection of man, which without a living soul would be a futile and aimless pursuit, is the goal. For without it, the creation of man becomes a meaningless child’s play; Let no one say that man’s egoism is great; for truly great also is the spiritual man, fashioned according to the image of God and capable of receiving divine grace. Therefore godlike is he, and divine-inspired and receptive of divine revelation, and consequently worthy of divine favor. For the nobility of his nature and the divine character of his soul, his spirit is lifted toward God, is illumined by the divine light, casts aside the mist of ignorance, God dwells and walks in him; and He who has no place in creation, the uncontainable, the Uncontained by the universe, dwells mysteriously in the heart of this tiny man. Wondrous the hearing of it, but true; mysterious the way, but evident from the results is the revelation of it; infinite God, and in His hand the universe, and a speck of dust is man, yet…

Through the intellect illumined by the divine light, he attains unto the Creator. This least worm of creation not only dares to examine the creatures, but small is the body, yet great is the soul; his movements are in space, but the dimensions of the infinite and the paths of the spirit are his domain. Illumined by the divine light and strengthened by divine grace, he reveals himself as a god upon the earth. The wisdom of God makes him wise and reveals him as God upon earth, as is said in the psalm: “I have said, You are gods, and sons of the Most High, all of you”; it reveals to him the mysteries, nothing is dark or puzzling to him; his light goes before him and his paths are bright; the splendor of his intellect, like a ray of light, radiates; the power of his mind is enhanced. This small man creates in his works and accomplishes great things in his activities; his deeds testify to the spirit dwelling in him, and his power testifies to his transcendence of nature; through his prayer he moves mountains beneath his feet; his will alters the works of nature; truly he has received authority to be God upon the earth and the image of the image of God; for this honor he speaks with God and attributes all to Him. The heavenly angels are his counselors, and the heavens are his dwelling place; his citizenship is as that of a dweller of heaven; his desire is infinite, as the object of his desire and love is infinite. Behold, all things are subject to him, as Scripture and experience testify. “The divine Creator has subjected them beneath his feet: the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven, and the fish of the sea.” Yes, man is small in his circumference, but wondrous in his power. What wonder is it, if the wisdom and goodness of God made man a god upon the earth, in order to make him a partaker of His own goodness? Let not the weakness of the body prevent the almighty God from making him a type of His image upon the earth; certainly not. The almighty God, who created all things in wisdom, accomplished and completed the work of creation through the fashioning of man, through whom He united the incorporeal and material nature, so that the created nature might know God and live blessedly through knowledge of Him.

Creation without man would be an insensate body, and its existence purposeless; it would be a vain display of creative wisdom and almighty power; divine attributes would find no echo in insensate creation, and God would remain unknown as before creation; but it befits divine attributes to display wisdom and almighty power toward good. Therefore, God, displaying wisdom and almighty power in the creation of the world, intended to reveal Himself to creation and make Himself known to it, which is the ultimate purpose of creation. Divine wisdom accomplished this high purpose of knowing by fashioning man as the head of creation, so that he might sense, apprehend, and understand his divine Creator; man is therefore the point of coincidence, in which the incorporeal meets with material nature; he is the sum of the world and the word of creation; his works testify to this truth. Yes, O man, God fashioned you as a god upon the earth. Sin and separation from God have robbed you of this position, which obscured the clarity of your intellect that beholds God, led you astray, and cast you into the mire of passions that have marred the splendor of the image. Yes, O man, know that you are the image and likeness of God, and that you have an immortal soul, which is eternally ordained by grace to live; examine yourself, that you may see and be persuaded how many of your deeds testify to the immortality of your soul.

From whence do you come to distinguish deeds as good and evil? Is it not the law written in your heart that teaches you this? But why did the lawgiver inscribe this law in your heart, since “every transgression and disobedience would receive no just recompense,” you being annihilated at the lips of the grave entirely, becoming equivalent to nothingness? And why is the law within you, from which all other human laws derive, since you were created in equal measure with the other animals and the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven, and the fish of the sea, to live your life? And what benefit is it to you from the struggles and labors that you undergo—toiling for philosophy, for science, for education, for truth, for virtue, for the good, for freedom, for society, for others, for your own development and growth? Where does the strength come from, from which all these goods flow? Is it not from the inner conviction regarding your immortality? Is it not from the idea of divine justice and retribution? Yes, from it and it alone. From immortality comes the elevation of intellect from earthly to spiritual things; from this come the lofty thoughts about good works, from this come noble sentiments, from this comes the conscience that develops in the prime of man’s life in circumstances in which his own interests clash with the common good, and virtue with vice. From immortality comes the mystic awareness that speaks to him of eternity, persuading him to care for what comes after death and to sacrifice the present and visible for the future and invisible. Immortality persuades man to love the good and turn away from evil; it urges him toward perfection. The immortality of the soul comforts the suffering and pours balm of consolation on the wounds of wounded hearts; the immortality of the soul provides healing medicine for all misfortunes, all evils, and all human wretchedness, and brings patience, endurance, peace of soul, calm of heart, drives away despair, instills hope, strengthens faith toward divine help, and dispels the clouds of sorrow that have covered the soul and heart of man. The immortality of the soul leads to true happiness by teaching him that happiness is to live according to God; it brings him into the bosom of eternal blessedness. The idea of the immortality of the soul is the foundation stone upon which is built the preservation, development, and advancement of man; it is the connecting bond of societies, it is the organ that moves toward development, it is the means of leading man to perfection; the removal of the immortality of the soul of man would be the overturning of everything and the annihilation of humanity. When humanity exists and advances, it does so because of the immortality of the soul; the removal of the immortality of the soul would negate the perfection of divine justice, for it would fashion man for destruction, a hypothesis opposed to the divine attributes of God. God, being wholly good, fashioned man that He might exalt him, making him a partaker of His own goodness and blessedness, for which reason He fashioned him in His image and likeness, and gave him a rational and immortal soul.

Materialistic theories that deny the immortality of the human soul and debase man undermine his existence and preservation, his progress and happiness. The lofty destiny of man is rejected, man is degraded to the rank of irrational beasts; his spiritual world is destroyed, noble sentiments lose their value, the soul, virtue, justice, truth, and the whole venerable choir of virtues are recorded as obsolete words, meaningless and devoid of sense. Piety, faith, and worship are regarded as products of darkened minds of bygone times. Sociability is removed; atomism and selfish existence are introduced in its place. Each is against all, and all are opposed to one another. Peace flees to the mountains, but into societies enters implacable war, to demonstrate the right of the stronger, and make the strong a dreadful and bloodthirsty tyrant, delighting in the sufferings of his kind, whose blood and sweat must water the earth and soil for the enjoyment and pleasure of the tyrant. For man, the present will be everything; the past and future are non-existent; present gratification and the happiness derived from it will be the ruling thought. The flower of life will be the time of pleasures; old age, the shadow of ambiguous existence; life will be life in gratification, and in misery, death—which ought not to come; those who take their own lives will be the blessed and the true philosophers. Man was born for pleasure, the body is everything; apart from it, nothing exists; self-preservation is a fundamental law; the intellect exists only to serve the needs of the body; when it rises above its needs, it encounters phantoms, idols of a diseased imagination. In endless struggle against all, the prize is another’s possession, and murder is the instrument of success in obtaining the prize; injustice, wickedness, greed, evil, envy, strife, deceit, outrage, pride, boasting, impiety, thoughtlessness, hatred, enmity, callousness, mercilessness, vanity, frivolity, folly, and corruption and paralysis in general, will establish their thrones in societies in which the materialistic mindset, having penetrated, is established and has driven out the immortality of the soul; for who could prevent such materialists from fulfilling every desire? The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are three such powerful evils that they can drag along behind the chariot of captivity those who have cast aside the immortality of the soul and accepted contempt of themselves, and lead them to every evil. The glory of the immortality of the soul is the only power that enables man in the struggle to overcome the evils mentioned, and reveals him as free by divine aid and assistance; it teaches him to reverence the divine and human laws, and guides him in the path of truth, far from falsehood; immortality is the reason for the fashioning of man as rational; rationality without immortality of soul would be an instrument given to man for his own destruction; but this would be contrary to divine justice. A God deprived of this divine attribute would cease to be God.

§ 1: Proof of the Immortality of the Soul From the Innate Idea of Soul Immortality Within Us

Man has an immortal soul, for he has the idea of soul immortality innate within him. Man receives ideas from the nature surrounding him; nature teaches him daily about the mortality of beings and their complete annihilation; therefore, the idea of death and annihilation ought to be his natural conclusion as the positive conviction of man. The idea of immortality comes from nowhere to men; all that is perceived in the impressions cannot give the idea of itself; the idea of immortality does not fall upon the vision of man, therefore it ought not to exist; but the idea of immortality exists—whence came it to men? Does matter draw the idea of immortality? But matter is deprived of immortality; and whatever one lacks, one cannot impart; therefore, matter cannot impart even the idea of immortality to man. Man cannot have what he did not receive; all that he has he received from the nature surrounding him; the surrounding nature speaks only of death; therefore, death ought to be his only idea; but man has the idea of immortality contrary to the logical deductions, contrary to the daily images of death that appear before his eyes; how did he ascend from the idea of death to the idea of immortality? How did he become persuaded of its truth and build upon it his whole mode of living? The ascent from the idea of death to that of immortality is impossible and therefore inadmissible; therefore, man did not receive the idea of immortality from nature; hence he should not have had this idea. The idea of immortality exists in God; God is able to impart the idea of immortality; but matter cannot receive and understand the revelation of God; because matter is deprived of receptivity, as it does not have an apprehensive power, a spirit coming into relation with God can teach it the revelation; if man were only matter, he would be deprived of spiritual power and could not come into relation with God; therefore, man could not have received the idea of revelation even from God; but man has the idea of immortality; therefore, he received it from the eternal God. Everything that is able to receive something from God has receptivity toward it and understands God and divine things; man, having received it from nowhere else, received it from God and has the idea of revelation; therefore, man has spiritual power; therefore, man is not insensate and mindless matter, but an ensouled and intelligent being receptive of divine revelation; such a being must have an immortal soul as entering into relation with God, taught and enlightened by Him; therefore, man has an immortal soul.

§ 2: Proof of the Immortality of the Soul From the Desire for the Highest Good

All creation speaks of the goodness of God, who abundantly supplies the means toward happiness. Man’s happiness ought to be the most complete, as God has prepared all means and placed them under his dominion. And yet it is deficient; for daily we see man sorrowful and we hear him speaking of misfortune. An insatiable yearning seizes his heart, which, aching at the emptiness remaining in it, seeks constantly what it cannot find on earth. Man struggles to fill the demands of his heart, but it always remains empty; none of the goods on earth are sufficient to fill the emptiness of his heart; there is no counterbalance to his desire; his heart aches; and happiness departs. The reason for this insufficiency is found not in the nature of existing things, but in the soul dwelling in man; therefore, it yearns and seeks, like a thirsty deer, the enjoyment of the highest good, which is its end; the soul ending at the grave cannot have infinite longings extending beyond it; for that would be contrary to the wisdom of God; the desire, therefore, of the highest good testifies to the immortality of the soul; for the all-good God would not have planted in the heart of man an insatiable desire for wretchedness and misery. Since in this world it remains unfulfilled, it follows that it will be fulfilled after his departure, in the other life, in eternity. Therefore, the desire for the highest good is a proof of the immortality of the soul.

If man finds on earth some relative happiness, he finds it in the confidence that it will continue; if he finds any relief in the evils of his life, he draws it from the hope of future enjoyment; if, on the tossed sea and the flood of temptations of life, man finds a harbor of rest and consolation, the highest good is the polar star toward which every sailor looks with affection and hope while sailing through the dark night. The highest good is the longing of every mortal being who feels that he was fashioned in order to be happy. Riches, glory, and pleasures are insufficient to fill the emptiness of the heart. There exists, therefore, perfect and eternal happiness, which is destined for him in the future eternal life. If you remove from man the hope of future enjoyment of the highest good, man will become the weary traveler, worn from labor, would find no consolation in his journey; oppressed and downcast, he would live through life, and despair would drive him to end it. Therefore, the hope of enjoying the highest good, as a consoling power, is divine, and as such is Man, therefore, hoping in the enjoyment of the highest good, is assured that he has an immortal soul.

§ 3: Proof From the Idea of Eternity

Man introduces the idea of infinity into all things that concern him; he desires to prolong his existence, and through all available means strives to achieve the desired immortality; he builds magnificent and splendid tombs and erects strong monuments for the eternal preservation of his name; he seeks glory in mighty accomplishments and erects columns to immortalize his name, denied of physical immortality by nature; all his care is founded rather on the future things after death than on the present; the earthly struggle seeks to support his eternality; he desires and seeks through his inventions and accomplishments to leave indelible traces of his influence on posterity; the idea of posthumous fame is his sweetest dream, which relieves him of the pains of labors and the sorrows of present life; Although flowing nature loudly proclaims the temporary existence of things in the world, nevertheless man pays little heed and voluntarily deafens himself to the echo of the opposing voice of transitoriness; he does not like contempt; he thinks that through his descendants he makes his existence eternal; an inward voice persuades him that after the end of earthly life he will not be annihilated, but will continue to live in some way. He regards death, although manifest, as weak resistance to his plans; therefore he proceeds with undertakings he proceeds as one who is immortal or as if he were mortal; his endeavors delight him all the more the more their preservation appears assured to him after death; What a strange phenomenon! The grave and death, like light clouds, dissolve before the torch of the ray of immortality; man works as if he is about to bind his life with eternity. Throughout our lives we are deprived of the enjoyment of the goods of it, saving them for an epoch when… And yet preferring ideality to reality and the uncertain to the certain, and greater capacity for longing for future goods, who does not see in this phenomenon the clear revelation of the immortality of the soul? How could this be a common sentiment of humanity if it were not innate? How could it be so powerful if there were no inner conviction? How could God have placed such a strong and at the same time so clear a feeling in our nature, If we deny the truth of the immortality of the soul, we must first deny the nature of man; man without the idea of the existence of immortality is an inexplicable being; in order to explain him, we must accept the immortality of his soul; otherwise it remains an unsolved problem.

Immortality and man are concepts indissolubly united and not understood in themselves; man and death and degradation are opposite and incompatible concepts, for how can the one who creates immortality himself be immortal, how can he who immortalizes the deeds and makes his name eternal himself live only a short time? How can the creator of immortality himself die? No! The mysterious voice speaking from heaven to the hearts of men assures him of the immortality of his soul. Throughout his life man seeks eternal life; for the earthly is neither life but some measure of the spiritual life of man and for the longings of his soul; the boundless limits of his spiritual life seek an analogous eternalization of his existence. Christianity conquered the nations, because it assured them of the existence of eternal life, which they had always yearned for. The preaching of the apostles spoken to the hearts of men filled their emptiness, supplied their longing, therefore it took root and sprouted and grew and became a great tree, destined to spread its branches to the ends of the earth. Therefore, man has the idea of eternity and has an immortal soul.

§ 4: Proof From Love of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True

Love for abstract pursuits is a psychic phenomenon that testifies to the existence of the soul; and the character of the objects to which it attends proclaims the soul’s immortality; the innate inclination toward philosophy, the desire to seek the perfect from what is relatively such, the inexpressible joy from the discovery of truth—these testify to the spiritual nature of humanity and its character; love of the beautiful, the good, and the true is the ladder that lifts humanity above visible creation into another spiritual world; from there it beholds the wisdom of the Creator, understands His wonders, discerns His omnipotence, and discovers His presence everywhere; God speaks to it face to face; what a privilege, truly! What an extraordinary power! What honor and glory bestowed upon the earthly human! How the wisdom of God lifts that human, perishing in the grave—wallower in eternally flowing life; the waning and raised court of eternal rest, the ephemeral and yet eternal existence of beings; the true and yet false stage of the universal theatre, on which all manner of spectators of this world appear for a moment to vanish forever, each playing a role in the great drama ordered by the dramatist—these lead humanity to the primordial cause, to true substance, to the unchanging, immutable, and likewise eternal existence—the sole truth; which it longs for and seeks to remain in and make eternal in itself. These psychological phenomena would be altogether incompatible with God’s wisdom if the grave were the final boundary of human existence. Since, however, this contradicts God’s wisdom, it follows that humanity possesses a spirit receptive of the knowledge of God and therefore immortal, because the mortal is unworthy of such dignity and honor as is bestowed upon what perishes; thus humanity has an immortal soul; for where knowledge of God exists, there is immortality.

§ 5: Proof From Conscience

Conscience is the incorruptible judge, the guardian of the written law that God inscribed in the human heart; the law had to have its guardian and human actions their judge; the coexistence of these two in humanity attests, first, to its freedom, the accountability of its actions, its distinction from its lawgiver, the expectation of reward or punishment and consequently the immortality of the soul. For if humanity did not possess an immortal soul, the law would be superfluous, conscience troublesome and irrational; and human actions would have no moral character, as natural operations inherent to nature; yet since there exists a written law and its vigilant guardian, this first testifies to the common sentiment of humanity, and second to the various moral states—good or evil—of each human working or practicing good or performing evil, whether keeping the law or transgressing it. The keeper of the moral law is recognized by their character; the peace of the soul and the serenity of the heart are reflected as in a mirror on the calm and tranquil countenance, and life flows quietly like a stream gliding gently within a pleasant plain; the expectation of future reward is manifest in their deeds and actions in general; they accept this with confidence. The transgressor of the law, utterly disturbed by the endless reproach of conscience, presents a pathetic and abominable image; peace and serenity—those two doves, sacred symbols of virtue and goodness—have departed; gloom, dejection, anguish, despondency, and despair are painted in dark colors on the altered and corrupted countenance; they await punishment. But behold, we see both being carried down to the grave; and on the stone of the evildoer are inscribed triumphs and symbols of victory and trophies, while on the unworked stone of the good is depicted a palm branch—sometimes even covered by dust, ignoble and invisible—and their tomb, which covered the athletic body, remains unknown; whence this opposition? Where is justice? Was the righteous one deceived? Did they run in vain? Where is the expected reward for which they toiled and which they awaited with sacred faith? Behold, they departed and the tomb completely covered them; are their hopes gone? Did the voice of their conscience deceive them? Behold, the evildoer, convicted by their own conscience, a bold transgressor of the moral law, ended life in glory and honor, and was deemed worthy of a splendid tomb and monuments of his glory eternal.

Is not the fear and disturbance illogical and the reproof of conscience aimless? No; the righteous one was not deceived; for living according to the demands of the moral law, they lived according to their destiny; the law was established so that humanity might be able to maintain its relationship with God, and might be able to preserve, develop, and advance toward perfection; hence the one who keeps the law is not deceived; for they fulfill their destiny; but neither is the transgressor deceived, for through transgression of the law they fight against God’s work and bear great responsibility; and they know their guilt; conscience informs them; but why has divine justice not rendered to each according to their deeds? Precisely for this reason: because humanity lives beyond death; in the endless and eternal life the righteous will receive the reward of their toils, while the wicked receive the fruit of their wickedness. The attribute of divine justice would be a meaningless word, since God is just and loves justice, it follows that both virtue is rewarded and wickedness punished. Since divine justice does not appear to be fully manifest here, it follows that in the future life awaiting all, divine justice will be fulfilled; conscience is therefore a clear proof of human freedom and the immortality of the soul.

[1]The Apostle Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, in his Epistle to the Romans, describes the reproof of conscience not dogmatically but psychologically and philosophically, and by right reasoning he proves that the moral law is written on the human heart, and that conscience is the true judge of human actions. Conscience always testifies whether what is done accords with the law or not; it upholds truth, honors virtue, praises prudence, and recognizes these as the only good and pleasing to God and fitting for a rational person. The voice of conscience echoes eternally in the ears of every person. No one of sound mind has ever denied the existence of this voice; nor its reproof, nor the war it stirs up against the transgressor of the divine law, against the violator of principles and convictions. Conscience is testimony of the moral written law existing within us, which God inscribed in the hearts of humans for the perfection of their immortal soul.

[1] Romans 2:15-23

§ 6: Proof of the Soul’s Immortality From God’s Inner Revelation

As proof of the immortality of the human soul, we bring God’s inner revelation, through which humanity is taught supernatural truths and knows what is beneficial and useful to it. Through this inner revelation of God, often does humanity owe its salvation—both of soul and life; it rescues it from danger through mystical inspiration and announces to it, both when awake and in sleep, things it has unknowingly encountered and those not yet brought to effect, and it reveals to it God’s counsels. These historical events are so many testimonies supporting the relationship of humanity to God, its high dignity, God’s providence toward humanity, the spiritual nature of humanity, and the soul’s immortality; those who deny these truths deny themselves, not knowing the height of their own dignity and the end and purpose of their presence in this world, as well as where they come from and where they are going; and thus they traverse the course of life like irrational animals and approach the end in fear and trembling, standing before the yawning grave. How often, pondering before it, are they led into healthier thoughts and confess their error! How often do they deny their entire past life for beliefs formed as the grave approaches that promise the soul’s immortality! And this often happens; for those approaching life’s end draw near to the other life; the soul has already shed much of its burden, and the bonds holding it to the earth are broken; the spirit is freed from many vain occupations, and the darkness covering it is healed; the light of eternal life enters and illuminates the darkened mind, which in amazement gazes on the risen heavenly light and seeks to investigate it; it meditates on eternal life and in meditation surrenders the spirit, entirely persuaded of it; eternal life has already been revealed to it.

§ 7: The Soul’s Immortality as Demonstrated From the Holy Life

The holy life was considered the fitting and proper life for humanity, but why? What is the cause? What is holiness? What is the holy life? What do these abstract notions mean? Or are they empty words devoid of meaning? Or did humanity err in esteeming the moral law? Did erroneous ideas about the laws of life, about itself, about its destiny lead to absurd opinions and deceived principles, through which life was distinguished into holy and unholy, into sacred and profane? How was this error propagated throughout all the ends of the world? How is it that all humanity, all the tribes of the earth and all languages have words designating such notions? And even the savages preach them as a fundamental doctrine of their religions? Examine all the most ancient religions of all continents of the terrestrial globe, traverse the whole earth, search the depths of Africa and the vastness of America, enter the lands of the savages, visit the islands of the ocean, study closely the fundamental principles of the religions of the most remote lands isolated by ages of separation, and you will be assured that among all of them the holy and sacred life is honored, and all preach that only those who lived holily are blessed, beloved by God, and happy; no people has ever held that the unholy and profane life is the fitting and true human life, and that humanity need not recognize a moral law; in the poor and simple huts of ape-like cannibals we hear the good praised and the evil condemned, the virtuous honored and the wicked dishonored. [1] Behold the words of a man who spent many years among them studying the savage tribes of cannibals. Prioul says that in their huts are heard lofty teachings equal to those of the greatest philosophers; “the vulgar and wicked people are common as trampled grass;” “the good and those pleasing to the eye;” “hope is the pillar of the world;” “on perseverance the heavens rest;” “the dust returns to the one who threw it” etc.

Whence this distinction? What is the reason for this universal sentiment about virtue and wickedness? But also whence the disposition of inclination and aversion? Whence the predisposition to work toward good, to avoid evil? Whence the struggle for an abstract notion? Whence the persistence in struggle? Whence the fortitude in the course of the struggle? Whence self-denial? Whence the war against one’s own desires? Against what does it fight? For what does it struggle? Who will prevail after the subjection of the flesh’s mindset? After the mortification of the passions? What prize is offered? Is there an agonothete (judge of contests)? Does the crown of the athlete exist? How does one struggle zealously when seeing nothing? How does doubt not cause weariness in the contestant? How do the pleasures of the world, the enjoyments of the senses, selfishness and vanity, the brilliance of life lose their power over the earthly human? Whence the aversion from one’s own kind and affection for strangers? Did not the greatest of humans suffer madness? Was not their reason corrupted? Yet suffering and corruption advance and reveal humanity as an image of God, a citizen of heaven, an angel in a body; why should not this state be the healthy state of the human intellect? How do suffering and corruption produce opposite results? Why does the healthy intellect debase humanity to the level of bestialization? Whence this contrary logic? How can the healthy corrupt and destroy while the suffering cures and raises? Indeed even perfects and reveals? Who brought humanity to the splendid beauty that adorns it today? The unholy or the holy life? How can that which possesses such formative power be the result of a morbid condition? Is not the person formed and perfected a false appearance, an abortion of the distorted brutish mentality of the natural human?

Were not Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Copernicus—the great men of all nations—more imperfect than the unpolished, ignorant, and matter-wallowing humans? Yet how does common opinion acknowledge them as great wise and perfect men? Did common opinion err in its judgments? But common opinion is the sentiment of humanity in general; all are not deceived by God; therefore common opinion is the true judge who assuredly judges the worth or worthlessness of each thing; what it approves is truly worthy; what it disapproves is wholly unworthy. Therefore wise people are superior to the matter-wallowing, unpolished, and ignorant. Therefore the holy life is the perfecting power that reveals humanity as the brightest, most beautiful, and most noble of earthly creatures; but toward what end is this perfection? This vain toil, since the same fate awaits both the perfect and the imperfect? Since the cold stone of the grave will cover both completely? A false premise leads to a more erroneous conclusion; but then why would all-wise creative power implant in humanity the perfecting power, the power to turn aside from nature into the unnatural, so that it might appear more brilliant through toil, labor, and sacrifice, when there is no purpose to perfection? God’s wisdom rejects the purposeless, for it convicts of imperfection. What then is the purpose? Behold, this is the question demanding study and great care; we must seek then what is the purpose of humanity’s perfection through virtuous and holy life.

The purpose of perfection through moral and virtuous life, as a work of divine will and wisdom, must be a lofty, great, and divine purpose worthy of divine will; the perfection and holiness of humanity sought is the seeking of its deification; for only God is perfect and holy; therefore the purpose of humanity’s perfection through moral and holy life is humanity’s deification; God has sought to reveal humanity on earth as a god, and therefore implanted in it the power of development and love toward perfection, through which humanity toils and strives; the mystical voice of God speaking to the human heart strengthens it in the struggle; God is the agonothete who invisibly guides and sustains it; he sets its feet in a wide place; he calls words of life in its heart and guides it to the intended and calculated end for which it was formed; for this reason neither the world with all its pleasures, nor the senses with all their enjoyments and delights, nor pride, nor the brilliance and splendor of life can prevail against the one struggling for virtue and holy life; the voice speaking mysteriously to the human heart is so clear and distinct that it is understood equally by the civilized and by the savage; this voice raises even the impoverished savage cannibals, and it preserves the characteristics that distinguish humanity from irrational animals and the more advanced apes. Humanity, therefore, was not formed to sit idle, but to become a participant in God’s goodness and happiness; therefore it has an immortal soul.

[1] Prioul, traveler among the cannibals

§ 8: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Worship of God

Another extraordinary and completely inexplicable phenomenon for materialist theories is the worship of God. What then is this phenomenon? What is this unknown desire? What is this striving? The longing? And often the love of the divine? Why does the intellect and heart seek to abandon earthly things in order to rise to the heavenly, to worship the divine and demonstrate their devotion to it? What is the inclination to withdraw from the body, to isolate that other being within us that distinguishes itself from the body through egoism? What is this self-called ego, seeking to be separated from the body’s bonds, to dedicate itself freely to an activity wholly abstract, to a contemplation foreign to the surrounding nature? How can the material human enjoy abstract notions? What are abstract notions? Behold, a god-seized one has renounced the world and the things of the world in order to dedicate himself to the worship of an invisible being, and he subjects himself to its absolute will; why this dependence? What impels it to such subjection of its own will? Behold this one, gazing upon a small flower, hymns the wise artisan of it; its beauty generates in the heart a sense of worship that strengthens its hymn toward the glory of its creator; the lips sing to the invisible nature, the tongue hymns the unseen power, the heart rejoices and the spirit exults in this worship; it thinks that it has fulfilled the duty that a mystical voice imposed upon it, to which it was obliged to obey; through this fulfillment it departs full of thanksgiving; but behold, scarcely has the step changed place and new objects strike the sight, new feelings unfold in the heart, and the tongue eagerly sings again the wonderful works of wisdom of the wonderful cosmic creator; each step to reveal masterpieces; each masterpiece to seek particular hymning; wisdom, goodness, providence manifestly displayed in all things call upon the observer to abandon creation and ascend to the Creator, to whom wonder rising from beholding the creatures has impelled; behold this one walks on the earth, but the spirit is found in unknown lands; not in the heavens, because the heavens are the subject of its study; they were the highest step of the ladder raising it to the far realm of the world, which only the inner person through mystical knowledge has known; the true human, having taken wings not of imagination but of hymn and worship, has flown far from the world, leaving on earth only the breathing body, so that it may return in its return and continue the work on earth of worship to the divine creator, toward whom it longs to depart and remain, where love and worship ever carry it. Its life was entirely a series of departures; food for it was the food of the spirit; and enjoyment was the contemplation of God’s greatness; an ever-flowing fountain sprang forth—the hymning of the lips; and the heart a place of sanctification as a dwelling of the divine creator; living on earth, it remained a stranger to it; the senses as noble servants of the spirit served its lofty will; they worked to provide new occasions for the glory of the creator; throughout its life it sought to approach the wise cosmic creator whom it loved with all soul, heart, strength, and mind, and toward whom it hastened each moment; is it possible that such a one has not known it? Is it possible that it loved the void, nothingness? How can that which is not, being, manifest itself? How was it revealed in the worshipper’s heart? O! Impossible! Impossible! The creative and binding power of all things is being existing, ever being, and eternally becoming; it is God who created all things in wisdom, the God revealed in the world, whose divine attributes’ beauty draws and tears humanity from their own world, to establish it as inhabitant of the mansions of eternal blessedness. Worship therefore is humanity’s true elevation; a true elevating power, a true ladder ascending from earth to heaven, and beyond it; it leads to eternal life; it ennobles and sanctifies humanity and reveals it as an image and likeness of God. Worship perfects humanity and reveals it as a son of God, as it is said: ‘I have said, You are gods, and sons of the Most High, all of you’; is it possible that such a human should die like other animals and vanish completely, be annihilated? Never, never! Humanity must have and has an immortal soul.

§ 9: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Knowledge

Humanity is born a lover of knowledge, a lover of knowing. What is this love of knowledge? What is this longing to know? What does it desire to enjoy? Behold all things stand before the eyes clothed in beauty and orderliness; their presentations are very good; all are endowed with such grace as to provide enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction to all, to satisfy and fulfill their every requirement; how much humanity should have remained satisfied! What abundance of good! Yes, all things are abundantly poured out; yet humanity still seeks and desires to know; a strange desire; whence was it generated in it? To this question we are unable to answer; for it is impossible, altogether impossible to explain without accepting a rational power endowed with spiritual powers pushing it toward this; the desire to know is a demand of the rational soul not satisfied in the multitude of enjoyments, but in the discovery of the reason for creation of each creature and the revelation of the laws of their preservation. The soul seeks the wisdom of the creator in creation, which it seeks to familiarize itself with and enter into the depths of the creative spirit; it seeks to know all things and to contain all things in the intellect, it seeks to become like God.

A curious phenomenon! The entire world is full of grace, all things bear the seal of beauty, all are ready to contribute to the joy of the senses, to satisfy its requirements, and yet the human having only senses does not enjoy, or scorns sensible things for abstract notions? How does the natural human not rest in the enjoyments of the senses? How, when all sensible things are incapable of filling the emptiness of the heart, does one new knowledge, one revealed truth, one new idea, one new discovery, one new unknown fill it and satisfy? How has one knowledge overcome the creatures, one revealed truth? How have the supersensible overcome the sensible in humanity? Truly incomprehensible and more mysterious than all mysteries, unless all this is attributed to the rational soul and its lofty principle and its lofty destiny; for in what class of animals is something similar found? Which of the animals has abandoned the sensible and turned to the search for the supersensible? Which epoch from ages has shown even a single example? As then we have such testimonies of humanity’s supersensible enjoyment, do we not ascend to its supersensible existence? Do we not ascend to that spiritual world, where spirits delight in the knowledge of truth, and seek in it the true character of humanity that has nothing in common with the sensible world? O! Truly, knowledge of the truth is a possession not of matter but of the spirit. Humanity is a spiritual being rather than a material one; hence it delights more in spiritual things than in material things; is it possible that the spirit that has received such longings, so elevated toward God, seeking it in all things, perfecting itself in knowledge of it, should be part of matter to which it passes after death? No! Thousands of times no! The acceptance of such an idea is an outrage against truth, an outrage against the spirit itself and against the spiritual world. No; the spirit is not matter, is not a secretion of the brain, but a particular creature of God molded to image forth on earth the image of the creator and to live eternally in the world of spirits. Yes, humanity was formed for immortality.

§ 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life

Social life is a most powerful proof of the soul’s immortality. If humanity had overcome all enemies and all foes seeking its destruction, had prevailed in the universal struggle of beings against which, wrestling against all, it proved victorious, had subjected all things and placed them under its feet, had become ruler and imposing its power on animate and inanimate nature, this is due to its social life. Humanity through social life was led to the height of perfection; at this point it is seen elevated through social life, adorned, beautified, glorified and clothed in the splendid robe of wisdom that reveals it as a divine image. The wonders of art and knowledge throughout the ages that provoke the amazement and admiration of all are due to humanity’s social life. Society provided it with all the means for its development; it was the generator of the first ideas; it as a faithful custodian of spirits’ products preserved all arts and sciences and handed down to subsequent generations the entire spiritual wealth of antiquity. Social life prepared humanity’s prosperity and happiness, and finally secured its preservation, development, and advancement. Society therefore is the greatest good and the horn of plenty, the inexhaustible source of goods, and the provider of all benefit.

But what is the binding force of societies? What is the solid rock upon which they are founded? What is the power that made humanity social? Did it from an innate simple inclination like gregarious animals form its first societies? But then how did not rationality dissolve them? This power of objectifying external things, generating countless delusions and driving humanity to violence against its kind, through which its annihilation and destruction are sought? The idea that common interest formed the first societies is a hypothesis having probability but not explaining the reason for its preservation; it expresses the necessity of social life but not the means of its perpetuation; reciprocal interest is not a strong bond for the preservation of societies, for greed and other passions can generate deception, guile, and secret betrayal of the mutual agreement; and the stronger may oppress and annihilate the weaker and paralyze the societies. Hence reciprocal interest is a weak means for supporting the social bond and societies. Societies are upheld and perpetuated by the moral law; if the moral law did not exist, societies would not be preserved; hence the moral law is and has been the binding force of societies; and ethics is the necessary condition for the formation of human societies, for it alone contributes to the foundation of society and to the progress and prosperity of humanity. But if progress, happiness, and development are products of society without which they are not attained, these being absolutely necessary for perfection, it follows that without society the development, advancement, and perfection of humanity are wholly impossible, and that society and social life are an indispensable necessity of human life. Since society without moral life is not established, an inevitable necessity imposes on humanity the moral life, so that society is sustained and through it humanity advances, develops, and is perfected and lives happily. But if societies are necessary and the moral law is their continuous support, it follows that societies must necessarily be moral. Since humanity is by nature social, and societies are necessarily moral, it must follow that humanity is also by nature moral; for otherwise it could not form societies. But morality and the perfection sought through society are notions incomprehensible and superfluous for one despised. In nature all things are purposeful, for the divine creator made all things in wisdom; is it possible that these two lofty virtues—morality and perfection—be purposeless? But if every purposeful thing has necessary existence for some reason of divine will, what is the reason for humanity’s ethical perfection? If we view it as material and ending at the grave, from the depths of which it perishes, this is fruitless toil and vain display; the expense expended from bodily well-being is much greater than the benefit obtained; but is it possible, that ethical perfection be pursued at the disreputable cost of living, so that it vanish in the grave? No! Thousands of times no! For it contradicts God’s wisdom and justice; hence humanity’s ethical perfection has a purpose lying beyond the grave; thus humanity as a social and moral being has an immortal soul, because the ethical perfection sought through it does not vanish in the grave but continues beyond it.

Hence clearly those denying the soul’s immortality and the moral law undermine and excavate the foundations of societies which they desire to see reduced to ruins, in order to reveal humanity as an ape from which they boast of drawing their ancestry. But fortunately societies have always repelled with aversion these destructive ideas, opposed with their moral strength and the moral conscience of ancestral nobility. Materialist ideas have always corrupted societies, while moral and psychological ideas have always benefited them; the history of all nations testifies to the truth; let us examine the history of ancient Greece; Greece was the birthplace of philosophy; which of her philosophers benefited Greece? Whose principles elevated it? Whose principles overthrew and corrupted its citizens? Behold Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and the other workers of serious philosophy, the forerunners of Christian philosophy; what age would ever forget them? Who does not marvel at the epoch when they flourished as the epoch of glory and greatness? But behold, there is also the circle of the Epicureans; who were the impious Diagoras, the Aristippuses, the Hegesias, and their like, fellow-workers in ancient misfortunes? What are their works? History has dark pages written upon them. What would have happened if the principles of such philosophers had gained universal acceptance? Who now could accept as true and correct ideas and principles destructive of the foundations of social life?

To arm sentiments fighting against happiness and well-being of humanity itself? Which annihilate what is beautiful, good, noble, high, magnanimous, wonderful, worthy, precious, brilliant, divine, and construct on ruins what is ugly, evil, base, mean, craven, hateful, ignoble, despised, worthless, and satanic? Who could consent to believe that this lawless life is the life fitting for humanity? No one! No one! For humanity has a consciousness of its nobility, and even if it still ignores its origin.

Those who debase humanity to the rank of irrational animals and equate its soul with that of irrational animals—denying the greatness and the peculiar activity of its spiritual powers and the lofty destiny of humanity—are blind, not seeing it in its works which the ages manifestly display; they are deaf to the voice higher than all trumpets, which the works of its powers emit. The human soul is something extraordinary, which divine virtues adorn through which the earthly dwelling place is sanctified. Humanity was truly formed to sanctify the earth; and this truth was testified in its social life.

The followers of ape-descent ignore humanity and its lofty destiny, for they have denied it the soul and divine revelation; they have cast off the spirit, and the spirit has abandoned them; they have turned away from God, and God has turned away from them, for thinking themselves wise they became foolish; God has given them a reprobate mind to do what is not fitting; and the poet says most wisely: ‘When divine wrath harms a man, first it strips him of good sense of mind, turns him to the worse thought, that he may see nothing of what he sins.’ Most true indeed, had they acted in knowledge, they would not so much preen over themselves nor boast of drawing the race from the most shameful of animals; rightly the prophet said of them: ‘Humanity in honor does not understand, is brought alongside irrational animals and becomes like them’; unfortunately those assimilated to animals, priding themselves on the nobility of animals, seek to make proselytes, seek new workers to overturn moral principles, new sappers to undermine the foundations of society and render it useless. Their moral principles constitute their civilizing work. Behold these: ‘Good,’ they say, ‘is pleasure, or drunkenness, or love;’ but hate too is good. Beautiful is the possession of something contributing to our ease; good is power satisfying our superiority; good is truth insofar as it provides us enjoyment; good further is falsehood, or hypocrisy, or perjury, deceit, flattery insofar as they contribute to our gain; good is faith insofar as it is repaid; good also is betrayal if it promises greater repayment. Good is marriage insofar as it makes us happy, but equally good is adultery when marriage satiety comes. Good is deception, theft, robbery, and murder insofar as they give us mastery of something for enjoyment. Beautiful is vengeance or our satisfied feeling. Good is life insofar as it remains an enigma for us, but good also is suicide when this enigma is dissolved.’

Who now does not acknowledge that the moral law alone sustains societies, and that it alone has sustained them to now, for how is it possible a society could stand under such principles? No, societies are eternal witnesses of humanity’s morality and spirituality by which alone they were established, advanced, and developed. These principles, revealed two thousand two hundred years ago, society rejected. Aristippus, one of Socrates’ disciples and founder of the Cyrenaic school, in his native city taught the same doctrines as today’s wise men; one of the school’s leaders, named Hegesias, a fervent follower of Aristippus, developed and taught suicide for the lack of pleasure through which, he said, humanity was formed. But humanity did not receive his teaching, for it had consciousness of the height of its destiny which guides it always to a calculated end, and it trod down and crushed all abortions of the distorted mind and walked with firm step forward toward perfection to which it is ever advancing.

The reigning moral and spiritual development and progress in general is humanity’s triumph and testimony of morality and sociality; it is the most eloquent advocate of humanity’s spirituality and witness of the superiority of its rational soul and its nobility; it is the clearest expression of rejection of materialist theories; it is the victory of spirit over matter and a more brilliant affirmation of humanity’s morality and sanctity. Humanity’s social life speaks to the ears of those having ears to hear and understand, that humanity has a rational and immortal soul.

§ 11: Proof From the Destiny of Nations and Divine Providence

We bring a final proof of the soul’s immortality from the apparent destiny of nations. The nations, as history teaches, work and act independently of each other; they walk the path their particular nature has traced; they develop a polity consistent with the character formed among them and establish laws consonant with their mores and customs. Worship follows the development and civilization of each, and the gods assume the form of the prevailing ideas; their moral principles shape hearts according to their form, and arts and sciences develop proportionately to their spiritual development; behold on the world’s stage various nations with various moral and political principles, with individual program working freely and independently of each other; each seeks only its own interest, desires its own progress, development, and prosperity; its fixed program is its own promotion and dominion; no care or thought for the outside; if at any time such existed, not for the benefit of the foreign, but for its own, to appropriate the foreign and undermine foreign happiness and existence. Nations have been likened to well-leaved trees whose shadow and roots cover the whole ground, spread, and annihilate every other plant growing on the same ground; and the saying is true, for the example lies before the eyes confirming the truth; but it is a conclusion of one-sided study; for more accurate study alters the conclusion. Accurate study of the history of nations leads us to wholly opposite conclusions; for the comparison does not prove true when applied to the whole breadth of the nation’s notion. Nations are not like trees absolutely monarchic and self-sustaining; they do not live like trees exclusively for themselves, nor when dying nourish only the soil that nourished them, nor provide benefit to distant lands. Though nations resemble trees in the result of their ramification, they differ greatly in their action on each other. Nations in the course of time meet at some point of coincidence; they meet on the common stage of the universal theatre on which each as an actor must present one character of one and the same drama, and must fulfill the role imposed by the artistic dramatist, which has been taught individually and privately in the long course of time wholly unknowingly and unconsciously.

Study of the history of nations reveals a superior purpose lying beyond the action and activity of nations, to which they appear submitting mysteriously to the commanding voice of God directing all things. Their activities appear directed to one calculated and intentional end, and around this end revolves all the political and spiritual life of humanity. This phenomenon was called by observers fate, and was considered as intervention of some god, whom they called fate. The spontaneous impulse of nations toward the same end would be wholly incomprehensible and unthinkable attributed to coincidence of wholly random unforeseen events and to the work of chance. The problem becomes less difficult and the solution more persuasive if the phenomenon is attributed to a higher power, to some all-wise intellect guiding humanity toward one calculated and intentional end. We are led to accept this idea from observation, that all things tend toward humanity’s progress, toward its elevation to the height of highest nobility, and toward its moral perfection. The works of chance cannot have a determined, fixed, and immutable purpose, much less one such as we find in the results of the activities of all nations; chance is unstable and irregular. Some higher and good providence therefore directs all things; for only almighty and good power is able through all the various irregularities, the endless overturnings and disruptions, the elevations and falls, the existence and annihilation, the freedom and servitude, the independence and dependence of all manner of peoples and nations, the greatness and degradation, the power and weakness, the wisdom and ignorance, the life and death, to direct humanity toward one good end fitting both human nature and the goodness of the divine creator. This good end is witnessed by the present period of humanity’s spiritual and moral perfection, in which humanity has truly risen to a height of exalted vision and works for the advancement of all humanity. Humanity without Christianity would never have reached the point it has reached today. Christianity was the work of God’s providence; God prepared its appearance, and for its propagation raised up nations, which though working independently and developing individually conspired together toward the work of divine providence—the regeneration of humanity, namely the Jewish, Greek, and Roman peoples. That divine providence directs the fortunes of nations we wish to demonstrate from history and events; passing by many things we wish to examine the history of the nations that collaborated in the work of the mystery of divine economy—the regeneration of humanity, namely the Jewish, Greek, and Roman peoples.

The Manifestation of the Jewish Nation From Divine Providence

The history that records the origin and formation of the people of the Jews into a glorious and great nation makes known to all that from one man alone, as from the aged root of an oak, a nation sprouted and was brought forth that surpassed all other nations in the thoughts and principles of humanity throughout the ages. Christianity is the brightest testimony confirming the truth of this word. The Holy History, which records the deeds of the patriarch of this great and glorious nation, tells us that by divine calling, he left his father’s house and the land of his birth and journeyed to a foreign land, where he dwelt and acquired a son from the barren womb of his wife, who had reached the ninetieth year of her age. And it was said to him that this son would become a great nation, and that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed. We do not attempt to bring forward the divine inspiration and revelation of God as historical arguments, nor to demonstrate historical truth by means of arguments, for we do not wish to solve the question exhaustively and by means of abundance of Scripture; but we relate as a historical fact the beginning of the origin of this great nation, so that we might historically demonstrate the truth of both the revelation of God and his providence for the human race, and so that we might marvel at the accuracy of the aforementioned promises in their outcome. History teaches us that all nations sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; error and ignorance hovered over the breasts of the peoples like a nightmarish phantom. Humanity groaned under the weight of polytheism, atheism, and superstition. Universal corruption ate away at the heart of family. The future was dark. And the things concerning the future life were darker than Tartarus. Let us now examine: whence came this change? From whence came the peace granted to the hearts of men? From whence came the moral and virtuous life, the godly conduct that lavished happiness and prosperity upon humanity? From whence came love for all and that brotherhood through which the nations and tribes of the earth were united? From whence came all the goods that humanity abundantly enjoys today? History teaches that all these things proceeded from Christianity. Christianity transformed the face of the earth. The complete transformation of the character of nations, their true regeneration, the knowledge of the one true God, the change of laws and governments, of principles and thoughts, of feelings and desires—all these belong to Christianity alone. In the name of Christ, who came from Abraham, the first patriarch of the Jewish nation, all the nations have been blessed, and the name of God is blessed upon all the face of the earth. What an exact fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed! What clearer testimony could there be to the providence of God toward man? Who does not discover in the results the revelation of God that has come to pass? I think that the mere thought that from a race of foreign sojourners dwelling in Palestine the Savior and Reformer of the world was born; that this race, after a perilous life full of dangers and persecutions, became a great nation and achieved much in the world and worked more than any other for the civilization of the world and the regeneration of humanity—this thought alone is sufficient and adequate to form in us the conviction that surely this great patriarch of the nation would be chosen by God and his friend, and that the Jewish nation received particular providence from the almighty God, and that truly this God directed the fortunes of this nation toward the great purpose that so manifestly is revealed today. Fortune does not guide with deliberation, nor does it arrive at a deliberate end. The Jewish nation, accomplishing this great work, did not work alone; it worked with God. God guided it, and he was revealing himself to it. But leaving the Jewish nation aside, let us come to the Greek nation. Let us examine its history and see how it acted upon the universal stage.

The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence

The History of the Greek Nation begins by examining it as a nation. From it we learn that the sciences, the arts, and philosophy were the portion allotted to the Greek. A lover of beauty, of goodness, of truth, he eagerly hastened toward the perfection of what had been handed down to him and toward the discovery of new works of the intellect. A nation naturally good, he distinguished himself by his civilizing spirit. His most ardent desire was to impart his knowledge and make others sharers in his goods. The nobility of his character imposed upon him as a duty the refinement of his equals; and in this work he found the fulfillment of his desire. This desire was boundless. He wished to make known to this known world his wisdom and all his spiritual virtues, but the fulfillment of this required also a powerful and mighty force. Weakness is helpless for great works. The completion of the work was necessary, and God takes part as a co-worker. He raises up Alexander of Macedon, another Joshua son of Nun, to subdue the nations spiritually and to prepare them through wisdom and knowledge, imparting to them the Greek spirit. Again the word is fulfilled, that in weakness the power of God is perfected. The Greek nation became the teacher of the world receptive to wisdom. If anyone philosophizes upon the history of the Greek nation, he will be compelled to acknowledge that the Greek nation appeared so that through philosophy it might aid and contribute to the purpose of the divine will for the reformation and reshaping of the human race. For all his life ran about this purpose. Christianity clothed in the Greek garment, which through the Greek language and wisdom drew the world in its net, which stored up the teachings and sublime doctrines in its writings, and which through Greek sacred and Ecumenical Councils regulated the matters of faith and worship, is itself sufficient proof of the truth. But what astonishes the searching investigator is the long and enduring one-sided work of these two peoples, who, although far distant from each other, the divine power that directs all things intertwined their activities so tightly that both worked toward the same purpose and appeared simultaneously upon the universal stage and acted in harmony, the one as divinely inspired, the other as philosopher, and were united in such a way that the one was the soul and the other the body. How could two separated nations, differing so greatly from each other in religion, customs, morals, development, spirit, government, and in all things; separated more by the discord of their characters and principles than by the great distances that separated their lands; how could they have co-labored for one and the same purpose? This is incomprehensible except if it be attributed to divine providence. Divine providence called the children of Shem and Japheth to cooperate for humanity. Divine providence led the Greeks to Jerusalem, so that the two peoples might communicate. The prophets of the Jews foretold this coming communication. Daniel recorded it, and the new Joshua son of Nun, the great Alexander, saw Aaron receiving him as a conqueror. History further testifies to the providence of God. But let us examine as well the history of the Roman state and see how it cooperated with those that came before toward the same purpose.

The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God

For the same purpose divine providence raised up the great Roman state from small beginnings, so that it might cooperate in the regeneration of the human race.

Rome, the ruler of the world, developed according to her own impulses and inclinations and became a great nation, and worked toward the accomplishment of the predetermined end. Rome, having subdued the world, paved the way for the spread of Christianity through the unification of the peoples under the scepter of one emperor; she prepared the concentration of the elements of the new worship, by which the New Church was strengthened and was able to impose the authority of the proclaimed truth upon all the peoples then known, and give them laws by which they ought to understand thoughts, spirit, imagination, feelings, morals, and worship. For the great purpose, great power was required. By this power the revealed truth was guarded and fortified. The Ecumenical Councils are owed to the dominion of Rome. This cooperation of Rome in the regeneration of humanity with the aforementioned two nations, the Greek and the Jewish, can it be regarded as a chance occurrence? Is it possible to suppose that the three greatest powers that constitute and direct humanity—the worship of the heart, the philosophy of the spirit, and the dominion of power—met by chance on the common stage to accomplish such a great work? The acceptance of chance becomes so unacceptable as the affairs are presented as deliberately prepared and of extraordinary magnitude, and as the work appears lofty and divine. Judaism, Hellenism, and Romanism—three opposing nations on account of the contrary formation of each—unconsciously cooperate and serve the divine will for the regeneration of humanity.

The sublime oversight of human affairs appears demonstrated even from what comes after. Let us look at the history of these nations after the completion of the work for which they were called. These nations, after the precise execution of their duty, one by one withdraw from the stage. First the Jewish nation leaves it, so that it may no longer appear upon it. Judea is followed by Rome, which remains a little longer in order to work for the advancement of Christianity, to which she is destined to hand over the authority that she soon transfers and withdraws from the stage forever. The sudden and abrupt transfer of the seat of the Roman state from Rome to Constantinople was the formal transfer of the authority of Romanism to Christianity, the future reformer of the world, which is destined to play a new role on the great stage of the world. The heir assumes the rule, and the testator shortly thereafter is handed over to the fated end of human affairs. Rome underwent the common fate; she had fulfilled her destiny. Byzantium, the new Constantinople, is raised up in place of the ancient Rome. The Byzantine state was not the same as the old Roman state. The establishment of the new Roman autocracy with its new capital has nothing in common with the old autocracy. For it does not have the same destiny. We see the fate of Rome displayed after a short time also in Athens. The new Christian state, seeing the old Hellenism resisting the accomplishment of the task appointed to it, although he sympathizes with it, acting under the authority of a higher will, destroys the ethnic existence of the aged Hellenism, which for twelve whole ages had labored for humanity. The common fate of mankind brought even upon it the appointed end. The decree of Justinian brought down the already long-dying Greek polytheism that was barely breathing, which upheld ethnic sentiment. In this manner these three nations, after the appearance of Christianity upon the universal stage, withdraw one after another, leaving free the action to the new face that appeared upon the stage. Christianity, as a moral person, had to take on an external representation, so that it might act in a determined and successful manner. From the elements that composed it, the most spiritual was the Greek; for this reason it was regarded as the most suitable and fitting for serving the great purpose. The Greek spirit brings forth again the Greek element upon the stage under a new form, under a new garment, under the purple of Christianity, so that it might serve through its advantages the great purpose. Christianity in the Byzantine state, by taking on Greek elements, takes form as a new nation. The new nation, vigorous and living, having perceived its great destiny, separated itself from the elements that ignored the general transformation of things and resisted against it. The Greek element, working with zeal and fervor in the new stage, revealed itself as the foremost in the new nation, to which it gave its own character. The severed part was quickly absorbed and no power was able to retain it. In vain philosophers and emperors sought to support it. The old Hellenism, as bound up with the old worship, was unable, after the appearance and dominion of Christianity, to be preserved. The fall of the old worship brought about also the fall of ancient Hellenism. The attempts of Julian to restore to the stage the nations already withdrawn, Hellenism and Romanism, were miserably shipwrecked, because another power, the great dramatist, was bringing forth on the stage another character. Another scene of the drama had already appeared. The persons withdrawn but a short time before, who had amazed by their art, their wisdom, their power, their worship, and their other splendor, were now wholly unsuitable, and so no one was able to restore them to the stage.

From the study of the history of these three nations we are taught that there is a great intellect above human thoughts, who directs the activities of the nations through a completely incomprehensible influence toward the purposeful and deliberate end, which is the very perfection of man. Is it possible, then, that man, the object of divine providence, perishes in the grave? Is it possible that divine providence directs the fortunes of men for no good reason? No, a thousand times no. God exercises providence for man, because he is destined to be perfected and to live even beyond the grave. For this reason the prophet-king, amazed, asks God: What is man that you remember him, or the son of man that you care for him? Therefore man is a rational being; he possesses an immortal soul and was formed for immortality.

In Rome February 6.

THE END AND TO GOD BE GLORY

Scripture Index

Every Scripture reference identified in this book, sorted in canonical Bible order. Tap a reference to jump to the verse where it appears.

Genesis

Genesis 1:26–2745. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.9.8)

Genesis 1:273. Chapter 1: Concerning Man—The External Character of Man (3.1.1, 3.1.2)

Genesis 2:718. On Ideas (18.1.14); 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.1.1, 45.1.2, 45.1.3); 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.8); 48. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.1.1, 48.1.2)

Genesis 2:1916. Chapter 4: On the Spoken Word and the Innate Word and on Ideas—On the Spoken Word (16.3.4, 16.3.5)

Genesis 1135. Part 2—Chapter 1: On the Human Race—§1. That All Men Are From One Race (35.1.1)

Genesis 11:135. Part 2—Chapter 1: On the Human Race—§1. That All Men Are From One Race (35.1.1)

Psalms

Psalms 8:462. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.4.6)

Psalms 49:1258. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.6.7)

Psalms 82:656. § 8: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Worship of God (56.1.49)

Sirach

Sirach 247. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.12.2)

Matthew

Matthew 22:3148. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.2.3)

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 12:961. The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence (61.1.12)

Ephesians

Ephesians 4:3047. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.42.14)

Hebrews

Hebrews 4:1247. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.41.4)

Persons and Places

Persons and places mentioned in this book, with short notes and back-links to every occurrence.

Persons

Aristotle

Greek philosopher (384–322 BC), student of Plato and founder of the Peripatetic school. His Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics defined the vocabulary of moral philosophy for later Christian writers.

Mentioned in: 14. On the Irrationality of Animals and the Proportion of Their Bodies to Their Individual Nature (14.3.8); 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.3.18); 55. § 7: The Soul’s Immortality as Demonstrated From the Holy Life (55.3.1); 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.3.10).

St Athanasius the Great

Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 296–373), the leading defender of Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism, exiled five times. Author of the Life of Antony and On the Incarnation. Feast day 18 January and 2 May.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.1.2).

St Augustine of Hippo

Bishop of Hippo (354–430 AD) and the most influential theologian of the Latin West. Nektarios cites him repeatedly on sin, grace, free will, and moral theology. Feast day 28 August.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.6.1).

Christians

The collective designation for followers of Jesus Christ, used in early patristic literature to refer to the Christian community as distinct from pagan worshippers and Jews.

Mentioned in: 34. Chapter 8: On the Affective—§1. On Consciousness and Self-Consciousness (34.10.14); 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.3.10); 62. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.3.14).

St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs

Ninth-century missionary brother (c. 827–869) from Thessalonica who, with his brother Methodius, evangelised the Slavonic peoples in their own language and devised the Glagolitic alphabet (the precursor of Cyrillic). Patron of Europe. Feast day 11 May (with Methodius).

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.3.9).

Holy Prophet Elias

Holy Prophet Elias (Elijah), of the tribe of Levi, from Tishba of Gilead (9th century BC, reign of King Ahab of Israel). One of the greatest of the Old Testament prophets; called by the OCA ‘the first dedicated to virginity in the Old Testament.’ Taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot without tasting death (2 Kings 2:11); appeared with Moses at the Transfiguration of Christ (Matt. 17:3). In Orthodox liturgical usage, the standard English form is ‘Elias’ (reflecting Greek Ἠλίας); ‘Elijah’ is the standard Hebrew-derived form common in English Bibles and also used in Orthodox texts. Feast day 20 July.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.6.10).

Epictetus

Greek Stoic philosopher (c. 50–135 AD), freed slave whose Discourses and Enchiridion were highly influential on later moral thought.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.4.6).

Euripides

Athenian tragic playwright (c. 480–406 BC). Cited by Nektarios for moral apophthegms, particularly on anger and envy.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.3.6).

Eusebius of Caesarea

Bishop of Caesarea (c. 260–339), often called the father of Church history. Author of the Ecclesiastical History (HE) and the Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini), the principal sources for the conversion of Constantine.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.25.1).

Greeks / Hellenes

The Greek-speaking pagan world, often used in early Christian literature to denote Gentiles or non-Christians. The term encompasses both ethnic Greeks and the broader Hellenistic culture that dominated the Roman Empire.

Mentioned in: 41. § 4: On the Effect of Climate and Civilization on the Human Body (41.1.2); 61. The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence (61.1.21).

St Gregory the Theologian

One of the Three Hierarchs (c. 329–390), Archbishop of Constantinople, author of the Five Theological Orations and the Invectives Against Julian. Feast day 25 January.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.16.3).

St Gregory Palamas

Archbishop of Thessalonica (c. 1296–1359), the chief defender of hesychasm; his theology of the divine energies was endorsed by the Constantinopolitan synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351. Feast day 14 November and the Second Sunday of Great Lent.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.3).

the Holy Spirit

The Third Person of the Holy Trinity, proceeding from the Father (John 15:26); confessed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as ‘the Lord, the Giver of Life’. The Holy Spirit anoints with chrism in baptism, indwells the Church, and is invoked at every Eucharist (the epiclesis).

Mentioned in: 6. Manhood (6.2.12); 9. On the Harmony of the Body With the Soul (9.1.5, 9.1.14, 9.1.15, 9.1.41, 9.2.2); 16. Chapter 4: On the Spoken Word and the Innate Word and on Ideas—On the Spoken Word (16.3.2, 16.3.8, 16.5.7); 24. Sense of Smell (24.1.6, 24.8.1); 26. Sight (26.1.3); 31. § 4: On Science (31.2.3, 31.3.6, 31.4.6, 31.4.8); 33. Chapter 7: On the Appetitive—§1. On Will and Desire (33.3.2); 36. § 2: On the Varieties in the Human Race (36.7.4, 36.7.12); 43. Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas (43.15.9); 44. Kinship of Races Demonstrated From the Kinship of Languages (44.16.1); 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.3); 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.1.7, 47.1.8, 47.1.12, 47.8.7, 47.8.12, 47.41.7, 47.41.9, 47.41.10, 47.41.17, 47.42.7, 47.42.8, 47.42.9, 47.42.10, 47.42.13, 47.42.15, 47.43.1); 48. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.6.4, 48.6.12); 54. § 6: Proof of the Soul’s Immortality From God’s Inner Revelation (54.1.12, 54.1.14); 56. § 8: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Worship of God (56.1.17, 56.1.24, 56.1.29, 56.1.34); 57. § 9: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Knowledge (57.2.14, 57.2.17, 57.2.20, 57.2.22); 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.6.2); 62. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.2.7).

St Jerome

Latin biblical scholar and translator (c. 347–420 AD), produced the Latin Vulgate. Cited by Nektarios on virginity. Feast day 30 September.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.6.1).

Jesus Christ

The incarnate Son of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity; his name forms the centre of the Jesus Prayer and of all Orthodox spiritual life.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.41.3, 47.42.7).

Jews

The Jewish people. In early Christian and patristic literature ‘οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι’ often denotes specifically the religious authorities who opposed Christ and the apostolic preaching (cf. the polemical use in the Gospel of John); the term is occasionally extended to the Jewish nation more broadly.

Mentioned in: 60. The Manifestation of the Jewish Nation From Divine Providence (60.1.1); 61. The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence (61.1.22).

St John Chrysostom

Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407), one of the most prolific homilists of the early Church; one of the Three Hierarchs. Exiled twice for challenging imperial corruption; died in exile. Feast day 13 November.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.3.1); 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.21.4, 47.30.2, 47.36.3, 47.37.3).

St John Climacus

Abbot of Sinai (c. 579–649), author of The Ladder of Divine Ascent, the standard manual of monastic ascesis in the Eastern Church. Feast day 30 March.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.33.2).

St John of Damascus

Eighth-century Syrian theologian (c. 675–749), monk of Mar Saba. Author of the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and the chief Iconodule theologian of the iconoclast controversy. Feast day 4 December.

Mentioned in: 14. On the Irrationality of Animals and the Proportion of Their Bodies to Their Individual Nature (14.2.5); 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.35.2).

Julian the Apostate

Roman emperor (c. 331–363, r. 361–363), nephew of Constantine the Great. Renounced Christianity and attempted to restore Greco-Roman paganism. Killed in his Persian campaign. The principal target of Saint Gregory the Theologian’s two Invectives.

Mentioned in: 62. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.3.28).

St Maximus the Confessor

Byzantine theologian and ascetic writer (c. 580–662 AD), author of the Centuries on Love and the Ambigua. Feast day 13 August / 21 January.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.1).

St Nektarios of Aegina

Greek bishop and wonder-worker (1846–1920), Metropolitan of Pentapolis; founded a convent on Aegina and was widely venerated in his own lifetime. Canonised 1961. Feast day 9 November.

Mentioned in: 1. To the Readers (1.4.1).

Origen

Alexandrian theologian and biblical scholar (c. 184–253 AD), prolific writer on prayer, exegesis, and the spiritual life. His works were widely influential despite later controversies over his speculative theology.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.5.2).

St Paul the Apostle

Holy, Glorious, and All-Praised Leader of the Apostles; Apostle to the Gentiles (c. 5 – c. 67 AD). Born Saul of Tarsus of the tribe of Benjamin; converted on the road to Damascus. Author of fourteen epistles in the New Testament canon (thirteen attributed, including Hebrews in the Eastern lectionary). Martyred by beheading in Rome under the emperor Nero, with the Apostle Peter. The Peter and Paul Fast precedes their joint feast day. Feast day 29 June (with St Peter).

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.6.6, 47.8.11, 47.41.7, 47.42.9); 53. § 5: Proof From Conscience (53.3.1).

St Photios the Great

Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 810–893), one of the foremost Byzantine theologians and the central figure in the Photian schism with Rome. Feast day 6 February.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.2).

Plato

Athenian philosopher (c. 428–348 BC), student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. His dialogues on virtue, justice, and the soul were extensively cited by Christian moral theologians.

Mentioned in: 43. Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas (43.6.2); 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.3.16, 45.4.3, 45.4.4); 55. § 7: The Soul’s Immortality as Demonstrated From the Holy Life (55.3.1); 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.3.10).

Plutarch

Greek biographer and moralist (c. 46–119 AD), author of the Parallel Lives and the Moralia. Frequently cited by Nektarios for apophthegms on virtue, nobility, and character.

Mentioned in: 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.3.10).

Seneca

Roman Stoic philosopher and statesman (c. 4 BC – AD 65). His moral epistles and treatises were widely read by Christian ethicists.

Mentioned in: 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.4.6).

Socrates

Athenian philosopher (c. 470–399 BC), teacher of Plato; his moral teaching is known primarily through Plato’s dialogues. Not to be confused with Socrates Scholasticus, the church historian.

Mentioned in: 26. Sight (26.3.1); 32. § 5: On Imagination (32.7.3); 45. Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul (45.3.16); 55. § 7: The Soul’s Immortality as Demonstrated From the Holy Life (55.3.1); 58. § 10: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life (58.3.10, 58.7.4).

Solomon

King of Israel (c. 970–931 BC); traditional author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.10.2, 47.38.2).

Theodoret of Cyrus

Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (c. 393–c. 458), Antiochene theologian and ecclesiastical historian. Wrote a continuation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.

Mentioned in: 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.4.4).

the Twelve Apostles

The twelve disciples chosen by Christ to be the foundational witnesses of the Church. In the ascetical tradition the Apostles model submission to a divine teacher—Paul going first to Ananias (Acts 9:6) and then consulting the other Apostles (Gal. 2:2)—and so illustrate the principle that even the spiritually advanced sought external guidance.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.6.5, 47.8.9); 51. § 3: Proof From the Idea of Eternity (51.2.11).

Places

Ephesus

Ancient city on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor (modern Turkey); seat of the Third Ecumenical Council (431), which defined the title Theotokos, and one of the seven churches of the Apocalypse.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.1.21).

Jerusalem

The holy city of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tradition; the place of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection; seat of one of the five ancient patriarchates.

Mentioned in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.1.21); 61. The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence (61.1.21).

Paradise

The Garden of Eden where God placed Adam and Eve before the Fall; in patristic theology also refers to the state of blessedness and communion with God, both original and eschatological.

Mentioned in: 34. Chapter 8: On the Affective—§1. On Consciousness and Self-Consciousness (34.10.5); 44. Kinship of Races Demonstrated From the Kinship of Languages (44.16.1, 44.17.9).

Rome

Capital of the Roman Empire and seat of the ancient western patriarchate; site of the martyrdoms of Sts Peter and Paul and of Ignatius of Antioch.

Mentioned in: 38. § 4: On Sporadic Variations Appearing in a Generation and on Their Successive Transmission (38.1.4, 38.5.4, 38.19.2); 62. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.2.1, 62.2.2, 62.2.5, 62.2.6, 62.3.5, 62.3.6, 62.3.8, 62.3.9, 62.3.13, 62.5.1).

Glossary

Theological and spiritual terms used in this book, with short definitions and back-links to every occurrence.

apostles, prophets, and teachers

Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos, ‘one sent’), προφήτης (prophētēs, ‘one who speaks for God’), διδάσκαλος (didaskalos, ‘teacher’). The three itinerant ministries of the early Christian movement (Didache 11–13). Apostles travel from community to community and may stay no more than two days; prophets speak in the Spirit and may settle and be supported by their host community; teachers transmit the doctrine. The Didache devotes three chapters to discerning genuine prophets from impostors by their conduct—‘it is by their conduct that the false prophet and the true prophet can be distinguished’ (11:8). By the mid-second century these itinerant offices had largely given way to the settled bishops and deacons of chapter 15.

Occurs in: 18. On Ideas (18.3.1); 62. The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God (62.4.6).

baptism

Greek βάπτισμα (baptisma), from βαπτίζω (baptizō, ‘to dip, immerse’). The sacrament by which a person is incorporated into the Body of Christ through threefold immersion (or, where immersion is impossible, by pouring water three times on the head) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Didache (chapter 7) is the earliest extra-biblical source describing the rite, and the only ancient witness to permit affusion as a substitute for immersion when running cold water is unavailable—a concession that shaped Latin sacramental practice for the next two millennia.

Occurs in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.41.7).

contemplation

Direct apprehension of divine reality, distinguished by the Fathers from rational knowledge (γνῶσις) and conceptual reasoning; the highest degree of prayer in the hesychast tradition.

Occurs in: 2. Preamble (2.1.1, 2.2.13); 56. § 8: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Worship of God (56.1.9, 56.1.30).

disobedience

The act of disobedience to God’s command, particularly referring to the Fall of Adam and Eve; contrasted with obedience (ὑπακοή) and central to patristic discussions of sin and redemption.

Occurs in: 43. Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas (43.12.1); 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.41.18); 48. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.8.3).

fear of God

Reverent awe before God’s holiness; in patristic usage, the disposition that opens the heart to grace, distinct from servile dread.

Occurs in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.1.10).

makrothymia—long-suffering, patience

Divine attribute denoting God’s patience and forbearance toward humanity; a fundamental characteristic of God’s mercy in patristic theology, often paired with philanthropia.

Occurs in: 43. Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas (43.6.4); 48. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.8.16).

mysteries

The hidden divine realities or secrets of creation and salvation. In this context, refers to the cosmic mysteries faithfully kept by the elements of creation under God’s governance.

Occurs in: 25. Sense of Hearing (25.1.2); 48. Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul (48.6.8); 57. § 9: The Soul’s Immortality as Witnessed by Knowledge (57.2.7).

Prophets

The Old Testament prophets who spoke God’s word and foretold the coming of Christ. In patristic theology, the ‘grace of the prophets’ refers to their divinely inspired proclamation and their role in salvation history.

Occurs in: 61. The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence (61.1.22).

saints

The holy ones, the sanctified members of the Church. In early Christian usage, refers to all baptized believers who are set apart for God and participate in His holiness.

Occurs in: 47. § 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul (47.15.1).

Two Ways

Greek ὁδοὶ δύο (hodoi dyo). The moral-teaching framework of the way of life and the way of death, which opens the Didache (1:1–6:3). The same pattern is closely paralleled in the Epistle of Barnabas (chapters 18–20); both works are now generally thought to draw on a common Jewish-Christian catechetical source rather than depend directly on each other. The discovery of the Qumran Community Rule (1QS 3:13–4:26, the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’) has reinforced the case for a pre-Christian Jewish source.

Occurs in: 39. On the Action of Climate, Diet, Civilization, Etc. Upon the Human Race for Promoting Varieties in Color and Character, and on Their Power to Make These Stable, Characteristic, and Perpetual, and as Distinguishing Signs of Different Races (39.1.11); 41. § 4: On the Effect of Climate and Civilization on the Human Body (41.2.1); 46. § 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers (46.1.3).

Colophon

A Sketch Concerning Man
by Saint Nektarios of Aegina.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
Wanderer above the Sea of Fog
by Caspar David Friedrich (German, 1774–1840), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
To the Readers
Preamble

Chapter 1: Concerning Man—The External Character of Man

Infancy
Childhood
Manhood
Old Age

Chapter 3: Concerning the Relation of Man's Spirit to His Nature

On the Harmony of the Body With the Soul

Chapter 4: Psychological Investigation of Man and the Animal

Investigations Into the Activities of Animals
That Animals Lack a Rational Soul
On the Instincts of Animals

On the Irrationality of Animals and the Proportion of Their Bodies to Their Individual Nature

On the Absolute Dissimilarity Between the Soul of Man and the Animal

Chapter 4: On the Spoken Word and the Innate Word and on Ideas—On the Spoken Word

On the Innate Word

On Ideas

Chapter 5: Bodily Articulation of the Human and the Animal—On the Parallelism of Human and Animal

General Sense
Specific Sense
Sense of Touch
Sense of Taste
Sense of Smell
Sense of Hearing
Sight

Chapter 6: Psychological Difference Between Human and Animal—On the Sensory Powers of the Human Soul

On the Cognitive—§1. On Memory
§ 2: On Attention
§ 3: On Knowledge
§ 4: On Science
§ 5: On Imagination

Chapter 7: On the Appetitive—§1. On Will and Desire

Chapter 8: On the Affective—§1. On Consciousness and Self-Consciousness

Part 2—Chapter 1: On the Human Race—§1. That All Men Are From One Race

§ 2: On the Varieties in the Human Race

§ 3: On the Varieties of Colors in the Human Race

§ 4: On Sporadic Variations Appearing in a Generation and on Their Successive Transmission

On the Action of Climate, Diet, Civilization, Etc. Upon the Human Race for Promoting Varieties in Color and Character, and on Their Power to Make These Stable, Characteristic, and Perpetual, and as Distinguishing Signs of Different Races

§ 3: That Varieties Can Arise From the Action of Climate, Diet, and Civilization

§ 4: On the Effect of Climate and Civilization on the Human Body

§ 5: On the Cause of the Different Skin Colors of Humans

Chapter 2: On the Kinship of the Human Race, Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers and Moral Principles, From Religious Ideas, Customs, and Language—§ 1. Kinship Demonstrated From Spiritual Powers, Moral Principles, and Religious Ideas

Kinship of Races Demonstrated From the Kinship of Languages

Part 3—Chapter 1: On the Soul—§ 1. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul

§ 2: On the Origin of the Soul According to the Church Fathers

§ 3: On the Identity of Spirit and Soul

Part 4: On the Immortality of the Soul

§ 1: Proof of the Immortality of the Soul From the Innate Idea of Soul Immortality Within Us

§ 2: Proof of the Immortality of the Soul From the Desire for the Highest Good

§ 3: Proof From the Idea of Eternity

§ 4: Proof From Love of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True

§ 5: Proof From Conscience

§ 6: Proof of the Soul's Immortality From God's Inner Revelation

§ 7: The Soul's Immortality as Demonstrated From the Holy Life

§ 8: The Soul's Immortality as Witnessed by Worship of God

§ 9: The Soul's Immortality as Witnessed by Knowledge

§ 10: The Soul's Immortality as Witnessed by Social Life

§ 11: Proof From the Destiny of Nations and Divine Providence

The Manifestation of the Jewish Nation From Divine Providence

The Greek Nation and Wisdom From Divine Providence

The Roman Nation Develops Rapidly and Immensely According to the Providence of God

Scripture Index
Persons and Places
Glossary
Colophon