Book: The Human Side of Animals

R >> Royal Dixon >> The Human Side of Animals




These closest allies of man live in tall bamboo trees, and are so
curiously human that when seen walking around hunting berries, nuts, and
fruits, talking in guttural, chattering tones, like old fisher-women, no
one could doubt even their kinship to man.

Their children assemble in groups to romp and play under the
guardianship of either one of their mothers or grandmothers; while the
men forage for food, and watch for enemies. It is not uncommon to see
an aged, half-decrepit nkengo lying on a bed of sticks in a tall tree.
Here he eats only green leaves and bits of fruit brought him by some
kind friend, being far too weak to hunt for food himself, and
furthermore, fearing an attack from his mortal enemy, the leopard.

If the colony decides to move to other territory, either because of
enemies or the scarcity of food, they all assemble and hold a farewell
gathering in which there is much mourning and apparent grief at forever
leaving their aged kin to the fate of the wilds. If they are possibly
able to walk, they are given patient assistance in travelling along.
Sometimes, when they are deserted, sympathetic friends return for days
with berries and koola nuts, until at last the colony has gone so far
away that none dare return alone, in which event these helpless
superannuated members are left to die in their lone tree-top beds.

Many of these beds are as well made as the tree-beds of human beings,
and even better than the beds of the savage Dyaks of Borneo. They are
usually located in tall trees, inaccessible to leopards and out of reach
of their most dreaded of all enemies, the terrible hordes of war-ants.
From these nothing escapes--not even elephants and tigers.

The arrival of a baby to these nkengos is of far more importance in
their tree-top village, than in a human city. Each of the female
relatives, and also the aged males, takes special interest in the
new-comer, and they chatter around his little grape-vine cradle with
much enthusiasm, shaking their heads and delicately handling his tiny
hands and toes as though he were the baby of a king.

This baby is much stronger and quicker to learn than human babies; for
when he is only two days old he is able to cling to his mother, so that
she can carry him with her on her hunting trips. If he becomes too noisy
from sheer delight when she is travelling through the forest with him,
she slaps him, in an attempt to quiet him, lest the leopards get him.

At night he sleeps snugly by his mother's side in the great tree-bed,
and she never allows him to crawl out of her arms for fear that he fall
to the depths below. She loves him dearly, and watches with human
eagerness for his first tooth. He loves his mother and will stand for
hours while she dresses his hair; or lie on her breast as she rubs his
little back.

These wild-children are always ill-tempered and self-willed. No human
mother has to show more patience and love than does the nkengo mother.
She takes the greatest delight in his first efforts at climbing and
hunting, and for hours she and his admiring relatives will watch him
attempting to climb a cocoanut tree. Sometimes she will climb just
behind him to catch him if he falls or becomes frightened.

His arms soon become very powerful, for he is constantly swinging,
climbing, and exercising by hanging from a bough with one hand while he
pulls himself up with the great power of his muscles. He is able to
gather koola nuts long before his jaws are strong enough to crack them;
so his fond mother cracks them for him until his hands and mouth are
stronger. Like all babies, his ambition is to be big and strong like his
father.

Some of the apes are most intelligent and human, and, as allies to man,
are more desirable than certain of the human savages. Dr. Livingstone,
in his _Last Journals_, describes one he first discovered. "Their
teeth," he says, "are slightly human, but their canines show the beast
by their large development. The hands, or rather the fingers, are like
those of the natives. They live in communities consisting of about a
dozen individuals, and are strictly monogamous in their conjugal
relations, and vegetarian, or rather frugivorous, in their diet, their
favourite food being bananas." The natives where these apes live are
cannibals, and Dr. Livingstone says, "they are the lowest of the low."
One of their number, who had committed a great murder, offered his
grandmother "to be killed in expiation of his offence, and this
vicarious punishment was accepted as satisfactory."

Thus it is evident that certain of these wild-creatures--like the
sokos--have a more correct conception of justice than their human
associates, the savages. At least the animals do not make the innocent
suffer for the guilty, and give their lives unjustly. Should a soko try
to take another's wife he is publicly punished by the tribe. These
animals have a great sense of humour and fully enjoy a practical joke.
Strangely enough, they never attack women and children, but if any man
approaches them with a spear or gun, they try to rush upon him, often at
the expense of their own life, and wrest the weapon from him. Most of
them are exceedingly kind and civilised in their actions, and natives
always say, "Soko is a man, and nothing bad in him."

Often they kidnap babies and carry them up into trees. But these are
never harmed and the apes are ever ready to exchange them for bananas.
The robbery is, no doubt, for the purpose of extortion. If perchance one
of their children is stolen, the entire forest sets up a scream and
wail until it is returned. Old hunters and travellers say that they
would rather steal the child of a native savage than to take one of the
sokos. If one of the soko children disappears, and they do not know what
became of it, they immediately send out detectives throughout the
country to seek for it. And woe be the home where a stolen soko baby is
found!

But man has one great power--a far more potent ally than he has in his
animal friends--the use of fire. Unquestionably to the minds of animals
it is a supernatural power. They cannot create it, understand it, and it
is very doubtful if they can yet use it to advantage. How marvellous is
this thing--fire! That great blazing pillar of cloud that destroys all,
and leaves nothing to show where it has taken its enemies! To animals it
springs up wherever man rests his head, and protects him while he
sleeps. It is always with him, and its presence for untold ages has
brought terror to all of them.

Not a few reports tell us that certain of our animal allies among the
monkeyfolk of South Africa use fire. This may not be true; but it is
probable that the time is near at hand when the wild baboon-men of the
woods will learn to make and use fire just as we have done.

Enough instances could be shown illustrating animals as man's allies to
fill an entire book, but a sufficient number have been adduced to show
how truly they are our allies, helpers, and protectors just as we are
theirs, only their mode of manifesting it is different. We have shown
the absolute fallacy of the old belief that animals lack mentality, and
that all their acts of kindness are based upon self-love and personal
gain, and have seen that in proportion to their opportunities in life,
they have quite as much mentality and brotherly love for each other and
mankind as is found among our lower savages. We have seen that among
animals as among men, individuals will give their lives for their
fellows, serve the weak and timid, and demonstrate the highest and
holiest feelings of which true souls can be capable, and always share
equally with man the burdens that fall upon themselves and their human
allies. And the time is already here when man should protect his animal
friends more, and teach them through human kindness not to fear him. But
this can only be done when he is willing to treat them as fellow beings
only a little below him in the scale of existence.




CHAPTER XV

THE FUTURE LIFE OF ANIMALS

_"Ah, poor companion! when thou followedst last
Thy master's parting footsteps to the gate
Which closed forever on him, thou didst lose
Thy best friend, and none was left to plead
For the old age of brute fidelity.
But fare thee well. Mine is no narrowed creed;
And He who gave thee being did not frame
The mystery of Life to be the sport
Of merciless man. There is another world
For all that live and move--a better one!
Where the proud bipeds, who would fain confine
Of their own charity, may envy thee."_

--SOUTHEY (on the death of his dog).


The old belief is still prevalent that the Bible teaches that of all
living creatures man alone is immortal. This erroneous belief springs
out of man's egotism, however, and is not substantiated by the
Scriptures. Among many of the Old Testament writers we find that
immortality was assured for neither man nor animals; whereas, with the
larger revelation of the New Testament, immortality is no longer
questioned for any living creature.

There are, of course, many supposedly intelligent people who deny to
animals the power of reason, and attribute all their marvellous powers
and abilities to blind instinct. It is, therefore, not the least bit
surprising that the vast majority of people believe that when an animal
dies, its life principle dies also. The animating power, they believe,
is destroyed, and the body returns to the dust.

These mistaken conclusions are largely, if not wholly, due to two
passages of Scripture, one of which is in the Psalms and the other in
Ecclesiastes. The one most often quoted, from the Psalms, runs in the
authorised version: "Nevertheless, man being in honor, abideth not; he
is like the beasts that perish." This verse is frequently quoted as
decisive of the whole question. The other passage, which is found in
Ecclesiastes, reads: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward,
and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

It is upon the authority of these two passages that we are supposed to
believe that when an animal dies, its life has gone forever, departed,
expired. In this new age of thought and discovery, we do not attempt to
explain a passage of Scripture, no matter how simple it may appear to
be, without referring to the original text, that we may see if the
translator has kept the true sense of the words and adequately expressed
their significance, remembering that words often change their meaning,
and that the original use of a word may have conveyed exactly the
opposite meaning to that which we at present attach to it.

But if we accept the passage just as it stands, with the literal meaning
of the words as is usually understood, there is but one
conclusion--animals have no future life. Death ends all for them. But,
on the other hand, if we are to take the literal interpretation of the
Bible only, we are forced to believe that man, as well as the animals,
has no life after death. Surely the book of Psalms is full of examples
to support this literal interpretation. For example, "In death there is
no remembrance of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?"
Again, "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into
silence." Or, "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in
that very day his thoughts perish." These quotations could be greatly
added to, and if taken in their literal sense, we would reach but one
conclusion--death ends all for every living creature! Nothing in all the
literature of the earth could be more gloomy and discouraging than
these quotations with numerous others that contemplate death. Yet, vain
man takes one little passage that seemingly denies a future life to
animals from the same book that many times over denies a future life to
mankind; in fact, there are five times as many Scripture passages
claiming for man that all ends in death as there are for animals. Over
and over we are told that those who have died have no remembrance of
God, and cannot praise Him. The Bible speaks of death as the "land of
forgetfulness,"--the place of darkness, where all man's thoughts perish.
Nothing more than this could be said of the "animals that perish!"

Other Biblical writers referred to mankind as those who "dwell in houses
of clay," and Job says: "They are destroyed from morning to evening;
they perish forever, without any regarding it." In another place he
says: "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth
down to the grave shall come up no more." Again he speaks of "the land
of darkness and the shadow of death," and says: "Man dieth, and wasteth
away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail
from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down,
and riseth not." Job laments the pitiable conditions of his life, and
complains that life was ever granted to him, and that even death can
bring nothing to him except extinction.

Yet, if we examine Ecclesiastes, the book in which we find the single
passage upon which many people base a belief in the non-future existence
of animals, there are passages which are really no more positive as to
the future of mankind. For example, "I said in my heart concerning the
estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they
might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the
sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them. As the one
dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man
has no pre-eminence over a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one
place; all are of the dust, and all turn to the dust again." Again it is
said: "For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not
anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is
forgotten;" and "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy
might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in
the grave whither thou goest."

By interpreting these words literally, there is but one conclusion
relative to a future spiritual life, namely, that there is absolutely
no distinction between man and his "lower brother" animals, and that
when they die they all go to the same place. It is emphatically said
that after death man knows nothing, receives no reward, and can do no
work. Job has the same gloomy strain running through his writings, and
Ecclesiastes gives a most morbid and gloomy view of death.

However, no modern Biblical scholar accepts these passages in this
literal light, for it is known that they were written symbolically, or
as parables, and were not intended to be literally interpreted. They
have a spiritual significance. We are, however, not interested here so
much with this spiritual sense as we are with the literal implication of
the translation. Therefore, according to this literal meaning of the two
texts, if we accept them to prove that animals have no future life, we
are forced to believe by at least fourteen passages, of equal if not
greater power, that man shares their same fate after death. No man has a
right to select certain passages from the same book of the Bible and say
that they shall be accepted literally, and that other passages of equal
merit shall be interpreted otherwise. They must all be treated the same.

All scholars are familiar with that remarkable eleventh book of Homer's
Odyssey, known as the Necromanteia, or Invocation of the Dead, and in it
Ulysses descends into the regions of the departed spirits to invoke them
and obtain advice as to his future adventures. One commentator says: "He
sails to the boundaries of the ocean, and lands in the country of the
Cimmerians, who dwell in perpetual cloud and darkness, and in whose
country are the gates leading to the regions of the dead." All is
darkness, discontent, hunger; nothing is said of virtue, wisdom, beauty,
happiness. Only bitter gloom! No wonder this heathen poet considered,
with such views of a future life, sensual pleasures as the chief object
of this life.

The following dialogue between the inhabitants of the earth and the
dweller in the regions of the dead--between Ulysses and Achilles--is
remarkable for its horrible depiction of the future life:

"Through the thick gloom his friend Achilles knew,
As he speaks the tears dissolve in dew.
'Comest thou alive to view the Stygian bounds,
Where the wan spectres walk eternal rounds;
Nor fear'st the dark and dismal waste to tread,
Thronged with pale ghosts familiar with the dead?'
To whom with sighs, 'I pass these dreadful gates
To seek the Theban, and consult the Fates;
For still distressed I roam from coast to coast,
Lost to my friends and to my country lost.
But sure the eye of Time beholds no name
So blessed as thine in all the rolls of fame;
Alive we hailed thee with our guardian gods,
And, dead thou rulest a king in these abodes.'
'Talk not of ruling in this dolorous gloom,
Nor think vain words (he cried) can ease my doom.
Rather I'd choose laboriously to bear
A weight of woes and breathe the vital air,
A slave for some poor hind that toils for bread,
Than reign the sceptered monarch of the dead.'"

Yet, even this outpouring of hopeless words by the heathen poet is
encouraging when compared to the writings of the Psalmist, of Solomon or
Job, for those who have gone beyond the grave still have memory, an
interest in their friends on earth, love and desire. But no such hope
exists for man, if we are to accept literally all the passages of
Scripture which have been quoted. By such interpretation, man passes
after death into eternal darkness, forgetfulness, silence, "where there
is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom--where even his very
thoughts perish." If these particular passages are to be accepted as
final on the subject, there is no future life for either man or animal.
They are too definite to admit of any interpretation that might soften
or alter their meaning.

It may be shocking to some to compare the belief of an ancient Greek and
the teachings of a Latin Epicurean with the sacred writings of the
Bible. Yet, it may be even more startling to point out that some of the
teachings of the Epicurean sensualist are quite as good as some of those
of the writers of the sacred texts, and that those of the Greek poet are
far better and more spiritual! There is no denying that these are the
facts, if we are to be bound by literal interpretation, unless we throw
to the winds all reason and common-sense.

This leads us back to the point previously mentioned; and we must
determine if the authorised version gives a full and truthful
interpretation of the Hebrew original. Even a man who does not pretend
to scholarship knows that it does not. The word "perish," for example,
is not found at all in the Hebrew text, nor is the idea expressed; the
words which our translation twice renders as "beasts that perish," is,
in the original Hebrew, "dumb beasts." By comparing a number of the
translations of the Psalms, into various languages--Psalm XLIX, for
example--we find that few, if any, of them suggest the idea of
"perishing" in the sense of annihilation. First, let us consider the
Jewish Bible, which is acknowledged to be the most accurate translation
in the English language, and carefully read it. In verses 12 and 20 of
the above Psalm, where the passage is found, the translation reads:
"Man that is in honour, and understandeth this not, is like the beasts
that are irrational." In a footnote the word "dumb" is offered as an
alternative for "irrational." Brunton's translation of the Septuagint is
similar, and reads: "Man that is in honour understands not, he is
compared to the senseless cattle, and is like them." Wycliffe's Bible,
which is translated from the Vulgate, reads thus: "A man whanne he was
in honour understood it not; he is compared to unwise beestis, and is
maad lijk to tho." The "Douay" Bible, put forth by the English Catholic
College of Douay and which is received by the Catholic Church in
England, gives the passage: "Man, when he was in honour, did not
understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to
them." Many other versions might be cited, and very few of them even
suggest the idea of annihilation. If, for argument's sake, we suppose
that the word "perish" has been correctly translated, it by no means
follows that annihilation is signified. Read, for example, the tenth
verse of the same Psalm in our authorised translation: "For he seeth
that wise men die, and likewise the fool and the brutish person perish,
and leave their wealth to others." Certainly no intelligent person would
interpret this passage as declaring that the wise and the foolish and
the brutish have no life after the body dies.

It is plain, therefore, that we may dismiss forever the idea that the
Psalmist believed the beasts had no future life, and the citation may be
rejected as absolutely irrelevant to the subject, and the only one that
appears to make any definite statements as to the future life of the
lower animals. Every student of the Bible will at once recognise how
necessary it is that the original meaning of the Hebrew text should be
known, and that the Psalmist should not be accused of setting forth a
doctrine of such great importance, whether true or false, when he may
never even have thought or suggested it.

[Illustration: MEN CRUELLY TAKE THE LIVES OF THESE DENIZENS OF THE
WILDWOOD, REJOICING IN THEIR SLAUGHTER, BUT THE ANIMAL SOUL THEY CANNOT
KILL.]

[Illustration: TWO PALS. THERE IS BETWEEN MAN AND DOG A KINSHIP OF
SPIRIT THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.]

Having disposed of the possibility of a misunderstanding of the real
meaning of the "beasts that perish," let us consider the quotation from
Ecclesiastes, the only one that refers to the future state of animals.
"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the
beast that goeth downward to the earth?" We find an admission here that,
whether the spirit ascends or descends, man and beasts alike have the
immortal spark. The Hebrew version is precisely the same as our
authorised translation. Read, not an isolated verse, but the entire
passage:

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of man, that God
might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are
beasts.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even the one
thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast:
for all is vanity.

"All go to one place; all are of the same dust, and all turn to dust
again.

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the
beast that goeth downward to the earth?

"Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better than that a man
should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion; for who shall
bring him to see what shall be after him?"

These verses tell their own story. It matters little whether Solomon
wrote this book in his later years; it is, in any event, the confession
of one who has had all the good things of this world, and who saw the
emptiness of them all, and who sums up life with the words "Vanity of
vanities, all is vanity." Finally the author ironically advises his
readers to trust only in the good of their labour.

Thus it is shown that the quotation from the Psalms in no way justifies
the belief in the annihilation of beasts, and that the one from
Ecclesiastes has been entirely and wrongfully misunderstood and
interpreted. In no way do the Scriptures deny future life to the lower
animals, but in all ways, if intelligently understood, imply that man
and beasts have, equally, a share in a future life beyond the grave.

As we have found out that the Scriptures, contrary to the popular
belief, do not deny a future life to our lower brethren, the animals,
let us see if they actually declare a future world for them in the same
way that they do for man. Man's immortality, as we know, is taught in
the Old Testament rather by inference than by direct affirmation. This
is possibly due to the fact that the writers of the manifold books,
which were at a late date selected from a large number and made into one
big volume which forms our Bible, thought as a matter of course that man
lived on after death, and never thought it necessary to assert that
which every one knew.

But if we accept the teachings of the Old Testament, inference gives
much stronger testimony to the immortality of animals than it does to
the immortality of man, for while in neither case is there a direct
assertion of a future life, yet there is no direct denial of future life
to the animals, as has been shown to be the case with man.

All Divine Law includes a protection for the beasts, and the laws of
the Sabbath were in essence a spiritual and not only a physical
ordinance. The ancient Scriptures have innumerable provisions against
mistreating or giving unnecessary pain to the lower animals; and these
provisions stand side by side in the Divine Law with those which speak
of man. Note, for example, the prohibition of "seething a kid in its
mother's milk." Again, there is a statement that the ox in treading out
the corn is not to be muzzled, lest he suffer hunger in the presence of
food which he may not eat.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.