[64] Disquisitio de Animâ Brutorum, Bremæ, 1676.
[65] Logicæ Brutorum, Hamburg, 1697. This little treatise, in spite of the extreme ideas of its author, is not the less precious. J. Stahl was one of those wells of learning which Germany has so often produced. There is, perhaps, not one passage in the old authors who wrote on this point to which he has not referred in his work.
[66] See, among others, S. Gros, De Animâ Brutorum, Wittemberg, 1680; Klemnius, De Animâ Brutorum, Vittembergiæ, 1704.
[67] Upon this point, M. de Quatrefages agrees with M. Flourens; but the distinction which he endeavours to establish, being based upon morality and religion, seems to us much more restricted and much less clear. Not being able to answer everybody, we have been obliged to attend merely to the opinions of that partisan of the human kingdom who gives to animals the largest portion of it.
[68] Proudhon says, in language which is even more concise and affirmative, “In man, the mind knows itself; whilst elsewhere it seems to us that it does not do so” (Système des Contradictions économiques, vol. i, 1850, p. 20).
[69] Annales du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, vol. xvi, p. 58.
[70] Maire, Société Havraise d’Etudes Diverses, 1855-1856.
[71] Unité de l’Espèce Humaine, 1861, p. 24.
[72] Maire, Société Havraise d’Etudes Diverses, 1855-1856. We can make the same comparison with a passage almost similar from Maupertuis, Essai Philosophique sur l’âme des Bêtes, 1728, p. 134.
[73] Essai Philosophique sur l’âme des Bêtes, 1728, p. 95.