Daf Ditty Eruvin 31: Monkey on an Elephant

The words and the ways of their fathers,

And deliver my race from its ban,
For man did not spring from the monkey,
But monkey descended from man!

HY. MAYER

1
MISHNA: If one sends his eiruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of
whom are regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the
principle of eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv.

But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific location and set it down in that
spot, it is a valid eiruv. The critical point in the establishment of an eiruv is that it must be deposited
in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the eiruv arrives there.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is a minor not fit to set down an eiruv? Didn’t Rav Huna say: A
minor may collect the food for an eiruv from the residents of a courtyard and establish an eiruv
on their behalf even ab initio?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here, where the mishna invalidates an eiruv placed
by a minor, it is referring to an eiruv of Shabbat borders. These laws are relatively stringent, as
they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do.

There, where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an eiruv, he was referring to
an eiruv of courtyards. This type of eiruv is more lenient and may be established even by a minor,
as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.

2
We learned in the mishna: Or if one sends his eiruv in the hands of one who does not accept the
principle of eiruv. The Gemara asks: Who is this? Rav Ḥisda said: A Samaritan [Kuti], who
does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to eiruv.

3
The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yeḥiel stated? The
Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita:
If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the
eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a
valid eiruv.

But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks:
But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it?

Rav Ḥisda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and
watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv.

The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept
it from the elephant or monkey. Rav Yeḥiel said: There is a legal presumption that an agent
fulfills his agency.

RASHI

The Mishnah enumerates different people who may not serve as a shaliach to place the eruv in the
designated spot. A solution that permits using a disqualified person is offered.

The Gemara questions the Mishnah’s disqualification of a child from R’ Huna’s ruling that permits
a child to collect the food for the eruv.

R’ Chisda identifies the “One who does not acknowledge the eruv” as cuthites. The case where we
permit the disqualified person to carry the eruv to a competent shaliach is where he can be seen
handing the eruv to the competent shaliach.

The reason the competent agent is trusted is based upon the principle that a shaliach will perform
his assigned task. The source of this principle is identified and a discussion begins regarding the
extent of to which it applies.

Rashi vs Tosafos: Katan cannot be relied upon vs katan cannot be trusted to

deliver

RASHI

4
Tosafos

‫תוספות ד"ה וליחוש דילמא לא שקיל מיניה כדאמר רב יחיאל‬

Tosfos explains the question and answer.)

‫וא''ת מאי קא פריך ומאי קא משני‬

What was the question, and what was the answer?

‫הא מדיוקא דמתני' שמעינן דחזקה שליח עושה שליחותו דקתני ביד חרש שוטה וקטן אין זה עירוב הא ביד‬
‫פיקח הרי זה עירוב‬

We can infer from our Mishnah the Chazakah that a Shali'ach does his Shelichus, for it taught "in
the hand of a Cheresh, lunatic or child, it is not an Eruv.”

This implies that in the hand of a Pike'ach (one with understanding), it is an Eruv!

‫וי''ל דהתם סומך עליו לגמרי אבל הכא שאמר להם לקבל מהם דלא סמיך עליו בכל השליחות ממנע ולא עביד‬

Answer: There, he totally relies on the Shali'ach to do his mission. Here, he told [others] to receive
from [the Shali'ach], he does not rely on him for the entire Shelichus, the [first] Shali'ach refrains
and does not fulfill his Shelichus;

‫מ ש ום ה כ י פ ר יך ומ ש ני ד א פ יל ו ה כ י ח זק ה ש לי ח ע ו ש ה ש לי ח ות ו‬

This is why it asks. It answers that even so, there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach does his
Shelichus.

5
It is possible to place the items for an eruv in the paw of a monkey or elephant and have the animal
carry the food to the designated spot at the edge of 2000 amos.1

Yet this eruv is not valid unless it follows the stipulations which the Gemara sets forth. Rashi
explains that we sometimes find that it is possible to train monkeys and elephants to follow
instructions given by man. Meiri also comments that a monkey or even an elephant which is
brought up in a domestic setting can be trained to follow instructions given by man.

Meiri then points out that the Yerushalmi even says that these animals can be trained to follow
instructions in seventy languages. (We do not have this citation in our Yerushalmi).

Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon explains that this means that the animal can be trained to follow
commands and to respond to what is being asked of it, but not that the animal can comprehend the
language itself. Meleches Shlomo (Kilayim 8:6) says that an elephant can actually understand the
language of man.

Psikta Zutrasi (Bereshis 3:1) relates that the original serpent conversed with Chava in the Holy
Tongue. He then adds that “each species of the animals has its own language.” This seems to
suggest that he believes that they actually converse and have a means of communicating among
themselves.

Nevertheless, we must say that this only means that the animals of each species have an instinctive
manner of understanding one another, but not that they necessarily possess an entire language of
their own.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The Mishna teaches that the eiruv is not valid when it is entrusted to the hands of an irresponsible
person, like a heresh (a deaf-mute person), a shoteh (an imbecile) or a katan (a minor).

The Gemara is surprised that the eiruv of a minor is invalid, since Rav Huna – an amora who
cannot argue with the Mishna – rules that a katan can collect the eiruv! The Gemara explains that
the two rulings refer to different cases.

Rav Huna, who permits the minor’s eiruv, is talking about eruvei hatzeirot, the eruv that permits
carrying in an adjoining courtyard, which has been the focus of our massekhet up to this point. The
Mishna that does not accept the katan’s eiruv is discussing eruvei tehumin, the eiruv that permits

1
Daf Digest
2
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

6
someone to travel beyond the 2000-ama boundary surrounding his community by establishing his
place of residence for Shabbat at the edge of the boundary.

The Gemara does not explain why the rules should differ between these two different types of
eiruv, and many different suggestions are raised. According to Rashi, the eiruv that allows the
householders to carry in a common courtyard is a formality, since the houses are joined in any
case. Eiruvei tehumin, on the other hand, demands establishing a new living space for Shabbat,
which the minor is unable to accomplish.

Tosafot see the difference as being based in the source of the law. Eiruvei tehumin is based on a
biblical passage, while eiruvei hatzeirot are solely of rabbinic origin. Rabbenu Yehonatan argues
that, in the case of eiruvei tehumin, the person who establishes the eiruv must state explicitly, “So-
and-so is establishing this place as his residence for Shabbat,” which a minor is not trusted to do.
The eiruv hatzeirot, on the other hand, is a simple delivery, for which the katan can be relied upon.

The explanation given by the Jerusalem Talmud is that the purpose of eiruvei hatzeirot in a place
where houses are, in any case, closely connected to one another is simply to encourage a sense of
community and brotherly love, so we are not overly concerned about who establishes the eiruv.

Rabbi Elliott Goldberg writes:3

To complete an eruv, one must place a quantity of food within its confines. On our daf, the Gemara
explores the circumstances under which one can delegate that task to others.

The mishnah teaches:

If one sends his eruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are
regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of
eruv, it is not a valid eruv. But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific
location and set it down in that spot, it is a valid eruv.

The mishnah identifies four categories of people upon whom one cannot depend to establish an
eruv. The first category is the deaf-mute. In our day, such people are able to function in society
with proper support, but during the time of the Talmud, communication with those who were deaf
and mute was limited. As a result, the rabbis prohibited them from acting as agents because one
could not be certain that they fully understood what they were being assigned to do. For similar
reasons, the rabbis excluded those with diminished mental capacities and children.

The final category refers to Jews who follow biblical law, but not the rabbinic rules derived from
them. As the concept of eruv is a rabbinic construction, Jews who did not accept rabbinic authority
could not be trusted to properly establish an eruv.

3
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-31/

7
In the final part of the mishnah, we learn that while people in these categories may not establish
an eruv, they can be assigned the task of delivering food to a more trustworthy agent who would
then complete the activation.

But wait, the Gemara asks, if we can’t trust certain people to construct an eruv properly, why can
we trust them to deliver the food for an eruv?

The Gemara provides two answers. The first is that the mishnah was referring to a case where a
person watches the food being delivered. In this view, you can send food by unreliable messenger
only if you can see the delivery take place. The second answer is that there is a legal presumption
that an agent fulfills their mission. As a general rule, we do not have to witness the delivery
personally to be confident that it took place.

Why do the rabbis differentiate between the act of delivering the food and that of placing it to form
the eruv? The former task in and of itself has no legal or ritual implications, so the rabbis allow
those who may not fully understand what they are doing to complete it. But the act of placing the
food to make an eruv operational does have significance in Jewish law, so it can only be delegated
to someone the rabbis identify as a competent agent.

The rabbis push this point even further by referencing the teaching from which this distinction is
derived:

If one gave food for an eruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where one
wanted it to be deposited, or if one gave it to a monkey and it brought it to the proper location,
it is not a valid eruv. But if one told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid
eruv.

While it may be shocking to read that the rabbis placed deaf-mutes, imbeciles, and Jews who reject
rabbinic authority in the same category as trained animals, the analogy provides some insight into
how the rabbis thought about agency.

When it comes to tasks that have legal or ritual significance, only those with the capacity to
comprehend what they are doing are deemed trustworthy. While the rabbis were not always as
sensitive and inclusive as we might wish them to be, this requirement does make sense.

8
‫ ִﬠם ֳא ִני‬,‫ ַבָּיּם‬u‫כב ִכּי ֳא ִני ַת ְרִשׁישׁ ַלֶמֶּל‬ 22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the
‫שׁ ִנים ָתּבוֹא ֳא ִני‬ ָ ‫שׁ {שׁ‬
ָ ‫ִחי ָרם; ַאַחת ְל‬ navy of Hiram; once every three years came the navy of
‫שׁ ְנַהִבּים‬ֶ ,‫ ֹנְשֵׂאת ָזָהב ָוֶכֶסף‬,‫ַת ְרִשׁישׁ‬ Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and
.‫ ְוֻתִכּ ִיּים‬,‫ְוֹקִפים‬ peacocks.

I Kings 10:22

Jewish Coin of the Maccabean Period, Countermarked by an Elephant, the

Type of the Seleucid Kings. The Reverse is from a similar Coin.
(After Madden, "History of Jewish Coinage.")

9
A pachydermatous mammal of the family of the Elephantidæ. It is now commonly agreed that the
elephant (Elephas indicus) is indirectly mentioned in a passage of the Hebrew Bible. In I Kings x.
22 (II Chron. ix. 21), namely, it is said that Solomon had a navy which every three years brought
gold, silver, ivory ("shenhabbim"), apes, and peacocks.
The word "shenhabbim" is evidently a compound word, the first part of which is well known as
meaning a tooth or ivory (I Kings x. 18; Cant. v. 14, vii. 14).
The second element has long been a puzzle to etymologists; but now it is well-nigh certain that it
means "elephant," and is probably derived from the Assyrian "alap," with the assimilation of the
lamed, "app" = "abb" (see Hommel, "Namen der Säugethiere," p. 324, note 1).
How and when the Hebrews became acquainted with ivory can not be determined.
In the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem it is said that the sons of Jacob laid their father in a
coffin inlaid with "shendephin" (Gen. l. 1)—probably a substitute for "shendephil," the accepted
word for ivory in the East, "pil" meaning "elephant."
The presence of the elephant in Palestine is not recorded before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
who used the animals in the war against the Jews (I Macc. i. 16, 17; vi. 30). These elephants carried
each a wooden turret strapped to its back, and holding a guard of from three to five men (I Macc.
ii. 37, "thirty-two men" being certainly a wrong number) and a guide, called the "Indian."
A special officer, the elephantarch, was in command of this branch of the military service (II Macc.
xiv. 12). Before battle the animals were given intoxicating drinks to make them furious and thus
more dangerous, as they were intended to carry confusion into the ranks of the enemy (II Macc.
xv. 20; III Macc. v. 2).

The Talmudic and Neo-Hebrew name for elephant is ; plural, (Ber. 55b, 56b), which
is the common name also in Syriac and Arabic, and is the Assyrian "pîru" (see Lewy, "Griech.
Fremdwörter," p. 5). The elephant's favorite food is the vine-leaf, for which reason Noah laid in a
large supply of vine branches (Gen. R. xxxi.; Yer. Shab. xviii. 16c, middle; Shab. 128a).
The time of gestation is given as three years (Bek. 8a). To see an elephant in one's dream was not
a good omen (Ber. 57b); but a proverb expressive of impossible things says: "None is shown in
his dream a golden date-tree, nor an elephant that goes through a needle's eye" (Ber. 55b). In other
contrasts, too, the elephant appears as the extreme in size.

10
The emperor Charlemagne, king of the Franks, received an elephant as a gift in
797.Frederick II used an elephant in his capture of Cremona in 1214. King Henry III
of England received an elephant from Israel in 1254. Alfonso V of Portugal gave an
elephant to Renew d'Anjou in 1477. The Vatican was given an elephant in 1514. But
the average person in those times never saw an elephant. Illustrations from that era
show that artists, basing themselves on stories, were very unsure about how to depict
elephants.

They were often portrayed as possessing a body like those of horses or deer,
sometimes even with split hooves.

Of particular relevance to us is that they are sometimes drawn with the hind limb
structure of lions or dogs, poised with elastic energy.

Rav Meshullam ben Nathan, who was born in Provence in 1120 and passed away in
Melun in 1180, never saw either a live elephant or an accurate drawing of one..4

In the following tale from Tibet the usual pecking order of power and size is
inverted when it comes to the spiritual life:

4
http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/3/30/kiddushin-25b-can-elephants-jump

11
Auspicious animals in dreams: elephant and monkey among them:

The Gemara says: All types of animals are auspicious signs for a dream except for an elephant,
a monkey and a long-tailed ape. The Gemara asks: Didn’t the Master say: A miracle will be
performed for one who sees an elephant in a dream?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement that a vision of an elephant is a good
omen refers to a case where it is saddled, while this statement that it is not a good omen refers to
a case where it is not saddled.
Berochos 57b

Who dreams of Phineas, a miracle will be wrought for him. Who dreams of an elephant [pil],
miracles [pela'ot] will be wrought for him; of elephants, miracles upon miracles will be
performed for him.

12
Monkey as epitome of ugliness:

Rabbi Bena’a says: I gazed at his, Adam’s, two heels, and they shone so brightly that they are
similar to two suns. Along these lines, the Gemara states that all people compared to Sarah are
like a monkey compared to a human, as Sarah was exceedingly beautiful; Sarah compared to
Eve is like a monkey compared to a human; Eve compared to Adam is like a monkey
compared to a human; and Adam compared to the Divine Presence is like a monkey
compared to a human.

The blessing for seeing strange creatures

The Sages taught: One who sees an elephant, a monkey, or a vulture (Rashi) recites:
Blessed…Who makes creatures different. One who saw beautiful or otherwise outstanding
creatures or beautiful trees recites: Blessed…Who has such things in His world.

Maimonides Guide III:51

I consider this chapter the most profound reflection of the RAMBAM as to the function of the
spiritual life. He starts with a parable which divides humanity into two: the rational and the
irrational.

13
I will begin the subject of this chapter with a simile. A king is in his palace, and all his subjects
are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards
the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to
the palace, seeking "to inquire in his temple," and to minister before him, but have not yet seen
even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and
go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk
about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace,
and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately
on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the
palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king--at a distance, or close by-
-hear his words, or speak to him. I will now explain the simile which I have made. The people who
are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received
by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites who live in
the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and
not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and
shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.

In Moreh ha-moreh III:51, ibn Falaquera5 writes that the allegory at the beginning of III:51, on
different classes of people who try to gain entrance to a palace to see a king, corresponds to “people
who acquire perfection through their investigation and study of existents.

But the ‘saints that are in the earth’ [Ps 16:3; cf. ¶2 above] acquire perfection and truth and do not
learn the sciences of the philosophers, for the Creator directs those whom He wishes towards His
truth and instructs [them how to] to be among those who are close to him, and divine perfection
can be apprehended by means of divine assistance.” 6
5
Yair Shiffman has produced a modern critical edition of the Moreh ha-Moreh, which is the source for the translation in this
chapter.5 Shiffman and other scholars have continued to examine different aspects of the Moreh ha-Moreh, especially Ibn
Falaquera’s translation of the lemmata from the Guide contained in the commentary.
6
Shem Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera: English Text Book Title: Rewriting Maimonides Book Subtitle: Early Commentaries on
the Guide of the Perplexed Book Author(s): Igor H. De Souza: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkk34f.8

14
Use of monkey as mystical metaphor

In Likutei Mehoran: Torah 64 Rebbe Nachman describes the closeness of the dark forces in
the world as follows:

This is, “You will then be able to recount in the ears of your children and your grandchildren”—
thus is the extent of a father’s compassion for a child {as Rashi comments on the verse (Genesis
21:23): “that you will not deal falsely with me, or with my children, or with my grandchildren”}.

With regard to that which is after Creation, you will be able to recount and speak and comprehend
the contraction of His compassion (zimztum) that is in each thing. “Thus is the extent of a father’s
compassion [for a child]”—i.e., that this thing contains this much compassion, and that thing
contains that much compassion. And this is:

how I have made a mockery of the Egyptians…—This is the aspect of the forces of evil that
come from an overload of the Light, from the Shattering of the Vessels.

For Rashi explains that “I made a mockery” means “I made a parody”—i.e., I created parody and
mockery in the world, namely the aspect of the evil forces.

They parallel holiness only as one who imitates, parodies and mimics his friend; they are only like
a monkey that parodies and imitates a human being.

Commenting on this passage, Fruman7 (2001:20) demonstrates in detail how “in the world of
Rabbi Nachman, evil imitates good; evil possesses the ability to resemble good, at least externally,
to an amazing degree.”

7
Cited in QUEST FOR THE LOST PRINCESS IN RABBI NACHMAN OF BRASLAV’S “BOOK OF STORIES FROM
ANCIENT TIMES” by YAKOV SHAMMAI AZRIEL, Univ S Africa 2003

15
Fruman stresses that Rabbi Nachman consistently uses the letter as the abbreviation for the word,
the kelipot, the realm of the “husks” of impurity and externality; however, he sometimes uses the
very same letter to represent the word (holiness).

Furthermore, Fruman notes that the only difference between the letter (which always 124
represents the name of God) and the letter (which represents here the, the husks of evil which
envelop and conceal the inner seeds of holiness) is the longer “tail” that the letter possesses; this
parallels the fact that the one of the main external differences between a man and a monkey is the
monkey’s tail. Moreover, the letter in Hebrew is pronounced as (kof), which is the Hebrew word
for monkey.

Fruman (2001:19) concludes that “the main difference between good and evil, truth and lies, is not
the external appearance, which can be deceptive. The difference rather is found in the inner value,
the inner kernel of spirituality.
A person should not concentrate on what he sees on the outside, because things that seem to closely
resemble each other on the outside, like a human being and an ape, may in fact be worlds apart in
terms of their inner spirituality.
This is part of the problem with rationalistic thinking, to which Rabbi Nachman of Braslav was so
opposed.” Rationalist thinking tends to examine only the superficial facts that can be measured
quantitatively and does not probe beneath the surface to uncover deeper levels of existence and
reality.
Far Eastern depictions of Elephant and Monkey

16
 Himalayan Art work: Lethargy and Distraction

Meditation Instructions in the form of a painting.8

In the painting, the practitioner is represented by a monk, effort is represented by fire, and the mind
is an elephant.

As the monk embarks along the path, first he is chasing the elephant, which is all black
(representing lethargy) and is being terrorized by a monkey (representing distraction).

Yet as the monk moves forward, guided by the flame of effort, he is able to catch the elephant and
it sheds its lethargic tendencies. The monkey can’t keep up.

Eventually the monk is able to ride the elephant of his own mind and no longer needs the flame.

8
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddha-buzz-monk-elephant-and-monkey/

17
The idea of relating the mind to an unruly elephant along with the monkey and other elements in
the visual example of Calm Abiding meditation originates in the writings of Asanga and then later
in the meditation commentaries of Je Tsongkapa.

It is thought that the artistic depiction of the practice is relatively late and possibly first arose in
the 19th century as a wall mural.

The image above is of a poster published in India in the early 1970s. An original Tibetan version
of the painting has not yet been located.

The Tale of the Four harmonious animals9

9
Richard, Whitecross (1 January 2010). ""Virtuous Beings": The Concept oftha damtshig and Being a Moral Person in
Contemporary Bhutanese Society".Himalaya, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies

18
A popular scene often found as wall paintings in Tibetan religious buildings represents an elephant
standing under a fruit tree carrying a monkey, a hare and a bird (usually a partridge, but sometimes
a grouse, and in Bhutan ahornbill) on top of each other.

The scene refers to a legend which tells that four animals were trying to find out who was the
oldest. The elephant said that the tree was already fully grown when he was young, the monkey
that the tree was small when he was young, the hare that he saw the tree as a sapling when he was
young and the bird claimed that he had excreted the seed from which the tree grew.

So the bird was recognized by the other animals as the oldest, and the four animals lived together
in co-dependence and cooperation, helping each other to enjoy the fruits of the tree. After the story
is finished, it is revealed the partridge was the Buddha in a previous life.

The story was meant as an illustration of cooperation and respect for seniority, and was told by the
Buddha after some of his students had failed to pay due respect to the senior disciple Śāriputra.

19
 A “MONKEY ON MY BACK” IN MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPTS

E.H. Kern writes:10

Medieval manuscripts are known for their beautiful illuminations, i.e., images that decorate the
inside of initial letters, the margins, and the bottom of the pages. Here you find, for example,
images depicting events from the Bible and portraits of saints.

But the illustrations on the pages of medieval manuscripts are also where you find the
subversive, the satirical, and the allegorical of medieval social commentary. These images do not
depict the sacred but the world turned upside down or animals behaving like human beings, often
in the form of a parable bearing a Christian message.

No other animal featured in the margins of a medieval manuscript embodies these aspects more
than the monkey.

Monkeys are commonly occurring in medieval manuscripts. In fact, they are so commonly
occurring that “babewyn,” the Middle English word for symbolically charged animal antics in
the margins of a manuscript, is derived from this animal. “Babewyn” means “baboon-like.”

Also, monkeys were featured in manuscripts to such an extent that the appearance of a monkey
can mean several different things. To figure out what the monkey represents you need to look at
the content of the text on the page, as well as the other images surrounding the monkey.
At first the monkey represented the devil. Then the meaning changed to represent the victim of
the devil’s actions, namely the sinner. A striking way of depicting this symbolic aspect of the
monkey could be to have the monkey ride the back of a goat. In the visual language of the
Middle Ages both monkeys and goats were noted to be lascivious.

10
https://www.quirkbooks.com/post/quirky-history-monkey-my-back-medieval-manuscripts

20
Also, the monkey was seen as an imitator of other’s behavior. The Latin word
for monkey (and ape) is “simius,” which shares the same root as the Latin word
for resemblance, “similitudo.” Consequently, medieval manuscripts are filled
with images of monkeys aping human behavior.

And over time a Christian parable developed based on the monkey to teach the sinners about the
virtues of a sin-free life.

The parable tells the story of a female monkey who carries around a pair of twins while being
chased by hunters. She carries her favorite twin in her arms, while her not-so-beloved child holds
on to her back. As the story goes, the monkey grows tired from the chase and drops her favorite
child while the least loved child still holds on to her back.

21
The moral of this story is that mankind needs to let go of sin and frivolity, here represented by
the favorite child, and instead dedicate our lives to performing pious deeds, which is the monkey
on the back.

22
The Great Hippocampus Question 11

There was a 19th-century scientific controversy about the anatomy of apes and human uniqueness.
The dispute between Thomas Henry Huxley and Richard Owen became central to the scientific
debate on human evolution that followed Charles Darwin's publication of On the Origin of
Species. The name comes from the title of a satire the Reverend Charles Kingsley wrote about the
arguments, which in modified form appeared as "the great hippopotamus test" in Kingsley's 1863
book for children, The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby. Together with other humorous
skits on the topic, this helped to spread and popularise Darwin's ideas on evolution.
The key point that Owen asserted was that only humans had part of the brain then known as
the hippocampus minor (now called the calcar avis), and that this gave us our unique abilities.
Careful dissection eventually showed that apes and monkeys also have a hippocampus minor.
In October 1836 Charles Darwin returned from the Beagle voyage with fossil collections which
the anatomist Richard Owen described, contributing to the inception of Darwin's theory of natural
selection.

Darwin outlined his theory in an Essay of 1844, and discussed transmutation with his friend Joseph
Dalton Hooker. He did not tell Owen, who as the up-and-coming "English Cuvier" held the
conventional belief that every species was uniquely created and perfectly adapted.

11
Sir Richard Owen: the archetypal villain, The Friends of Charles Darwin, 2006,

23
Owen's brilliance and political skills made him a leading figure in the scientific establishment,
developing ideas of divine archetypes produced by vague secondary laws similar to a form
of theistic evolution, while emphasizing the differences separating man from ape.

At the end of 1844 the anonymous book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation brought wide
public interest in transmutation of species and the idea that humans were descended from apes,
and after a slow initial response, strong condemnation from the scientific establishment.

24
Satire in 20th Century

Mayer was the son of a Jewish merchant from London.

After working as a magazine illustrator in Munich, Paris (Le Figaro Illustré), and London (Pall
Mall Gazette), he emigrated to the United States in 1886.

In 1893 he moved to New York, and illustrated a number of children's books. He was a political
cartoonist for the New York Times from 1904, and then in 1914 chief cartoonist of Puck.

From 1909 to 1917 he contributed artwork to early films such as the Universal Animated
Weekly newsreel series. He created and directed the original "Travelaughs" series, released
through Universal Studios from 1913 to 1920, and the "Such Is Life" series, with titles Such Is Life
at a County Fair (1921) and Such Is Life in Munich (1922), released by Film Booking Offices of
America from 1920 to 1926. These two short subject film series combined animation with live
action film taken in exotic locations.

He is credited with directing over 100 short films from 1913 to 1926.

25
Albert Bigelow Paine (July 10, 1861 – April 9, 1937) was an American author and biographer best
known for his work with Mark Twain. Paine was a member of the Pulitzer Prize Committee and
wrote in several genres, including fiction, humor, and verse.

THE SONG OF THE JUNGLE.

26
27
28
29